Wednesday, February 19, 2025

218 Charles Street Launceston

REPRESENTATION: DA0031/2025 Removal of Bunya Pine Tree ... 218 Charles St.

Firstly, it needs to be said that this tree over a very long time has gathered around it a rather large Community of Ownership and Interest and in evidence of that the question of its management falls to the city’s Councillors. Councillors are the representatives of those who claim a layer of ‘ownership and/or interest’. Consistent with this I make this representation asking Councillors to consider several important issues pertinent to this tree’s status in its CULTURALlandscape given that it is a ‘significant tree’ within it.

Moreover, for many this tree is something of a HERITAGE LANDMARKtree for Launceston and its loss, should that happen now, would represent a significant loss far beyond any pragmatic concerns without diminishing them and their relative significance.

Somehow the words of Napoleon Bonaparte resonate here … “Nothing is more difficult, and therefore more precious, than to be able to decide.”

CONSIDERATIONS
• The tree’s age is not insignificant in that it was deliberately planted to be a feature in Launceston’s evolving CULTURALlandscape in a colonial cum settler context and possibly a century ago; and

• In the time that that this tree has stood where it stands it has been, and remains to be, a PLACEmaker and a PLACEmarker; and

• The tree’s ‘values’ are held by and defined by a network of networked people who share in the pace’s’ PLACEmakeing and the PLACEmarking; and

• Currently, one of the tree’s most significant values is the CO2 invested in its materiality in the context of the ‘climate emergency’ that is upon us and that this impacts upon every human, in every way, and all the time – in reality and symbolically; and

• The tree’s ‘relative health’, given that it is endemic origin, is sound and healthy and does not present any apparent risk of becoming diseased and thus enhancing any risk factor in prospect; and

The tree’s ‘impact’ upon its adjoining built structures may well be deemed to significant but it is an open question as to it being manageable or unmanageable and especially so given the lack of an engineer’s report as a component of the development application.
Indeed, as this DA is presented Councillors might well this as a ‘truth-by-assertion’ and

• The tree’s ‘impact’ upon boundary structures and adjoining streetscaping has not been deemed to be either manageable or unmanageable and in what context and thus subjective aesthetics to one side this is not a compelling factor worthy of consideration; and

• The ‘impact’ of the tree’s large cones falling and injuring a hapless passer-bye has been asserted albeit that many arborists will tell you that the risk of injury from falling limbs and the cones of many conifers is something in the order of one in five million. In any event the mitigation of the risk here is quite achievable and has been proven as so elsewhere; and

• The ‘proponent/s’ of the tree’s removal have not offered to address in the way the loss of public amenity etc. in any way, whereas in Adelaide that city’s Council has imposed restrictions with ‘cash off-sets’ payable for the purpose tree planting for carbon sequestration on another site – albeit the $amount is relatively small and not linked to the litreage of canopy cover lost; and

• The ‘impact’ of the loss of the tree’s canopy in this case is significant and calculated as $1per litre the mitigating compensation would be substantial; and

• Given that this property apparently changed ownership relatively recently the owner must have been aware of any clear and present risk at that time and especially so currently as apparently Council has denied approval for this tree’s removal previously.

218 Charles Street is managed as a visitor’s accommodation venue which adds some context to this application. The building has been occupied by various businesses over time and thus as a heritage building is concerned it has accumulated a significant cohort of people who have developed relationships with ‘the place’ with this tree being a component of those relationships.

All things considered, Councillors are faced yet again with making a determination relative to this tree on behalf of the constituencies they represent, and ideally mindful of the independent expert advice Council’s Management is bound to provide under the provisions of SECTION 65 of the Local Govt. Act.

In conclusion I ask councillors to be very mindful of everything that is at stake relative to this tree and all the symbolism there is in trees and their PLACEmaking determination on behalf of the communities they were elected to represent along with the proponent in this instance. Poignantly, this tree with its ‘heritage’ status unavoidably stands as a significant representative of trees in Launceston’s CULTURALlandscape and thus precedence set here will background future decision making in the urban environment that will have ‘trickle-down’ effects elsewhere and decades ahead.

