Justice Kennedy asks: Where is civil discourse?

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy with Kate Meeks at the Aspen Institute, Washington, D.C., Oct. 21, 2025/By Patricia Leslie

At the Aspen Institute Washington's office Tuesday night, retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy looked out at the audience and said he was “astonished" by public leaders who "use filthy words" and the lack of "respectful discourse" heard on public airways.

(Aren't we all, Justice Kennedy? The name of the chief bad mouth was never uttered in the session nor were any other names, not associated with cases.)

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy at the Aspen Institute, Washington, D.C., Oct. 21, 2025/By Patricia Leslie

Appearing before a "sold out" crowd at the Klein Book Series sponsored by Susan and John Klein, both in attendance, Justice Kennedy came to promote his new book, Life, Law & Liberty, which contains, upon first hearing, more humor than one might suspect.

The interviewer, his former law clerk and Fox News Media's General Counsel, Kate Meeks threw him softball questions, mostly about his growing up years allowing Justice Kennedy to tell about some funny parts.

Just before he took a tax exam he and a buddy took their tax books to a baseball game (the last one Ted Williams played!) to study... (to what?) and lo and behold, the sound of a familiar voice, that of their tax professor, piped up behind them. For years, this professor (who later became the U.S. Solicitor General) kidded Mr. Kennedy about the encounter.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy with Kate Meeks at the Aspen Institute, Washington, D.C., Oct. 21, 2025/By Patricia Leslie

In these forums, the best always comes last and Tuesday evening's session was no exception, with questions from the audience. (Written questions were accepted beforehand.)  

Nothing but polite questions came from the genteel group, most questions devoted to past Supreme Court decisions with no justice names included. (Sigh)

And if you ever wondered if the justices are affected by public opinion, wonder no more since Justice Kennedy cited public opinion at least twice in the hourlong session. 

When asked about Citizens v. United, Justice Kennedy said (paraphrasing) if you don't like it, then change it!  It's up to the voters to get down and effect change at the ballot box!  Please!

Vote for the other candidate who's not receiving Big Money, he said.

That decision was 5-4 and he wrote the majority opinion, that Congress cannot prohibit corporations from giving money to campaigns.  

But, vast amounts of money going into campaigns is very troubling, he said. Billionaires who don't even live in the state pour money into campaigns (omitting the name of Elon Musk and his disastrous results in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race).

Kennedy went on: If we say corporations can't give money, the New York Times is a corporation.  Are they to be limited?  What about a chamber of commerce in a small town?  A bakery shop?

Are we going to have limits on big corporations v. small ones?  

Voters can demand disclosure.  If voters are unhappy with money going to one candidate, they can vote for the other candidate, he said.

About the 1989 flag burning case when the Court ruled 5-4 in favor of freedom of speech by the flag burner, it was a decision, Justice Kennedy said, which the public quickly grew to accept, after initial criticism and rebukes from 80 U.S. Senators. (Editor's note: One can hazard a guess on the case outcome by today's Supreme Court.) 

In Bush v. Gore: "We had 48 hours, I think to write the opinion," and seven justices agreed to take the case. He was unsure a couple of times whether it was seven or six justices, but they agreed there was a Constitutional violation.

"The question was:  What should be the remedy?"

Gore wanted a recount of the votes only in the districts that he lost and "we said, no you can't do that. He wanted to extend the time for more argument and we said no.

"It seems to me, the opinion was quite right," citing surveys that Bush "would have won, but I'm not sure those were correct." 

He said the framers of the U.S. promised (in the Preamble to the U.S. Declaration of Independence) that "'all men are created equal'" with "certain unalienable Rights" which include "the pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" but "judges cannot enforce happiness." 

He holds a "fundamental concern about human dignity," not found in the Constitution. "Freedom means respect for each person," he said.

Kennedy frequently referenced President Ronald Reagan who nominated him to the Ninth Circuit for the U.S. Court of Appeals and later, the U.S. Supreme Court, Kennedy, quite adept at mimicking his old boss.

Kennedy got to know Reagan when Reagan was California's governor, and Kennedy performed legal work for him.

As for moving back to the East Coast for the Supreme Court,

"aw, shucks," Kennedy seemed to say: He and Mrs. Kennedy were not so fond of moving back East from California and they didn't really know anyone, he told Reagan.

"'Well, you know me,'" Kennedy quoted Reagan in his drawl.

