A royal dilemma

It’s a big week here in Australia because the Boss is in town. No not Bruce Springsteen, her majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

While many will argue she’s not really the boss, Australia is a constitutional monarchy, so technically she’s still sort of in charge, even if it’s not in a day-to-day government sense.

Her Maj & the Duke arrive in Oz

 As with every royal visit from Her Maj, the monarchists line the streets to see ‘the wave’ and the republicans come out with their protests that ‘it’s about time we stood on our own because what does she really do anyway’. 

The Queen has visited Australia a lot in her 85 years, as have her children and while this is my first as an adult, I know they’ve always been a big deal in Australia. The little town I grew up in actually paved a few rural roads for a royal visit about 40 years ago. Yep, big deal.

Julia Gillard sans curtsy

There’s always a right ‘royal gaffe’ during a visit to keep the media and masses entertained, and the current one is no exception. And the first gaffe didn’t come from the Duke of Edinburgh this time; it was our Prime Minster Julia Gillard straight out of the gates, as soon as Her Maj stepped off her British Airways flight. Yep, Julia didn’t curtsy to the Queen, and shock horror, she chose not to.

I’m not going to pretend I wouldn’t curtsy to the Queen - I think if I ever met her, I would. But it’s the 21^st century people; can’t a woman choose to greet the Queen in the either of the accepted protocols? Yes, the curtsy is the way it should traditionally be done but the PM has defended herself. She said she was told by royal minders she could choose if she wanted to follow the curtsy protocol when meeting the Queen. The English media will probably refer to Australia jokingly as ‘the colonies’ at some point during this visit, so I’ve got no problem with our PM acting like a true ‘uncouth’ and not curtsying. You go girl. And it's not like she wasn't behaving in a respectable way. She still bowed and shook the Queen's hand politely.

Having the Queen in town makes a lot of Aussies think about which side of the monarchist fence they stand on. I will admit I’m a fence sitter, but probably lean towards being a monarchist for a few reasons:

      The Royal Wedding

Hello? This goes without saying. Who didn’t love the Windsors during that royal frenzy? I suspect a lot of people who didn’t have an opinion on the royal wedding had an opinion about Pippa Middleton and THAT dress. If you were one of the minority (or men) who didn’t care about the wedding let me remind you even fiercely independent countries (like the US) got sucked into the royal wedding tornado. On a more serious note, the wedding (as I’m sure the royal family was banking on) renewed a lot of faith and interest in the British royal family. And why wouldn’t it? The couple seems lovely and down-to-earth, with their feet planted firmly in a more realistic world than many other high-profile royals.

THE kiss

The Tudors

In case you haven’t seen it, The Tudors is a TV series chronicling the life and times (and wives) of the infamous King Henry VIII. No only was this series a pretty accurate and easily digestible version of the history of England, and one of the most famous royal dynasties, it also had all the drama and sex of a good episode of Melrose Place. Need I Say more? It’s renewed my interest in British history and the royals to say the least.

There’s also been a string of popular royal family-based movies in the past few years: The King’s Speech, The Young Victoria and The Queen.

R for royal, R for R-rated

Family history

This is a bit of a personal (and narcissistic) one, but I’ve been more interested in English history in general since I found out that one side of my family (like lots of Aussies) comes from the motherland. I thought my dad’s side of the family was German up until a few years ago, and I’ve been looking into our English family history ever since. I may or may not still be entertaining some unlikely fantasy that there’s a royal family link somewhere in my lineage.

So what do you think? Are you excited about Her Maj being in town, or could you care less? And what about the curtsy issue?

Valentino and the art of gallery survival

Living in Australia, most of the galleries and museums I have visited have been overseas. I’ve been lucky to see some amazing pieces, paintings and pictures in my travels, but never really at home.

Valentino: Retrospective, in Brisbane
thanks to Les Arts Décoratifs

That's why I was so thrilled to learn that Valentino, Retrospective: Past/Present/Future was coming to Brisbane's relatively new Gallery of Modern Art. Brisbane is kind of my home "city"; by that I mean I didn't exactly grow up here, but I grew up near here. GoMA had a coup on its hands with this exhibition, that's for sure.

