Thursday, November 6, 2025
Home Blog Page 3321

TO BE OR NOT TO BE…IS ETHIOPIAN FINE ART A LUXURY?

“From royals to the everyday people, the bling-bling culture prevailed due to the abundance of natural minerals and wealth…” Face2Face, Elizabeth Ofosuah Johnson.

According to Google search on the purpose of art, “Art influences society by changing opinions, instilling values and translating experiences across space and time. …(it) is communication; (allowing) people from different cultures and different times to communicate…via images, sounds and stories. Art is often a vehicle for social change.” And as to the question, is art luxury, Google answer, “No. The arts aren’t a luxury. Calling them a luxury merely means you deny the human needs of the poor and those clinging to the lower rungs of the social ladder.” Woah! Then there is the Guardian’s Charolotte Higgins whose treatise on Frieze, London’s major art fair featuring Ethiopian art over the past couple of years by the way, states, “It is a fantasy world, a parallel universe. Inside: the jetset, hedge funders, oligarchs’ offspring, the industrialists-some no doubt crooks, some chancers and some “serious collectors” spending months and years acquiring knowledge as well as art and whom the art world reveres. Outside: normality; mothers wondering how to feed their kids, the bedroom tax, child poverty, youth unemployment and housing prices.” Hmmm, read it all at the Guardian.
Then there is fashion with shamma inspired “luxury clothing” by Lemlem, Ethiopian model Liya Kebede’s brand. According to Vogue Business, “…resortwear line Lemlem employ many African craftspeople, their supply chains are global and reflect the reach of the African diaspora.” Decent read with nice photos including a happy group of Ethiopian women surrounded by beautiful baskets filled with white fluffy cotton and completed shammas, twisting final touches on some would say, traditional wear found from the streets of Addis to the ancient roads of Axum… now in top department stores from New York to Paris. Read it for yourself at voguebusiness.
Also worth mentioning is Addis Abeba’s St. George Art Gallery’s high end custom yet traditional craft of which French fashion designer, Count Hubert James Marcel Taffin de Givenchy, founder of the House of Givenchy said, “Luxury is in each detail.” Finally, let’s not forget about Bling, a Jamaican coined term for flashy jewelry, heavy enough to make a ‘blinging’ noise, made famous by hip-hop massive, Lil Wayne in the late 1990’s. Face2face Elizabeth Ofosuah Johnson writes, “Huge jewellery pieces made of pure gold and other expensive stones were worn or carried in the form of chains, grills and crowns. Due to their social impact, the culture soon spread across the globe especially among Africans all over the world. This culture has been practised by Africans since the beginning of time and was very prevalent in Ancient Africa. From royals to the everyday people, the bling-bling culture prevailed due to the abundance of natural minerals and wealth in the kingdoms. Royals were adorned with heavy ornaments in Ancient Egypt and West Africa…so heavy that servants stood close to kings and their family to help them raise their hands when they needed to speak…the display was part of the culture and custom that royals had to comply. The homes… temples and palaces found in Ancient Egypt, Sudan, Benin and the Ghana Empire, walls were made of gold and painted in glittering gold to signify that their kingdoms were wealthy. Homes of every day were no exception, and wealthy families showed off their wealth with gold or gold-plated utensils as well.” Much like our mothers of Tigray and Harar? Nice read on face2faceafrica.
So what’s my musing really about this week? It’s about the reconciling the knee jerk reaction to a painful past where the communist Derg regime banned the importation of paints and brushes, considering them “luxury items” for the bourgeoisie. It’s about provoking constructive discussion between those resistant if not repelled by the association of Ethiopian fine art and luxury, as if culture and luxury cannot or should not co-exist as it did in Africa for millennia, as mentioned above. It’s about self-determination and not always adopting Western perspectives including the “starving artist” narrative. To sum it up, I for one like the significance of African fine art as luxury, defined by us and for us and for all to see. After all we’ll buy a Benz, a Michael Koors bags, and Gucci earrings as status of success. Why can’t we consider collection of fine art from the best of Ethiopian artists displayed in the plethora of new homes and office buildings for all to see, even our cousins coming in from the country side asking mendinoh as we proudly explain? Combining culture and luxury grows the industry for African art appraisers, insurers, asset managers, institutional collectors and more. Galleries would be given space to grow, giving voice to voiceless, going beyond our usual complaints and cries for change in the fledgling art industry. Most of all, this re-classification would help transform a society through the wealth of art, accessible to all with no shame about making money along the way, as we grow our economy while stretching the limits of our mind. Let’s not wait till its too late and we are told we can’t define or do with our fine art, our precious resource, as we like, much like the conundrum over our water. Imjussayin…

Dr. Desta Meghoo is a Jamaican born
Creative Consultant, Curator and cultural promoter based in Ethiopia since 2005. She also serves as Liaison to the AU for the Ghana based, Diaspora African Forum.

