Nov 282014
 

“The torture of the animals”
A few days ago in France, an animal lover recorded with the camera how violently the animals are killed in a slaughterhouse in order to become our food, and then uploaded to the internet. It created a great sensation immediately, and was responded quickly and decisively both by the public and the authorities. According to the French Parliamentary law, which finally gave citizen’s rights to animals, animals are “living beings with sensitivity”. This decision is the result of a long and hard effort by animal lovers, as well as by many prominent intellectuals and artists such as Beuys, of giving a sort of legitimate right to animals. In addition to above-mentioned aspects, this decision shows a change of mentality in this issue as it also triggered a great struggle of Buddhist and of various institutions, such as the Brigitte Bardot. While seeing various documentary films, in which people brutally kill whales, sharks, foxes, or seals in order to get their skin, wings, tail or meat, one may wonder, “why we got there?” Regardless of the mythological dimension of the battle of man to survive in nature from wild animals, there is also a philosophical aspect of the issue. Some consider that animals are not rational, and thus they do not deserve the same treatment with that of human beings. However, that is not the issue.The question is, rather, whether they suffer or not. And all the scientists have confirmed, “yes, they suffer.” Yet, we kill sixty billion of terrestrial animals and one billion of sea animals in the wild every year. This is a real massacre, and we are indifferent to their suffering. Of course we care for our dogs and cats we have at home. Why such a crazy attitude? Why are we so indifferent to rabbits, horses, or laboratory animals, pigs, cats, dogs and so on? Many people would say, “let us first deal with the improvement in the life of humankind, and then we look for the betterment of animals.” Yet, moreover, so many people die of hunger and war. The issue is about hypocritical phraseology. It sounds as if we were dealing with humanitarian issues throughout our time. It also sounds as if we could not deal with both issues together. And here I ask you: “what would help humankind, is it torturing some animals?” Would the fate of Christians in Iraq improve, if thousands of dogs are caught and left to die under torture in China in order to have better meat? Or, again, would the situation of the Kurds improve if we kill cats painfully? Let’s not pretend. It is neither for the sake of the humanization of animals, nor for vitalization of people. We are interested in animals only for eating their meat, but should the process be torturous? Animals are not objects, nor are they things. They are living beings, and thus they should be treated as such. Such laws, as it was passed by the French Parliament, are consistent with the spirit of humanitarian culture. And it is a good first step that these laws came to a vote.
Demosthenes Davvetas

My article, which was published at Elefteros Typos today 28th November, titled "The torture of the animals"
A few days ago in France, an animal lover recorded with the camera how violently the animals are killed in a slaughterhouse in order to become our food, and then uploaded to the internet. It created a great sensation immediately, and was responded quickly and decisively both by the public and the authorities. According to the French Parliamentary law, which finally gave citizen's rights to animals, animals are "living beings with sensitivity”. This decision is the result of a long and hard effort by animal lovers, as well as by many prominent intellectuals and artists such as Beuys, of giving a sort of legitimate right to animals. In addition to above-mentioned aspects, this decision shows a change of mentality in this issue as it also triggered a great struggle of Buddhist and of various institutions, such as the Brigitte Bardot. While seeing various documentary films, in which people brutally kill whales, sharks, foxes, or seals in order to get their skin, wings, tail or meat, one may wonder, “why we got there?” Regardless of the mythological dimension of the battle of man to survive in nature from wild animals, there is also a philosophical aspect of the issue. Some consider that animals are not rational, and thus they do not deserve the same treatment with that of human beings. However, that is not the issue.The question is, rather, whether they suffer or not. And all the scientists have confirmed, “yes, they suffer.” Yet, we kill sixty billion of terrestrial animals and one billion of sea animals in the wild every year. This is a real massacre, and we are indifferent to their suffering. Of course we care for our dogs and cats we have at home. Why such a crazy attitude? Why are we so indifferent to rabbits, horses, or laboratory animals, pigs, cats, dogs and so on? Many people would say, “let us first deal with the improvement in the life of humankind, and then we look for the betterment of animals.” Yet, moreover, so many people die of hunger and war. The issue is about hypocritical phraseology. It sounds as if we were dealing with humanitarian issues throughout our time. It also sounds as if we could not deal with both issues together. And here I ask you: “what would help humankind, is it torturing some animals?” Would the fate of Christians in Iraq improve, if thousands of dogs are caught and left to die under torture in China in order to have better meat? Or, again, would the situation of the Kurds improve if we kill cats painfully? Let's not pretend. It is neither for the sake of the humanization of animals, nor for vitalization of people. We are interested in animals only for eating their meat, but should the process be torturous? Animals are not objects, nor are they things. They are living beings, and thus they should be treated as such. Such laws, as it was passed by the French Parliament, are consistent with the spirit of humanitarian culture. And it is a good first step that these laws came to a vote.
Demosthenes Davvetas
Nov 232014
 

