Latest news with #EdwardHopper
CBS News
17-06-2025
- Entertainment
- CBS News
John Middleton's art collection to be featured in 2-museum show in Philadelphia for U.S.'s 250th anniversary
Phillies managing partner John Middleton, famous for spending "stupid money" on superstars, and his family will contribute more than 120 paintings and pieces of furniture to a two-museum show as part of Philadelphia's celebrations for the U.S.'s 250th anniversary. The Middletons' family collection will be featured in "A Nation of Artists," a collaboration between the Philadelphia Museum of Art and the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, showcasing over 1,000 works of art to commemorate America's semiquincentennial. "Our aspiration is that this exhibition is for everyone — no prior knowledge of art or history required," Middleton said in a statement. "We believe in the power of storytelling to connect people and are thrilled to partner with these two storied institutions to share the works that have brought our family so much joy and inspiration. Like baseball, art has the power to bring people together and surprise us when we least expect it. With every viewing, there's something new to discover." "The Lee Shore," by Edward Hopper, is one of the works owned by Middleton that will be on display. Edward Hopper/Philadelphia Phillies "A Nation of Artists" will be open to the public at both the Art Museum and PAFA from April 2026 to September 2027. The exhibition will explore the "richness of American art," according to a news release. The Middletons' collection will be interwoven into the double show, which will include paintings, sculptures, furniture, decorative arts and photography. The exhibition will also include paintings from Charles Willson Peale, John Singer Sargent and Horace Pippin, the Art Museum and PAFA said in a news release. "What makes American art so powerful is not only where it was created but also who made it — and why," Sasha Suda, CEO of the Philadelphia Museum of Art, said in a statement. "'A Nation of Artists' will present a broad and vibrant picture of artistic expression that was happening across the country through both familiar icons and voices that have historically been overlooked." Philadelphia has a large slate of events to celebrate America's 250th birthday in 2026, including several major sporting events. The city is one of 11 U.S. host cities for the FIFA World Cup, will host the MLB All-Star Game and Home Run Derby, part of the NCAA Tournament and the PGA Championship in 2026.
Hindustan Times
13-06-2025
- Health
- Hindustan Times
‘Is it just me, or....': A Wknd special on loneliness
It looks different to every person who fights it. In Japan and South Korea, people are so lonely, they may die and not be discovered for days. (In Japan, a country of 124 million, over 58,000 such deaths occurred in 2024 alone.) In the US and parts of Europe, so isolated are some people's lives that this has happened in the workplace. In India, amid the teeming millions, there is the loneliness in a crowd that Edward Hopper captured so evocatively, in his paintings of modern American life. There is also the loneliness of being… the only Dalit, a differently abled person, mentally challenged, or simply the head of a household in a system where such a man is expected to have all the answers and show none of the strain. Typically, loneliness is understood as the sentiment of: 'If I disappeared tomorrow, would anyone really care that I was gone?' In our overcrowded, overworked, insular cities, there are also the questions: 'If I disappeared tomorrow, would they miss me or what I bring to the table?' and 'Do they even see me? Do they know I'm here?' *** Many of us have asked these questions, in anger or anxiety. When such questions go from the occasional rant to the ideas by which one defines one's place in the world, it is considered chronic loneliness. More ironclad definitions are hard to come by. The World Health Organization (WHO) describes loneliness as a 'subjective distressing experience' that stems from perceived isolation or the lack of meaningful connections. It has been ringing the alarm bells about this condition for years. In 2023, WHO declared loneliness a 'global public health concern'. Also that year, it invited 11 key policymakers, researchers and advocates to join a Commission on Social Connection, to help frame a strategy for solutions. 