Full Version: Siqueiros Mural
Tonight there was a fascinating story on LA’s local NBC news affiliate regarding Mexican mural artist David Alfaro Siqueiros. In 1932, he painted a huge mural entitled “América Tropical” on a building in Olvera Street. The subject matter was so controversial, it hasn’t been seen in 72 years (see Olvera Street Website for the history of the mural). NBC doesn’t have the story on their website (yet?), however, it is on the LA Times site (by subscription only). The gist of the story is that after 20 years of efforts to get the restoration underway, the Getty has issued an ultimatum that the city of LA put up $1.4 million by July 1, 2005. From the LA Times:
It’s a great story. Here is an avowed communist Mexican mural artist commissioned to paint "a vision of Latin America as a tropical paradise where happy mortals lie beneath palm trees whose fruits drop of their own accord into waiting mouths." On the night before its unveiling with the centerpiece of the work unfinished, he sends his assistants home and works through the night to complete the central figure.
It caused shock and outrage when it was revealed. (personal comment: what the heck did they expect???)
Many Mexican artists of that era were communists, or communist sympathizers (Jose Clemente Orozco, Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo among the most famous). Many of their works depicted the "people’s struggle" against imperialism.
Questions for debate:
Should art be censored because of its political content?
Will the current political climate hinder the restoration and unveiling of America Tropical?
Should Los Angeles help fund the restoration of this historical mural?
My answers are that yes, LA should help pay to restore this artwork/piece of history – 70 years is too long for a masterpiece to languish behind whitewash and plywood. I am eager to see this mural - I did not even realize it existed right in my own backyard! And I loathe art censorship in any form. Diego Rivera was just as political and controversial as Siqueiros, and his works hang proudly in the Los Angeles County Museum of Art and the Museum of Latin American Art in Long Beach. Unfortunately, I think the subject matter is just as inflammatory today as it was in 1932, and that may result in this mural never seeing the light of day...which is a shame, in my opinion.
QUOTE
If the city does not raise at least 75% of the money by that time, the Getty will withdraw the balance of the $2.6 million it has committed to the mural project, which it has spearheaded since the late 1980s. That would be a blow that could keep the acclaimed mural — a provocative 80-by-18-foot work titled "América Tropical" — under a shroud for the foreseeable future.
<snip>
The Getty's move put the burden squarely on a small, underfunded and grossly mismanaged city agency that is the subject of a scathing city audit made public earlier this year. The audit exposed long-festering management problems at El Pueblo, including mishandling of funds and lack of leadership.
<snip>
The Getty's move put the burden squarely on a small, underfunded and grossly mismanaged city agency that is the subject of a scathing city audit made public earlier this year. The audit exposed long-festering management problems at El Pueblo, including mishandling of funds and lack of leadership.
It’s a great story. Here is an avowed communist Mexican mural artist commissioned to paint "a vision of Latin America as a tropical paradise where happy mortals lie beneath palm trees whose fruits drop of their own accord into waiting mouths." On the night before its unveiling with the centerpiece of the work unfinished, he sends his assistants home and works through the night to complete the central figure.
QUOTE
As the central visual and symbolic focus of the piece, an Indian peon representing oppression by United State imperialism is crucified on a double cross capped by an American eagle. A Mayan pyramid in the background is overrun by vegetation, while an armed Peruvian peasant and a Mexican campesino sit on a wall in the upper right corner, ready to defend themselves. America Tropical
It caused shock and outrage when it was revealed. (personal comment: what the heck did they expect???)
Many Mexican artists of that era were communists, or communist sympathizers (Jose Clemente Orozco, Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo among the most famous). Many of their works depicted the "people’s struggle" against imperialism.
QUOTE
After over sixty years of existence, América Tropical today transcends the controversy that accompanied its birth. "It's a universal work of art," says Miguel Angel Corzo. "It represents a social struggle which we all can understand now. It's a mural for the whole city." Getty
Questions for debate:
Should art be censored because of its political content?
Will the current political climate hinder the restoration and unveiling of America Tropical?
Should Los Angeles help fund the restoration of this historical mural?
