 Well, good evening everyone. For those of you who haven't had the pleasure to meet yet, my name is Sarah Turner and I'm the director of the Paul Mellon Centre. I want to extend a very warm welcome to all of those of you here in the lecture room at the Paul Mellon Centre in London, but also those of you joining us from around the world. We have hundreds of people joining online, so it's always great to have these events where we connect as a community in the building online, through our live stream feed. And obviously I think our packed audience is testament to the reputation of our speaker, Professor Griselda Pollock, and also the interest in her new book. And here it is, I've got my treasured personal copy here, Woman in Art, Helen Rosenau's little book of 1944, in which the Paul Mellon Centre published at the end of last year. And all of us at the centre are extremely proud to have published this book, and I hope it gives you all a very sure sign of the kinds of art histories we're interested in funding and publishing. And I think it represents a kind of art history which is challenging, it's complex and it's creative, and presents a new understanding of how art histories in Britain have been shaped and written. And indeed, I was talking to Griselda about that before, it's really part of our thinking about the centre going forward as well as accounting in different ways about how intellectual histories have been written and shaped, how we archive those, how we collect them and how we publish them. I think the case of Helen Rosenau, a Jewish intellectual who fled Germany in the 1930s to London, and her pioneering feminist art history project has much to tell us about the cultural ferment of mid-20th century art historiography. And I think much of that history, however, has been swallowed up by more dominant narratives, and the careful tusk of recovering these traces has been painstakingly undertaken in this book by Griselda with contributions from Adrian Rifkin and Rachel Dixon. And Griselda works extremely closely with our publishing team here because this is quite a complex publishing project in its own right, incorporating many of these layers and traces of history and how you actually do that, how you make a book happen, I think it's really important to kind of celebrate and mark that moment. So I wanted to say as well thank you to our senior editor Emily Leeds who I think is sat on the stairs because she also had an important role into the final shaping of this book as did the designer and the wider editorial team. And I think it's quite a unique publication really that not only incorporates Rosenau's text, republish with new illustrations alongside Griselda's chapters that provide original insights into the text, but also I think do that bridging work between the concerns of 1944 and 2024. So as a result a little book has become rather a big book, but I hope that Helen Rosenau would also be curious about what we've done and extremely proud. So I want to give the floor in as much time as possible to Griselda now for her talk, so many of you will be familiar with her biography, I'm not going to read it all out in full, but say to consult our website for more details about the book project and Griselda's career. And after the talk we'll have time for a Q&A session, also time to celebrate and toast the book over a reception and I think this is the result of many lifetimes of work. So without further ado, please will you all join me in welcoming Griselda Pollock to the Paul Mallor Centre. OK, back to little people down here. OK, so I just get shorter and shorter. I don't know if this is happening to other people over the age of 70. You suddenly find your coach is going along the ground. So I'll stand up tall. Anyway, thank you very, very much. It's an incredible honour to be speaking here four years ago. I came with a proposal and like most proposals, those was rough and excited and all the rest of it, but it was welcomed by those at the Mellon and has been crafted in every physical as well as intellectual, by the incredible pleasure of the work of the editorial team, the directorships, Mark Hallett and obviously Sarah Tennant. And I want to thank them to start off with making this possible. I also want to welcome today Helen Rosenau's son, Helen Rosenau's daughter-in-law and Helen Rosenau's grandson, who are very kindly with us. And of course it's a very emotional moment when your mum-in-law or your mum or your grandma suddenly becomes the object of this such a serious and weighty process of things, etc. But indeed they have their own copy with us. So I want to welcome you and thank you enormously for the support you gave me during the writing of this act, sharing your archive with me and we went through things and learned a great deal more to give the sort of substance of someone who had encountered Helen Rosenau. So my thanks to everybody and we'll see this so we're going to set off on our journey. So the first question for everybody is who was Helen Rosenau? So she's not just any old thing. She's an art historian which was quite an achievement in a sense in the beginning of the 20th century, born in 1900. She's an archaeologist. She is a social historian of art which means she's definitely aware of materialism and on that order of the things which see how that matters to us. She was also an architectural art historian. She's a feminist thinker of a generation that we forget to understand that between the emancipation struggle and the 1968, there are a swathes of continuous intellectual and political and feminist activity by women. But she's also one of the pining jury studies scholars. So she's quite an interesting figure to look at and put together. Also such a stylish dresser, I had to find this. We didn't find this photograph for the book but I put it up. I know she would have been a woman after my own heart. But being very serious about it, now suddenly we put aside fashion, she was offering us a feminist sociology of knowledge which stands up against phallocentric positivism. You're immediately entranced now because you'll think, what the hell is that? I will find out but I mean you'll see what positivism is. It's somebody who doesn't actually think that you need to think at all about things. You just need to look at things and tell it as it is. But she also recreated for me in art history as an investigation of symbolic form. Now this was another great puzzle to me because I had not come across this philosophical proposition. I'm now terribly skilled at knowing about symbolic form but that will come too. But she's also not only for a philosophical art historian but one who's working in the notion of social historical transformation. So she's not thinking that art floats by above the world. It's deeply rooted in social processes. So how do you put that all together and make that work? So we look at the publication. She's got a great long list of articles but not that huge number of books. But if you said, how could this give you a portrait of the intellect? You would say, oh she's a medievalist and she looks on Christian buildings. The only monograph ever written in England up to 1948 on Jacques-Louis David. So she writes about revolutionary French artists. She's obviously interested seriously in architecture, three books here. And here's the Catholic cathedrals of Cologne and indeed Bremen. And here's the last book she wrote which is the vision of the temple, the image of the temple in Jerusalem and Judaism and Christianity in 1979. So what on earth is this book doing amongst the others? And how does it relate to the only other book she wrote apart from the Jacques-Louis David in the 1940s? Which is a short history of Jewish art which opens us into this emerging field of Jewish studies. So this is what I have to begin to explain to you. Now Helen Rosenau was born very exotically in Monaco in Monte Carlo because her father was a physician, a doctor who ran a spa. Where else to run a spa? But Monte Carlo, go to Monte. And then they left and went to Bat Kissingen, obviously in German Bat is a spa. So this is she grew up in a spa town, very elegant as you can see. And we're going to jump now to 1982 when she writes to somebody and we have this fraction given by Mike and Louise. I wonder whether you have ever heard of my little book, which is where we get the title from, which was published by Isomorph in 1943. Yes, it came out in November 1943. So we are matching the 40 year anniversary or the 80 year anniversary, which was published by Isomorph. My title is Woman in Art and it immediately sold out. Lucky thing. I mean, never have I sold out a book. And it immediately sold out. My friends urged me to have it republished perhaps with a post