My article, “The Eternity of philosophy” , was published yesterday at Free Press, Village Voice.

A day of celebrating philosophy today and I feel the urge to scream: yes, more today than ever we need philosophy. It is philosophy that can provide solutions in times of crisis, since it is born a human’s inborn necessity to seek answer to a crying question how to navigate amongst the emotional chaos in me and the desire for steady and sturdy decisions in my life? The industrialized educational perception that wants the man tied to a material and empirical dimension of daily routine was hard disputed by Nietzsche as nihilistic since 1880. And it is the analog of today’s life: indecision, disorientation, valueless flow of life, emotional outbursts, loosening or inescapable compromises, political dilemmas, and cynicism. The crisis has flattened everything. And the essence of happiness is geared mainly towards the acquisition of material goods. In such difficult times mankind always turns to philosophy, because thanks to her he wants to reread his difficult routine, to reread himself. Through the anew reading of his existence, he finds the strength and energy to face with wisdom the difficulty of his problems. Philosophy is the prescribed medication. In all the ancient Greek schools it was taught as life-long learning. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, elevated “eudemonia” (happiness) as the goal of live path that serves the pure-good. Spinoza was pushing the man to cast away his fears by winning the “eternity of happiness”. Schopenhauer praised the art of someone being happy, while Nietzsche praised the present as eternal happiness, the one that Heidegger called peace. Philosophy sought happiness in speech, nature, and self-knowledge. It did not want to be trapped in materials. That is why it is eternally necessary. It is a kind of spiritual spring, something like medicinal water that helps the return to wisdom. Youth’s education should change more. Youth should learn from school the history of the great philosophical ideals and visions, the history of thought contradictions in the world, and not to be spent (the youth) in games of criticism, logistic and not logical thought, as it predisposes in society today. Philosophy is not consumed in “beneficiary” goals, in egotistical gains, in measurable joy. It is not measurable. Above all, philosophy is the selfless application of joy in creation, is a free power to meditate on your life, to learn from your experiences and at the same time to posses the wisdom of your finality. Philosophy is a general wandering for you and the other, is the seeking of knowledge of tour inner and outer self. It is the love for your truth and your life.