My answers are that yes, LA should help pay to restore this artwork/piece of history – 70 years is too long for a masterpiece to languish behind whitewash and plywood. I am eager to see this mural - I did not even realize it existed right in my own backyard! And I loathe art censorship in any form. Diego Rivera was just as political and controversial as Siqueiros, and his works hang proudly in the Los Angeles County Museum of Art and the Museum of Latin American Art in Long Beach. Unfortunately, I think the subject matter is just as inflammatory today as it was in 1932, and that may result in this mural never seeing the light of day...which is a shame, in my opinion.
Moved to Current Events from Casual Conversation since there are debate questions here. 
Should art be censored because of its political content?
No
Will the current political climate hinder the restoration and unveiling of America Tropical?
No, I doubt anyone would bother. Communism is no longer major a factor in the world.
Should Los Angeles help fund the restoration of this historical mural?
That is up to the city council. I myself would see it restored, so long as I did not have to pay for it.
No
Will the current political climate hinder the restoration and unveiling of America Tropical?
No, I doubt anyone would bother. Communism is no longer major a factor in the world.
Should Los Angeles help fund the restoration of this historical mural?
That is up to the city council. I myself would see it restored, so long as I did not have to pay for it.
Should art be censored because of its political content?
No, but neither should it be subsidized, given its anti-American (not really communist, just anti-US) depictions. It's unclear whether or not the artist's mural met with the commissioner's expectations.
Will the current political climate hinder the restoration and unveiling of America Tropical?
Climate? It's warm and sunny
.
I think the "climate" is overemphasized. Americans have never put up with "bash America" type art. Why should they start now?
Should Los Angeles help fund the restoration of this historical mural?
Given its history and its message, my question would be : why should they?
"Masterpiece" is in the eye of the beholder.
No, but neither should it be subsidized, given its anti-American (not really communist, just anti-US) depictions. It's unclear whether or not the artist's mural met with the commissioner's expectations.
Will the current political climate hinder the restoration and unveiling of America Tropical?
Climate? It's warm and sunny
.I think the "climate" is overemphasized. Americans have never put up with "bash America" type art. Why should they start now?
Should Los Angeles help fund the restoration of this historical mural?
Given its history and its message, my question would be : why should they?
"Masterpiece" is in the eye of the beholder.
QUOTE(Amlord)
Given its history and its message, my question would be : why should they? "Masterpiece" is in the eye of the beholder.
From your response, I gather you are not a fan of the arts. Art appreciation requires an open mind, and a depth of understanding beyond the dismissive.
Art is supposed to make people think and feel. If it informs and educates in the process, so much the better. Art is no less powerful because it expresses a belief you don’t adhere to – in fact, it makes it even more powerful.
One of the most famous political paintings, Picasso’s Guernica, shocked people, because it depicted an atrocity committed by the Germans against a small Basque village in 1937. It traveled the world, alerting people to the horror perpetrated against the people of Guernica and rallying support for the anti-fascist cause.
QUOTE
Approximately 1,700 of Guernica's 5,000 inhabitants were killed or wounded. The fires that engulfed the city burned for three days. Isolated farms as far away as four miles were bombed. Juan Silliaco a survivor of the attack recalls, "The air was alive with the cries of the wounded. I saw a man crawling down the street, dragging his broken legs. . . . Pieces of people and animals were lying everywhere . . . . In the wreckage there was a young woman. I could not take my eyes off her. Bones stuck through her dress. Her head twisted right around her neck. She lay, mouth open, her tongue hanging out. I vomited and lost consciousness" (Gordan, Morgan 258).
Picasso's monumental painting reminds humankind of one of the first acts of modern "total war" waged against a defenseless population. Picasso's painting is the quintessential example of humankind's senseless inhumanity to humankind. It creates a horrific image of humankind with which the observer must reckon. Through the art of Guernica Picasso educates us not only about April 26, 1937, but also about humankind and our tradition of war. Source
Picasso's monumental painting reminds humankind of one of the first acts of modern "total war" waged against a defenseless population. Picasso's painting is the quintessential example of humankind's senseless inhumanity to humankind. It creates a horrific image of humankind with which the observer must reckon. Through the art of Guernica Picasso educates us not only about April 26, 1937, but also about humankind and our tradition of war. Source
I found this quote in an interview, and I believe it expresses what I’m trying to say much more eloquently:
QUOTE
“That's right, and you know, the truth in the hands of artists, even when they are telling a fiction, even when they are inventing something, becomes a very powerful thing. Because what artists do is lend passion and emotion -- they lend a kind of spiritual element to reality that enhances the truth, which gives it an intensity that a simple matter of recounting facts will not accomplish.” Howard Zinn
It seems that Guernica is still shocking people. How ironic is it that this happened when it did:
QUOTE
On January 27, 2003, the Guernica reproduction hanging outside the entrance of the United Nations Security Council, was covered with a large blue curtain. Press Secretary of the U.N., Fred Eckhard, said the covering provided "an appropriate background for the cameras."