'Given the profound health and societal consequences of loneliness and isolation, we have an obligation to make the same investments in rebuilding the social fabric of society that we have made in addressing other global health concerns, such as tobacco use, obesity, and the addiction crisis,' Dr Vivek Murthy, then US Surgeon General and co-chair of the commission, said in a statement. *** What do the health and societal consequences look like? In a 2023 report that became controversial for its title (Our Epidemic of Loneliness and Isolation) but not for its findings, Dr Murthy laid out the ways in which isolation could have an impact similar to smoking 15 cigarettes a day. The condition is associated with a 25% increase in the risk of early death, a 30% rise in the risk of stroke and cardiovascular disease, and an increase of as much as 50% in the risk of developing dementia. The reasons are as simple as you think. Everyone needs someone to help care for them, and encourage them to care for themselves. We all lean on others to alleviate stress, stay active. But we also lean on others to confirm that we matter and belong. The simple truth is, we need other people, as Dr Murthy puts it, in an illuminating conversation with Simon Sinek on the podcast A Bit of Optimism in January. (More on that in a bit.) *** Can one be lonely in a country of 1.4 billion? About 13% of India's seniors report loneliness, researchers from Banaras Hindu University (BHU) found, when they analysed data from the Longitudinal Ageing Study in India (LASI) Wave-1, a representative survey of over 72,000 individuals conducted in 2017-18. (LASI-1, incidentally, was a joint effort by the International Institute for Population Sciences, Mumbai; Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston; and University of Southern California, Los Angeles, with aid from India's union health ministry.) Around the world, and now in India, a shift in family structure — from joint to nuclear to a rise in single-person households — has contributed to loneliness. But the problem goes much deeper. There is, of course, the growing reliance on digital platforms, which has resulted in a worrying trend of social isolation even among the youth, says Dr Manoj Sharma, head of the SHUT (Service for Healthy Use of Technology) clinic at the National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences (NIMHANS). But then he hits on perhaps the most dominant factor in the rise of loneliness today. 'In an increasingly competitive world, we are, from a young age, constantly hustling and chasing one goal after another. This leads to stress, anxiety and a sense of isolation that stems from the structure of one's day and life, as well as from feelings such as 'Am I doing enough?' 'Am I falling behind?' This make people vulnerable to loneliness from an early age.' Sharma's view is echoed by doctors, psychiatrists, researchers in health, urban planning and social affairs, mayors, governors and prime ministers around the world. (Read the story alongside for more on this.) *** One reason loneliness hurts so much is that it creates a sense of invalidation and insecurity. The opposite, the sense of inclusion and acknowledgement, is easy enough to achieve. A passing interaction with a stranger, a visit from a volunteer or a chat with the local grocer can help. Both sides in such interactions walk away feeling ebullient. Studies have traced this to a rush of endorphins that researchers say evolved as a way to encourage humans to bond, as a way to increase our chances of survival. And yet, as Murthy points out on the podcast, rather than promote such interaction and connection today, we tell people that their best chance of finding joy is to focus on themselves. 'We are taught to prize success over relationships and that is part of the problem,' he says. *** How did we end up with this idea? The shift was cultural. And we can even, in a sense, date it. Until the 1800s, loneliness just meant oneliness, a kind of solitude, says cultural historian Fay Bound Alberti, author of A Biography of Loneliness (2019). And so when Wordsworth speaks of wandering lonely as a cloud, it conveys a cheerful solitude. The term evolved to capture a kind of emotional lack, Alberti says, in a 'period of industrialisation, urbanisation and the breakdown of traditional communities… (amid) a movement… towards individualism and consumer capitalism.' Over the next century, this new culture began to spread. Then came the wars, the Great Depression, and the horrors of the holocaust. Exhausted and ready to move on, they stepped into an economic boomtime. In the US, this resulted in