Demosthenes Davvetas
University Professor, artist, poet

My article, "The Eternity of philosophy" , was published yesterday at  Free Press, Village Voice.</p>
<p>A day of celebrating philosophy today and I feel the urge to scream: yes, more today than ever we need philosophy. It is philosophy that can provide solutions in times of crisis, since it is born a human’s inborn necessity to seek answer to a crying question how to navigate amongst the emotional chaos in me and the desire for steady and sturdy decisions in my life? The industrialized educational perception that wants the man tied to a material and empirical dimension of daily routine was hard disputed by Nietzsche as nihilistic since 1880. And it is the analog of today’s life: indecision, disorientation, valueless flow of life, emotional outbursts, loosening or inescapable compromises, political dilemmas, and cynicism. The crisis has flattened everything. And the essence of happiness is geared mainly towards the acquisition of material goods. In such difficult times mankind always turns to philosophy, because thanks to her he wants to reread his difficult routine, to reread himself. Through the anew reading of his existence, he finds the strength and energy to face with wisdom the difficulty of his problems. Philosophy is the prescribed medication. In all the ancient Greek schools it was taught as life-long learning. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, elevated “eudemonia” (happiness) as the goal of live path that serves the pure-good. Spinoza was pushing the   man to cast away his fears by winning the “eternity of happiness”. Schopenhauer praised the art of someone being happy, while Nietzsche praised the present as eternal happiness, the one that Heidegger called peace. Philosophy sought happiness in speech, nature, and self-knowledge. It did not want to be trapped in materials. That is why it is eternally necessary. It is a kind of spiritual spring, something like medicinal water that helps the return to wisdom. Youth’s education should change more. Youth should learn from school the history of the great philosophical ideals and visions, the history of thought contradictions in the world, and not to be spent (the youth) in games of criticism, logistic and not logical thought, as it predisposes in society today. Philosophy is not consumed in “beneficiary” goals, in egotistical gains, in measurable joy. It is not measurable. Above all, philosophy is the selfless application of joy in creation, is a free power to meditate on your life, to learn from your experiences and at the same time to posses the wisdom of your finality. Philosophy is a general wandering for you and the other, is the seeking of knowledge of tour inner and outer self. It is the love for your truth and your life.</p>
<p>Demosthenes Davvetas<br />
University  Professor, artist, poet
Nov 202014
 

“The new oil war”
The recent fall in world oil prices has a double effect: positive effect for Western consumer warning and negative effect for the authoritarian governments of oil-producing countries, whose revenue has relied on the black gold since 1973 to today. Because the latter countries want to balance the ready for eruption popular indignation movement, due to their capacity to export oil. The fall of around 25% is not yet a disaster.
The fall of approximately 25 % has not yet been destroyed, but it simply brings the price back to the level of how it used to be in 2010. Of course, there are a lot of talks about further permanent decline in the value of a barrel from $ 110 to $120, which is today $80, however the very context of reducing the oil price should be analysed more. The Saudis said that overproduction of defining policy of Opep, which is the first oil exporters to the United States, started to worry seriously because of shale gas in the US.
Through this newly-explored technique, the US will soon be able to self- produce their energy needs, and thus, the advantage of the countries of the Gulf that made them the first energy producer worldwide.
Therefore, by lowering the price around $ 80 a barrel , Saudi Arabia is trying not to lose this control, and try to save time, for the time will no longer be the dominant in the energy game. This kind of war about oil prices would effect Russia, Algeria, Venezuela, Iraq and Iran , whose budget depends on the balance of hydrocarbons which settles the balance of the people. And thus impose their authoritarianism . For example, Saudi Arabia escaped the revolutionary spring of 2011 thanks to oil power, which even allowed the Saudi leaders to give $130 billion to their needs. The threat, however, remains and the Sunni jihadists in Iraq and Syria continue to worry Riyadh. Yet, even if Saudi Arabia manages to withstand this, countries such as Iran and Russia are threatened by a rapid fall in the oil price. Especially Iran, could probably accept the compromise because of the nuclear crisis. Russia is also sensitive. It was indeed the fall of oil prices that triggered the fall of the Soviet Union itself in 2000 and that helped Putin increase his power to dominate over Yeltsin. According to experts, $ 90 a barrel is required in order to balance the budget of the Russia, or the decline threatens. The new war begins with the exploitation of shale gas in the US. It could thus become a weapon of western democracies, and therefore, it could become the cause of the fall of authoritarian regimes.
Demosthenes Davvetas