Obviously some were concerned that Picasso's antiwar masterwork would not make a good backdrop for speeches and press conferences advocating the bombing and invasion of Iraq. As the United States talks about it's "shock and awe" strategy (the potential launching of over 800 Cruise Missiles against Baghdad in two days), and it's willingness to use "bunker busting nuclear bombs" against Iraq... Picasso's work is a chilling reminder of what such military operations would mean for civilian populations.
Australian parliamentary representative Laurie Brereton spoke before the Australian Parliament on February 4th and said the following. "There is a profound symbolism in pulling a shroud over this great work of art. For throughout the debate on Iraq, whether at the UN, in the US, or here in Australia, there has been a remarkable degree of obfuscation, evasion and denial, and never more so than when it comes to the grim realities of military action." The censoring of Piccaso's mural is illustrative of art's immense power. Art for a Change
Obviously some were concerned that Picasso's antiwar masterwork would not make a good backdrop for speeches and press conferences advocating the bombing and invasion of Iraq. As the United States talks about it's "shock and awe" strategy (the potential launching of over 800 Cruise Missiles against Baghdad in two days), and it's willingness to use "bunker busting nuclear bombs" against Iraq... Picasso's work is a chilling reminder of what such military operations would mean for civilian populations.
Australian parliamentary representative Laurie Brereton spoke before the Australian Parliament on February 4th and said the following. "There is a profound symbolism in pulling a shroud over this great work of art. For throughout the debate on Iraq, whether at the UN, in the US, or here in Australia, there has been a remarkable degree of obfuscation, evasion and denial, and never more so than when it comes to the grim realities of military action." The censoring of Piccaso's mural is illustrative of art's immense power. Art for a Change
The question was whether or not the city of Los Angeles should fund the reconstruction. My answer was: why should they?
Would you fund the restoration of an unflattering painting of you before you had a shower in the morning? Maybe you would, but maybe you wouldn't. What if you had paid the artist to paint a portrait of you and supplied him photos (i.e. you didn't "sit" for it)? To your surprise, he paints you at your most unflattering.
Would you fund its restoration 50 years later? More importantly, should you be forced to, simply because it is "Art"?
I may be interpreting this situation wrong, but I think it is something along those lines. Why else would it have been covered for so many years?
EDIT to add:
From your response, I gather you are not a fan of the arts. Art appreciation requires an open mind, and a depth of understanding beyond the dismissive.
I never said that I dismissed the arts. I was answering a specific question.
Would you fund the restoration of an unflattering painting of you before you had a shower in the morning? Maybe you would, but maybe you wouldn't. What if you had paid the artist to paint a portrait of you and supplied him photos (i.e. you didn't "sit" for it)? To your surprise, he paints you at your most unflattering.
Would you fund its restoration 50 years later? More importantly, should you be forced to, simply because it is "Art"?
I may be interpreting this situation wrong, but I think it is something along those lines. Why else would it have been covered for so many years?
EDIT to add:
QUOTE(DaffyGrl)
QUOTE(Amlord)
Given its history and its message, my question would be : why should they? "Masterpiece" is in the eye of the beholder.
From your response, I gather you are not a fan of the arts. Art appreciation requires an open mind, and a depth of understanding beyond the dismissive.
I never said that I dismissed the arts. I was answering a specific question.
Should art be censored because of its political content?
God no! For me this falls under free speech.
Will the current political climate hinder the restoration and unveiling of America Tropical?
Do we still suffer from McCarthyism? God I hope not!
Should Los Angeles help fund the restoration of this historical mural?
It is a quality piece of work. LA should help fund the restoration as it should be considered a City treasure. The piece holds historical as well as creative value.
God no! For me this falls under free speech.
Will the current political climate hinder the restoration and unveiling of America Tropical?
