Scottish Colourists Exhibition: the Painters Who Stood Shoulder to Shoulder with Matisse and Cezanne

George Leslie Hunter's Peonies in a Chinese vase, oil on board, 1925. Fleming Collection

By Dr Blane Savage, University of the West of Scotland

The exhibition curator James Knox is to be congratulated on bringing together an impressive collection of work that tells the story of a diverse group of artists who helped transform and modernise British art in the early 20th century and contains work held in private collections not seen by the public before.

SJ Peploe, The Luxembourg Gardens, c.1910,

oil on panel. Fleming Collection

The Scottish Colourists: Radical Perspectives at the Dovecot in Edinburgh centres on the creativity of four Scottish artists: Samuel John Peploe, John Duncan Fergusson, Francis Campbell Boileau Cadell and George Leslie Hunter, who are known to be among Scotland’s most innovative and radical painters.

The Scottish colourists, as they were known, all visited and lived in Paris and were heavily influenced by the burgeoning avant-garde movement there in the early years of the 20th century. This was during its most dynamic and transformative stages, when cubism, post-impressionism and fauvism movements were evolving.

The exhibition highlights and contrasts the work produced by the colourists to that of Roger Fry’s Bloomsbury group members, Vanessa Bell and her amour Duncan Grant. It also includes work by the Fitzroy Street Group and several distinguished Welsh artists of that time, Augustus John and James Dickson Innes, as well as fauvist artists Andre Derain and Kees van Dongen.

The colourists’ paintings stand out in the exhibition through the maturity and confidence of their artworks, the tonal qualities and vibrancy of their colour palettes consistently rising above the more muted works surrounding them.

The Drift Posts by JD Ferguson,1928,

 oil on canvas. Fleming Collection 

The capacity of the colourists to study, travel and seek inspiration internationally, away from a grey Scottish Presbyterian climate, and particularly, embedding themselves in the Paris art scene in the early 20th century is impressive.

These artists stood shoulder to shoulder with their European contemporaries, inspired by the post-impressionist work of Cezanne, Matisse, Van Gogh and Derain. They delivered consistent and highly sophisticated artworks throughout their careers exploring light, shape and dynamic colour ranges, and often painted outdoors.

Each of the Scottish colourists returned to Scotland bringing new approaches to art with them. Peploe experimented with Cezanne-like geometric forms, whereas Fergusson’s practice was heavily influenced by the fauves. Hunter experimented with simplified post-impressionist blocks of colour to create dynamic shapes, while Cadell often focused on bold shapes and stylish impressionistic compositions.

Peploe, Hunter and Cadell exhibited in London’s Leicester Gallery in 1923 where they were first described as the “three colourists” by critic P.G. Konody.

Peploe, Fergusson and Hunter’s reputations were enhanced in 1924 when their work was bought by the French state after an exhibition organised by one of the most influential art dealers in Europe, Glaswegian Alexander Reid. He represented the four artists at the Galerie Barbazanges in Paris entitled Les Peintres de L’Ecosse Moderne, and turned their loose affiliation into an art movement.

Reid had also been responsible for developing the profile of The Glasgow Boys – a group of radical young painters whose disillusionment with academic painting signalled the birth of modernism in Scotland in the late 19th century. Reid was also a central figure in developing Sir William Burrell’s art collection. This was closely followed by a further exhibition in London’s Leicester Gallery in 1925 and then in Paris in 1931.

SJ Peploe, Kirkudbright, c. 1918,

oil on canvas. Fleming Collection

Peploe was the most commercially successful of the four artists, having a still life purchased by the Tate in 1927. His painting of Paris Plage captures the atmospherically startling white light of that French region. His studio work with a still life of flowers and fruit had the hallmarks of Cezanne’s style.

His love of outdoor landscapes, as shown in Kirkcudbright, painted in south-west Scotland, also resemble Cezanne’s primary geometric forms. He visited the island of Iona on a number of occasions with Cadell and other painters, revealing his love of the white sands, rocks and water which can be seen in Green Sea, Iona.

Cadell was known for his powerful still lifes, stylish portraits of elegant women in hats, and for his landscape painting on Iona. Cadell’s Green Sea on Iona and Ben More on Mull on show are part of a series of paintings of the white sands he produced on his regular visits there.

J.D. Fergusson‘s The Blue Hat, Closerie de Lilas is an outstanding piece on show which dazzles with the vibrancy of Parisian cafe life. He was attracted to fauve-like expressive colours and strong outlines in his work. The one piece of sculpture on display is by Fergusson, whose foray into sculptural medium in the Eastre, Hymn to the Sun is striking in its modernist aesthetic – like the female robot character in Fritz Lang’s Metropolis.

Paris Plage by SJ Peploe, c.1906/7,

oil on panel. Fleming Collection

Having no art training like the others, Lesley Hunter’s Still Life with White Jug and Peonies in a Chinese vase highlight his developing skills as a still life painter and they have a striking vibrancy to them. His outdoor scenes use loosely styled daubs of colour in a post-impressionistic style often in vibrant colours.

All the Scottish colourists were recognised for their influence and contribution to the development of Scottish art during their lifetimes, combining aspects of The Glasgow School and cutting-edge Parisian avant garde. But they fell out of fashion due to economic decline before the second world war.

They were rediscovered and packaged as a collective in the 1950s initially by art historian T.J. Honeyman in his book Three Scottish Colourists and were brought together with the inclusion of J.D. Fergusson in the 1980s. Although their key role in the development of Scottish art history is assured, interestingly their appreciation in France is even greater than in Britain.

The Scottish Colourists: Radical Perspectives is on at the Dovecot Studios in Edinburgh until June 28.

Dr Blane Savage, Lecturer in MA Creative Media Practice and BA(Hons) Graphic Art & Moving Image, University of the West of Scotland

What Does Platonic Love Really Mean?

Plato together with other ancient Greek philosophers, depicted in Raphael's fresco, The School of Athens, 1509-1511. Masthead cover of Celia Kritharioti's SS25 couture collection in Paris photographed by Elli Ioannou for DAM

By Armand D'Angour, University of Oxford

If the object of your affection were to suggest that a “platonic” relationship might be of more interest to them, your heart might sink a little. The common understanding of Platonic love, so called after the ancient Greek philosopher Plato, is that it indicates a relationship of strong affection from which sex is excluded. But there’s potentially much more to the concept of Platonic love than the absence of romantic or physical passion.

The term is derived from Plato’s writing on the topic of love in the Symposium, a work composed in the early fourth century BC. It’s set at a dinner party in Athens that supposedly took place much earlier in 416 BC, when a playwright called Agathon won first prize for his tragic drama.

Agathon threw a party – symposium in Greek means “drinking together” – where everyone over-indulged. So the following night the partygoers, including the philosopher Socrates, decided that instead of drinking they would give speeches in praise of the god of love, Eros (whence comes the word “erotic”).

In the course of the party, the comic poet Aristophanes offers a humorously extravagant story about the origins of love:

Once upon a time human beings were duplicates of what we are today, with four arms, four legs, and two faces. These double-humans came in three types, male-male, female-female, and male-female. They were over-powerful beings who threatened the gods – so Zeus decided to split them in half. Now we’re just halves of a whole, and each half desperately seeks its matching half in a quest for completion. This is what we mean by love.

Humour aside, Aristophanes’ tale accounts for both sexual orientation and why human beings may feel incomplete alone.

There’s great thoughtfulness and variety in the Symposium. In addition to this comic representation of love as literally “seeking our other half”, Plato reports four speeches given by participants, followed by a presentation by Socrates, and finally an extended contribution by the flamboyant Alcibiades, who bursts in late on the gathering.

For ancient Greeks, love was literally divine. The notion that love is a god (Eros) or goddess (Aphrodite) distinguishes many of the speeches in the Symposium. Another culturally distinctive feature is that the party consists entirely of men, who tacitly acknowledge that love is to be thought of as homoerotic.

In ancient Athens, heterosexual relations were rarely seen to involve an intellectual dimension. Women and girls were generally not educated, so the notion of intellectual engagement as a component of a relationship was something reserved for love between men, although Plato’s propositions about love don’t exclude (as Aristophanes’ tale shows) love between the sexes or between women.

In Plato’s day, Athens’ rival city Thebes had established a unit of warriors, the Sacred Band, consisting of 150 pairs of male lovers. The first speaker, the young aristocrat Phaedrus, argues that an army of this kind will be invincible, because men will always strive to show courage in front of the partner they love.

He takes sexual love for granted in arguing that love “inspires lovers to act nobly in matters of life and death”. The following speaker, Pausanias, makes a distinction between true love and sex, insisting that the latter should be reserved for committed relationships.

Other speakers offer more abstract views of love – as a force of universal harmony, or (as Agathon argues) a stimulus to artistic creativity. Socrates then offers to “tell the truth about love”, recounting how Diotima (a fiction evidently based on a real woman, Aspasia of Miletus) had taught him that love begins with physical desire but leads on to “higher” forms such as love of knowledge, beauty, and truth.

The final speech is given by the drunken latecomer to the party, the playboy politician Alcibiades, famously beloved of Socrates. The most handsome youth of his day, he describes how he once tried in vain to seduce the older man. Socrates was not interested because – as he argued a true lover should be – he was keener on improving the young man’s soul through philosophy than being gratified by his body.

Properly understood, then, Platonic love is not about the negation of passion but about its elevation and transformation. This means it cannot be simply narcissistic. Aristophanes’ myth of the original human beings seeking a similar matching half is challenged by Socrates’ doctrine.

Love’s aim, we eventually learn, is not to complete us, but to inspire us to grow creatively in relation to another person. Not to guide us to love our mirror image, but to lead us to educate and be educated by another person to become the highest version of ourselves.

This invites us to think about relationships in terms of shared aspirations. From this point of view, Platonic love means focusing on what lies beyond the relationship itself, on the ideals that connect those who truly love each other.

In practice, one might conclude, the highest form of love is a partnership in which two people are united by a common creative quest. Such love is not passionless, but a powerful force that begins with physical desire but ends with its transcendence.

To love Platonically is to see in another person not just what they are, but what they may be inspired to become, and to climb together toward something greater than one might attain alone.

Seen in this light, the quest for our “matching half” proposed by Aristophanes, if only in jest, cannot be the answer. And though we may not be wholly satisfied with any of the views expressed in the dialogue, the aim of the Symposium is surely to invite us to continue the conversation.

Armand D'Angour, Professor of Classics, University of Oxford

Efficiency or Empire? How Elon Musk’s Hostile Takeover Could End Government as We Know It

Elon Musk, right, has moved to take the reins of the U.S government. Masthead picture: Issey Miyake AW25 collection in Paris by Anna Nguyen for DAM

By Allison Stanger, Distinguished Endowed Professor, Middlebury 

Elon Musk’s role as the head of the Department of Government Efficiency, also known as DOGE, is on the surface a dramatic effort to overhaul the inefficiencies of federal bureaucracy. But beneath the rhetoric of cost-cutting and regulatory streamlining lies a troubling scenario.

Musk has been appointed what is called a “special government employee” in charge of the White House office formerly known as the U.S. Digital Service, which was renamed the U.S. DOGE Service on the first day of President Donald Trump’s second term. The Musk team’s purported goals are to maximize efficiency and to eliminate waste and redundancy.

That might sound like a bold move toward Silicon Valley-style innovation in governance. However, the deeper motivations driving Musk’s involvement are unlikely to be purely altruistic.

Musk has an enormous corporate empire, ambitions in artificial intelligence, desire for financial power and a long-standing disdain for government oversight. His access to sensitive government systems and ability to restructure agencies, with the opaque decision-making guiding DOGE to date, have positioned Musk to extract unprecedented financial and strategic benefits for both himself and his companies, which include the electric car company Tesla and space transport company SpaceX.

One historical parallel in particular is striking. In 1600, the British East India Company, a merchant shipping firm, began with exclusive rights to conduct trade in the Indian Ocean region before slowly acquiring quasi-governmental powers and ultimately ruling with an iron fist over British colonies in Asia, including most of what is now India. In 1677, the company gained the right to mint currency on behalf of the British crown.

As I explain in my upcoming book “Who Elected Big Tech?” the U.S. is witnessing a similar pattern of a private company taking over government operations.

Yet what took centuries in the colonial era is now unfolding at lightning speed in mere days through digital means. In the 21st century, data access and digital financial systems have replaced physical trading posts and private armies. Communications are the key to power now, rather than brute strength.

A security officer blocks U.S. Sen. Ed Markey, right, from entering the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency headquarters on Feb. 6, 2025, in an effort to meet with DOGE staff. Al Drago/Getty Images

The data pipeline

Viewing Musk’s moves as a power grab becomes clearer when examining his corporate empire. He controls multiple companies that have federal contracts and are subject to government regulations. SpaceX and Tesla, as well as tunneling firm The Boring Company, the brain science company Neuralink, and artificial intelligence firm xAI all operate in markets where government oversight can make or break fortunes.