a decade, the 1950s, defined by a drive for individual success and an almost-unprecedented growth in personal wealth. Modesty was shrugged off; status symbols abounded. Our current world, as Sinek puts it in his podcast, could be seen as the extreme end of this pendulum swing. Loneliness emerged in the 'cracks, in the formation of a society that was less inclusive and communal and more grounded in the scientific, medicalized idea of an individual mind, set against the rest,' Alberti writes. (Read the interview alongside for more.) Where once we built stronger bonds than most animals, through community living, music, storytelling and laughter, the same endorphin system is now activated by meaningless nuggets on a glowing blue screen. *** Where do we go from here? It helps that governments around the world are acknowledging the problem, says Hans Rocha IJzerman, a behavioural scientist, founder and director of the Annecy Behavioral Science Lab (ABSL) in France, and an associate researcher at the Oxford Internet Institute. Part of the reason countries are doing this is that loneliness is expensive. Studies in the UK, Australia and Japan have thrown up alarming statistics on the degrees to which it can raise healthcare expenses and lower productivity. It affects fertility and mortality rates too. In attempts to begin to address the problem, the UK and Japan have had loneliness ministers since 2018. South Korea and Australia have been allocating budgets for grassroots efforts to reach out to vulnerable populations. (See the stories alongside for more on these efforts.) The issue does need a lot more research, IJzerman says. We have varying definitions, a lack of data, and no body of research yet on the kinds of context-specific changes and interventions that might help. It will be important to address this gap as part of general health surveillance, IJzerman says. Or, as the former Surgeon General puts it: 'We need to widen the lens through which we look at health.' *** A moving private effort that also acknowledges this is taking shape in South Korea. Here, companies such as Not Scary, co-founded by Yoo Seung-gyu, a former recluse, are building 'share houses' designed for communal living. Residents cook together, eat together, watch films together and divide up the chores. These spaces reinforce a sense of purpose and confidence, says Kim Seonga, a policy researcher at the government-run thinktank Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs. 'This is key to recovery, because it can be scary to be cut off and feel like one is not serving any deeper purpose.'
Engadget
06-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Engadget
Please, Watch the Artwork is a puzzle game with eerie paintings and a sad clown
Fusing light psychological horror with the quiet melancholy of American Realist painter Edward Hopper, developer Thomas Waterzooi is following up his puzzle games Please, Touch the Artwork and Please, Touch the Artwork 2 by having you just watch the artwork instead. Please, Watch the Artwork is an upcoming spot-the-difference game featured during Day of the Devs that tasks you with observing a museum of living paintings and tracking down a sad clown that may be harshing the other paintings' vibe. In the game, you'll observe living versions of classic Edward Hopper paintings, like Nighthawks or Automat , and look for inconsistencies, like a character behaving strangely or objects being out of place — what one could describe as sad clown interference. You'll then click on the offending area and it'll be repainted, restoring the living painting to its normal gloomy self. To view this content, you'll need to update your privacy settings. Please click here and view the "Content and social-media partners" setting to do so. Please, Watch the Artwork riffs on popular horror titles like I'm On Observation Duty, Five Nights At Freddy's and dozens of other similar games on Steam that make you look at fake CCTV footage of a garages and office buildings. Waterzooi's game just takes a slightly classier approach. The combination of classic art and eclectic puzzle mechanics has paid off well in the past, too: Please, Touch the Artwork was nominated for numerous awards, including an Apple Design Award. Please, Watch the Artwork will be available on iOS and Android for $4.99 and on Steam for macOS, Windows and Linux devices for $7.99. Waterzooi's Day of the Dev's presentation didn't include an exact release date for the game, but he did suggest that it will be out around Halloween.