"What?" said Kennedy to audience laughter: "Was I supposed to go and have lunch with him every day?" 

Reagan "would be most concerned about the state of our civic discourse, and he would be a wonderful person to try to restore civility that we need so badly." (Since Reagan speaks from the grave about tariffs, will someone bring up his remarks, please, about civility?)

Kennedy's guidance for new members of the Supreme Court:  "The cases are much harder and much more difficult than you think when you sit down to write them."

One questioner asked if it's become "a meaningless ritual when you take the oath of office and the words don't mean anything?"

Kennedy praised the questioner's wording framing the question and answered that every public official has the duty to ensure that what he or she is doing is consistent with the Constitution.

The most important qualities for a judge are "you must be honest with yourself. You must ask yourself every day what is it that is making me do this? Is there some hidden motive, some bias that I have that I can't see?  

"All of us have to ask this in our lives every day. Judges have a sworn duty to ask this question."

Kennedy's "greatest job in the world is a U.S. District Judge.  He or she is all by himself or herself.  That single judge gets to see real people, jurors, witnesses." 

He emphasized that the Constitution doesn't just apply to cases that come before the Supreme Court: It applies even more importantly to those that don't come to the Court.  

"The Constitution requires equal treatment for all."

He said, if our democracy is going to survive, we must have an informed electorate. Our citizens must take an interest in current affairs, they must participate, and if they don't like what they see, they can show it at the ballot box. 

Internet usage is mostly only communicating with those who agree with you, he said.

Answering another question from the audience, he said, the Supreme Court encounters "difficulties" with so many emergency decisions. 

"We would get phone calls in the middle of the night - death cases - these are quite complex and it does seem to me that we have to find ways so the courts have more time.

"The district courts sometimes have just a couple of hours.  We usually just stay it. In some instances, some ongoing wrongs continue."

A reception followed.

patricialesli@gmail.com

Book review: Who was Perle Mesta?

The author of The Woman Who Knew Everyone:  The Power of Perle Mesta, Washington's Most Famous Hostess, Meryl Gordon, has compiled an exhaustive account of Perle Mesta's life, written well and a "fast read."

It's unlikely that the book will attract many who don't recall Ms. Mesta's name, a woman who enjoyed her heyday in the 1940s and 1950s, and the cover and title certainly don't help.

The title does little to attract readers. For those who remember her, Ms. Mesta's name should be front and center.

The cover makes no sense since it appears Ms. Mesta was a friend of Jacqueline Kennedy of whom she was not, having greatly offended the Kennedys when Jack was a presidential candidate in 1960 and Ms. Mesta went overboard in her support of LBJ.

So much for White House invitations which ceased after JFK took office in January, 1961, darkening Ms. Mesta's lights in Washington where she had been non-stop socialite and party hostess, a Washington institution about and around town during most of her adult life.

Wikipedia says Perle Mesta (1882-1975) inherited what would be today approximately $1.4 billion from her husband, George, a steel industrialist who preceded her in death by 50 years. 

Ms. Mesta used the money to fundraise for the Democratic party and entertain politicians, spouses, Washingtonians, and celebrities.  

Often, her parties were attended by thousands.  She was an early supporter of the Equal Rights Amendment and worked hard with elected officials to gain support for it.

Until JFK's ascent to the presidency, Mesta had been a constant visitor to the White House during Presidents Truman's and Eisenhower's terms, she being close friends with both Mr. and Mrs. Truman and Mamie Eisenhower, however, Eisenhower did not re-appoint her to the Luxembourg ministry like Truman had initially, Truman never naming Ms. Mesta "ambassador" for some unsaid reason, but "minister."

In Luxembourg, the State Department staff ridiculed her, jealous, I suspect, but the Luxembourgers loved her. 

At the first of every first month after they had been paid and could afford to get to the embassy, Ms. Mesta hosted at her expense, parties for U.S. soldiers stationed in Europe.

After Luxembourg, Ms. Mesta toured the world as a "diplomat “ and wrote a newspaper series, lecturing to large audiences who loved her, chronicling her months-long 1953 visit to Russia which welcomed her and permitted her to often visit forbidden places.  

She did not shy from describing Russian life as she saw it, writing about, for instance, women performing heavy labor.

On her trip, she stopped in Ukraine and noted that Ukrainians were highly offended if someone called them "Russian." 

"Their reaction sheds some light on why the Kremlin continues to be troubled about the Ukraine, the second largest republic in the Soviet Union and the source of much of its food, coal and iron ore." (P. 214)

The public and catty comments found throughout the book and attributed to social competitor Gwen Cafritz about Ms. Mesta's physical appearance, her lack of education, and social niceties are astonishing to read. 

Yet Ms. Mesta never seemed to go negative in response (at least, in the book), always maintaining a positive outlook and wide smile. 

"The hostest with the mostes" was a title borne in a Broadway musical about her by Howard Lindsay with music by Irving Berlin, and starring Ethel Merman. It was Call Me Madam.

Ms. Gordon includes all things good and bad about Ms. Mesta, her money, travels, mobility. Ms. Mesta's schedule and energy, even during latter years, left me envious.

Overall, a good read for Washingtonians and others interested in social life in our nation's capital, including those nasty State Department snobs. (Almost 400 pages.)

Who fills her shoes now? Nobody.

patricialesli@gmail.com

Book review: Blake Gopnik exposes Albert Barnes

In The Maverick's Museum: Albert Barnes and His American Dream, art critic Blake Gopnik tells us, in his well-documented tome, all about Philadelphia's modern art collector and philanthropist (1872-1951) who established the Barnes Foundation, who grew up in an impoverished childhood, leaving him keenly aware, sensitive to and devoted to those less well-off than he became.

From the lower socio-economic classes like he had known, he hired many who worked for him for years. He appointed them to various positions on his board, providing mortgages, higher education, medical bills, scholarships.

Years ahead of race-consciousness and sensitivity to people of different color, Barnes was a keen and sincere (for the most part) practitioner of equal opportunity.

His goal was to have art enthusiasts look at art the way that he did and improve society (?).  No free thinking allowed, s'il vous plait!

It was not to be, but for some, it endured...for a while.

That Barnes carried a chip on his shoulder seems obvious, and a possible inferiority complex, too, like his one-time friend, philosopher Bertrand Russell, claimed. 

When Russell was “down and out,” Barnes hired him to teach at his foundation, but later grew disgruntled after Barnes deemed Russell’s wife too haughty. By lawyering, Barnes found a way to sue Russell for breach of contract, but Russell countersued and won more than Barnes owed him.

It was an outstanding example of the typical adverse relationship Barnes seemed to enjoy, many fights he had with notables and others he encountered, who he thought denigrated him in some way (the Philadelphia Museum of Art was one institution), insulting them with horrible words (a la Trump but with a much broader vocabulary).

Barnes made his money early in life by the invention of the drug, Argyrol, he developed with a German scientist, Hermann Hille, which was used to treat infant eye infections. 

For a while, he searched for ways to spend his accumulating wealth and voila! With the help of schoolmate and artist, William Glackens, Barnes found it in art.

His collection grew to include more Renoirs than found anywhere else in the world (181; Barnes particularly enjoyed the artist's female flesh works), 69 Cezannes (more than found in France), 59 Matisses, plus works by Manet, Degas, Seurat, Prendergast, Titian, Picasso and Van Gogh.  (Alas, Barnes turned down Van Gogh's Starry Night, now hanging at the Museum of Modern Art in New York.)

There was a Mrs. Barnes, but she occupies a small portion of the book, notably towards the end, a horticulturalist who received awards for her interest. Her general absence from the book leaves the impression that she was merely another piece of art hanging on the wall, but one of less value.

The couple had no children.

The book is slow to begin but picks up speed after a few pages and is an excellent read for art lovers, for Philly residents, for visitors to the Barnes, and others who follow eccentric personalities which I guess most of us are. 

You can't visit the Barnes Collection the same way again, and I can’t wait to get back, equipped with this background.  

Note: For the second edition, may I suggest an inversion of the title: The Museum's Maverick.

patricialesli@gmail.com

Book review: Mary was a 'Captive Queen'

Jade Scott, is a specialist on Mary, Queen of Scots (1542-1587), and the secretary of the Scottish History Society and an associate fellow of the Royal Historical Society. Dr. Scott's dissertation increased her interest in Mary, imprisoned for almost half her life (19 years) by her first cousin once removed, Queen Elizabeth I of England (1533-1603).

These cousins never met. 

Although she signed the papers for Mary's execution, Elizabeth was supposedly unaware the death sentence would be carried out and became angry with her ministers when she learned of it. The irony, of course, is that Mary's son, James (1566-1625) became King of England after Elizabeth died and had his mother's body exhumed from Peterborough Cathedral and re-interred in 1612 near Elizabeth in Westminster Abbey.