face or a new edition. Would you be at all interested? Now we do not know who madam was, but clearly we are answering that finally now. Here is her own copy inscribed photographs provided by Michael and Louise here. So I wonder if she was suddenly inspired by the fact that all through the 1970s she witnessed book after book after book after book after book being published about women artists from why have there been no great women artists, to our hidden heritage, to women artists, to women artists, to women in art, history of painters. And maybe she said, well maybe this is the moment people will like to republish my book. Now in Britain the only books that came out in the 70s about this was Germaine Greer's horrible book, The Obstacle Race, in which she says there could never have been great women artists because their egos were so damaged by patriarchy that they could never achieve anything. So it's a sort of social pathology of women's damaged egos. So we're not too fond of that one because it competed with of course mine. So you can put aside things. But our book Rosie Parkinson, my book called Mistress's Women Art and Ideology, which getting a little closer to Rosanna's title, was actually finished in 1979 although it took a rather long time to get published. The other book that's probably not on your agenda is in fact a very interesting French book, François Daubonne, who is the founder of feminist ecology. She wrote already about ecological issues in 1970s, but she wrote the Histoire de l'Ile, les lut des sexes, for the history of art and gender struggle, as a reply to Nicos Hadjelau's history of art and class struggle, which came out in 1973. But in 1977 she gave an answer to it, which is already way ahead of anything that my lot ever came up with, but it's going to be republished in France soon. So here is a later picture of Helen Rosenau, and she was a feminist since the 1920s, went to a lecture, I'll tell you about that. She was an art historian trained in Hamburg, which is a very serious place to be trained as an art historian, and she became a lecturer at the University of Manchester from 1951 till her retirement in 1970, but she still continued working and teaching in London thereafter. But you'll see there's a gap between 1930 when she finishes her PhD and 1951 when she gets a post, right? And it's that gap of being an exile refugee in Britain trying to find a place in the academic world. And you'll see that she's part of a group who didn't find it compared to all those ignited, glorious men who did. But we'll talk about that shortly. Okay, so I want to go back to the 79, which is a missed encounter. I'm sure not everybody's recognising who's here. That was Griselda Pollock in 1972. I was a feminist since 1966. I've been a feminist activist since 1970. I was a PhD student, finishing my PhD very belatedly in 1980, and I too was a lecturer at the University of Manchester, but missed her and nobody ever told me that she had been there before me. It's kind of very serious, and although I'm retired, I'm still working obviously. But the most uncanny coincidence is caused by this. I showed you the last book she wrote, The Vision of the Temple, which was published by Robert Oresco, who had founded his own imprint. He was a student of Witkofer, who was another of the German-Jewish refugees who came to Britain, and he was an architectural historian. So this is perhaps how the link came. But he also, Robert Oresco, commissioned me as a graduate student to write my first two books on the basis of which I eventually got my job at Leeds, because it's good to have publications. They didn't probably look at them very much, but he also commissioned Old Mistresses. So these two books, the manuscripts for these two books, lay side by side on his desk. And I find that very poignant, sometimes even more teary moving, but crucially interesting about the end of one academic life and the beginning of another, but I never knew about her. And that's what I'm kind of interested in, is how could one generation emerge but never know that there was one before. So let's go back to 1940-44, the years in which Dr Helen Rosenau wrote this book. She did not write it at the Courtauld, but she wrote it at the London School of Economics. Why? Professor Carl Mannheim, who was another refugee from the University of Frankfurt, who was her supervisor. And he enabled her to write this feminist and socio-historical analysis of women as a symbolic form analysed through images. So we're not going to be talking about women. We're not talking about women artists. We're talking about an idea. And to be a symbolic form is that something that is thought, it's abstract, it's not the real thing, it's the abstract idea of something, and we have to work out what woman is the abstract idea of. It's not just the name of persons who might either be born like or choose to be considered women. It was sold out, it's an independent publisher, so we need to think about this very interesting formally. A paperback in 1944, a mere eight years after the first paperbacks came out, plastic and ring bound, reasonably priced. I've changed the site. I think it's more like £10 than £25. But on the cover is this very interesting, now very well-known figure. It's not a Venus, I call it a villain or figure, which you can see here how tiny it is. It's 11 centimetres, so this is not a monumental piece of sculpture, but it was only excavated in 1908, which means this idea that something like this was made 33,000 years ago, or before the common era, is a phenomenon of the early 20th century. So this is a very crucial thing, it is very old, but its presence in our knowledge resources is part of the early modernist period. This is the back of the book, and notice it's an academic book because it has Helen Rose and now Dr Phil PhD, because she had not only a PhD from Hamburg, she had an incomplete second PhD, which was required in Germany to teach in a university at 2, which was interrupted in the University of Bonn, and then she did a third at the University of London at the Courtaulds. This is one of the very first people to do a PhD at the Courtauld founded in 1932. This is number one of the Isomorph series, lots of others planned, none of them ever happened because wartime publishing was not a good time to launch something. It was produced by a man called Anthony Frosthug who introduced Bauhaus Design to Britain in terms of book publishing, and he's a very important figure, and if you're interested, this wonderful book by Robin Kinross documents the whole project of this transnational exchange between Bauhaus modernism and him. So we've got a really interesting little book and this cover combination is again crucial because she's not talking about a lineage from 33,000 years before the common era to a work by a contemporary sculptor. She's laying them side by side, and I find this little photograph of 1932, just as Barbara Hepworth is trying to move beyond figuration into something that's going to be more symbolic or abstract. Here we have a figure of woman produced by the kind of modernist sculpture inspired by the discoveries of these pre-classical, non-Western works. So brilliantly with the designers we've come up with a way to recreate that cover, but you can see in 1944 100 pages, 55 illustrations, black and white, 2020 for 388 pages, 35 pounds, 139 illustrations, thank to the Holberg Prize, thank you very much, this is what paid for it, all illustrated in colour. So we now move, I hope, to my second question. Why is there a big book about her little book? This seems a little out of keeping, so what's in the big book contents? This is why you have to see this, is the original beautifully packaged inside this unbelievably heavy book, and that's what we've done with colour, so it's got a new bibliography and it's also in full colour. A new part one with Adrian Rivkin, a personal memoir, cos he is her student and was mentored by him, by her, and he's the one who said to me casually about ten years ago, don't forget the little book by Helen Rosenau, and I thought, mmm, difficult to forget a book I didn't know about. I'll find it, which I could do then on the internet, and discover to my horror how a whole feminist career had gone by without knowing it. The second person is with the wonderful Rachel Dixon from the Benori Gallery, who's here, who wrote a very important article tracing literally the experience and the documents that document her experience as a refugee scholar in England. I personally never use the word emigrae because emigrae's a voluntary. You decide, don't like the French Revolution, I'll often go to some other place in Europe. These are refugees, these are people who were in fear of their lives