Yahoo
05-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Good Riddance to New York City's Tenant-Paid Broker's Fee
With the FARE Act set to shift the costly burden from renters to landlords, I've been reflecting on what the system actually offered me and other New Yorkers. In 2022, when I made the decision to move to New York City from New Haven, Connecticut, I was told that finding a place to rent for the first time would be a shock to the system. But after months of research—and an unholy amount of time scrolling Zillow, StreetEasy, and Craigslist—I finally found a listing for the perfect apartment. It was on the Upper West Side, within walking distance of my new job. It was a "one-bedroom flex," meaning my wife and I could set up a work-from-home space to accommodate our hybrid schedules. And it was beautiful: tucked atop a prewar, south-facing townhouse—with high ceilings, exposed brick, an ostensibly working fireplace, and a pretty incredible semiprivate rooftop terrace featuring views of 18 water tanks (I counted) that felt straight out of an Edward Hopper painting. The only problem was that the unit—listed at $3,850 per month—was nearly double what I had ever paid for an apartment before. Also, I hadn't fully internalized that New York is one of only two major U.S. cities where tenants are expected to pay a fee to brokers who are hired by landlords to show and fill their rental properties, which usually cost one month's rent or 15 percent of the annual rent, according to The City. (Though, because there is no legal cap on how much brokers can charge, there have been reports of brokers charging tenants even more exorbitant fees for highly competitive rent-controlled or rent-stabilized apartments.) The broker's fee for my apartment was 11 percent of the annual rent ($4,300), on top of the first month's rent and the matching security deposit. Now, the Fairness in Apartment Rental Expenses (FARE) Act—a landmark bill that shifts the burden of the broker's fee away from renters and onto the landlords who hire them, which Dwell contributor Anjulie Rao previously reported "could upend a hurdle in the city's notoriously difficult apartment hunting process"—is set to go into effect on June 11 (while the city's real estate lobby fights to block the law in the background). The FARE Act, introduced by Councilmember Chi Ossé of the 36th District and passed by City Council in November 2024, comes after years of thwarted attempts to reform the city's broker's fee system. So naturally, I've been reflecting on what I received in exchange for my compulsory broker's fee—and curious about the experiences of other New York renters. — I certainly didn't want to dip into emergency savings, but I suppose I wanted my perfect New York apartment more. So I called the number on the listing, thus commencing the service I received in exchange for $4,300. This—in order of least to most frustrating—is more or less what I got: No actual face time with the broker, who outsourced the showing to a colleague, which was fine (considering our later interactions), but it was still a bit jarring to be asked to Venmo a faceless-someone thousands of dollars. A real scolding when, on a weekday afternoon, I hadn't received the application I was promised and accordingly called the broker, who was shopping at Home Depot with his wife and asked why I was disturbing him. Typos everywhere, which is absolutely forgivable when it's an extra letter in a date ("May 1stt") but much less so when it suggests that the rent is $800 per month lower than advertised. Incorrect information on the official lease—including the wrong expiration date, a clause that the building did not allow pets (which it did), and a disclaimer that our fireplace was strictly decorative (which it wasn't). It's tempting to chalk my experience up to one-time bad service. But the more I reflect, the more I think that my experience is a product of a few layered problems that, taken together, amount to a systemic failure for New York renters. According to a recent New York Times story, StreetEasy reported that as of March 2o25, roughly 57.5 percent of rentals on its platform did not require tenants to pay a broker's fee. This means that avoiding paying a broker's fee could cut a New York City renter's housing options almost half in an already fiercely competitive rental market. — When I told my coworker I was seeking the perspectives of folks who've had notable experiences with brokers, he asked me if I had tried throwing a rock. In New York, they're everywhere. Indeed, it didn't take much looking to learn that another renter on the Upper West Side, Fabrice Houdart, a human rights advocate, had a similarly frustrating encounter with not just any broker, but the very same one who listed my unit. After not hearing back from the broker about a rental application for nearly a week, Houdart CC'ed the broker's manager, which seemed to anger the broker so much that he withdrew the offer against Houdart's wishes. The urgency was high for Houdart, a single father seeking housing near the school his twins were set to attend. Ultimately, after filing a complaint with the New York Department of State, Houdart cut his losses and secured a different apartment the following week (with a 12 percent broker's fee). But the experience left him with a sour taste. "I had this very awful experience because I had zero power. I feel the broker and the