James was less than one year old the last time he saw his mother and 13 months old when he was crowned King of Scotland. Mary wrote to her son often.

According to an interview with Dr. Scott, Mary wrote and received thousands of letters. Dr. Scott's book, 

Captive Queen The Decrypted History of Mary, Queen of Scots sheds light on 57 newly encrypted letters which describe Mary's many attempts to escape but never presents proof that she intended to participate in the murder of the Queen, a plot which was Mary's downfall.

Some of the letters were exchanged with the Spanish and French ambassadors. If you are familiar with the Babington Plot, Dr. Scott's book has more for you to read.

The most interesting chapter was Mary's everyday life in prison, luxurious by commoners' standards, with meals served on silver plate and in crystal glassware, prepared by her French chef who offered her a choice of 32 different dishes, wine and beer (up to 20 gallons daily for herself and her servants).

The English are different from you and me; and so are the Scots! Did you know they had their own language? Nor did I, but the author mentioned that a few times. 

So many names! Jumping hither and yon, it’s hard to keep track of all the characters, even with the dramatis personae at the beginning and how is that arranged, please?

Alphabetically, non.

Chronologically, non.

Type of person? Conspirators, courtiers, women, to name a few differentiated "types," but even within those segments, their arrangement is ...? I never could figure it out.

The end of the book has an excellent, extensive chronology of Mary’s life.

Captive Queen is not so much a great book for the lay, but it is more appealing to academicians and her "deep scholars." Still (being of the "lay" persuasion), I can’t seem to get her out of my mind.

For more on Mary and photos of her life, go here.

Former burial place of Mary, Queen of Scots, Peterborough Cathedral/Wikipedia and Derek Voller

patricialesli@gmail.com

Still another book on Tsar Nicholas II, but this one ...

Tsuyoshi Hasegawa professor emeritus in history at the University of California at Santa Barbara has written many books on Russian history, his latest, The Last Tsar: The Abdication of Nicholas II and the Fall of the Romanovs, an academic book for scholars and Romanov addicts, always interested in Russian history (like me).

As the revolution ignited, a practically hour-by-hour, minute-by-minute detail of the last days of Tsar Nicholas II's reign before, during, and after his abdication unfolds.

The breathless accounting of the anxious hours and moments in 1917 of the tsar’s train ride from the headquarters of the Russian Imperial Army at Mogilev to St. Petersburg, hundreds of miles away and where the tsar's family awaited him, is as tense as any Stephen King fiction.

However, being surrounded by “yes” men as he was, Nicholas was not privy to lurking dangers as the imperial train inched toward Tsarskoye Selo, knowledge which also escaped some of his commanders. The train was forced to detour around the revolutionaries and disloyal troops, growing in number by the hour.

Because of blockades, the train's route added more than 200 kilometers (approximately 125 miles) and ran on five different lines rather than one.

The Imperial Train seen through trees during the years of occupation/from "The fate of Nicholas II’s Imperial Train" by Paul  Gilbert  

Well documented, of course, The Last Tsar has a through description of Russia's entry in World War I, its military campaign, how ill prepared the country was: short on ammunition, officer training, and leadership, believing the war would not last long. (I must admit I skimmed most of this section, being not of the military strategist persuasion.)

Dr. Hasegawa quotes extensively from  Nicholas's diaries which affirm the tsar's detachment and uninterest in matters of the day, acting as though immune to outside forces, if he knew what they were.

For a laywoman like me, all the names were difficult to differentiate and became rather "weedy."

An excellent genealogy of the Romanovs spreads over two pages, but nowhere is it listed at the front, in the back, in the index that I could find, but it is possible that I overlooked its listing to which I constantly made reference. It includes the many family members killed by the Bolsheviks.

Nor could I find anywhere in the book, listings for the helpful maps (p. 202 and 230)showing the train's route to St. Petersburg and the detours.

The goal was not to overthrow the monarchy but the tsar; both were achieved. The book ends before the Romanovs were transferred to Siberia in 1917.


Although I chuckled and welcomed the reference Dr. Hasegawa made comparing Trump's MAGA cult to Rasputin's, Jim Jones's, and Charles Manson's cults (p. 33), all the reviewers I found who mentioned this reference thought it cheapened and damaged the book's credibility. 

