Vancouver, British Columbia

We've been so occupied with everything we've found to do in the lower 48 that we hadn't even been up to Canada. However, we were determined to get up there prior to September 6th because of an art exhibit from the Orsay Museum in Paris. The Orsay is known as the Impressionist museum because that's where the bulk of those artists' paintings are shown. We are talking Renoir, Degas, Manet, etc. The exhibit featured one hundred plus drawings and watercolors. The focus was the changing role of women from 1850 - 1900 as seen through the eyes of the European artists of that time. I had never realized before what a case could be made that this era was the beginnings of the role of women changing to take up a more significant and equal role in Western culture. Considering the seeds of female political revolution were sown in the United States in 1848, I shouldn't have been that surprised. (For you non-historians - I'm referring to the Seneca Falls Convention called by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott in 1848 to address the injustices toward women. Stanton wrote the "Declaration of Sentiments" based on the Declaration of Independence in which she cataloged 18 points of inequality and injustice toward women - the 9th of which was their inability to vote. To anyone reading this who has a daughter - this is HER history in this country.) I digress, as usual. Let's go back to the art exhibition.

The Impressionists moved away from traditional art and forms of art not only in application of paint and choices of color, but also in choices of subject. Prior to 1850, affluent women were treated worse than children - their property and even their person were considered owned by first their fathers and then their husbands. This was justified by the myth that women were weak not only in the body, but also in the head - no brains, you know and hysterical to boot. Too delicate to cope with life - must be protected from reality at all costs. Art portrayed women in formal portraiture in formal dress as companion pieces to their husband's formal portrait. The Impressionists, because they chose to paint outside the art schools of the time with their restricted subjects already chosen for the artists, turned to their wives, sweethearts, and to women who would be willing to pose for money. This allowed them to pick their own subjects and their own poses and follow their own ideas of what art should show.

Being men, they decided to paint nude women. Isn't that a big surprise? Actually, women have always been painted - both in the nude and clothed - but prior to 1850 if the women were not in formal realistic portraits, then they were idealized as either Madonna's, biblical figures, or as goddesses from Greek and Roman myths. The Impressionists turned this totally upside down and showed women doing shocking things like bathing or combing their hair!!!!!! This was scandalous at best and lewd at worst. These cherished, protected doll like figurines (women of the time) didn't have bodily needs and functions. Horror - talk about take away the romance. Doesn't this put Manet' famous picture of The Picnic (1863) in more understandable terms? He's making several statements about art as well as the role of women in society - she's nude and vulnerable while her male companions are clothed (as in rights and protections of the law - while she has none). Incidentally, what is now considered one of the greatest paintings in Western civilization was uniformly lambasted by the critics of the day.

The Impressionists and post-Impressionists extended the artistic subject matter of how women should be painted to include women who actually worked for a living. Since in the 19th century (and a lot of the 20th century) the number of professions and jobs open to women was quite slim, is it any wonder that we see prostitutes, actresses, and servers such as waitresses and laundresses appearing in paintings - think Toulouse-Latrec.

Another great part of this exhibit was they had two early moving pictures of Paris - taken around 1900. One is at the base of the Eiffel Tower, and you can actually see ONE horseless carriage. Even in 1900 the small number of women actually walking around in the streets is noticeable. The other film is simply young women who are factory workers leaving their factory. Drake and I were both struck at the formality of the dress of women who were sweating for a living. They all had long hair (of course), dresses to the ankle, corsets, formal hats, and multiple piece clothing. That leads me to the other part of the exhibition which was fascinating. They exhibited three actual dresses - one each from the 1860's, 1870's and 1880's. It was a visual to demonstrate how much more freedom women had obtained in that 30 year period as evidenced by lessening of restrictive clothing. (Of course, to my 20th/21st century eye, the 1880's dress looked pretty uncomfortable and restrictive, but not even close to the hoop skirts of the 1860's.)

I was much more moved by this exhibit than Drake was. It struck me forcefully how hard fought our struggle has been to be considered equal not only in the eyes of the law but also in those unwritten rules of society that govern all our lives. I think the women's equality is only the crust on the pie that is our society, and can easily crumble without our constant vigilance. I think the whole concept of women with equal legal, and economic status in society is way too new to be taken for granted. Consider this: More than half the planet is still mired in ideas about women and their places in society that are stuck not in the 19th century, but the 10th century.

Vancouver is a magnificent city. There's just one quirk which cost us hours and hours of frustration and wasted time. This is a populated area of 2 million people. There are NO freeways. In the 1960's the city fathers decided they neither wanted nor needed that type of development, and simply didn't build any. On the plus side, you have very distinct neighborhoods reminiscent of what New York City or Boston must have been like prior to the advent of criss-crossing freeways thru those cities. On the negative side, if you use those new-fangled horseless carriages to get around, it's gridlock. It took us 2.5 hours to drive from downtown to the outskirts of Vancouver traveling at about 10 mph. Imagine driving from Hurst, Texas to Rowlett, Texas on city streets choked with bumper to bumper cars - without let-up. Oh, it ruined the trip to this alluring city. Knowing what I know now, I would never, ever drive a car into Vancouver for any reason. If we return, and the experience was so bad, that's a toss-up, we will park at the fartherest southern terminal of the Sky Train (think commuter mono-rail in the sky) and ride into town on the train. I'm sure their transit system works really well - if you know where you're going. However, for the out of town visitor, this transportation system is a closed box. I always read up before I go anywhere, and I wasn't given a whisper of what to expect or how to circumvent the gridlock.

On a personal note - I finally got back on the bike - still bruised and sore. We found a great trail around the county's regional airport, and we rode 10 miles yesterday. Next sightseeing trip is Mount Rainier. We leave for 4 days there on Monday (Labor Day) thinking we could avoid some of the crowds since school is almost ready to start. (Burlington starts back on Sept. 8th.) Washington is still pretty rural when you escape Seattle and Spokane, and the good weather is from mid June onward. Hay is being harvested in August - no time for school then. We come home for the weekend after the Rainier trip to go to the Dahlia Show in Bellingham (15,000 blooms - can't wait!), regroup and do laundry. Then, the second week of September we are going to the Olympic peninsula - specifically Neah Bay (almost at the most northwesterly tip), and the Hoh Rainforest. There will be lots of pix from those blogs. So, if you suffered through this addition of the blog, you'll enjoy the next few more.

Finally, I stumbled onto a lady's dahlia garden of about a half acre that's just blocks from our apartment. She sells cut dahlia's (5 for $1.00!), and I bought some. Now, I have fresh flowers in the house for a pittance. My favorite one is called "Santa Claus" - it's Christmas red and white stripes. It looks good enough to eat.