IMPORTANTLY WHATEVER COUNCILLORS DETERMINE IN REGARD TO THIS SIGNIFICANT HERITAGE TREE IT WILL BE A BENCHMARK AGAINST WHICH
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS OF THIS KIND CAN BE
AND ARE EVER LIKELY TO BE MEASURED




YES Bunya Cones are large, however if removed at the juvenile stage, or at any time before ripening,  the risk of large nuts falling on unsuspecting pedestrians is and can be mitigated.  Drones have been deployed in similar circumstances and there are anecdotal reports that comes from this tree have been removed from a crane. In any event has there been a incident reported in the life of this tree where the has been an injury cased by a falling cone? Has a car or any other been damaged since this tree has born cones?

Additionally, aborists have other risk mitigation strategies and technologies at their disposal that might well be used if this significant heritage tree presents an untenable risk sometime in the future.   

SCHROL DOWN





ABBREVIATED DA ATTACHMENTS





                                                              



FROM WIKIPEDIA ... Araucaria bidwillii ....
Araucaria bidwillii, commonly known as the bunya pine (/ˈbʌnjə/),[4] banya[5] or bunya-bunya, is a large evergreen coniferous tree in the family Araucariaceae which is endemic to Australia. Its natural range is southeast Queensland with two very small, disjunct populations in northeast Queensland's World Heritage listed Wet Tropics. There are many planted specimens on the Atherton Tableland, in New South Wales, and around the Perth metropolitan area, and it has also been widely planted in other parts of the world. They are very tall trees – the tallest living individual is in Bunya Mountains National Park and was reported by Robert Van Pelt in January 2003 to be 51.5 m (169 ft) in height.

Bunya pine

Conservation status
Least Concern (NCA)[1]
Araucaria bidwillii will grow to a height of 50 m (160 ft) with a single unbranched trunk up to 1.5 m (4 ft 11 in) diameter, which has dark brown or black flaky bark.[6][7][8][9] The branches are produced in whorls at regular intervals along the trunk, with leaf-bearing branchlets crowded at their ends.[8] The branches are held more or less horizontally – those towards the top of the trunk may be somewhat ascending, those on the lowest section of the trunk may be somewhat drooping. This arrangement gives the tree a very distinctive egg-shaped silhouette.

The leaves are small and rigid with a sharp tip which can easily penetrate the skin.[10] They are narrowly triangular, broad at the base and sessile (without a stem).[6][10] They measure up to 5 cm (2.0 in) long by 1 cm (0.4 in) wide with fine longitudinal venation, glossy green above and paler underneath.[6][10][9] The leaf arrangement is both distichous and decussate (referred to as secondarily distichous) – that is, one pair of leaves are produced on the twig opposite each other, and the next pair above is rotated around the twig 90° to them, and so on.[6]

The cones are terminal, the male (or pollen) cone is a spike up to 20 cm (7.9 in) long which matures around October to November.[7][8][9][10] The female (or seed) cone is much larger, reaching up to 30 cm (12 in) long and 20 cm (7.9 in) wide, which is roughly equivalent to a rugby ball.[7][8][9][10] At maturity, which occurs from December through to March,[7][8] female cones are green with 50–100 pointed segments, each of which encloses a seed, and they can weigh up to 10 kg.[8][9][11][12] Both seed and pollen cones are some of the largest of all conifer species.[13]

The edible seeds measure between 2.5 cm (1.0 in) and 5 cm (2.0 in) long and are ovoid to long-elliptic.[6][7][8][10]



 LAST LISTED 2022 .... CLICK HERE
 LISTING ...  CLICK HERE



Saturday, February 15, 2025

KHALED SABSABI

 KHALED SABSABI GETS DUMPED

The news late last night came as a shock to the Australian visual arts sector: five days after Creative Australia’s announcement that Khaled Sabsabi would exhibit in Australia’s pavilion at the next Venice Biennale in 2026, they did an about-face. Sabsabi has been publicly dumped. And the current climate in this tiny, under-valued sector of Australian cultural life is in shock.

Why? Because Creative Australia’s decision automatically smells like censorship of the worst kind.

The Creative Australia board’s stated reason for its decision to pull Sabsabi was made on the grounds of “undermin(ing) our goal of bringing Australians together through art and creativity”.
Fair call – one of the MOST IMPORTANT aspects of contemporary visual art has been to bring audiences together in conversations around issues and ideas that are often difficult to have elsewhere.

It’s the aim of most visual artists to offer work that brings us together as communities and a nation. And that’s consistently been the case with Sabsabi’s creative production – his work raises important questions; he refuses to take fixed sides; he urges his audiences to look a little more carefully, to think a little more deeply, to turn to each other and ask, “What do YOU think”? And, importantly, when he’s out of the spotlight he’s a damned fine human being – supporting and caring for and mentoring many members of the community.