landlord have all the power," Houdart says. " [The] goal was to make as much money as possible. And I was only a number." For other New Yorkers, forced broker's fees have acted as a barrier to renting altogether. Alex Sramek, a technical writer, first moved to New York in 2013, and was initially excited when he found an "unreasonably cheap" three-month sublet within a three-bedroom unit in Washington Heights. Sramek moved in and immediately hit it off with his new roommates. But three months later—when the sublease period was ending and the group identified another nearby apartment to move into together—they were told they would have to come up with about a 15 percent broker's fee, which they couldn't afford. "We ended up just splitting ways," Sramek says. "We each just sublet in different apartments and we lost touch and it was kind of the end of that." After years of bouncing around from sublease to sublease, Sramek eventually landed his own lease on a one-bedroom apartment. The catch? It was only possible for him after the New York Department of State issued guidance to pause forced broker's fees during the pandemic in 2020—guidance that the New York State Supreme Court overturned in 2021 after the Real Estate Board of New York sued. Ever since that brief reprieve, some New Yorkers have been waiting for a bill like the FARE Act to eliminate forced broker's fees once again. Tim Samuel, a software engineer in Astoria, who has paid two broker's fees in New York and describes them as "nonsensical," was excited enough about the legislation that he and some friends attended the City Council hearing at which the bill passed in November. "We were in the background, just supporting and being there…forty-two members out of the fifty-one voted yes." That tally was enough to establish a veto-proof supermajority, meaning supporters of the bill could feel optimistic about its becoming law. That optimism extends to the FARE Act's sponsor, Chi Ossé, who developed the bill after several poor encounters with brokers during his own apartment search in Crown Heights. Ossé kept asking himself the same question: "Do you really want one month's rent for this apartment and you're not even showing up and giving a guy a tour?" When I recently spoke with Ossé, he made a point to say that he isn't "anti-broker." In fact, he ended up hiring a broker himself and had a perfectly positive experience. But he is "anti-things not being fair" and takes issue with the fact that the fees are forced on tenants who never hired brokers in the first place. When I asked Ossé what greater fairness might look like as the law goes into effect, he emphasized what renters will gain: "This just makes mobilization around housing as a tenant in New York City a lot more affordable…and [it] gives tenants more bargaining power, which they don't usually have in the current system." To me, it looks a lot like the sketch of a better future. After years of giving up money and trust in the system, New York City renters are finally set to get something back. Top photo byRelated Reading: Will NYC Renters Finally See the End of the Dreaded Broker's Fee? What the Roaches in My Rent-Stabilized Apartment Taught Me About the Housing Crisis
Yahoo
20-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
House GOP channels ‘Nighthawks' as they try to pass Trump's ‘big, beautiful bill'
House Republicans are channeling Edward Hopper this week as they try to pass President Trump's big, "beautiful bill." Hopper is known for "Nighthawks," one of the most iconic paintings in American history. The 1942 painting depicts four people in a diner in the middle of the night. A deserted streetscape commands the foreground. Two men – heads festooned with fedoras – sit separately at the counter, nursing coffee. One of the men has a cigarette tucked between his index and middle fingers. He's positioned next to a woman with scarlet hair and a red dress. She appears to holding a bite of a doughnut or sandwich, studying it as though it were a rare artifact. She seems to debate whether she should eat it. A young counterman – attired in white with a crisp envelope hat – leans downward in search of glassware or dishes hidden underneath. It's the dead of night. Everyone is distant and detached. Even the couple – even though they sit side-by-side – don't look at each other. In Nighthawks, everyone appears as though they're just trying to make it through the night to dawn. It's kind of what House Republicans are going through this week. 'Dead Of Night': Dems Accuse Gop Of Cowardice Over Late-night Votes On Trump's 'Big, Beautiful' Budget Bill Read On The Fox News App The House Budget Committee convened at 10:26 p.m. ET Sunday night to advance the tax cut and spending reduction package after a hiccup stalled the measure Friday afternoon. At 10:39 p.m. ET, the committee approved the bill 17-16 – with four House Republicans voting "present." The next stop is the House Rules Committee, the final parliamentary way station before depositing a piece of legislation on the floor. At 12:31 a.m. ET Monday, the Rules Committee announced it would prep the bill for the floor – with a meeting at 1 a.m. Wednesday morning. That session could last all day Wednesday. Literally. The Energy and Commerce panel met for 26 consecutive hours last week to prepare its section of the budget reconciliation measure. The Ways and Means Committee huddled all night long. The