and had lost their livelihoods. So this is a very important thing and we discover some very important things I'll mention later and then I've done an intellectual portrait of Helen Rosenau using a little chapter of the book where she uses Rodin's figure of la pensée of thought which is carved from Camus Clodell, but just as a reading of this passage of how she uses this idea to enable us to have a portrait, and then as some of you will know that I'm given to writing a lot. So I then did a reading of the book in seven essays, but they're short little, so you don't wait down, you can do one a night. And that's quite this. So this is how it got long. So I analysed the cover and the title, the forward and the preface, the plates and the method, the process and its feminist context. I formulated a bibliography and analysed it. I then read the chapters to try and make sense what kind of feminist art history is this that she's producing and how, and then I put it in the context of the kind of intellectual formations of the contemporary between women's time, feminism's time, arts time and Jewish time to try and see all these different temporalities that the work instance, and then there's some personal afterthoughts. Now, I'll put the question again. Why did I write a big book now about her little book of 1944? Just a small few questions for you to think about, but that's really the heart of it. This does require us to rethink what you have been taught as the formation of art history, what has been left out and what it means for the ways in which I think the present moment of people talking about what feminism and feminist art histories is being seriously misunderstood because of a missing sense of it's already having a place in the debates about what art history is and why this is happening in terms of Britain. So let me speed up a little bit. So these are questions that we have to... How is it that a book could become so invisible in 30 years? Why was its memory lost by the time we were compelled to pose the question of women art again in the 1970s? And what did I or shall we learn by reconsidering this book in the conditions of its emergence and in the context of becoming compelled to think about it and to think with it? So it's not just recovering missing feminist memories which was the title of what I lectured on in 2014 but that this is a damning critique of the bare-faced sexism of art historiography let alone of the art historical profession in Britain by 1970. And there is no two ways about this. This is not anything that we can kind of juggle with. It's actually a political and ideological project that happened. Now, this is all the more shocking because Helen Rose now has the most impressive art historical credentials of anybody. She starts her studies with Heinrich Werthlin. Now any of you who are into art historians will know he's Mr Big, right? He's absolutely the founder of a major intellectual form even though people like to kick this out and say we don't want to do formalism. We are nowhere without formalism. This is one of the most important series. You can see it's really principles of art history, serious work. And she started art history for 20 years and then she studies with these amazing medievalists, somewhat less famous in terms of General Paul Clement Aldolf Goldschmidt and, in fact, the first woman to be a professor of classical art history in Germany, Margrethe Bieber, who was in Britain, another refugee in Britain in 33-34. She has a defil from Hamburg, a defil from Bremen and when she goes to Hamburg she's studying with a very, very young Owen Panofsky who has just got his first professorship who was also a student of Goldschmidt and Bieber as medievalists. We have to bring in Dora Moss Panofsky. She did Mary Panofsky and lost her own identity for a moment, et cetera. But she's an art historian, she's in Hamburg and, of course, Avivaaburg. So she's in the hottest place to be studying art history in the middle of the 1920s. And she does a PhD on architecture. But so she's not looking at a verflinian style of architecture. She's digging into the absolute base. Now Cologne Cathedral has, I think, begins in the fourth century, right? And then it takes until the 19th century finally to get its spires. But she's down in the basement saying what is the conceptual idea that is planted by the layout that you can start with? Because, as you can see, this is an Andrew Cross. Most, if you go to most cathedrals, you've got the other crosses, not the Greek cross, et cetera. So you've got a long transept and then the cross, but this is mid-cross. So this is very interesting. She gets her PhD because she's doing it with Panofsky, who was also an architectural art historian, who in 24 wrote this unreadable book called Perspectivus Symbolic Form. Well, I'm sure some of you have read it and teach it with confidence and understand what he was talking about. But I was spiti. So that's very important because he himself was doing medieval architecture and doing this model. She then goes to Bremen and here she is on the corner, leading an archaeological dig, again under this other cathedral for her habilitation thesis. Are they remarkable? These are such extraordinary buildings, but she's down in the fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth century crypt. Try and work out where they first made the structures before they got layered and layered and layered. So she's pretty good. So I'm going to reinstate her. Here's a picture from Emily Levine's dream world, Land of Humanist, Wabog, Acera Panofsky and the Hamburg School. Well, I'm sorry. The banker has to go. And we're going to put her in there. And on the left is Ernst Casira, who wrote the philosophy of symbolic form. Arby Wabog, who produced the idea of the builder atlas. Owen Panofsky, who writes perspective. And so now, we are going to put her there. So that's what I think first thing I've done is to try and get this to understand that women art historians are part of art history's theoretical and methodological pantheon. Now to justify this, we have to look at the book. So you're going to look at this list and say wives and lovers, motherhood and further aspects of creativeness. Oh, how disappointing. Your hopes were raised. But if we understand woman as a symbolic form, a symbolic form, it's an attempt to give a form to something so you can think it. And what do you think when you think woman are the social relations of kinship, which is what Cloud Levy Straus will come up with, which involves the legal relationship of marriage. So you have to put aside all your anxieties about who's going to have civil partnerships or get married or not. This is just, it's a universal institution for the exchange of goods. You exchange children one way and you get goods back. Right, that's all it is. So if you're going to have children to exchange, you've got to have legal control over the product of what happens when men and women have sex. They may produce children, which are then oh, okay, you can have my child and I'll have your camels. And this is the fundamental of Levy Strausian notion of what kinship does. But there are also erotic relations of desire. Now there's lots of forms of desire. But in this particular case woman articulates certain institutionalised erotic relations of desire and therefore institutionalised the non-institutionalised the other kinds of relationships that are excluded from these legal, theological and sociological things. There are the passions of the body. There are social roles within a certain division of labour and in institution. There's the issue of generational change and also as we get towards modernity, woman articulates a struggle for creativity and agency. So once you have those in mind you can go and look at art because you say how does it articulate not a woman or women or images of women and images of men, but these constituting relations that produce linguistically the terms of the exchange or the terms of the system terms of the ways of thinking bodies, desires, eroticism, generation and agency. Okay, so I just move on here. So I just want to interrupt this because we need to go back to two things to get woman in art and context which involves the politics of the moment it's written. So 44 is the moment it's written so that means Helen Rosenart escapes from Germany when her because of the first, one of the first laws that the Third Reich passed or even before the Third Reich, the National Socialists when their power is to deprive all Jewish people of the right to an employment in any government so you have to go somewhere else to even be able to live. So she comes to London and tries to obviously get into the English British academic world by writing