Do we still suffer from McCarthyism? God I hope not!
Should Los Angeles help fund the restoration of this historical mural?
It is a quality piece of work. LA should help fund the restoration as it should be considered a City treasure. The piece holds historical as well as creative value.
Should art be censored because of its political content?
Of course not- but when you have conservatives in power- this is the price we pay- just look at ashcroft putting cloths on Justice LOL
Will the current political climate hinder the restoration and unveiling of America Tropical?
Yes, no doubt, as long as we have religious and right wing, and now, actual imperialistic goverment in power, they will oppose this stuff at every turn. Once again, look at Ashcroft for your example.
Should Los Angeles help fund the restoration of this historical mural?
As far as Amlord's comment about funding it- I think this goes to the heart of the "Art" debate- and I to have some issues with public funding of Art- but looking back at history- all civilizations are remembered for thier Art and Architecture, NOT thier politics and minor leaders! If this is a beautiful piece, regardless of the political content, and is one of those magnificent Mexican murals from that time period, it is a horrific waste just to throw it away, considering it may outlast our entire society and still be beautiful when we have been replaced by something new. The greatest art in the world today far outlasted it's sponsors!
It is occasionally hard for me to look at some of the stuff they consider "art" today and say "you mean THIS is going to be the representitive of art in our society from this time period- ugh- but "communist" Mexican art of the 30s has all been amazingly beautiful and breathtaking- and should be treated as a national treasure.
Of course not- but when you have conservatives in power- this is the price we pay- just look at ashcroft putting cloths on Justice LOL
Will the current political climate hinder the restoration and unveiling of America Tropical?
Yes, no doubt, as long as we have religious and right wing, and now, actual imperialistic goverment in power, they will oppose this stuff at every turn. Once again, look at Ashcroft for your example.
Should Los Angeles help fund the restoration of this historical mural?
As far as Amlord's comment about funding it- I think this goes to the heart of the "Art" debate- and I to have some issues with public funding of Art- but looking back at history- all civilizations are remembered for thier Art and Architecture, NOT thier politics and minor leaders! If this is a beautiful piece, regardless of the political content, and is one of those magnificent Mexican murals from that time period, it is a horrific waste just to throw it away, considering it may outlast our entire society and still be beautiful when we have been replaced by something new. The greatest art in the world today far outlasted it's sponsors!
It is occasionally hard for me to look at some of the stuff they consider "art" today and say "you mean THIS is going to be the representitive of art in our society from this time period- ugh- but "communist" Mexican art of the 30s has all been amazingly beautiful and breathtaking- and should be treated as a national treasure.
Should art be censored because of its political content?
In an ideal world, I'd like nothing to be censored. In the real world, art moves peoples emotions, which are a large part of making major political decisions. Furthermore, art emphasizes symbolism, which in itself is a topic for debate. I doubt Germany would like a mural of a Swastika or a crucified Jew on the concrete side of a building in Berlin as a reminder of their past misdeeds, just as much as I doubt the U.S would like a mural of a crucified Native American on the side of a building in L.A as a symbol of our past misdeeds.
Will the current political climate hinder the restoration and unveiling of America Tropical?
The political climate right now is probably the most favorable climate for unveiling the piece since its inception. People want to expose and relive the U.S.'s mistakes and transgressions; they seem to want to punish their own nation by reliving old atrocities, as long as their pockets aren't empty.
Should Los Angeles help fund the restoration of this historical mural?
If I were living in L.A., I would not want any of my tax money going into the 2.4 Million dollar pool to restore this work of art. According to the afforementiond site, Siqeiros purposefully used art to carry his political message. Get a political party to fund it. Have fund raisers for it. But don't spend tax money on a politically engendered piece when it could be spent better, elsewhere.
What do the quotes ("") mean? From Siqueiros' bio:
It seems to me that this "communist" Mexican artist was actually a Communist Mexican artist, with political views such that he was exiled from his own country, and had to flee to the U.S. to be able to act on his beliefs. Another of life's little ironies.
edit: for formatting, etc.
In an ideal world, I'd like nothing to be censored. In the real world, art moves peoples emotions, which are a large part of making major political decisions. Furthermore, art emphasizes symbolism, which in itself is a topic for debate. I doubt Germany would like a mural of a Swastika or a crucified Jew on the concrete side of a building in Berlin as a reminder of their past misdeeds, just as much as I doubt the U.S would like a mural of a crucified Native American on the side of a building in L.A as a symbol of our past misdeeds.