group of House Republicans pushing to state and local tax for high-tax states (known as SALT) scheduled a meeting with House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., for 9 p.m. ET Monday. And it's entirely possible that the House could be debating or even voting on the measure late Thursday, the wee hours of Friday morning or even Friday night. This is how Capitol Hill rolls when there's a big piece of legislation on the clock. The hours are late. The meetings are long. Lawmakers convene different sessions whenever they need to – just to get the measure across the finish line. Hitchhiker's Guide To Where The 'Big, Beautiful Bill' Stands, And What Happens Sunday In The Budget Committee The only difference between the halls of Congress now and "Nighthawks" is that the coffee fueled the figures in the painting until dawn. It was 1942. But this is 2025. Edward Hopper would know nothing of Celsius or Red Bull. There's an actual parliamentary reason as to why the Budget Committee met so late on Sunday night after its stumble on Friday afternoon. And there's a method to the Rules Committee's 1 a.m. madness on Wednesday. Let's rewind. The Budget Committee tried to blend the various provisions from nearly a dozen House committees into one unified legislative product midday Friday. That effort came up short. A total of five Budget Committee Republicans voted nay. They groused about spending cuts, green energy tax credits and the timeframe of work requirements for those on Medicaid. Four of the five GOP noes were truly opposed. Rep. Lloyd Smucker, R-Penn., voted nay so he could order a re-vote. Rules allow a member on the winning side of an issue (in this case, the nays), to ask for another vote later. Smucker supported the plan. But he then switched his vote to nay to be on the winning side. That teed up a possible re-vote. Republicans Ready Late-night Session On Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' After Gop Mutiny "Calling a vote moves the process forward. I think it's a catalyst," said Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington, R-Tex., after the failed vote Friday. The Budget Committee then announced it would convene at 10 p.m. ET Sunday. This is where things get interesting: The key here was for the Budget Committee to finish its work before midnight Friday. Once it got rolling, the process would only consume 15 or 20 minutes. The Budget Committee approved the plan 17-16 with four Republicans voting "present." "We're excited about what we did," said Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., who was one of the GOPers who voted nay Friday. But Norman still wasn't excited enough to vote yes on Sunday night. He voted present. "There's so much more that we have to do to rein in government and rein in the costs and the deficits," said Norman on FOX Business Monday. But regardless, the measure was out of the Budget Committee before the witching hour on Sunday. And then came the Rules Committee announcement – just after midnight on Monday – about a session at 1 a.m. Wednesday to ready the "big, beautiful bill" for the House floor. There are several reasons House Rules Committee Republicans decided to huddle at 1 a.m. et Wednesday. Let's begin with the parliamentary one. House Republicans Face Down Dem Attacks, Protests To Pull All-nighter On Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' The Budget Committee wrapped up just before midnight Sunday. The rules allow Democrats two full days to file their paperwork and viewpoints after that meeting. So, they had all day Monday and all day Tuesday. The Rules Committee needs an "hour" to announce its formally meeting. So, the "official" announcement of the Rules Committee meeting on Wednesday will go out just after 12:01:01 a.m. ET Wednesday. That triggers a 1 a.m. ET meeting on Wednesday. Here are the other, more practical reasons. Republicans need all the time they can get. There is talk of trying to vote on the floor late in the day on Wednesday. We'll see about that. But the early Rules Committee meeting time makes that a possibility. Second of all, it's possible the Rules Committee meeting could consume the entire calendar day of Wednesday. Streams of lawmakers from both sides will file into the Rules Committee to propose various amendments. This is a protracted process. But by the same token, meeting at 1 a.m. ET could diminish attendance. After all, who wants to show up at 1 a.m. ET for a meeting and maybe discuss your amendment at 6:30 a.m. ET? You get the idea. And once the bill gets out of the Rules Committee, expect late night meetings among Republicans as they try to close the deal. It's possible the House could vote at virtually any time of day Wednesday, Thursday or Friday to pass the bill. That could be late in the evening. Or even overnight. They will vote when the bill is ready, regardless of the time on the clock. Such is the lot drawn this week by House Republicans for the "big, beautiful bill." Maybe they'll have the votes. Maybe they won't. Maybe they'll pass more spending cuts. Maybe there'll be a deal on SALT for state and local taxes. Maybe not. Maybe the vote comes at 3 in the afternoon. But more likely, sometime late at night. Just like in Nighthawks, everyone on Capitol Hill is just trying to make it through the night and to the article source: House GOP channels 'Nighthawks' as they try to pass Trump's 'big, beautiful bill'