a thesis on the history, not of cathedrals but of the synagogue. Now this is a little obvious okay I could hide behind being a Christian medievalist even though I'm Jewish but no no she's going to do it on the architectural form and this is because this amazing synagogue was excavated in 1932 so it's another thing that surfaces right in this period and although everybody will write the books about Clark Hopkins I just want to remind you that it was excavated by two people, Clark Hopkins and Susan Hopkins who both excavated this synagogue. Now why is this interesting is because as you know and I'm sure you've been reading recently as you've been marching in the streets about Titus 28 to 81 who was a Roman emperor who in the Jewish Roman War captured Jerusalem destroyed the second temple and exiled all Jews from Jerusalem never allowed to come back into Jerusalem and he brought the treasures in triumph to Rome so if you've been watching your whichever raiders of the Lost Ark or whatever it is there's a whole lot to think they still think these treasures are somewhere in the catacombs of Rome and here they are being brought back to Rome and here they are on the walls of Europa so this is what I call the nachleben of the Jerusalem Temple which will eventually produce her book about this idea not of going down under the cathedrals but to understand this formula, this architectural formula of the temple as something that persists and gets reincorporated and rewritten but at the same time she's writing this when most of the synagogues in Germany were destroyed on 11 November this is a synagogue she knew well this is what it was left like so my argument is that her turn to Jewish studies was a defiance of third Reich fascism and as we've just sort of discovered in a sense this wonderful discovery that we've made that Helen Rosenau's name was in the black book for all of the Jews who would be arrested if Germany conquered Britain as everybody thought it was going to in 1940 so she's writing about the synagogue on the cusp of potential destruction so I think was her feminist study of women in art also an anti-fascist socialist feminist Jewish defiance of the third Reich so I want to put these in relationship to each other as a crucial element okay let's go okay third question was her woman in art therefore as a piece of art history in some way a response to this key idea that Warburg put forward in Hamburg which is that we study art as images which are carriers of not symbolic meaning but pathos they're the carriers of certain kinds of affective states which are articulated through gestures and certain compositions and that's what means the Lachleben is the continuous life of certain ways of formulating these unformulable things like ecstasy or anger or desire or rage or violence into formulas of that persist and recur when people wish to articulate that so this is what a lecture would look like Warburg which rather looks not unlike a good PowerPoint actually when this is how he laid it out so recently they reconstructed the whole thing and you could see this grand scale this tracing of the persistence of certain formula of these violence death so my experiment was to put all the images together from her book and see whether I could see this so we go back to wives and lovers motherhood and for the forms of creativity what would happen if you looked at the illustrations of the images she chooses as pathos formulate these formulations of certain states of mind or emotions etc but of kinship desire and the law that would be the couple of generation affect and life which would be the parental child what we call motherhood there's no proof of fatherhood so you can't have a pathos formula of fatherhood in the same way you can of motherhood and then in the modern times of singularity and agency how do you start erupting out of the sociological and cultural structures of that kind so I don't think it is purely that but I think it's a very interesting exercise then a fourth question why did I combine a bibliography by author, by data publication and subject area was it reveals what sources that she was building on which then itself reveals the persistent engagement in 19th and early 20th century anthropology with the question of kinship of these double relations the lateral relationship between adults and the vertical relationship between generations and these are cross cultural these are anthropologists studying almost universal incidents of societies having ways of organising that and they're all different but they start to begin so it is crucial because it denies 19th century scientific arguments of scientific or biological bases for difference they are all constructed but it's not constructed sociologically it's actually symbolically constructed to articulate meaning I also found out then how many subject areas you know how much psychoanalysis was that how much sociology was in there how much philosophy was in there how much literature was in there not a lot of art history and also how many women how much of these major developments in anthropology sociology and the rest in the 19th century were equally being produced by men and women too crucial that you need to understand one is Gertrude Kinnell-Ziml some of you will know of who Georg Ziml is but Gertrude Kinnell-Ziml was an artist studied in Paris showed in the Berliner Kunstausstellung then married Georg Ziml and they co-created intellectual circle with Mariana and Max Weber and if you've done sociology 101 Max, it'll be Max Marx Weber, Dirkheim and Talcott Parsons these again miss out her and Raina Maria Rilke Reinholden Sabine Lepsius she's the painter on the right here she joined the women's movement she moved into philosophy and she published under a name and what is her book reality and legal regulation in sexual life so absolutely spot on for this chapter she is joined by Mariana Weber and this is hardly a photograph a painting of a great intellectual so you'll see anything we'll see in a minute but I lined up there's a whole series of these incredible women including Jane Harrison who are absolutely changing all these sociological anthropological classical feelings now now she's much this is a serious intellectual look if you cut out the pretty dress these are her books from 1906 to 1948 occupation and marriage wife and mother and the development of law the question of divorce authority and autonomy in marriage on the valuation of housework women and culture, women and love the fulfilled life so once this seems to me a crucial way of being able to read with whom is Helen Rosenau in conversation once we put her back into the categories established in the feminist sociologies of Zimel and Marian Weber we know she went to hear Gertrude Zimel so she's the bearer of this into this book now if we read the text I'm just going to move on a little faster and you can read about the preface but we're going to find that she's mobilising a sociology of knowledge as a social history of art she's mobilising anthropology she's mobilising get that I thought make this go slow more slowly the idea of not women as having inherent character characters but it has social and psychological beings now that's really crucial for our contemporary ways of thinking because we either have feminists engaging in questions of subjectivity and psychoanalysis or we have the sociological trend but you don't hold these two together and that's I think what she dares to do why this is important is because she was working with Carl Mannheim and this was the great revelation for me because if you go to any sociological community they say oh yes yes yes yes you know art history no we have no knowledge but he is in debate in conversation I'm going to jump on this a bit further with our friend okay now I'm going to have to do this slow with Owen Panofsky because they are all reading art history in order to work out this question of how you take social systems but also imagine mentalities right how do we understand how people thought about the social systems or articulated the social systems they are living in that's partly what we do as art historians we take the things that people paint or make or build but then we try to say they are the product of social systems but they are not caused or determined by them we do something specific which is to give a symbolic form to a living but it happens through a certain kind of formal process but also through a mentality and this is what the sociology of knowledge is knowledge is just I'm thinking and because it comes out of my brain it's all out of me or it's just pure thought it's sociological and it's sociological because your thought can either be the status quo that you think within the frames or your