My article which was published in Eleftheros Typos at 20th November titled:
"The new oil war"
The recent fall in world oil prices has a double effect: positive effect for Western consumer warning and negative effect for the authoritarian governments of oil-producing countries, whose revenue has relied on the black gold since 1973 to today. Because the latter countries want to balance the ready for eruption popular indignation movement, due to their capacity to export oil. The fall of around 25% is not yet a disaster. 
The fall of approximately 25 % has not yet been destroyed, but it simply brings the price back to the level of how it used to be in 2010. Of course, there are a lot of talks about further permanent decline in the value of a barrel from $ 110 to $120, which is  today $80,  however  the very context of reducing the oil price should be analysed more. The Saudis said that overproduction of defining policy of Opep, which is the first oil exporters to the United States, started to worry seriously because of shale gas in the US. 
Through this newly-explored technique, the US will soon be able to self- produce their energy needs, and thus, the advantage of the countries of the Gulf that made them the first energy producer worldwide. 
Therefore, by lowering the price around $ 80 a barrel , Saudi Arabia is trying not to lose this control,  and try  to save time,  for the  time will no longer be the dominant in the energy game. This kind of war about oil prices would effect Russia, Algeria, Venezuela, Iraq and Iran , whose budget depends on the balance of hydrocarbons which settles the balance of the people. And thus impose their authoritarianism . For example, Saudi Arabia escaped the revolutionary spring  of 2011 thanks to oil power, which even allowed the Saudi leaders to give $130 billion to their needs. The threat, however, remains and the Sunni jihadists in Iraq and Syria continue to worry Riyadh. Yet, even if Saudi Arabia manages to withstand this, countries such as Iran and Russia are threatened by a rapid fall in the oil price. Especially Iran, could probably accept the compromise because of the nuclear crisis. Russia is also sensitive. It was indeed the fall of oil prices that triggered the fall of the Soviet Union itself in 2000 and that helped Putin increase his power to dominate over Yeltsin. According to experts, $ 90 a barrel is required in order to balance the budget of the Russia, or the decline threatens. The new war begins with the exploitation of shale gas in the US. It could thus become a weapon of western democracies, and therefore, it could become the cause of the fall of authoritarian regimes.
 Demosthenes Davvetas
Nov 202014
 

Hybrid wars
When Russia first was engaged in war with Georgia and later with Ukraine, quite a few were talking about the return of “cold war”. When again President Obama and the US declared war against the Islamic caliphate, as many talked about war against terrorism. In both cases thoughts are automatically directed to events of the past. In the first case we think about war amongst CIA and KGB agents, interventions in neighboring countries for setting examples (Czechoslovakia, Hungary) all the analogies that the friction between Kennedy and Chrutsev provided. In the second case we think of a US military expedition like the one in Iraq or Afghanistan after the fall of the twin towers in 2001. Infantry, tanks, airplanes, modern weaponry, all in the service of the “good” as President Bush Jr. named those actions against the “evil” that was presented by they anti-democratic forces of Islam. Neither is occurring despite the current tension. What has changed? To start, Russia is not the Soviet Union anymore.the 1945 – 1989 era cannot be repeated. Because, at that time, perestroika emerged. It changed the Russian physiognomy and dismantled the Soviet model. Even Kremlin is not leading some international alliance under the prism of formatted ideology or any other socioeconomic system as the communist idea was. So Russia is not proposing any new ideas about word order. On top of that the daily routine resembles very much that of the west, while its economy is similar to the western standards. As a result President Putin, despite his ex KGB background is not a secretary that a Gorbatchof will succeed.
On the same note, the Islamic state does not operate like Al-Khaida, although it is Bin-Lnden’s offspring that dreamed of the caliphate. Caliphate Islamist operate differently. They do not engage in military confrontation. They blend in the crowd and they appear as sudden as they disappear, they provoke civil and religious battles in chaotic states such as Iraq, Syria and Libya. Air bombardment strikes them, but they learned to sneak out and reduce their losses. This way the force westerners, by not being able to find them as they are not regular army, to think that a battle on ground is necessary to end some war with the jihad. President Obama is reluctant to proceed the same way as in Iraq or Afghanistan, since he feels that the enemy is asymmetric and these battles are not as the tactical ones used to be. We are facing hybrid wars. President Putin and the Islamists are specialists. They used covert strategies, with humanitarian aid, economic punishment, media of provocation, or the propaganda of decapitating innocents or mass murdering through creation of Islam martyrs, that blow themselves up as human bombs geared with explosives. Wars are not as they used to be in their classical form. They are complex and unexpected. They lost their traditional simplicity and the opponents are present and absent, visible and invisible, and very complex. So the West is obliged to adapt quite often in the hybrid war reality. It would be preferable not to follow, the jihad military agenda, but to find ways to prevent the situations. To enforce the war agenda: The West needs its hybrid practice, something that is happening now in hybrid wars.
Demosthenes Davvetas
University Professor, artist, poet
Advisor to the Prime Minister, Antonis Samaras, on culture