Unfortunately, despite its stated intent, this decision may accelerate divisiveness. It’s going to be a difficult road to avoid taking sides and throwing stones.

I have no idea how that decision to dump Sabsabi was finally made, but there are enough people on that Creative Australia board with a record of staunch solid thinking and action to make me think there would have been a whole lot of heartache going on. Some of them are among the best we have in ‘the arts’.

Yet the sector is howling for their dismissal.

This decision seems particularly odd following the success of the award of Venice’s Golden Lion to Australia’s 2024 artist Archie Moore. Archie’s work looked straight down the gun barrel of this country’s history of Aboriginal cultural survival in the face of overwhelming systemic racial aggression. And in response he came up with a galaxy of weeping stars that soared above us over all our collective heads. Those stars twinkled out the names of those past – those lost, those remembered, those half-forgotten. All intertwined like lacework in the history of this culturally bruised nation. They twinkled and glimmered out like a soaring dome of remembrance – an elegy to our enormous failures as a nation, and also of our capacity to face those failures down and work on them together.

And the world responded to that visual prayer. No-one entering Australia’s pavilion was unmoved. And what our nation gains from that is the capacity – for the very first time in that international arena – of being recognised as a place where artists can still dream big. Can still make work with hope and a collective spirit that dares to keep dreaming. Archie’s work has always been critical. Critical and beautiful and sad and hopeful. Khaled’s work had the chance to echo that special spirit that seems so threatened in Australia right now.

Who knows what happened? Who knows why the lights are being shut down in so many of Australia’s visual arts institutions right now? Who knows why the entire nation seems to care so very little for a sector that is being pushed closer and closer to the edge?

But one thing seems sure – if the visual arts sector falls into an ‘us and them’ trap of blame, that spirit of hope and inclusiveness that shines through in the work of artists like Archie, Khaled and many, many more, will be greatly diminished. .... Pat Hoffie








LINKS VARIOUS

Spate of resignations follow Creative Australia's decision to drop artist Khaled Sabsabi from Venice Biennale
By Anna Kelsey-Sugg and Bhakthi Puvanenthiran ABC Arts

Topic:Visual Art. 10 hours ago

Creative Australia's shock decision to drop its own selection to one of the world's most prestigious cultural events, the Venice Biennale, has been met with severe backlash including a spate of resignations.

Artists and cultural leaders have strongly criticised Creative Australia, the federal government's arts funding and advisory body, for rescinding its 2026 Biennale invitation to Lebanese Australian artist Khaled Sabsabi and curator Michael Dagostino.

The announcement, made on Thursday, February 13, came less than a week after Creative Australia announced the pair had been selected. Larissa Behrendt was the only board member who was not present for the decision.

In response, Mikala Tai, the head of the organisation's visual arts department, and program manager Tahmina Maskinyar have both resigned.

Lindy Lee, a Creative Australia board member and celebrated artist, has resigned from her board position.

Simon Mordant, twice the Australian commissioner at the Venice Biennale, has also resigned as an international ambassador and major donor to next year's event.

He said he was "appalled" by Sabsabi being dropped.

"When I heard what was happening yesterday, I immediately resigned my role and cancelled my financial support," he told ABC Arts.

"Venice is Australia's most important commission in the art world … [and] there was significant media coverage of the announcement, both locally and internationally.

"There was a question asked in parliament [on Thursday] and that subsequently resulted in an unprecedented move by Creative Australia to rescind the contract.

"I'm not aware that that has ever happened in any country in the world. It certainly has never happened in Australia.

"Obviously, Khaled and Michael are shattered. The art community is aghast."
Artists criticise removal of artist from Venice Biennale
Photo shows Khaled Sabsabi, with dark hair pulled back and grey beard, stands against brown brick wall wearing dark shirt.Khaled Sabsabi, with dark hair pulled back and grey beard, stands against brown brick wall wearing dark shirt.
Artists shortlisted to represent Australia at the Venice Biennale have spoken out against Creative Australia's decision to pull Lebanese Australian artist Khaled Sabsabi from the role.

Senator Hanson-Young, Greens spokesperson for the Arts, is calling for a full independent inquiry into the crisis, including "how this decision was made, who was involved and how much it has cost the Australian taxpayer".

"It's an appalling capitulation that has put arts policy in Australia into crisis," she told the ABC.

"It has undermined the entire integrity and credibility of the newly formed Creative Australia.