thought can be imaginative and then transformative so his major books are the sociology of knowledge and the ideology and utopia i.e. how do you have a kind of repeat of an obscuring thought or how do you theorise something that is potential transformation and what that needs is time which is then his other major thing is the theory of generations because what makes one generation think differently from another generation okay so when you're doing history of art they say in early Renaissance they thought like this and then they thought like this and then we come the baroque and they think like this and you just trace the symptoms of this but you don't understand why that change happened why there's a Caravaggio after Michelangelo is that there's some inspiration but they are completely different structures pictorially and symbolically and this is where we find from Jazz Elzner that Mannheim and Panofsky were in conversation about this and indeed very famous thing if you're taught iconography is that iconography is where Panofsky talks about what's the meaning of tipping your hat right but the original anecdote is Mannheim's anecdote when he runs he has a little story about how to understand different kinds of mentalities in actions as ethical and political and it's about somebody giving money to a beggar and it's not just the gesture it's actually the mentality of the person who makes the gesture and he says this man was selfish because he wanted me to be impressed that he'd given money it wasn't about the charity so we have this really interesting linking of the art historical conversation with these people we are precisely the ones in which she's doing on the other hand we have another side of Mannheim the only other person doing a feminist project at LSE side by side Helen Rose now and I must move on because you're going to watch your drink soon is Viola Klein who was another refugee from the Czech Republic a Jewish refugee from the Czech Republic and she is doing a project with him called the history of an ideology the feminine character so what she's doing is mobilising this book to analyse the writings of the major figures at the end of the 19th and earlier 20th century you are theorising what we will call woman a symbolic form or this condition so you've got Havelach Ellis Otto Weininger, Sigmund Freud the Vertings I mean some of you will know this Margaret Mead and she is analysing all the different ways these people are trying to think these concepts precisely or think as it were these two sets of relationships the lateral relationships and the generational relationship which we might call sex and gender and analysing where they are ideological i.e containing themselves in something that will be fixed and where they are transformative giving us a way out of the fixed visions of what we think of the patriarchal and that lies side by side with Simon de Beauvoir so we've got to put Helen Rose a feminist genealogy as well as an art historical genealogy because that is exactly what Simon de Beauvoir was researching more or less at the same time using the same terms of reading myth reading history reading literature to see how people had formulated these key ideas and in 49 she published this first chapter on looking at psychoanalysis looking at the surrealists looking at the Marxists how did they explain this question because she's trying to talk about a different side of this thinking of women she's analysing the myth so she's analysing the ideology of gender and what she says is this ideology of what she's calling a myth is fixed it's like a static myth projecting into a platonic heaven a reality grasped through experience or conceptualised from experience we live it or we try to grasp out of experience some way of gripping it and it transposes this diversity for fact value and empirical law it substitutes a transcendent idea timeless immutable necessary now I don't need to press this eternal feminine this notion of woman in this late 19th early 20th century think she's analysing this becomes an absolute truth so thus to the dispersed contingent multiple existence of women mythic thinking which is her term opposes the eternal feminine unique and fixed so that if anything happens that we can't contradict it on women behave and say I've got a brain I want to do this women are failing to be proper women we all know this but once we put these together I don't want to go into that anymore but Mannheim is interesting because he's the first person to teach the sociology of gender at the University of Frankfurt in the 1930s that was a surprise to me one of his many PhDs was Giselle Freud the great photographer that some of you know Emily one of her great pieces of page setting where she created this juxtaposition which I thought was a lovely little queer moment in this whole thing about Adrienne Monier photographing her lover Giselle Freud looking across at Virginia Woolf and of course I have this fantasy that Mannheim, Rosenau, Giselle Freud and Virginia Woolf had a dinner party and met in 1939 so I'm going to finish so what do we learn by reading this now that's too much for you so I'm going to tell you you have to read the book now but I'm just going to show you how wonderful it is when you start looking at images in this way because you're not looking for who made them you're not ignoring when they were made but you're not tying them to that type but you're seeing this diversity of inscriptions of these fundamental social, legal, theological relationships we call marriage or love or eroticism and here you've got Etruscan marriage fury marriage you've got one in the British Museum of the formation of this idea of what is marriage with these taking of the right hand which those of you know the van Eyck painting you'll know that happens again you've got all few seniority about the loss of the love you've got humour you've got political intellectuals working together you've got scientific intellectuals you've got sociologists how do you figure a couple of intellectual equals how do you figure scientists how do you figure thought how do you figure politics this becomes an interesting thing how do you figure power again and this one also the question of intellect to how inadequate this kind of representation is of women thinkers to some of the more interesting 20th century photographers most of whom were queer who were doing these amazing images of women intellectuals come on move forwards how do you have think about women as revolutionaries how do you think about women as anthropologists sociologists a suffrageton composer like Ethel Smyse how do you do cross cultural analysis of the different societies and one of the things I found so interesting in this book was to discover how many of the German-Jewish refugees became major scholars looking at African art particularly there's Eva Mayrits who's became a major figure documenting and was indeed made a queen in Ghana for her work in relation to her very long study of a shandy of art in the particular areas different areas and lived there for many years how there's Stella Cranbridge who's a very important figure who became the first professor of Indian art appointed by the Indians in Calcutta in 1924 and of course political diversity in terms of things the inscriptions of what we call motherhood we call it generational relationship whether you're looking at Hathor amongst the Egyptians Artemis Modiana of Ephesus in late classical things Celtic images of the northern European peoples of the Matronai the Catholic vision of this very strange thing of the opening virgin write the way through to Angelica Kaufman as a Greek story etc but through to these different instances of motherhood some violated some bereaved some the elective affinity of Steph mothering what kind of mothering happens without bearing children so these are completely expanding our vocabulary self articulation is a creative subject and I have to make one more thing about this so look at these images there are women in her book in particular and we'll see where they come from there's a lot of women artists in her book in 1944 some of these images come from one of the publications that came when Fiden came to London so these are the women artists who are documented in the 500 self portraits that and we find them occurring if I lighten them up in her book she looks to China she looks to medieval art she's looking at the different ways that religious law impacts the Goya is about divorce this in the Cypher Hall images either an unhappy couple or a man a woman with her client but she loves this picture of working class love this is how she describes the Picasso there now you can see how you can start to write a long book asking your questions