Go here and here to see the first two of the Romanovs' burial sites. They were last buried in 1998 in the Cathedral of Peter and Paul in St. Petersburg.

patricialesli@gmail.com

Four great audiobooks by Dolly, Mel, Rod, and Billie Jean

They would be Mel Brooks, Rod Stewart, Dolly Parton, and Billie Jean King, talking about themselves in their autobiographies (or in Dolly's case, talking about her costumes) which are all spot-on good and often hilarious!

I listened to their audiobooks on my phone, compliments of the Fairfax County Public Library, and they are listed in the order I listened. 

Except for Stewart's, the authors read their own works which is sometimes a rarity that an author reads her or his own book, but the author adds more credibility, depth, and true emotion to the product and it's a highly desirable feature.

In her charming East Tennessee voice, Dolly (b. 1946) lays it all out about her costuming, her hair, her appearance with the perfect title of her book to boot:  Behind the Seams: My Life in Rhinestones (2023, 4.5 hours).

And you know it's all got to be true since Dolly says it. 

She talks about the designers, how she met them, hired them, and how she fits inside their creations. She even has her own archivist, Rebecca Seaver, who helped with the production of the book, with Holly George-Warren who, presumably, interviewed Dolly in the Q and A style presented. 

Is it true that Dolly wears makeup to bed? 

That she bucked the era's styles and hairdos at an early age won't surprise anyone who knows the least thing about her. Dolly insisted on her own wants and comfort in her clothing and skin. To heck with fashionistas and styles. Dolly Parton has always been her own woman and listening to this book can instill a lot of confidence in readers. 

She talks about her fittings which, one time, didn't go so well when she popped out of her costume on stage (those danged buttons!), but a rush job to refit her quickly was (not surprisingly) successful and away she flew back to the audience.

Natch, the book has a lot of country music history in it.

The book by Billie Jean King (b. 1943) All In: An Autobiography (2021) with Johnette Howard and Maryanne Vollers, 18 hours, is excellent, about her upbringing, her supportive parents, her growing tennis passion as she matured, and she reveals for the first time the assault she endured by a friend's father when Billie Jean accompanied the family on a trip when she was a teenager.

The book is long and mostly worth every minute of listening (with the exception of the lesbian relationships which I mostly skipped since they were unappealing to me).  

The portion about her 1973 match with Bobby Riggs could be a separate book itself! 

Her honesty, like Dolly's, like all of them here (!), shine through pure and simple.

This is a must book by anyone serious about tennis, especially women.

Rod Stewart (b. 1945) - oh, my! In Rod: The Autobiography (2016), read by Simon Vance, 11.5 hours, the subject admits he is a bad boy....quite an understatement.

With so many encounters with women I’m surprised he’s still kicking.

He's now on marriage #3 and relationship, # ???  His children (eight by five women) don't seem to mind though, since they've recently gotten together for a group photo.

He doesn't leave much hidden and talks about his youth and how important and supportive his loving parents were.  That Rod was the youngest of five children may have played a role in his success.

Now, at age 80, he's on a world tour, including a six-night stand in Las Vegas this fall. 

And then there is Mel Brooks (b. 1926; 99 last month!), making me laugh almost all the way in Mel Brooks: All About Me! My Remarkable Life in Show Business (2021), 15 hours.

He's as hilarious as you'd expect, beginning with his childhood and gradually growing into a comedian's role, including an Army stint. He describes his nurturing family background, his brothers, learning and life on Broadway and movie productions, of especial interest to me with small knowledge of how they're done. 

His magical marriage to Anne Bancroft (1931-2005) and their loving relationship are what many of us can only dream about, but a 2021 interview in (I think it was) the Guardian reveals her death is still too painful for him to discuss. 

He says almost nothing about his first marriage (to Florence Baum) although it produced three children, with whom it appears he gets along. Mel's attention to offspring is devoted to his and Anne Bancroft's son, Max (b. 1972 ) the one who, during covid, encouraged his dad to write his autobiography for "what else are you gonna do?"  

In all the hundreds of people Mel Brooks worked with in film and theater, the book or audio contains nothing negative about anyone, that I recall. 

If you have any interest in performing arts production and/or Broadway, this is a must read/listen book.

Treat yourself to some fun and diversion and listen to these;
I hope you enjoy them as much as I did.

patricialesli@gmail.com

An art lover's must read

If you love anything about art, this is a fascinating excursion into the wild world of art.