Developed by Les Arts Décoratifs, Paris, Valentino, Retrospective explores the work of the Italian fashion house known around the world for its sophisticated, timeless design and glamorous clientele. It has been in Brisbane at GoMA since early August, and so time was running out to see the gowns all in one place, so close to home. I met up with my sister on a rainy Sunday afternoon, and we bought our tickets for a divine hour or so of fabulous fashion and general gorgeousness.

And the gowns were stunning. We had a great time guessing the year, or even decade, of some of those on display. Sometimes we’d pick the 1960s, and be correct, or we’d guess the 2000s, and the dress would actually be from 1959. Amazing, the style changes, repetition, and evolution, and how beautiful, intricate and timeless the vintage gowns were. We both adored the stunning row of black “rock” dresses from the most recent Valentino collection, fascinating that what most appealed was that which was most recent. Finger on the pulse, that Valentino.

As we wandered, we sometimes had to stop ourselves from laughing. Not at the dresses (although, some of those animal print sack-styles from the 70s were… different), no. Here’s the thing: have you ever listened to people talking in an art gallery or museum? Because, as I have learned over the years, it is hilarious. A few gems overheard at Valentino, Retrospective:

• “Yeah, it’s pretty. But if it were me, I’d take away all those side bits and just leave the middle.”

• “That looks like chicken wings. Totally. Chicken wings.”

• “Ew! So many feathers. That would be so itchy.”

• “How does she walk in those stupid shoes. She’s going to break her neck!”

• “Ha! Hope you don’t want to sit down with all that layering.”

• “Oh my god Ez, look how skinny Cate Blanchett is to fit into that dress.”*

(*last one may have been me)

So, my day at GoMA had me reflecting on the many hilarious moments I’ve had at art galleries, shows, and museums in New York, London, Paris, Rome, Venice, and Florence. It’s not just the comments, it’s also the type of gallery-goer. While most of us are content to appreciate the gallery or museum at our own quiet pace, there are also, I have observed over the years, several different gallery-going “types”:

1. The completist

This person buys the guide-book, signs up for the gallery tour, hires the audio-tour and must spend at least 90 seconds looking at and considering each and every piece in the gallery or museum. Don’t try to interrupt them or get in their way! They are too focused, even if they’re not really taking in what’s in front of them and are just counting down the seconds until they can move to the next piece.

2. The erratic

Also known as “my friend Kelly”. I would now like to invite you on a journey into what it’s like to attend a gallery/museum with Kelly. I have visited many with her during our travels, but have never actually spent the entire time in her presence, until Venice’s Gallerie dell'Accademia when we were forced, in some bizarre social experiment, to share headphones as they only had one audio tour remaining. Usually, I would wander the galleries alone, leisurely appreciating the work at my own pace. I had no idea where Kelly disappeared to, and I never asked. All I know is that she never, ever, takes in a gallery in any discernable order. Nope. Right from the entrance, Kelly darts about, revisiting her favourites, occasionally checking in with me with funny stories about what she’s overheard, or forewarning me about what’s ahead. She’s not unlike a puppy. This had never bothered me, until we were joined at the head in Venice. I started on my  relaxed way, which I’m reliably informed (as she told me so) made Kelly feel like she was being tethered and trapped, much like she was going insane. It was no better for me. As I wandered,  at faster than my usual speed, Kelly at various times tried to rip my head off my shoulders in a last-ditch attempt to view the gallery in her usual erratic way. Never again.

3. The over-appreciater

Of all the gallery visitors, this person drives me the craziest. They’re usually the ones who stand (in front of you, no doubt) and take a close up photograph of the picture before them. They don’t look at the piece, oh no. They take a photo of it and move on. You know, a picture, like you could find from a simple Google Image search. But being in the gallery, surely you want to appreciate what’s in front of you, in real life? No? Just want to show the folks at home that you were there? Okay. At least switch off the flash then.