and I want to just come to this one because if you start with the Villendorf figure 33,000 years ago you think oh it continues it's discontinuous it's diverse it's complex it requires all the skills of an art historian to read all these images which is a work that was made in 1937 so this is Barbara Hepworth in 1930s kind of classicising primitivising a little bit in the kind of terms that we shouldn't be using I should never have used that word but borrowing from a number of different more formalist traditions outside of the European tradition but this is the great breakthrough and it's exhibited in 1937 and it's the same idea how do you represent singularity of something which isn't phallic so everything is interesting to do with how you have a rising form how you have a form of a certain kind of fullness of the form that doesn't require us to have the sort of specificity of the breasts and the vagina as you have in the other this work was I said only excavated in 1908 so the modern work is part of this moment where the back history of art is being broken through by excavations in the late 19th early 20th century which carbon dating will emerge in the late 19th century early 20th century to enable people to confirm something that breaks out of the western christianocentric classicalocentric vision of what the history of art is and the modernists are of course challenging that but the type to personality type is a philosophical term used in the symbolic form philosophies but personality is the registration that history has changed the typologies right this is the radical all the sociologists that she's drawing on all the anthropologists is what happens when modernization unsettles everything and out of that of course will come the women's movements of the 19th century 1798 through to the 1898 through to the 1970s that we're all in that part of that process so I want to just finish if it will go forward is when we end the story of the chief writer with these works it's not about the art historical explanation of how you go from figuration to abstraction but how you could read these as a formulation in the barbarian sense of a formulation of a certain pathos the pathos of individualism or the pathos of the tunas the duality or how you could imagine this as symbolic aesthetic works in pre-classical art that now become intelligible in terms other than the berthlinian story of art and you ask yourself how do you figure singularity or relationality and that depends upon this relationship between what was found before you know the pre-classical that is discovered now the this is where I'm going to finish because we have to bring these two things in six years of her publication this book arrived from a young man with no credentials much wandering around the Warburg got commissioned by Feidin his only reason to be commissioned was he'd written an art history book for children and this is the most infantile book ever written conservative, positivist but so destructive because he says there's no such thing as art there are only artists and you've probably read that sentence so many times but that is the killer because everything I've talked to you about so far is about art this is women in art it's a completely different understanding of art that does not require us to have heroes, monographs biographies oh the suffering, oh the anguish oh the stories of all of these things now this book of course is not a story of art but a story of artists but it's devastating it's sold 8 million copies it's in 30 languages there is no one in this planet who has ever studied art history who has not been contaminated by this book right artist women in this book zero in all of those editions except Kate Corvitt's in a German edition they conceded now look at Feidin this is the beginning of an art history of artists and this has trapped women feminists into writing books about artists we can find them again we can have this exhibition in Madrid we can have this another one in America in Baltimore we can have great women artists until I can't be bothered to have by anymore and then we will get the most obscene book and this is so serious I mean this is not a joke because this book is the story of artists without men or feminists we all know that and it's taken me a long time so I will stand up and say this this is complete exposure of someone taking over the kind of whole 70s work of recovery but why has it won all these awards that has never been awarded to any of the brilliant books by Linda I'm sure Linda probably deserves them more than any of these things but I mean why is this we are in this situation but it's because of that moment of the 1950s I used to think it's just the beginning of the 20th century but we can now date the contest between the kind of art history that Rosenau brought to Britain and elaborated in this little book with this particular phenomenon and I see this why it matters that we understand the difference between monographic art history which ultimately now serves the market it's a brand and artists are being trained to have a brand to sell themselves by a practice as opposed to this great philosophical study of what art is as an attempt to think and formulate these structural relations okay so why did British culture adopt and reward the conservative patriarchal scholars I recommend you read Anderson who analyzes this moment in who came to Britain who stayed in Britain who left in Britain who was ignored by Britain because the British hate synthetic orders of thought right they love positivists you mention you begin to do this and I'm sure you're thinking this is not about art she's all talking about theory I don't want to read anthropology God knows what Casir is talking about symbolic forms sorry you can join the conservatives you know you can be part of a distinctive instinctive version to the very category of totality of thinking systems right and when we look at what happened who came to Britain who was rewarded so there is a white migration Sir Ernst Gombrish Sir Karl Popper Sir Louis Namier Sir Isaac Elin Sir Niclas Persna Sir this is a crucial thing for people to understand to take back into their teaching what was the effect of this precise moment and why did it disappear so when Volheim talks about the group of German peaking scholars like sorry I have to say this one um okay here Persna, Saxel, Janus Vilder, Edgar Vint, Rudolf Wittgever you've all probably heard of them right if you're anybody in any historically you know about them and they brought to Britain the intellectual sophistication they forced it to come of age but in that category there are no women not a single woman intellectualism whereas here's just a few of them he could have mentioned not all of them come to Britain but Ava Meyerwitz who is the one I mentioned Stella Crumrish I've mentioned Erica Titzer Conrad Marguerite Beaver these are all available figures who are part of this emigration that have changed the history of art and I am pretty sure and this is why I'm so passionate about it that come a few years down the line I and my generation will be as untaught, as unforgotten in the introductory courses of the history of art they will be, you can do a feminist course you can do some feminist art but we will not be integrated into the intellectual history of art history so my final point was how can I show trans generation feminist fidelity and I finally in the book saw correspondence between Julia Christaver who's been a guiding light in my work about the idea of temporalities of generations and this idea of this hinge between bodies and meaning between passion and the sign these are exactly the same things that are circulated through psychoanalysis and literary theory but also instead of a sociology of knowledge beside it there is also we need Foucau we need an archaeology of knowledge we need this critical understanding of the formation of the discourses the rules of formation so women's time is a we can explain it a bit more but when Michel Foucau says archaeology is a comparative analysis it is intended to reduce the diversity of discourses and to outline the unity that totalises them but to divide up their diversity into different figures now that is crucial for us trying to not end up with a thing that I do a bit of queer art history or I do postcolonial or I have to decolonise or maybe I do gender or I may I do women these figures are the figures of the absolutely compacted sets of social constructions we have class race, gender, sexuality we have broken them up but if we see them as entangled figures which are articulated all the time in different ways in the works of art often with exclusions, often with foregrounds we have the purpose of not having a unifying