Manual / Issue 13 / Storage

Manual, a journal about art and its making. Storage. Manual 13 opens with an introduction by Fred Wilson, who confides, “You can look at all the opulence on display in a museum and begin to understand that something nefarious might be behind it. Storage, for me, is where the action is.” Museums usually make choices for viewers, their curators presenting what they think most important within a category. They can be so good at doing this that visitors sometimes don’t realize there’s anything else to see: they don’t realize the nature of the decisions behind an exhibition, and they accept that the elites have made a judgment about which shoe is the shoe to see. Visitors can learn about what’s great, but they don’t necessarily consider the process of discernment. –– Fred Wilson The RISD Museum’s thirteenth issue of Manual unpacks the idea and reality of storage—objects museums don’t put on view, works made as containers of various sorts, and more metaphorical considerations about how meanings and narratives are stored. This issue serves as a companion to the Raid the Icebox Now series of exhibitions on view at the RISD Museum through November 2020, in which nine contemporary artists and design collectives use the museum and its collections as a site for critical creative production and presentation. Raid the Icebox Now marks the 50th anniversary of Raid the Icebox 1 with Andy Warhol, held in 1970 at the RISD Museum. Softcover, 120 pages. Published Fall/Winter 2019 by the RISD Museum. Manual 13 (Storage) contributors include: Christina Alderman, Issac M. Alderman, A.H. Jerriod Avant, Hannah Carlson, Wai Yee Chiong, John Dunnigan, Maria Morris Hambourg, David Hartt, Elaine Tyler May, Claire McCardell, Denise Murrell, Ingrid Schaffner, Holly Shaffer, Tanya Sheehan, John W. Smith, Mimi Smith, Sassan Tabatabai, Allen Wexler, and Fred Wilson.https://digitalcommons.risd.edu/risdmuseum_journals/1039/thumbnail.jp

Juxtaposing Brushes: Painting Collaborations in Early Modern Japan

This dissertation centers on a group of eighteenth-century collaborative paintings from Japan that juxtapose deities and immortal figures with Japanese maidens. The paintings – Kume the Immortal by Kano Terunobu and Nishikawa Sukenobu, Fukurokuju with Courtesan and Geisha by Kitao Shigemasa, Isoda Koryūsai, and Tanshukusai Shūboku, and Enma and His Mirror by Kō Sūkoku and Katsukawa Shunshō – feature combinations of distinct painting modes, brushed by painters of different ateliers. Produced on silk with rich colors, they were time and labor intensive works that required complex logistical coordination and high material costs. These collective endeavors and others like them raise issues of patronage, artistic lineages, as well as painting practices. In the three main chapters, I unravel each of these collaborative paintings, analyzing how the various layers of juxtaposition within them functioned, and what they meant to their audiences. I show that modern classifications of the paintings as ukiyo-e (“pictures of the floating world”) and mitate-e (“parody pictures”) fail to address the essential aspect of multiple authorship and its implications. These works, I argue, engage both juxtaposition and collaboration, so it is necessary to examine them under both rubrics to broaden our comprehension of painting production and consumption in early modern Japan. My study compares the paintings to literary illustrations and printed works of the same subjects to investigate the significance of the collaborative process. I employ detailed formal analyses to gain a deeper understanding of painting modes and their relevance to the formation of lineages and artistic reputations. Through a close reading of contemporary sources such as Nishikawa Sukenobu’s 1748 “Painting and Color Application Methods (Gahō saishiki hō 畫法彩色法),” and Segawa Tomisaburō’s 1818 published directory, The Edo Compass (Edo hōkaku wake 江戸方角分), I contextualize how painters self-identified and also how they were perceived by others. I consult, too, other primary materials such as diaries kept by painters and daimyo to explore the interactions between painter and patron. I end with a discussion of subsequent painting collaborations in the nineteenth century

Global economic burden of unmet surgical need for appendicitis

Background There is a substantial gap in provision of adequate surgical care in many low- and middle-income countries. This study aimed to identify the economic burden of unmet surgical need for the common condition of appendicitis. Methods Data on the incidence of appendicitis from 170 countries and two different approaches were used to estimate numbers of patients who do not receive surgery: as a fixed proportion of the total unmet surgical need per country (approach 1); and based on country income status (approach 2). Indirect costs with current levels of access and local quality, and those if quality were at the standards of high-income countries, were estimated. A human capital approach was applied, focusing on the economic burden resulting from premature death and absenteeism. Results Excess mortality was 4185 per 100 000 cases of appendicitis using approach 1 and 3448 per 100 000 using approach 2. The economic burden of continuing current levels of access and local quality was US $92 492 million using approach 1 and$73 141 million using approach 2. The economic burden of not providing surgical care to the standards of high-income countries was $95 004 million using approach 1 and$75 666 million using approach 2. The largest share of these costs resulted from premature death (97.7 per cent) and lack of access (97.0 per cent) in contrast to lack of quality. Conclusion For a comparatively non-complex emergency condition such as appendicitis, increasing access to care should be prioritized. Although improving quality of care should not be neglected, increasing provision of care at current standards could reduce societal costs substantially

Global economic burden of unmet surgical need for appendicitis

Background There is a substantial gap in provision of adequate surgical care in many low- and middle-income countries. This study aimed to identify the economic burden of unmet surgical need for the common condition of appendicitis. Methods Data on the incidence of appendicitis from 170 countries and two different approaches were used to estimate numbers of patients who do not receive surgery: as a fixed proportion of the total unmet surgical need per country (approach 1); and based on country income status (approach 2). Indirect costs with current levels of access and local quality, and those if quality were at the standards of high-income countries, were estimated. A human capital approach was applied, focusing on the economic burden resulting from premature death and absenteeism. Results Excess mortality was 4185 per 100 000 cases of appendicitis using approach 1 and 3448 per 100 000 using approach 2. The economic burden of continuing current levels of access and local quality was US $92 492 million using approach 1 and$73 141 million using approach 2. The economic burden of not providing surgical care to the standards of high-income countries was $95 004 million using approach 1 and$75 666 million using approach 2. The largest share of these costs resulted from premature death (97.7 per cent) and lack of access (97.0 per cent) in contrast to lack of quality. Conclusion For a comparatively non-complex emergency condition such as appendicitis, increasing access to care should be prioritized. Although improving quality of care should not be neglected, increasing provision of care at current standards could reduce societal costs substantially

Erratum to: Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition) (Autophagy, 12, 1, 1-222, 10.1080/15548627.2015.1100356

non present

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field