In his new role, Musk can oversee – and potentially dismantle – the government agencies that have traditionally constrained his businesses. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has repeatedly investigated Tesla’s Autopilot system; the Securities and Exchange Commission has penalized Musk for market-moving tweets; environmental regulations have constrained SpaceX.

Through DOGE, all these oversight mechanisms could be weakened or eliminated under the guise of efficiency.

But the most catastrophic aspect of Musk’s leadership at DOGE is its unprecedented access to government data. DOGE employees reportedly have digital permission to see data in the U.S. government’s payment system, which includes bank account information, Social Security numbers and income tax documents. Reportedly, they have also seized the ability to alter the system’s software, data, transactions and records.

Multiple media reports indicate that Musk’s staff have already made changes to the programs that process payments for Social Security beneficiaries and government contractors to make it easier to block payments and hide records of payments blocked, made or altered.

But DOGE employees only need to be able to read the data to make copies of Americans’ most sensitive personal information.

A federal court has ordered that not to happen – at least for now. Even so, funneling the data into Grok, Musk’s xAI-created artificial intelligence system, which is already connected with the Musk-owned X, formerly known as Twitter, would create an unparalleled capability for predicting economic shifts, identifying government vulnerabilities and modeling voter behavior.

That’s an enormous and alarming amount of information and power for any one person to have.

Candidate Donald Trump speaks at a key cryptocurrency industry conference in July 2024. AP Photo/Mark Humphrey

Cryptocurrency coup?

Like Trump himself and many of his closest advisers, Musk is also deeply involved in cryptocurrency. The parallel emergence of Trump’s own cryptocurrency and DOGE’s apparent alignment with the cryptocurrency known as Dogecoin suggests more than coincidence. I believe it points to a coordinated strategy for control of America’s money and economic policy, effectively placing the United States in entirely private hands.

The genius – and danger – of this strategy lies in the fact that each step might appear justified in isolation: modernizing government systems, improving efficiency, updating payment infrastructure. But together, they create the scaffolding for transferring even more financial power to the already wealthy.

Musk’s authoritarian tendencies, evident in his forceful management of X and his assertion that it was illegal to publish the names of people who work for him, suggest how he might wield his new powers. Companies critical of Musk could face unexpected audits; regulatory agencies scrutinizing his businesses could find their budgets slashed; allies could receive privileged access to government contracts.

This isn’t speculation – it’s the logical extension of DOGE’s authority combined with Musk’s demonstrated behavior.

Critics are calling Musk’s actions at DOGE a massive corporate coup. Others are simply calling it a coup. The protest movement is gaining momentum in Washington, D.C., and around the country, but it’s unlikely that street protests alone can stop what Musk is doing.

Who can effectively investigate a group designed to dismantle oversight itself? The administration’s illegal firing of at least a dozen inspectors general before the Musk operation began suggests a deliberate strategy to eliminate government accountability. The Republican-led Congress, closely aligned with Trump, may not want to step in; but even if it did, Musk is moving far faster than Congress ever does.

Destroy the republic, build a startup nation?

Taken together, all of Musk’s and Trump’s moves lay the foundation for what cryptocurrency investor and entrepreneur Balaji Srinivasan calls “the network state.”

The idea is that a virtual nation may form online before establishing any physical presence. Think of the network state like a tech startup company with its own cryptocurrency – instead of declaring independence and fighting for sovereignty, it first builds community and digital systems. By the time a Musk-aligned cryptocurrency gained official status, the underlying structure and relationships would already be in place, making alternatives impractical.

Converting more of the world’s financial system into privately controlled cryptocurrencies would take power away from national governments, which must answer to their own people. Musk has already begun this effort, using his wealth and social media reach to engage in politics not only in the U.S. but also several European countries, including Germany.

A nation governed by a cryptocurrency-based system would no longer be run by the people living in its territory but by those who could afford to buy the digital currency. In this scenario, I am concerned that Musk, or the Communist Party of China, Russian President Vladimir Putin or AI-surveillance conglomerate Palantir, could render irrelevant Congress’ power over government spending and action. And along the way, it could remove the power to hold presidents accountable from Congress, the judiciary and American citizens.

All of this obviously presents a thicket of conflict-of-interest problems that are wholly unprecedented in scope and scale.

The question facing Americans, therefore, isn’t whether government needs modernization – it’s whether they’re willing to sacrifice democracy in pursuit of Musk’s version of efficiency. When we grant tech leaders direct control over government functions, we’re not just streamlining bureaucracy – we’re fundamentally altering the relationship between private power and public governance. I believe we’re undermining American national security, as well as the power of We, the People.