but a diversifying effect but not in this now labelling we must get away from this identity categories we have to have a form of understanding the structural which is why I use edwaglison's word I don't like intersectionality but the entanglement which requires consistent decipherment but we decipher it through art because art is already enacting these or formulating them in this way so on that basis I wish to thank you for your incredible patience and attention and on its 80th anniversary I am so thrilled to say that the melon said yes very sorry I've left you no time to argue with me so you want your take we can have polite questions here in arguments over drinks but I think we will have some time for some conversation now because there's so much on and I love that idea of entanglement because entanglement across forms across generations and doing that work actually I was just thinking as we sat here in Bloomsbury as well the social spaces in which these ideas are shaped in institutions through publishing and publishing houses and actually the work of taking a book and seeing it not just the work of a sole author but as a crucible of intellectual shape and intellectual history I felt a kind of opening up as we were leafing through its pages but each page contains a kind of deep sort of denjoconology or archaeology and like those metaphors of digging deep and rising up so that just for me I felt as we were watching and listening with you we were kind of doing that deep work of excavation well it was very much like that because Adrian Ryddon kept saying to me just get on with it just finish this book you know how can it take you know 10 years to think about it and you think I didn't understand it because nothing in my art history background even in terms of my feminism gave me the tools to see what this 19th century and early 20th century things that I some people who know me particularly Francesco from working with it this moment where we people weren't included in the Warburg Circle we got to be interested in Warburg and this is a wonderful thing about Adrian writes about the difference between warking in Warburg and warking in the Werburg this how the translation of this thing these changes etc but nothing when I was the court I would have made me go to the Warburg Institute it didn't make any sense because we were being brought up in a completely formalist educated in that particular model and then slowly I've done it myself like a kind of autodidact you know running along behind people thinking oh I got it do I quite understand this then when I met Cassira I thought oh no I'm going to lie down on my you know bedroom floor and say I can't do this I can't do this Adrian I don't understand it so I just get on with it just get on with it but that work was been so rewarding to see exactly that archaeology of trying to plot out and I know other people can do more with this or plot out in a different way but my main thing was to just have her as a curiosity right but that moment when I decided to put her in that dream land of humanists I thought that's it we've got to insert women's thinking into this normalised pantheon and if we don't shift that people will keep repeating it and women will always be additional not co-creators of these intellectual debates and indeed contesters or you know adding new concepts and I think also for your talk as well it made me think about what's happened the losses of the professionalisation of art history perhaps losing something of this porosity these intellectual conversations with sociologists and somehow perhaps in a kind of a professionalisation and defining something that we can sell you know students to come and study with us or you know to kind of protect this and create it we've lost something of the kind of messy porosity and dialogue which happens in that sort of that intellectual ferment that you were kind of for me mapping out but that's also the crucial thing about understanding which just Ellsner's work and I'm sorry moment loss of the other co-author with him but it was in the power point that manhain was reading regal and I was you know one of my colleagues keeps teaching regal I thought oh god he's one of these old men that I don't know about and I thought oh lord another big lacuna okay so why is one of the great art historians at the founding of art history writing this book about late Roman art with this concept of the Veltan showing why do we find consistencies all sorts of material forms in the culture from its highest form to its lowest form of throwaway pottery sharing something right now that's the key thing so we can't just say it's all the style because that was the verflin it's a bit thin oh they all have the style and they copied that's where you need something more than a mentality so the first thing that manhain writes is a critique of regal because they're all reading the art historians so it's not a kind of messy porosity excuse me saying that it's a quite it's an intellectual trans disciplinarity because you can't you have to think society you have to think the text you have to think the image you have to think the subject you have to think how thinking thinks you have to think how images formulate and you can't do art history if you don't teach people that they are going to have to engage with this if you narrow history down you are only going to serve the market or the people who the only thing you can collect is an object or a name they can't collect what the art the work that art does I can already see some questions so I'm going to just hand my mic oh Lynn Griselda thank you so much and congratulations to you and to everyone at the PMC on a really stunning book I mean on every level and in every sense of the word it's stunning but it's left me in a real mess because I'm full of what ifs you know what if that tradition of the sort of hermeneutics of the image historical and sociological anthropological hermeneutics of the image had been the one that won out where would history of art where would art history be now which left me thinking are you saying that the social history of art as it took shape in Britain and America and elsewhere Europe has that been complicit as well in just kind of burying a kind of theoretical philosophical tradition of thinking about the image that can also be political so you know my first that's a question and then an observation is how important it is to say again and again that this was happening before 1970 although there are great histories of post 1970 and of course women in revolt is a brilliant example of that the exhibition at Tate Britain it was happening before and we shouldn't you know, occlude those histories because it's not a pre-history it's not pre-feminism or proto-feminism it's feminism so I don't know sorry I'm still thinking a lot but thank you so much I think it's a brilliant book thank you can I stand up and say this I just say two things relatively quickly about that which is yes to the social history of art is complicit in some degree and not degree so I'm a social historian of art and the continuity would lie in what the social history of art would I gain for instance very simply like what I gain from reading T.J. Clarke is it made me read the 18th Brumaire and then read Marx so I could get hold of this other sociological this tradition which and history so you can't I can't do without that and to some extent Rosenau doesn't do without it she's formally because she's definitely she's not sort of post-situationist Marxist like the social history of art of T.J. Clarke and Haji Nicolaw sorry I'm a dyslexic person with a Greek name as I'm very apologetic for that one but of course it was experienced by those of us in the 1970s of the kind of condescension so I got condescension one from Alan Burness you know you're wasting a perfectly adequate intelligence on a trivial subject like women on the other hand you couldn't get gender and sexuality and any more than you could get this use of race and post-colon into the mix because Marxism is a totaliser so the anti-totalists totalists hate Marxism but the Marxists are totalists and they're trying to share the space they give a certain kind of prioritisation because this is a single explanation and that's where this anthropology this tradition of anthropology of thinking symbolic structures with the new different kinds of sociology but also in a sense getting back the sense that they were at the beginning of the 20th century many of them were aware of other worlds and other histories and other timelines and that's why I keep stressing this archaeological thing, the surfacing that's shattering the classical Christian eccentric Western timeline and also obviously the Jewish question of the