"Artistic expression must be free from political interference and intimidation."

Questions around artistic freedom
The question in parliament related to work of Sabsabi's from nearly 20 years ago, including one featuring assassinated Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, and another depicting the September 11 attacks.


In Question Time on Thursday, Senator Claire Chandler, shadow minister for science and the arts, asked Foreign Minister Penny Wong: "Why is the Albanese government allowing a person who highlights a terrorist leader in his artwork to represent Australia on the international stage at the Venice Biennale?"

Senator Wong replied that she was not aware of the details of Sabsabi's appointment and past artwork until then.

"I agree with you that any glorification of the Hezbollah leader Nasrallah is inappropriate," she said.

Mordant considers criticism of these works irrelevant to his 2026 Biennale proposal.

"Venice is a place where issues of today are debated and discussed," he said.

"Khaled's [Biennale] project was in total relevance to issues of today."

Khaled Sabsabi for Arts Week

National Association for the Visual Arts executive director Penelope Benton said in a statement Creative Australia's decision was the result of "political and media pressure" and "an outrageous overreach" on the part of the government.

She called it a "devastating and terrifying moment for artistic freedom in Australia".

"This is not just about one artist or one exhibition; it is about whether Australia upholds the right of artists to critically engage with history, politics, and the urgent issues of our time," Benton said.


In a statement to the ABC, Arts Minister Tony Burke said he was not involved in Creative Australia's decision, but: "I was shocked to see [on Thursday] some of the works which are online."

"By law I don't have the power to direct Creative Australia and did not," he said.

'Hugely embarrassing moment'
Sasha Grishin, art critic and emeritus professor of art history at Australian National University, said Sabsabi's works had been mis-characterised in parliament, including the works showing the September 11 attacks, titled Thank You Very Much.

"It's only wilful ignorance that could possibly interpret them as a glorification of terrorism," he said.

"The phrase 'thank you very much' in the 9/11 piece is a quotation from George W Bush, the US president, during the attacks, saying the phrase during a press conference, and the clip of the president saying this is included in Sabsabi's video.

"Are any of those pieces promoting terrorism or defending terrorism? No, not remotely."

A man standing in front of a blue painting smiles gently
Sabsabi said his intention for his Biennale work was for it to be "inclusive" and "nurturing", and to "bring people together". (ABC Radio Sydney: Declan Bowring)

He believes the decision to drop Sabsabi and Dagostino is "a hugely embarrassing moment for Australian art".

"The board of Creative Australia has let down the Australian arts community like never before," he said.

International ramifications

Cherine Fahd, an artist and associate professor of visual communication at the University of Technology Sydney, condemned Creative Australia's decision as "grotesque".

"I'm disgusted, to be honest, absolutely disappointed, disgusted, ashamed. It's not the role of Creative Australia to censor Australian artists," she said.
She believes Sabsabi's work being debated in parliament is an example of "the Labor government and the Liberal [Party] us[ing] Arabs, Middle Eastern people born and bred in this country, or who have come here as migrants, as children, as some kind of weird toy scapegoat to play politics with".

Fahd, who is Lebanese Australian, said she built her artistic career with support from the Australia Council for the Arts (now Creative Australia) and its "robust, peer-reviewed process".

"That's what we look to at Creative Australia," she said.

Mordant believes there will be significant international repercussions from the Creative Australia decision.

"This issue is being discussed very broadly outside of Australia," he said.

"I've had many calls from artists and curators around the world expressing a great deal of dismay. This is not a little isolated issue that's going to wash away in Australia.

"It's got massive ramifications."
Grishin expects further industry upheaval to follow.

"Despite the outstanding calibre of some of the [Creative Australia] board members, I cannot see it as viable for them to continue on the board of Australia's most significant federal arts funding organisation," he said.

He also argued that the judging panel were either "incompetent in endorsing Khaled Sabsabi and his very credentialed curator Michael Dagostino as Australia's entry at the [Biennale], or they're incompetent now in withdrawing this nomination less than a week later".

"So this is really a blow for the reputation of Australian art."


The ABC approached Creative Australia and Senator Chandler for comment.

Parliamentary party positions
  • Liberal Party of Australia. Served: 01.07.2019 to present
  • Shadow Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs from 5.6.2022 to 25.1.2025.
  • Shadow Cabinet Minister from 25.1.2025.
  • Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy from 25.1.2025.
  • Shadow Minister for Science and the Arts from 25.1.2025.
  • Government Deputy Whip in the Senate from 23.11.2021 to 11.4.2022.