Nov 202014
 

“Portrait of a leader”

What can possibly be the future of a country that in the past six years has been drowned in a deep economic al, ethical and cultural crisis, with the last two of them to strive with enormous effort to surface? The indication that this question refers to Greece is obvious. As unpleasant is for someone to verify and judge, so hard bearing is to find solutions for the country’s continuous progress to normality. Every politician and in particular every political leader is being judged by his/hers daily decisions. And his/hers maturity will be tested in a few months from today, when today’s parliament will be called upon electing the new President of Democracy. From the election result will become apparent whether Greece will enter or not in dangerous adventures. Many will rush to find in these words a form of blackmail. So let’s see if this is the case. When the EU officially, as do the International Institutions, declares an improvement in the Greek economy, (however small that may be), when we speak of development growth both in the current year and next all the way to 2016, when we prove the already on the way of certain reforms, how could a presidential election disrupt this continuing betterment? Common sense implies that any disruption of today’s stability can lead to unexpected adventures for the country. Still the official parliamentary opposition screams for new elections. How are we to sketch the portrait of a responsible political leader today, that he would contribute in continuing the smooth transition in his country? Beyond the understanding of the crisis at hand, that leader will have to lead, take into consideration the opinion, feeling and even bad mood of citizens but also he must be resilient to cave in to protests and complains to serious decisions as to make him popular. Those types of politicians are easily transformed from old ideologists, as is the case of ex KGB in Russia, to cynical oligarchists. Behind a fanatic ideology is hidden totalitarian materialism (with very few bright exceptions). A modern country with no leader, it can move forward as long as there are solid institutions, but even then there is the threat of slowly and steadily to fall in gradual decay and diminishing of values. The true leader takes decisions with courage and heart. Because of the courage can lend an orthological ear to citizens’ voices. Because of the heart can overcome feelings and become strong, so even when listens to naggings and doubts, will not be trapped in the need to be immediately popular. Courage supports the beliefs and vision for the future. Heart assists in taking risks. The citizens require from their leader to stand up to controversies to invest his being into decisions, to break down obstacles, even by dangerously exposing himself. This is the essence of politics. Our country desperately needs reforms. To continue her way to the future uninterrupted. Whoever politician does not comprehend that shows immaturity. And most importantly does not possess the qualities of areal leader.
Demosthenes Davvetas

My article  which was published in Eleftheros Typos  at 13th November titled:
"Portrait of a leader"

What can possibly be the future of a country that in the past six years has been drowned in a deep economic al, ethical and cultural crisis, with the last two of them to strive with enormous effort to surface? The indication that this question refers to Greece is obvious. As unpleasant is for someone to verify and judge, so hard bearing is to find solutions for the country’s continuous progress to normality. Every politician and in particular every political leader is being judged by his/hers daily decisions. And his/hers maturity will be tested in a few months from today, when today’s parliament will be called upon electing the new President of Democracy. From the election result will become apparent whether Greece will enter or not in dangerous adventures. Many will rush to find in these words a form of blackmail. So let’s see if this is the case.  When the EU officially, as do the International Institutions, declares an improvement in the Greek economy, (however small that may be), when we speak of development growth both in the current year and next all the way to 2016, when we prove the already on the way of certain reforms, how could a presidential election disrupt this continuing betterment? Common sense implies that any disruption of today’s stability can lead to unexpected adventures for the country. Still the official parliamentary opposition screams for new elections. How are we to sketch  the portrait of a responsible political leader today, that he would contribute in continuing the smooth transition in his country? Beyond the understanding of the crisis at hand, that leader will have to lead, take into consideration the opinion, feeling and even bad mood of citizens but also he must be resilient to cave in to protests and complains to serious decisions as to make him popular. Those types of politicians are easily transformed from old ideologists, as is the case of ex KGB in Russia, to cynical oligarchists. Behind a fanatic ideology is hidden totalitarian materialism (with very few bright exceptions). A modern country with no leader, it can move forward as long as there are solid institutions, but even then there is the threat of slowly and steadily to fall in gradual decay and diminishing of values. The true leader takes decisions with courage and heart. Because of the courage can lend an orthological ear to citizens’ voices. Because of the heart can overcome feelings and become strong, so even when listens to naggings and doubts, will not be trapped in the need to be immediately popular. Courage supports the beliefs and vision for the future. Heart assists in taking risks. The citizens require from their leader to stand up to controversies to invest his being into decisions, to break down obstacles, even by dangerously exposing himself. This is the essence of politics. Our country desperately needs reforms. To continue her way to the future uninterrupted. Whoever politician does not comprehend that shows immaturity. And most importantly does not possess the qualities of areal leader.
Demosthenes Davvetas
Nov 082014
 