Will the current political climate hinder the restoration and unveiling of America Tropical?
The political climate right now is probably the most favorable climate for unveiling the piece since its inception. People want to expose and relive the U.S.'s mistakes and transgressions; they seem to want to punish their own nation by reliving old atrocities, as long as their pockets aren't empty.
Should Los Angeles help fund the restoration of this historical mural?
If I were living in L.A., I would not want any of my tax money going into the 2.4 Million dollar pool to restore this work of art. According to the afforementiond site, Siqeiros purposefully used art to carry his political message. Get a political party to fund it. Have fund raisers for it. But don't spend tax money on a politically engendered piece when it could be spent better, elsewhere.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Jun 23 2004, 12:40 PM)
but "communist" Mexican art of the 30s has all been amazingly beautiful and breathtaking- and should be treated as a national treasure.
What do the quotes ("") mean? From Siqueiros' bio:
QUOTE
[snip]Inspired philosophically, influenced by Marxism in his treatment of class struggle, Siqueiros believed that public murals were a powerful medium to make his work accessible to a broad audience traditionally ignored by elitist art institutions. After becoming Secretary of the Mexican Communist Party in 1928 he was frequently jailed or expelled from Mexico[snip] His most productive artistic period began in 1944, when he returned to Mexico after an exile due to allegations of his role in Leon Trotsky's assassination.
It seems to me that this "communist" Mexican artist was actually a Communist Mexican artist, with political views such that he was exiled from his own country, and had to flee to the U.S. to be able to act on his beliefs. Another of life's little ironies.
edit: for formatting, etc.
Should art be censored because of its political content?
No. Art should not be censored because of it's political content, but this situation is rather unique because we're talking about a sizeable and immovable piece of work that is displayed in public. The citizens in the immediate area should be an integral part of the decision making process, because they are the ones who will have to live with the mural. It's unfortunate that the mural can not be relocated, because I do see it as being important. The concept was commissioned and approved in 1932 by the director of the Plaza Art Gallery, and at the last minute, much like the other notable Mexican artists of the time, the rogue Siqueiros painted a controversial addition which was meant to incite the people. This is partially what makes the artist and the piece both historically and emotionally interesting. I would hate to see the loss of this painting from what I believe is Mexico's golden age of art.
Will the current political climate hinder the restoration and unveiling of America Tropical?
Perhaps. Take a look at a recent situation with artist Guy Colwell. Obviously his art was effective enough to strike a chord, but it also led to vandalism and death threats towards the gallery owner. The country is politically polarized and both sides are in an attack stance.
Should Los Angeles help fund the restoration of this historical mural?
From what I understand, Los Angeles funds the El Pueblo de los Angeles Historical Monument Authority, and that organization already agreed to match the Getty's funding, but not without dissent. I found an interesting article: The Getty Sullies itself With Ethnic Politics
No. Art should not be censored because of it's political content, but this situation is rather unique because we're talking about a sizeable and immovable piece of work that is displayed in public. The citizens in the immediate area should be an integral part of the decision making process, because they are the ones who will have to live with the mural. It's unfortunate that the mural can not be relocated, because I do see it as being important. The concept was commissioned and approved in 1932 by the director of the Plaza Art Gallery, and at the last minute, much like the other notable Mexican artists of the time, the rogue Siqueiros painted a controversial addition which was meant to incite the people. This is partially what makes the artist and the piece both historically and emotionally interesting. I would hate to see the loss of this painting from what I believe is Mexico's golden age of art.
Will the current political climate hinder the restoration and unveiling of America Tropical?
Perhaps. Take a look at a recent situation with artist Guy Colwell. Obviously his art was effective enough to strike a chord, but it also led to vandalism and death threats towards the gallery owner. The country is politically polarized and both sides are in an attack stance.
Should Los Angeles help fund the restoration of this historical mural?
From what I understand, Los Angeles funds the El Pueblo de los Angeles Historical Monument Authority, and that organization already agreed to match the Getty's funding, but not without dissent. I found an interesting article: The Getty Sullies itself With Ethnic Politics
QUOTE(Amlord)
Would you fund the restoration of an unflattering painting of you before you had a shower in the morning? Maybe you would, but maybe you wouldn't. What if you had paid the artist to paint a portrait of you and supplied him photos (i.e. you didn't "sit" for it)? To your surprise, he paints you at your most unflattering.