Revisiting the US-China trade deal

Wariness of a trade war between the United States and China has been rattling investors worldwide. While proponents of free trade will continue to insist that there can be no winner in an all-out trade war, they also are well aware that the current playing field is hardly even. The administration of President Trump insistence on reciprocity in trade enjoys support from free traders and protectionists alike. The problem, though, lies in the United States side placing far too much emphasis on reducing the trade deficit and not enough on investing in future United States competitiveness.
Barry Wood, a Washington writer and broadcaster. His new book is Exploring New Europe, a Bicycle Journey stated that instead of putting up trade barriers to protect select United States industries, the United States government should learn from Asia’s recent past by investing strategically in key sectors that will strengthen the nation’s economic foundation. That is certainly the approach China is taking with its Made in China 2025 plan. It identifies 10 key sectors as critical for the nation’s future, including biotechnology, robotics, IT and aerospace.
Barry Wood noted that the core driver of the strategy is an acknowledgement that China no longer wants to compete in low-skill manufacturing industries. Moving up the value-added chain is especially pressing as China is already losing out in sectors such as textiles and footwear manufacturing to lower-cost countries including Thailand and Vietnam. Industrial policies are hardly unique to China or even to Asia. One of the most recent notable government-driven plans is from Germany and its Industry 4.0 plan. The initiative was adopted in 2013 in an effort to integrate technology and manufacturing to enhance efficiency as well as competitiveness. Chancellor Angela Merkel embraces it as a means to ensure that Germany remains a leading economic power. Japan’s history of close relations between the government and the private sector, as well as prioritizing resources to targeted areas also remains a lesson in how public policy can bolster growth.
According to Shihoko Goto, Senior Associate for Northeast Asia at the Woodrow Wilson International Center, currently, the United States remains the undisputed global leader in technology and more broadly, in the services sector. Indeed, it has a global trade surplus of 262 billion dollar in the service sector, thanks to its competitive edge in 21st century industries such as telecommunications, information technology and financial services. But the question is whether it can remain in the pole position without proactive support from Washington. After all, other major economies are stepping up their own interventionist policies to challenge United States leadership in technology, innovation and the service sectors.
Yet, instead of taking measures to protect and further the United States lead in growing industries of the future, Washington has traditionally been reluctant to take the initiative to pursue industrial policies. Echoing the steps taken in the 1980s and 1990s, when the target was Japan rather than China today, the United States focus is on taking protectionist measures to salvage the United States manufacturing sector and reduce the trade deficit in goods, rather than to expand the surplus in services still further.
Shihoko Goto noted that “Phase One” of the United States-China trade agreement that is being signed in Washington recently is a step forward but it leaves many in the United States frustrated. Enforcement is one major concern. The 80-plus page agreement commits China not only to boost purchases of United States agricultural products, but to halt technology transfers required under many joint venture deals with United States companies.
Robert Lighthizer, the United States Trade Representative, says yes, the Chinese will actually make good on those promises. But he concedes that the extent to which China keeps its promises depends on whether reformers or hardliners hold the reins of power in Beijing. Should the Chinese fail to comply, United States tariffs, which are to be gradually eliminated under the “Phase One” deal, can be reactivated.
According to Robert Lighthizer, left out for now are big issues involving high tech, subsidies and the trade distorting “Made in China 2025” industrial policy. Carnegie Mellon professor Lee Branstetter sees the China 2025 initiative as Beijing’s pursuit of “an aggressive industrial policy that seeks to exclude, expropriate, and overtake foreign firms.“ China, Branstetter says, “remains the most digitally protectionist major economy in the world.” China, of course, does not play fair, as any first-time visitor to China quickly understands when he opens his laptop.
China’s Great Fire Wall means that Google is not accessible. Similarly, there’s no Twitter, Facebook, gmail, YouTube, Wikipedia, New York Times or Washington Post. Pat Bajari, Amazon’s chief economist, says China’s data localization law unfairly prohibits the export of data. Last April, Amazon eliminated third party selling on its Chinese website and remains a player on the Chinese internet.
Robert Atkinson, president of the Washington-based Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, credits President Trump with blowing the whistle on unfair Chinese practices. Those had been effectively ignored by presidents Obama and the second George Bush. “He has awakened America to the Chinese threat and that game changer will endure no matter who wins the 2020 presidential election.”
Daniel Russel of the Asia Society Policy Institute calls both presidents Trump and Xi Jinping economic nationalists. “There are parallels,” he said, between Trump’s “Make America Great and Xi’s China Rejuvenation.” Both narratives, he says, are nationalistic and make technological leadership a top priority. Daniel Russel noted that the path to a broader, more significant trade deal is obviously difficult. Not only are both countries vying for global leadership. They also operate on the basis of strikingly different political structures. That makes the “Phase One” deal significant. Washington and Beijing are finding ways to communicate.
The real question is trust and whether China and the United States will play by established trade rules. There are worries that they may end up making a deal that fits only their own bilateral interests, to the detriment of the global trading system. At a minimum, United States-China trade is being rebalanced, correcting some of the inequities that have long favored China.