Τurkey : the new Middle east problem?
In 19th century Turkey was considered by the West “Europe’s sick mate”. Weak, debt loaded, the Ottoman Empire, was incapable to be self-managed and gradually lost its power in the Balkans and North Africa. In contrast modern Turkey possesses a good economy, appears healthy, politically stable, but it does concern anew the western diplomacies. Because this steardy ship that is being captained by the Islamist Erdogan, is being routed to a future sinking. The Middle issue is back on the table because of her. That as a result of the economic growth it experienced in the beginning of the 21st century that provoked the incontrollable willingness to practice a more aggressive external policy than it can afford. The pattern started becoming apparent in 2009 when Erdogan positioned Ntavoutoglou as minister of external affairs. He gave birth to the empire of new othomanism, in which, Kemalism is apolitical lobotomy that cost his country its real identity. Which is what? That Turkey belongs sequentially in three areas: South in the Muslim world, East in Eurasia, Est in the Western world. His position is not having problems with the neighboring countries. And as much as possible, to be the mediator for the problems in the area. So it plays the mediator between Bosnia and Serbia, Syria and Israel, Iran and US. As target has to be needed and become irreplaceable, in general, in the area. With the appearance of the “Arabic Spring” it practiced that strategy, Erdogan and Ntavoutoglou went over their head, and for short while they managed to convince the US and the West, that their country that Turkey was the real model for the Islamic world. And that, because their political party was democratic and not extremist. Not unstable as Egypt, not anti-democratic as Saudi Arabia. This originally successful strategy, intoxicated them, and from 2011 changed: they started as new “bosses” to intervene in Middle East countries, to request that old governments be gone and Muslim brothers to replace them. Where they did not succeed, like Egypt or Syria they became threatening. In particular after their failed friendship, with Assant, they started to assist terrorist Muslims like the Das. To the Western countries and Israel they behaved in non-friendly manner. They refuse the recognition of Cyprus, an EU country. As for the Kompani siege, they play both sides of the board. On one hand they are against Kurdish terrorism on the other hand they do not condemn jihad terrorists that decapitate innocent hostages. Today’s Turkey lives in a paradox. It blossoms economically, it loses in external affairs losing friends and increasing in enemies that become sworn ones, like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. Also it continuous to diminish the possibility of being accepted in the EU. Even the well possessed US is not trusting it. Which actually means investors will start distancing themselves from Turkey. Subsequently that will lead to economic crisis and dangerous disposition. The issue at hand is today how can Turkey be prevented to cause any harm. And that is the concern of Western diplomats and government.

