I just got back from ten weeks in India. I filed my editorials for the Opus Newsletter before I left and when I got back there were 522 emails for me in my inbox—many of them were in response to my columns. I received more emails about the article on the impact of abstract art on people with Alzheimer's (March 2006) than I have had to any editorial in recent memory. Thank you to everyone who wrote to me in response to that editorial and further to that article, you may be interested to know the following.

An Associated Press article out of Philadelphia in March and posted on the MSN NMC website is entitled: Artist paints his struggle with Alzheimer's: Self-portraits document 73-year old man's loss of identity from disease. (www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11752410/) The artist is William Utermohlen who painted "richly detailed figurative paintings" that found a ready market in Europe and the US. He began his series of self-portraits when he was diagnosed in 1995. He wanted to document the progression of his self-view stopping in 2000 when he lost his ability to paint or draw completely. His doctors medically documented his skill loss during its demise.

During April of this year, a dozen of his self-portraits were on display at the College of Physicians of Philadelphia to commemorate the artist's life and the centenary of the "discovery" of the disease by Dr. Alois Alzheimer in 1906.

According to the AP article, Mr. Utermohlen is now in a London nursing home and cannot communicate but, "his desire to chronicle his illness in visual terms has proven valuable to researchers," said Dr. Anjan Chatterjee of the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Chatterjee studies the effects of brain damage on visual artists' output and has said, "Instead of simplistic left-brain vs. right-brain ideas about where creativity exists, when people produce art they're really using very different parts of their brain and the different components work together in final product."

In 2001, as a result of the research of his doctors and his self-portraits, an article about Mr. Utermohlen appeared in the British medical journal The Lancet. The article was concerned with the fact that although Mr. Utermohlen could see that his skills were deteriorating, his creative impulse was not diminished! He recognized spatial errors but could not fix them; still, he painted and took pleasure from doing it.

I also got mail in response to my editorial on Canada's UN initiative to create an international convention on cultural diversity that is so vehemently opposed by the US (April, 2006). Two people wrote to me about my "anti-American editorial." I sincerely apologize to any and all who were put off by that article, and thank you for writing to me. The opinions expressed above my name are my own and any argument you have with them is with me, not Opus. Opus should not be criticized for my opinion; the company has been recognized twice by the arts community for supporting BC visual artists through the information provided by this newsletter.

I do not consider myself to be anti-American and my politics are not the issue: I strongly believe in the right of all countries to "protect" their indigenous cultural and creative expression. That is the issue. There are those with a different point of view and one of them corresponded with me. One writer laid out his position clearly and respectfully and I value and appreciate his respectful opposition. I learn from eloquent and respectful objectors. I do not want to fan the flames for those whom I might have offended, but I would like to say that my enthusiasm for this initiative comes from experience. I firmly believe that many contemporary Canadian singer/songwriters have benefited from Canadian content regulations and/or Canadian industry subsidies—illegal policies under some free-trade agreements. There is too strong a correlation between the dramatic rise in the consumption of Canadian cultural products (films, books, music, concerts, exhibitions) and the creation of content regulations, industry subsidies and other cultural protectionist initiatives that have played a huge roll in making Canadians aware of Canadian artists and artistic products.

The object of the exercise is not to remove American cultural products from the choices of citizens of other countries; the object is to ensure that the indigenous artists of every country have a "way into" in the cultural product marketplace of their own citizens. In other words, the objective is to ensure that the world remains as culturally diverse as possible. Cultures can become extinct in the same way other living things can.

In the past, I have written several articles about the Artropolis Society and its exhibitions. The Artropolis exhibitions were wonderfully chaotic showcases that often featured hundreds of artists, particularly the young and emerging artists of BC and attracted huge audiences. Born as a "Salon des refuses," the Artropolis exhibitions endeavoured to involve artists from all over BC. In 2000, an article in this newsletter led to a public meeting about Artropolis when it almost ceased to exist. The meeting led to a revival that led to the 2001 exhibition and the first in the studios of CBC television.

While I was away, I received official word that the Artropolis Society was disbanding permanently. Despite a valiant effort by those still involved led by Kiku Hawkes, all attempts to assemble a working team to keep the tradition of Artropolis exhibitions alive failed.

Artropolis' clock started ticking years ago. The shows were always supported by a healthy number of staff paid under an employment subsidy program. But the program was stopped as part of the Liberal government's response to the "sponsorship scandal." The 2001 and 2003 shows were miracles of achievement. They flourished as a result of a group of sincerely dedicated volunteers, the largesse of the Vancouver Foundation and CBC Television.

I will miss the shows and especially the openings and I will never, ever forget those years when Artropolis exhibitions were on everybody's lips. Everyone who made those shows possible should be very proud—especially Ed Varney.

To end where I began, let me return to the subject of my trip to India. It I went back in late January for my second time; the first time was ten years ago and that journey was the most exciting vacation I had ever had. This return trip was just as stimulating and inspiring. It is a particularly lovely place to visit if you have an artistic sensibility.

India is an onslaught of sensations. Taste is a celebration in India. It is a country whose history has been shaped by spices and whose divergent peoples have contributed to a rich, rich national palette. There is much more to Indian food than curry; there is such a variety that you never tire of it.

The smell of incense fills the air and the smell of food and spices is everywhere except in the countryside. In many places, the night air is rich with the smell of "Gateweed." And yes, there's also the downside of smell in areas where there are few-to-none public toilets.

But it is the sense of sight that explodes in India. The flowers amaze, as does the variety of colour on the saris of the women. Women work on labour sites, harvest, bathe and go to worship in these gorgeous' flowing waves of fabric that dance in the wind as the women walk and fill every landscape with huge "blossoms." The birds are beautiful and the air is full of birdsong; the trees come in every colour and many blossoms are massive. Even the fish at the fish market intoxicate the eye, and in the flower markets, where only blossoms are sold, no leaves, no stems, huge baskets and chains of beautiful flowers bedazzle tourists. Below are a couple of my photographs of the Kolkata (Calcutta) flower market: