The 'Art' of Making Coffee

Coffee has become my indispensable item. Like many other 20 year old students I cannot function sensibly without my morning cup; always a medium white Americano, preferably from Taylors and consumed whilst sitting on the library steps with a good book in hand. Chain shops are just not the same for me anymore. The mass-produced and commercialised branding that must force out hundreds of cups a day does seem to take away the magic slightly. But what is the magic? - That perfect gulp, hot so it warms your insides but the right temperature so that you don’t cough and spill it all over your Dostoevsky. The taste? - No one could deny that that is a factor, milky but not a milkshake and a kick that compliments a pain au chocolat in a way not matched by any other culinary combinations. While it cannot be denied that there is a knack to a good tasting coffee, it seems to be the experience of drinking it that people savour. My ‘coffee memories’ are from sunny days surveying Somerville quad, an espresso in Kos when I hadn’t gone to bed and had multiple delays to push through and the breakfast family coffees poured from the silverware overlooking a green lake in Switzerland. They are the coffees I remember and it is not because of the taste. It is probably hard to tell much difference between chain and independent coffees, but I know with which one I would rather spend my morning.

It is unsurprising therefore that chain shops are using new tactics to demonstrate that every one of their cups is special, in order to encourage you to drink them. They implore you to believe that it is made with care, with love, with talent. In other words, it is art. This is the angle a well-known chain has recently taken with images of beans embossed with the words ‘coffee making is an art’ over them in its stores. What can they be doing other than trying to emphasise that they care about coffee, that it takes work to get it right, that it is not just mass produced, assembly lined liquid, but is considered, crafted and created.

But, what is it about coffee; the making, the final product, the experience of drinking; the ‘big R’ Romance of cafetieres and sun kissed mornings with a cigarette, croissants, berries, fresh orange juice and a newspaper. The ideal cup of coffee creates pure hedonism but at what stage does it become art? It may be during the process of creation- regardless of the taste of the outcome it takes a lot of work to make a good cup of coffee. It may be within the finished product- Oscar Wilde said that the artist was the creator of beautiful things, which does imply that it is the final product that must be examined to see whether or not it is art. But it does not necessarily follow that in order for something to be art it must be beautiful, especially not in a modern context where people’s conceptions of beauty and art have changed. Beauty is of course as much in the eye of the beholder today as it ever was and like with any other art form, people differ in their opinions. I know of many people who feel modern art to be abhorrent, an offence to the talent shown by the Pre-Raphaelites or the Impressionists, and yet Damien Hirst is a multi-millionaire. This might however suggest a greater question concerning whether the label ‘art’ has merely led to a pretentious and intellectually arrogant monopolising culture; pick something ugly and call it art and if you say it often enough, people will begin to believe it. 

Surely therefore, if art is viewed in the context of the creation and embodiment of an idea, an artist can create ugly things. It is arguably still art even if it is visually, orally, or sensually repulsive. A large umbrella term for art is what keeps it inclusive and applicable, evolving with the movement of society who after all are those that determine cultural ‘fevers.’ A shark in a tank 200 years ago would have raised many eyebrows and yet now, thousands will flock to see it. Maybe they don’t know what they’re looking at, but do they even have to know? A friend and I recently contemplated the consequences of art galleries charging extortionate entrance fees. The impact in his view would be that only those with sufficient intellectual appreciation and interest will go and not those who just want to say that they have seen that exhibition, that painting. That would to me, distort the entire concept of art and the enrichment that it can provide people with. It is organic, how many things can now be considered ‘art’ or part of the ‘arts’ than previously; food, drink, fashion, comedy; they can all involve the creation of beautiful things if our conception of beauty is inclusive and flexible enough. But, even if in our opinion that dress is hideous, that joke isn’t funny, that coffee doesn’t taste right, we can still look at the process; the talent, the creativity, the idea behind it can justify it as art as much as the merits of the finished product. I appreciate a Leonardo as much for the intricate work and effort that went into producing it as the final piece. Art should encompass everything- the inception, the creation, the experience. I do not think it is a bad thing to make the definition this broad; it allows for all tastes, interests and talents to have a chance at leaping into the new heights of culture regardless of what is the ‘right thing to be interested in.’ We are no longer so restricted by censorship, social norms or thoughts and can embrace all aspects of creativity if merely for the daisy sized spark of an idea that came into the artist’s head, regardless of whether it ever fully bloomed. Modern art antagonists often cite Rothko- ‘IT’S JUST A BLOODY RED SQUARE, I COULD DO THAT’. But you didn’t, did you? Regardless of whether you think a big red square is nowhere near as impressive as the roof of the Sistine chapel, Rothko has made it art through the employment of creativity. To some people at least he is an artist and that is all that matters.

To bring this back to coffee, that shop is right. There can be an art to coffee- in the making, the finished cup and the experience of drinking it. It is creativity that defines art and even if that creativity manifests itself as a crazy splash of paint, an eighty page long poem or the moonwalk, it can still be called art. Everyone has the potential to be an artist if they just cultivate their creativity, painters, authors, dancers and baristas included.  

Oxford Shakespeare Festival

The Oxford Shakespeare Festival or more fashionably termed the Oxford Bard Fest, began in earnest with a launch picnic in university parks, exploiting the glorious weather and providing the platform for what promised to be a two-week indulgence of the playwright. Determined to avoid a purely thespian dominated fortnight, the festival played host to music, talks and events as well as some new productions of classic plays, Love’s Labours Lost, Titus Andronicus, Twelfth Night and an ambitious 24 hour production by English finalists of The Comedy of Errors, the third years already requiring a Bard injection less than two weeks after completing their exams, which aptly included an entire paper dedicated to the Elizabethan playwright, the only compulsory author for English undergraduates to study so I am told.

The festival’s events began with a musical performance in Brasenose chapel- The Montagues and the Capulets- a compilation of songs that have taken their inspiration from the now renowned love story. Despite the undoubtedly talented female singer forgetting the words of Taylor Swift’s Love Story, other performances of modern pop by Dire Straits and the love theme from Baz Luhrmann’s 1996 modernised film, provided excellent contrast to Prokofiev’s masterpiece, which was performed by a wind quintet. This was an astonishing performance and only a shame that such music has now been usurped by The Apprentice for use as background to Alan Sugar’s sinister presence. The short concert closed with a jazz trio improvising tunes from West Side Story, the pianist’s imagination and talent were immense and many of the audience left open-mouthed at the unexpected composition. Serendipitously I was seated next to the festival’s producer. She insisted, on overhearing our discussion of the upcoming events, on the desire of the organisers to appeal to as many students as possible, regardless of their reasons for admiring Shakespeare whether they are his social, historical, musical or theatrical influence. This wish was definitely clear by the opening night performance. Other musical events throughout the week included ‘Lend Me Your Ears’ at the Ashmolean museum, a concert of Shakespeare inspired music by a capella groups such as The Oxford Gargoyles and Out of the Blue, as well as late night evensongs and candlelit concerts.

Not wishing to stray too far away from the dramatic path, the Bard Fest did put on a collection of plays; Titus Andronicus, Twelfth Night, Love’s Labour’s Lost and The Comedy of Errors. Love’s Labours Lost, staged in Christchurch Cathedral garden, accelerated the play’s situation forward in time to a Brideshead-esque era of scholarship- the men wore gowns, the women flapper dresses with the bitchy Rosaline perpetually clutching a cigarette in her claw like fingers. Aptly set outside, the play brought out some brilliant comedy moments particularly by Berowne, whose movement and facial expressions maintained an animated role and complemented the static poise of the female characters absolutely.

Succeeding in forcing into the fortnight as much divergence within Shakespeare as possible, the Bard Fest also provided a forum for new writing in the form of Unsex Me Here, a presentation of the female monologues contextualised in the scenario of a belligerent director, herself attempting to stage a production. Staged in the Norrington room of Blackwells book shop, the play’s originality, wit and imagination provided an excellent if short distraction, facilitating a whole new Shakespearean perspective, something that many productions have in my opinion tried and failed to accomplish. The audience were presented with an insightful and honest portrayal of Shakespearean characters. There was some excellent acting from each of the cast members and noticeable differences between the speeches when the fictional director asked for the words to be read as a witch, a lecturer, a housewife, with controlled anger and amusedly ‘drag queen sexy,’ the latter being part of the attempt to present a woman playing a woman being played by a man. Not only this, but Unsex Me Here was a witty exploration into the role of women in modern society, particularly the relationships between women. It also gave a completely believable presentation of the world of ‘backstage’ with frequent references to bickering actresses, diva-like behaviour and obscure theatrical techniques, with the actress at one point being told to go outside and spin around three times before spitting, to improve her voice.

Faced with a stream of monologues of Shakespearean females, the play had the potential to become overtly feminist, the all female cast prompted concerns for this, but any feminist references were subtle and therefore thought provoking and powerful. Including different interpretations of the role that Shakespeare gave his women, whether even the powerful women were truly powerful, Cleopatra or Emilia providing good discussion points, or even why Shakespeare never wrote about a tragic heroine or how the speeches would have been different if Shakespeare had been a woman, were all thoroughly interesting questions that I left the Norrington room pondering. The play encapsulated critical and analytical deconstructions of Shakespearean works, how to present the women, as well as references to attempts to ‘redo’ Shakespeare in modern days, the suggestion that there had been a version in which the characters were ‘acrobats, suspended from silk ropes over an aquarium’ inducing giggles from many an audience member reflecting on that really weird Shakespeare interpretation they had recently seen, the director desperately trying to make their production memorable. Writer and director Mary Flanigan should be commended for managing to convey such a breadth of literary issues in such a short space of time, with refined dialogue and inter-textual references, including Virginia Woolf, poetry and actor interviews. When the monologues were spoken, they were conveyed with conviction and emotion. The cynical critic delivered earnest speeches and provided the springboard for much of the literary controversies that Shakespeare has provoked while the director was just the right amount of cutting, edging on malicious to produce her character’s stereotypical indifference and a great platform for chemistry with the other characters. Her relationship with her assistant director in particular provided an amusing insight into the private sparks of a back stage crew. This relationship allowed a context for the monologues demonstrating that many of the issues of women during the time of Shakespeare are just as relevant today, the claim that ‘there is no sisterhood in Shakespeare’ being followed by a comical catfight between these two actors.

The Shakespeare festival also provided constructive information with a variety of talks by lecturers and outside speakers. I attended Fiona Moorhead, the artistic co-ordinator of the Globe theatre. Fiona spoke about her role as well as the current season at the Globe, and then answered questions, prompting a discussion on Shakespeare’s place in modern society and paths into the industry. Her enthusiasm for an occupation at the place that is ‘home’ if one is a Shakespearean scholar accompanied by experience and skills determined her place within the organisation. In response to questions about the future of Shakespeare, how to sustain interest and ensure an audience, Fiona’s opinion of the far-reaching appeal of Shakespeare, how people can ‘find themselves’ in his work regardless of gender, race or class and the mere ‘beauty of the language’ was touching, and hopefully true. Concerning funding, Fiona emphasised that it is the narrative and relationship between actor and audience that is important- this is why the Globe works so well, and why regardless of budget, a faithful yet creative production can be staged. Finally, Fiona focussed on the success of the recent international festival where 37 plays in 37 different languages were performed. Suggesting that there is a gap in the market for an international theatrical venue in London, Fiona’s pride at the success of the festival was noticeable, as well as the obvious success of the festival itself in reaching out to new audience members and involving them in Shakespearean culture.

Hosting such a wide range of events- others included baking Shakespeare themed cakes, a Shakespeare themed performance by the Oxford Imps and a film evening and competition- there is no doubt that the organisers of the festival worked incredibly hard to ensure that there really was something for everyone and not just English undergraduates. The festival highlighted the extent to which Shakespeare has seeped into other forms of culture, how great his influence was within the arts as a whole and of course his phenomenal talent. All of these attributes certify Shakespeare’s place within society- his impact is inescapable- and the Drama Society was correct to celebrate the Bard. Calls of his irrelevancy or his being ‘over done’ should be vehemently ignored, as it is clear that those criticisms are definitely not the case.