4. The critic

I’m not talking about art critics here. I’m talking about the pretentious, loud, obnoxious gallery-goer who must share their (usually negative) opinion with the rest of us. We don’t care what changes you’d make to “improve” a piece. We don’t care that it reminds you of your days vacationing in the Greek Islands. We especially don’t care that you’re trying to impress us by having an “opinion”. Sure, think about what you’re looking at, but if you must, please talk about it quietly. And maybe lose the attitude? It’s not necessary to be critical of everything. Just taking it in can be half the fun!

And, there you have it. I know most of us probably fall somewhere in between those categories, but you know someone who fits at least one of them perfectly, admit it!  Regardless, I’m especially proud of Brisbane’s Gallery of Modern Art for bringing such an exquisite exhibition to the River City. And as the crowds attested to on Sunday afternoon, if you bring it, they will come. And who am I to say, maybe the dress would work better without those side bits?

Sprucing up the place for Oprah

So Oprah is coming Australia and if you haven’t already heard, you’ve been living under a rock.

The excitement in the media from Tuesday’s announcement verged on mass hysteria. Time the break out the fake tan and slap a shrimp on the barbie Australia – we’ve got an important visitor coming!

I love Oprah. I am somewhat of a closet fan. I love that she is on a first name basis with the whole world. I do find some of her episodes a tad on the preachy side occasionally, but even then I still find it hard to switch the channel.

But do we really need to be ‘sprucing up the place’ as I heard one radio station suggest today? I guess on the bright side, we’ve now got a Prime Minister and government sorted – an earlier visit from Oprah, Queen of Talk Shows, and it might not have been so pretty.

I’m all for giving a good impression of our country, but I really think Tourism Australia (the organisation behind securing the massive opportunity) need to go steady with the preparation work which will go into showing the 'best' of Australia to Oprah, her audience of 300 coming on the trip, and her audience of 40 million Americans (not to mention the 145 countries and 215 TV networks the show in syndicated on). Australia is great already – otherwise, why would Oprah say it’s been one of her long time dreams to come here? We already have a great reputation amongst Americans for having a beautiful, pristine country, populated with friendly people.

It would be great if our country could be promoted the way it is – without the outdated Australiana and clichéd (but effective back in the day) imagery of the Paul Hogan ad campaign.

Oprah announced on her show that she and her 300 audience guests will be travelling to Australia and experiencing different parts of the country. Some will be heading to the Great Barrier Reef in far north Queensland, some will be indulging in shopping in Melbourne and some will be heading to New South Wales wineries. It will all culminate in a mega-show at the Sydney Opera House, which will apparently be dubbed the ‘Oprah House’ for the event.

The figure being thrown around for the cost to taxpayers is $3 million and Tourism Australia will be contributing half of that. It is a lot of money, and sounds a bit ridiculous at first mention, but to be fair to Tourism Australia, what the promotion will do for Australia in the US and countless other countries is probably worth the money. Oprah really is the most powerful woman in television. And apparently they spent $180 million on the ‘Where the Bloody Hell Are You’ campaign and that didn’t exactly go down a treat. That makes Oprah look like a bargain!

Tourism Minister Martin Ferguson said Oprah's visit was a major win for the Australian tourism industry.

"This truly represents an amazing opportunity to showcase Australia, the warmth and hospitality of our people and the depth and breadth of everything our country has to offer visitors from around the world," he said. 


"Tourism Australia is finally getting it together.We as a nation will win as a result of this coup."

So come on Tourism Australia - lets go au naturel when Oprah gets here – that’s our best side anyway. Aussies are down-to-earth and genuine people. That’s the way we should showcase our country. I’m not saying we shouldn’t make a big deal, but let’s do it without the outdated Australiana.

If you’d like to get into the spirit of Oprah’s visit try Oprah-fying yourself here. Just to get you started, my effort is below! But let’s not Oprah-fy Australia. It would be great if she and the rest of the world could see our beautiful country for how it really is.