Abraham Mebratu’s national selection in question

0

Although the fixtures are likely to be postponed due to the outbreak of Corona Virus, Ethiopian national team boss Abraham Mebratu called in to camp a 24 players squad to kick-off preparation for African nations qualification group stage third round against Niger. Headlines are more dominated by news of the controversial selection than the double face-off against Niger on the 28th March with the home return leg three days later.
It took many by sheer surprise when Abraham’s sided leading premier league goal scorer Mujib Kasim in order to call Mikiyas Mekonen and Mesfin Tadesse. Add to that the selection of six players from 8th place Ethiopia Bunna while only one player each from leaders Fasil and Mekelle, Abraham appears more concerned about ill popularity than results to come.
“The selection is all about making happy the ferocious Ethiopia Bunna supporters and show off support to Kassaye’s unwritten theory” suggested a premier league coach. “Forgetting leading goal scorer Mujib Kasim and midfielder Fitsum Alemu and calling Mikiyas Makonen and Yehun Enedshaw from bottom of the table Hadiya is something bizarre” he added.
Including goalie T/Mariam Shanko six players (two defenders, two strikes and one midfielder) called from Bunna whereas one each from the league leaders makes the selection open for any speculation. Baherdar’s phenomenal midfielder with four goals in his name Fitsum Alemu, Fekreyesus T/ Berhan of Ethiopia Bunna and defender Wondemeneh Dreje are the notable absentees.
Never a footballer but Football Federation’s golden boy for his charm and soft spoken character, national Coach Abraham is under heavy pressure from Professional Footballers Association and media outlets.

St George suspend Serbian Coach Zivojnov

0

Following the shocking home defeat at the hands of new comers Wolkite over the weekend, St George suspended Serbian Coach Srdan Zivojnov along with his assistants Zerihun Shengeta and goal keeper Ugandan Emi Ndeyzim. The troubled ship is now under the command of former internationals Salhadin Said and Getaneh Kebede.
The sacking of Zivojnov just halfway through the season might not be surprising for he hardly acted a professional on or off the field. With number of foreign players signed hardly to deliver results and inconsistency written on all over the first round fixtures, the Serbian is said to have been in the blind on major decision makings. Some even suggested his passiveness on the interference of team selection.
Sources disclosed that Srdan Zivojnov’s loyalty was more to his pay check therefore careful never to practice his authority on senior players.
“He very much lacks confidence therefore always careful not to antagonize big name players even at times when they’re poorly performing” suggested a former player who left the club in desperation. “He is not the final decision maker even for team selection therefore the final line-up undisclosed until late into a game” he added.
According to insiders the senior players who are under pressure for failing to deliver what is expected of them are the coup plotters for the ouster of the 47 year old coach who has an eighteen months remaining contract. It is said that he might return home with 18 months’ salary that is not less than three million Birr.
“This is the only way to the veteran players that are on the twilight of their carrier. They sacrificed everyone including the coaching staffs to save their skin and the staggering six digit salary,” remarked a club supporter who said that he is disgusted of the players’ performance.