Open Letter
Re: The Withdrawal of Australia’s 2026 Venice Biennale Representatives


14 February 2025

Yesterday evening, Creative Australia announced that it will not proceed with the artistic team selected to represent Australia at the 2026 Venice Biennale. This decision, reportedly made unanimously by its Board, was said to be justified by concerns over “prolonged and divisive debate.”

The Board’s full statement reads:

The Board of Creative Australia has made the unanimous decision not to proceed with the artistic team chosen for the Venice Biennale 2026.

Creative Australia is an advocate for freedom of artistic expression and is not an adjudicator on the interpretation of art. However, the Board believes a prolonged and divisive debate about the 2026 selection outcome poses an unacceptable risk to public support for Australia's artistic community and could undermine our goal of bringing Australians together through art and creativity.

Creative Australia will be reviewing the selection process for the Venice Biennale 2026.

Based on currently available public information, we believe this decision raises serious concerns for Australia’s cultural sector.

The withdrawal of a previously approved artist from Australia’s most prestigious international arts presentation sets a concerning precedent for artistic freedom and sectoral independence. If public pressure and political sensitivities of the day can determine—apparently within a matter of hours—Creative Australia’s support for artists after selection, what does this mean for future appointments, funding decisions, and the autonomy and credibility of Australian artists on the world stage?

This letter is an appeal to the arts sector, legal experts, and all those committed to the independence of Australian cultural institutions. The implications of this decision extend far beyond a single artist or event—they strike at the heart of the functions Creative Australia is legislatively bound to uphold.

What Led to Creative Australia’s Decision?
According to media reports, the decision to withdraw Australia’s selected representative at the 2026 Venice Biennale follows a brief but mounting political and media controversy surrounding the selection of artist Khaled Sabsabi. While Creative Australia stated that its decision was not based on an interpretation of specific works, media reports and statements made during Parliamentary Question Time suggest that concerns were raised over Sabsabi’s past works, including a video installation featuring the late Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and a piece referencing the September 11 attacks.

Competent cultural commentators will no doubt have more to say about the interpretation of the works in question. It suffices to say here that Sabsabi is an award-winning Australian artist whose work spans over three decades. He has exhibited nationally and internationally, including at previous editions of the Sharjah Biennial and the Biennale of Sydney. His selection was made on artistic merit through a rigorous process, and was widely celebrated across Australia’s arts community.

The selection process for the Venice Biennale is among the most competitive and prestigious in Australian contemporary art. It is overseen by an independent expert panel, appointed for their expertise and international standing. This year’s industry advice panel included Anthony Gardner (Professor of Contemporary Art History at the University of Oxford), Dunja Rmandić (Director of Mornington Peninsula Art Gallery), Elaine Chia (CEO of the Naomi Milgrom Foundation), Mariko Smith (Curator at the Australian Museum), Wassan Al-Khudhairi (Chief Curator at the Contemporary Art Museum St. Louis). Creative Australia’s selection of Sabsabi and curator Michael Dagostino was the result of robust consideration and feedback from the industry advice panel of their proposal.

How Does This Decision Align with Creative Australia’s Mandate?
Creative Australia operates under the Creative Australia Act 2023, which mandates it to among other things support artistic excellence, uphold freedom of expression, foster diversity in Australian arts practice, recognise and reward significant contributions in the arts, and promote understanding of the arts. We understand these statutory functions form the basis of its decision-making responsibilities.

We do not see how Creative Australia’s justification for withdrawing Australia’s representation—concerns over “prolonged and divisive debate”—fulfils its statutory functions under the Act.

In their statement, Creative Australia assert that they advocate for freedom of artistic expression but distance themselves from adjudicating the interpretation of art. This is incoherent at best—their decision effectively acts as an interpretation of the political acceptability of the selected artist’s work. It amounts to artistic censorship.

The decision was made with astonishing haste—within half a day of political controversy, without any apparent attempt to fulfil its statutory function of promoting understanding of the arts. They capitulated immediately, without a whisper.

If Creative Australia cannot even stand by its expert-led selection for a matter of hours, abandoning its own process at the first sign of pressure, then what does that say about its commitment to artistic excellence and freedom of expression?

It is in the public interest to understand what political pressure was applied on Creative Australia and how it influenced the decision.