The Devil in the Gallery: How Scandal, Shock, And Rivalry Shaped The Art World (2021) by Noah Charney is full of outrageous art, with detailed descriptions and reproductions in black and white and color, most from Wikipedia.

Nothing is sacred here. All art's scandals and controversies are included which build more traffic. (Natch)

And the more controversial, the better: “It is difficult to think of any artist who was involved in a scandal that proved their absolute ruin both in the short and long term.” (P. 45)

The book spans about five centuries, from Caravaggio in the 16th century to contemporary artists (Jeff Koons, Damien Hirst, Ai Weiwei and more).

Caravaggio was a murderer which has not affected his long-term following:

“Being a bad person, even a murderer, does not seem to negatively impact an artist’s legacy.” (P. 44) 

And he wasn't the only one. 

Performance and body art which desecrates the body to shock and draw attention is nothing new. Hang yourself with nails, float in human waste. Invite onlookers to use tools to hurt the artist. It’s all been tried before.

Many of the depictions are too extreme to describe here.

What’s new?

“Shock has become the new norm.” (P. 87)

Washington's Museum of the Bible is included on page 127 about stolen art.

Charney, the author of The Art Thief and other books, founded the Association for Research into Crimes against Art, and has been a nominee for the Pulitzer Prize. He has taught at Yale, Brown, and American universities. 

It's a must read, must see book! How I wish an institution would mount an exhibition! Enough of the exclamation marks, but I can't resist.

patricialesli@gmail.com

 

I go da da for Da Da

George Grosz (1893-1959), The Guilty One Remains Unknown, 1919, pen and Italian ink drawing, collage on cardboard, the Art Institute of Chicago

What is dada?  It's everything in the name and...nothing! The creators desired it to implode and illustrate the absurdity of it all, with mechanical and complex machinery void of humanity but showcasing gibberish, confusion, and assault on everything modern in the time after the first World War. 

Early on Marcel Duchamp called Dadaism “anti-art.” Later, various artists argued over the origination of the name, more than one claiming credit.

NPR's Susan Stamberg quotes George Grosz who called Dada, "the organized use of insanity to express contempt for a bankrupt world."

The cover of Dadaism is a reproduction of George Grosz's, Republican Automatons, 1920, watercolor and pencil on paper, Museum of Modern Art, N.Y.

I loved the book, Dadaism by Dietmar Elger, published by Taschen (2022) which describes the movement in an introduction of several pages, followed by features on 12 of the most notable dadaists of the period between 1916 and 1924.

The movement is complex, confusing, and baffling, but it whets my appetite for the mysterious. 

I gathered through the pages that despite cultural and world upheavals, the artists still had fun while waging art war, concentrating on the "lost world," and the dissolution of systems, using art as their means to take out their anger, frustrations, and bitterness at what was happening around them.

Less than 100 pages, the book is printed on heavy coated stock, filled with full page color illustrations and on the facing page, a brief description about the artist of the featured work and his or her other renderings. (One woman, Hannah Höch, is included.) 

One of the two-page spreads with thumbnail photo of artist, Hannah Höch, a brief description of her life and works, and a sample of her art on the facing page which shows a detail of her Da Dandy, 1919, photomontage, private collection

In 2006 a Dada exhibition opened at the National Museum of Modern Art in Paris, and then traveled to Washington and the National Gallery of Art when it stayed for three months, enjoyed by a crowd of 175,000. Afterwards, it moved to the Metropolitan Museum of Art.  

Some of the artists found in the book and the exhibition are Duchamp, Grosz, Raoul Hausmann, Francis Picabia, and Man Ray.

Multiple examples of their works are presented in Dadaism with those of Hans Arp, Johannes Baader, Johannes Theodor Baargeld, Max Ernst, Hannah Höch, John Heartfield,  and Kurt Schwitters.

For the 2006 National Gallery show, the Smithsonian carried an article about Dada, including this: "And for all its zaniness, the movement would prove to be one of the most influential in modern art, foreshadowing abstract and conceptual art, performance art, op, pop and installation art. But Dada would die out in less than a decade and has not had the kind of major museum retrospective it deserves, until now." 

Surrealism was its offspring.

Dietmar Elger (b. 1958), the author, has written many books about modern art and is considered one of the (if not "the") top experts on Gerhard Richter. Elger studied at the University of Hamburg and received his doctorate with a thesis on the art houses created by Schwitters.

Read more about dadaism at Artland Magazine. 

patricialesli@gmail.com