Demosthenes Davvetas

My article,which was published in Elefteros Typos at 06 November titled:Turkey : the new Middle east problem?
In 19th century Turkey was considered by the West “Europe’s sick mate”. Weak, debt loaded, the Ottoman Empire, was incapable to be self-managed and gradually lost its power in the Balkans and North Africa. In contrast modern Turkey possesses a good economy, appears healthy, politically stable, but it does concern anew the western diplomacies. Because this steardy ship that is being captained by the Islamist Erdogan, is being routed to a future sinking. The Middle issue is back on the table because of her. That as a result of the economic growth it experienced in the beginning of the 21st century that provoked the incontrollable willingness to practice a more aggressive external policy than it can afford. The pattern started becoming apparent in 2009 when Erdogan positioned Ntavoutoglou as minister of external affairs. He gave birth to the empire of new othomanism, in which, Kemalism is apolitical lobotomy that cost his country its real identity. Which is what? That Turkey belongs sequentially in three areas: South in the Muslim world, East in Eurasia, Est in the Western world. His position is not having problems with the neighboring countries. And as much as possible, to be the mediator for the problems in the area. So it plays the mediator between Bosnia and Serbia, Syria and Israel, Iran and US. As target has to be needed and become irreplaceable, in general, in the area. With the appearance of the “Arabic Spring” it practiced that strategy, Erdogan and Ntavoutoglou went over their head, and for short while they managed to convince the US and the West, that their country that Turkey was the real model for the Islamic world. And that, because their political party was democratic and not extremist. Not unstable as Egypt, not anti-democratic as Saudi Arabia. This originally successful strategy, intoxicated them, and from 2011 changed: they started as new “bosses” to intervene in Middle East countries, to request that old governments be gone and Muslim brothers to replace them. Where they did not succeed, like Egypt or Syria they became threatening. In particular after their failed friendship, with Assant, they started to assist terrorist Muslims like the Das. To the Western countries and Israel they behaved in non-friendly manner. They refuse the recognition of Cyprus, an EU country. As for the Kompani siege, they play both sides of the board. On one hand they are against Kurdish terrorism on the other hand they do not condemn jihad terrorists that decapitate innocent hostages. Today’s Turkey lives in a paradox. It blossoms economically, it loses in external affairs losing friends and increasing in enemies that become sworn ones, like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. Also it continuous to diminish the possibility of being accepted in the EU. Even the well possessed US is not trusting it. Which actually means investors will start distancing themselves from Turkey. Subsequently that will lead to economic crisis and dangerous disposition. The issue at hand is today how can Turkey be prevented to cause any harm. And that is the concern of Western diplomats and government.

 Demosthenes Davvetas
Nov 042014
 

Ephemeral dictatorship in art

 

The FIAC organization, International exhibition of modern art, in Paris, this year set the predominant tone in globalized art market: works of Tim Neuger, Burkard Riemschneider, Olafur Elia, Paul Μac Carthy are sold at prices that stert from US 800000 up to a million US. In the auctions held by international houses these prices can be doubled or even tripled. Who are those that can afford to pay such prices at a period of economic crisis? Mainly very rich industrialists, businesspersons, collectors bankers and even some powerful institutions. Not to forget rich Arabs or their museums that compete Westerners in acquisition of artifacts. In buying modern art such as Jeff Koons’, Damien Hirst’s, or Paul Mac Carthy’s, it means you are aware of the ephemeral nature of current events and the sexual provocation of these artifacts. How else can it be perceived that huge (25 meter) inflated plastic with sexual insinuation, at Place Vendome in Paris other than direct provocation? To buy in modern art means you invest still in consumable and temporal, corruptible and consciously fragile. All these “peculiar” artifacts that reach the boundaries of relief and lack mental exercise or adventures (with some notable exceptions such as Kieffer or Bazelitz), create an artistic language that is opposite to what really art is. The therapeutic role that Aristotle gave to art, or even the savior given though beauty by Dostoyevsky, or the intellectualism given by Joseph Beuys, are gone. Modern art is characterized by anecdotal experiments of a plastic language, by kidding and ironies but also by a cynicism that deducts any feeling or stochastic humanitarianism. Here we are talking about the industry of the commercial humor. Those few that have been able to deny this leveling spirit, they remain in direct dialog with that, which true art was and will always be. What makes an artifact true art? Mainly the deposited honesty of the artist in the context and the shape of the artifact. His Personal bias is unique therefore the work has elements of uniqueness. A modern art child, the contemporary, refused the innovative uniqueness of later masters such as Picasso, Mattise, Dali, Miro, and surrendered itself in the sweet hug of marketing and communication. No one can even think the existence of a great artist without the support of a famous gallerist or a powerful communication mechanism. Actually, to the point that, someone can easily ascertain that the art market and the media determine the value of the artifact and the artist. Today’s artistic creation does not have the existential agony or the spiritual uplift that are challenges against death even in the humblest human instincts. Antony Tapies, actually, the great Spanish artist used to say that when you have a headache is enough to place a piece of art on your forehead and you’ll heal. And he believed it as so many others of the modern era. Such a suggestion today initiates most likely sarcastic smiles and ironic expressions. In today’s globalization, an artifact is a financial product in the stock market, it is the birth of a “miniscule subversion” deposition in spite of all these subversive artists that are being produced and supported by the capitalist system, the problem with modern art, is that is in danger to easily get entrapped in the logic of the artistic witticism, to operate as stock market inflationary bubble, and utilized by the powers of the system to enforce totalitarianism, the dictatorship of the Ephemeral.
Demosthenes Davvetas
University Professor, artist, poet
Advisor to the Prime Minister, Antonis Samaras, on culture