We stand in support of Creative Australia staff, who were not responsible for this decision. They should be supported in advocating for institutional integrity and should not feel that resigning is their burden to bear in expressing solidarity or protest.

We also stand in support of the independently selected artistic team. Consistent with the open letter signed by the other shortlisted artists for the 2026 Venice Biennale, we call for their reinstatement—an essential step in upholding the integrity of Creative Australia’s statutory functions and commitment to artistic independence.

— The Editors

If you would like to add your name to this letter, please sign via the following form

Memo is a recent recipient of Creative Australia funding

A previous version of this letter incorrectly stated that Dunja Rmandić is currently employed by the Art Gallery of Western Australia. It also stated that the industry advice panel selected the artistic team, whereas we are advised this decision ultimately resided with Creative Australia upon the advice of the industry panel.

TO SIGN THE PETITION GO TO:

Thursday, February 6, 2025

ON PERFECTION

Completeness And Perfection

Wickery can be understood as a blending of "wicker" and basketry – and in multiple cultural paradigms. "Wicker" tends to reflect Eurocentric cum Anglocentric utilitarian sensibilities, thus the term "wickery' aims to be more expansive, and more inclusive,  culturally. Also,  wickery and the exploration of other aesthetic qualities and indeed kinds of perfection is somewhat confronting. In wabi-sabi there is no exact definition that non Japanese speakers can rely upon due to the Japanese fondness for ambiguity. Wabi is derived from the root wa, which refers to 'harmony, peace, tranquility and balance'. All quite desirable but none are unambiguously anything much to do with 'perfection'.



The Zen spirit is personified in a Wabi person, that is, they're content with very little, they're free of greed, indolence, anger, and they understand the wisdom to be found in nature. Things happen because they must. New Zealand born Australian artist Rosalie Gascoigne invoked a 'Zenness' of a kind, an ikebana of a kind, in her work and likewise a  'placedness'. She did so by insisting that 'material' that she used had "been somewhere and done something" – in place ... typically her 'place' the Monaro/Canberra. In this she was at one with 'wicker makers' where ever they are.


The industrial era sold and sells the concept of measurable flawlessness, excellence, superbness, sublimity, exquisiteness, magnificence, perfectness, faultlessness, impeccability, immaculateness, exemplariness – and its measurability. The 'handmade' fails most of the 'perfection tests' especially the unambiguously measurable ones. 

Yet Japanese culture celebrates ambiguity of and  a kind of perfect imperfection.  Wabi-sabi, Ikebana (生け花, "living flowers") , also known as Kadō (華道, "way of flowers") is the Japanese art of flower arrangement.  The making of wickery is very often not so far from the Japanese sensibilities found in wabi-sabi, ikebana and Kintsugi (金継ぎ, きんつぎ, "golden joinery"), and/or Kintsukuroi (金繕い, きんつくろい, "golden repair").



Almost every primary culture has a 'wickery culture' of a kind that predates almost all 'cultural technologies' such as ceramics and metalsmithing. Wickery exists in context with, and relative to,  cultural landscapes,  different plant life, distinct ecologies and social cum political structures plus the different and distinct 'cultural cargo' that's carried in all this and that carries on into the wickery – the cultural production of 'place'.  Quite often wickery is taken for granted and uncelebrated and very often its making was done at the 'social periphery' - the underclass, peasants, Romanies, invalids et al. In a postindustrial cum cyber cum technological era the 'rustic and organic' offers a kind of cultural refuge within which to contemplate the luxuries that cost nothing.

The German goldsmith, teacher and cultural commentator, Herman Jünger, working in Germany in the post WW2 era was an advocate for . an 'old German' concept of "vollkommenheit". The translation being to do with completedness and wholesomeness – a 'perfect' state when all pieces/things come together"Perfection", he intimated was an 'industrial ideal', and it is what the dictionary says it is but vollkommenheit is somewhat different in regard to 'cultural sensibilities/sensitivities'

Jünger when teaching used the metaphor of the "quail's egg and the ball bearing". "Vollkommenheit" being the perfection that exceeds 'measurability' and 'perfection' being definitively measurable and constraining – absolute and black and white, unambiguous. Culturally, vollkommenheit exceeds perfection. Natural materials, the stuff of wickery, become more 'durable' in a vollkommenheit kind of way with their 'imperfections' contributing to the completeness and wholesomeness and adding to their durability and all the narratives that they carry – overtly and subliminally.


'Completeness is better than perfection'

Ray Norman Jan 2018