Would you fund its restoration 50 years later? More importantly, should you be forced to, simply because it is "Art"?
Would you fund its restoration 50 years later? More importantly, should you be forced to, simply because it is "Art"?
Why don't you ask one of Picasso's wives, all of whom he painted in less than flattering ways? Does that make a Picasso's painting any less a work of art?
I was referring to your dismissive "masterpiece is in the eye of the beholder" comment. Yes, art is subjective, but should the fact that someone "likes" it and someone else doesn't affect its artistic and historic value to the city? In my opinion, it does not. So what if Siquieros was a communist? Does that make him any less an artist? I believe that if art offends you, or delights you, or makes you think, that makes it an effective work. Art should generate emotion, whether that emotion is positive or negative depends on the viewer's opinions, and doesn't lessen the value of the work. I think that is the beauty of art; its power to inspire dissent, anger, discourse as well as delight and praise.
As Cyan mentioned, LA funds the Pueblo, where the mural is located. There have been many charges of corruption on the part of the Pueblo management, which is probably why the funds have not been disbursed.
Should art be censored because of its political content?
The answer to this question is an obvious "no" (I don't think you'll find a knuckledrugger on that forum who would reply "yes" to this question... it's always "artistic merits", not "political content" that they object to...
)
Will the current political climate hinder the restoration and unveiling of America Tropical?
Well, there're no arab-looking men on the mural, so Siqueiros may be safe here... Seriously though, our fearless leader is bent on "fighting communism" all over the world (according to the latest GOP commercial) so he might decide to start at home.
Should Los Angeles help fund the restoration of this historical mural?
I believe art should be at least partially publicly funded, so the answer is yes.
The answer to this question is an obvious "no" (I don't think you'll find a knuckledrugger on that forum who would reply "yes" to this question... it's always "artistic merits", not "political content" that they object to...
)Will the current political climate hinder the restoration and unveiling of America Tropical?
Well, there're no arab-looking men on the mural, so Siqueiros may be safe here...
Seriously though, our fearless leader is bent on "fighting communism" all over the world (according to the latest GOP commercial) so he might decide to start at home.Should Los Angeles help fund the restoration of this historical mural?
I believe art should be at least partially publicly funded, so the answer is yes.
I really really really love Mexican murals, like Orozco and Rivera, and think that this work should be shown. Whenever I get a chance, I go to the Zócalo in Mexico City and see the murals in the palacio de bellas artes and other locations.
But, based on LA's financial situation, clearly only private resources should pay for it. Why not just have a fund drive on mexican-oriented media, Getty is already matching funds. If every mexican immigrant in LA County pitched in 20¢, there would be a proud reminder of their contributions to world arts. And communists could join them contributing for a monument to their struggle for economic and political freedom in the new world. A win-win.
But, based on LA's financial situation, clearly only private resources should pay for it. Why not just have a fund drive on mexican-oriented media, Getty is already matching funds. If every mexican immigrant in LA County pitched in 20¢, there would be a proud reminder of their contributions to world arts. And communists could join them contributing for a monument to their struggle for economic and political freedom in the new world. A win-win.
Should art be censored because of its political content?
Absolutely not. Whether I agree or disagree with the message; art just as speech should not be censored.
Will the current political climate hinder the restoration and unveiling of America Tropical?
I certainly hope not.
Should Los Angeles help fund the restoration of this historical mural?
I would like them to. This mural is part of their city it is a part of their history. This mural is part of public domain and should be financed through public dollars. The timing, though, is probably poor, not sure if LA can afford it. I wonder, though, why this wouldn't fall under a national piece of work?
Absolutely not. Whether I agree or disagree with the message; art just as speech should not be censored.
Will the current political climate hinder the restoration and unveiling of America Tropical?
I certainly hope not.
Should Los Angeles help fund the restoration of this historical mural?
I would like them to. This mural is part of their city it is a part of their history. This mural is part of public domain and should be financed through public dollars. The timing, though, is probably poor, not sure if LA can afford it. I wonder, though, why this wouldn't fall under a national piece of work?
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.