My article,which was published in kyriakatiki elfterotypia at 02 November titled:
Ephemeral dictatorship in art 
The FIAC organization, International exhibition of modern art, in Paris, this year set the predominant tone in globalized art market: works of Tim Neuger, Burkard Riemschneider, Olafur Elia, Paul Μac Carthy are sold at prices that stert from US 800000 up to a million US. In the auctions held by international houses these prices can be doubled or even tripled. Who are those that can afford to pay such prices at a period of economic crisis? Mainly very rich industrialists, businesspersons, collectors bankers and even some powerful institutions. Not to forget rich Arabs or their museums that compete Westerners in acquisition of artifacts. In buying modern art such as Jeff Koons’, Damien Hirst’s, or Paul Mac Carthy’s, it means you are aware of the ephemeral nature of current events and the sexual provocation of these artifacts. How else can it be perceived that huge (25 meter) inflated plastic with sexual insinuation, at Place Vendome in Paris other than direct provocation? To buy in modern art means you invest still in consumable and temporal, corruptible and consciously fragile. All these “peculiar” artifacts that reach the boundaries of relief and lack mental exercise or adventures (with some notable exceptions such as Kieffer or Bazelitz), create an artistic language that is opposite to what really art is. The therapeutic role that Aristotle gave to art, or even the savior given though beauty by Dostoyevsky, or the intellectualism given by Joseph Beuys, are gone. Modern art is characterized by anecdotal experiments of a plastic language, by kidding and ironies but also by a cynicism that deducts any feeling or stochastic humanitarianism.  Here we are talking about the industry of the commercial humor. Those few that have been able to deny this leveling spirit, they remain in direct dialog with that, which true art was and will always be.  What makes an artifact true art? Mainly the deposited honesty of the artist in the context and the shape of the artifact. His Personal bias is unique therefore the work has elements of uniqueness. A modern art child, the contemporary, refused the innovative uniqueness of later masters such as Picasso, Mattise, Dali, Miro, and surrendered itself in the sweet hug of marketing and communication. No one can even think the existence of a great artist without the support of a famous gallerist or a powerful communication mechanism. Actually, to the point that, someone can easily ascertain that the art market and the media determine the value of the artifact and the artist. Today’s artistic creation does not have the existential agony or the spiritual uplift that are challenges against death even in the humblest human instincts.  Antony Tapies, actually, the great Spanish artist used to say that when you have a headache is enough to place a piece of art on your forehead and you’ll heal. And he believed it as so many others of the modern era. Such a suggestion today initiates most likely sarcastic smiles and ironic expressions. In today’s globalization, an artifact is a financial product in the stock market, it is the birth of a “miniscule subversion” deposition in spite of all these subversive artists that are being produced and supported by the capitalist system, the problem with modern art, is that is in danger to easily get entrapped in the logic of the artistic witticism, to operate as stock market inflationary bubble, and utilized by the powers of the system to enforce totalitarianism, the dictatorship of the Ephemeral. 
Demosthenes Davvetas
University Professor, artist, poet
Advisor to the Prime Minister, Antonis Samaras, on culture