Jewish timeline that comes all sort of into it so I think there is a complicity I do think we were closed out and then you get labelled feminist and that I think has been trapped because the second one that you're saying which is yes, the great revelation for me was to find a continuous body of feminist thinking which took the form so let's take Billington Greig as an example she's a suffragette with the pancurs she thinks violence is not the answer by the 1940s and 50s she's on a range of committees she's talking about how can you foster the notion of revolt to pick up your women of revolt revolt isn't just resistance etc which is this upheaval and transformation so by the 40s she says we've got to get women into parliament we've got the vote but they're doing nothing but we've got to get women into parliament as women not because they're tick box MF but because they're thinking the question and there's a conference I talk about where these women get together they marry stocks there's a whole range of these really important mid 20th century thinkers saying what is it that we could say to people that having more women doing things could do for people so they investigate are women less criminal so they get all the statistics do women commit less crimes so we're much less violent doesn't support it but she goes through all the things and one of the things they conclude is to teach everybody literature and art by women you've got to put in front of everybody examples of women scientists and philosophers and all the rest of it that's going to be changed because not because we're arguing there is a feminine character or something in femininity but there is a historical body of stuff that if you encounter it will change the way people think because it's not presenting women artists because that's what I absolutely think we're just going to have exhibitions going on for years oh we've rediscovered them again in the whole of there like the my stress exhibition the director at the Tyson he's a lovely man, he's very positive and the feminists love him he says oh I'm so thrilled there's so many names I've never heard about and I say I think we wrote about this half a century ago you've had 50 bloody years so excuse me absolutely saying to people excuse me you could begin to think about that and do an exhibition more interestingly then here's some more of them right and here's some more of them and they do motherhood and they do sisterhood and they do something else what are they doing when you know my interesting thing which is what is happening when Artemisia Gentileschi says oh there's an interesting thing that Caravaggio did to a subject that everybody's talking about what is that doing how would you read it because you're reading these people in conversation with each other and in terms of the counter-revolution and what's happening in the early 17th century which is the great area of colonialisation beginning of colonialisation you've got to hold those together and you can't do that under a name and do I like her and was she good you know was she interesting it's what it did how are you going to read it so I think what we got from the 70s which is I'm reaching back to Foucault and Semiotics which was the form in which that was thought in the 70s compared to symbolic form and anthropology in the 20s and 30s and I'm more interested in this sense that I constantly get people saying even the book before this no one will read it because they don't know the theory and they don't know the theory because nobody says to students I'm afraid you're just going to have to read a little bit and try it out and you have to know about how meaning is produced you have to know what subjectivity is you have to know now we're trying to teach how to decolonise without any understanding of what colonisation is as a system, as a discourse as a power structure as a negation of subjectivity as the formation of certain subjectivities so I use all those words and I'm sure the students think I don't know what she's talking about I know because so that becomes this very pedagogical thing and I think we are now at this anti-synthetic, anti-totalising anti-structural thinking in British is the thing that we had this tremble in the 70s of an intense theorisation process and it's now something that you know, as you say the professionalisation and they take the women artists in but they don't take anything else with it and it's harder and harder for me ever to write anything because I'm just now thinking I can write the books I want to write and if I find some publishers who've read it that's good but I'm just depositing something there that maybe in 50 years somebody will say well that was interesting, how did they think I don't understand how they put that together but we have to take this on board because otherwise we're drifting into you know university we don't know what it is to teach anybody and we're terrified to teach anything that will cause offence and excuse me this is so awful what has happened in the history of the world we do need to make people feel desperately more so than they are the prospect of Trump as the President of the United States which isn't just well maybe there's one question there and then maybe we'll continue and then we'll make sure I'm sorry thank you very much you've really opened my eyes to an enormous knowledge about my mother that I never had but one of the things that her holistic perspective you haven't really mentioned is her interest in aesthetics and I wonder if you think that that made a significant difference in her perspective yes thank you very much there are two things in one sense when you ask that the interest in aesthetics there is this whole aesthetic theory obviously what is it what gives us pleasure when we look at art I don't think she's asking those questions in this book and in one sense her interest is more in how what we call visual structures whether it's a cathedral or a temple or the synagogue or the ways in which we give a form to certain things so that's why I've been stressing this idea of a form or a formulation the question of traditional aesthetics is what is the beautiful and what is the nature of the kind of pleasure I get from looking at I don't think she is particularly interested in that but of course anybody who writes about anything in art you are constantly up against the incredible ways in which those formulations or that thinking makes its material form right and I've been challenged to write about Matisse I never got Matisse I have to feel so eager I never got it but by setting myself out to do that I have begun to sort of you get to that point you say just you kind of grown with these how did that happen how did he do that so I think all of us get that study art history in any way unless this equally fascinated sense and an exhibition I did recently was called medium and memory which was trying to hold these two ideas that there's something that someone feels they need to make out about that needs to have a form but it only happens because of the way in which their skill their capacity to compose the use of materials the production of a something, a thing, an effect happens so I think it's a really important point you've brought up I think she loved it was interested but she was also deeply intellectually interested in what so in the ideal city book and in her books on architecture what made people want to imagine something other than the real world make a city beautiful or produce a sort of an ideal so that's an important thing thank you for raising that mic I want to give us time to have conversation to look at the book as well I think we have copies on display next door so I hope you'll all be able to stay around to have a drink to ask result questions and to kind of process all these amazing ideas about the intellectual histories and the shape of art history what was and what might have been and ponder on that but before we kind of break and go into a more informal session over drinks I want to thank you all for coming to be part of this conversation both in the room and online but also to say thank you so much to Griselda for your collaboration with us all the conversations that have shaped this book have been a real joy and a creative endeavour for us which is not only about making a book but again these bigger questions about what is it we're doing in publishing and supporting something called at the Paul Mellon Centre for Studies in British Art and thinking about the shape of the history of art in Britain in what I hope is a complex creative and challenging way that's in conversation with you and everyone in this room and particularly Helen Rose now so let's say thank you to Griselda and then we'll go next