The most dangerous inefficiency of all may be Americans’ delayed response to this crisis.

Allison Stanger, Distinguished Endowed Professor, Middlebury

AI Can Boost Economic Growth, but it Needs to be Managed Incredibly Carefully

Erman Gunes/Shutterstock 

By Professor Ashley Braganza, Brunel University of London and Asieh Hosseini Tabaghdehi, Brunel University of London

The UK government’s efforts to integrate artificial intelligence (AI) into public services and stimulate economic growth represents a pivotal step in the roll out of the technology in this country.

AI offers the promise of improving public services by enabling faster, more efficient processes, personalising provision of those services for the public and optimising decision-making. However, the adoption of this technology in public systems brings inherent risks, particularly in an environment characterised by rapid technological developments.

A primary concern and challenge lies in ensuring that AI adoption builds trust in public services. Mismanagement of AI can worsen inequality, lead to job losses, and erode public confidence in government and the further rollout of AI-based technologies.

Balancing these opportunities and risks requires understanding the trade offs involved, notably the tension between job creation and displacement, unconstrained benefits from the misuse of AI, and the need for fairness, transparency, equity and a capacity to be able to explain the design of algorithms.

AI has the potential to generate employment in fields such as data science, algorithm design and system maintenance. However, automating routine administrative tasks such as form processing and record management threatens to make many public sector roles redundant.

The challenge lies in maintaining efficiency and accountability while addressing inevitable job gigification. This transition will not be uniform. Workers in roles vulnerable to automation will experience immediate consequences.

The government has rightly identified the need to invest in reskilling initiatives that prepare workers for an AI-driven future. Reskilling is necessary but insufficient to fuel economic growth.

As tasks are gigified by AI technologies, traditional full-time jobs become increasingly scarce, leading to more “white collar” workers experiencing income volatility, periods of un- or underemployment and precarious living. Yet, extant financial systems are based upon patterns of monthly income and expenditure on mortgages and rent or utilities.

Financial systems need to become significantly more flexible to enable workers to align uncertain income streams with unavoidable regular expenditure on necessities such as food and internet connectivity.

Oversight is key

The risks of AI algorithm failures are particularly apparent when systems deployed in the public sector cause harm. A glaring example is the UK Post Office scandal, where inaccurate data from the Horizon IT system led to wrongful prosecutions.

This case highlights the importance of oversight in AI deployment. Without a mix of regulations, guidelines and guardrails, errors in AI systems can lead to serious consequences, particularly in sectors related to justice, welfare and resource allocation.

Government must ensure that AI-driven systems are not only efficient and accurate but also auditable. Independent bodies should oversee the design, implementation, and evaluation of AI systems to reduce risks of failure.

AI can enhance public services, but it is important to acknowledge that algorithms reflect biases inherent in their design and training data. In the public sector, these biases can have unintended and unforeseen consequences that are invidious, as they are hidden in the depths of complex computer code.

For instance, AI systems used in housing allocation can exacerbate existing inequalities if trained on biased historical data. Fairness and trust should therefore be core principles in AI development. Developers must use diverse, representative datasets and conduct bias audits throughout the process.

Citizen engagement is essential, as affected communities can provide valuable input to identify flaws and contribute to solutions that promote equity. A key challenge for policymakers is whether AI can deliver on its promise without deepening social divisions or reinforcing discriminatory practices. Transparency in AI decision making is essential for maintaining public trust.

Citizens are more likely to trust systems when they understand how decisions are made. Governments should commit to clear, accessible communication about AI systems, allowing individuals to challenge and appeal automated decisions. While AI adoption will likely cause disruption in the early stages, these challenges can diminish over time, leading to faster, more personalised services and more meaningful work opportunities for government employees.

AI systems are dynamic, continuously evolving with the data they process and the contexts in which they operate. Governments must prioritise ongoing review and auditing of AI systems to ensure they meet public needs and ethical standards. Engaging relevant stakeholders - citizens, public sector employees and private sector partners - is essential to this process.

Transparent communication about the goals, benefits, and limitations of AI helps build public trust and ensures that AI systems remain responsive to societal needs. Independent audits conducted by multidisciplinary teams can identify flaws early and prevent harm. To fully realise AI’s potential and ensure its benefits are distributed equitably, policymakers must carefully balance efficiency, fairness, innovation, and accountability.

A strategic focus on education, ethical algorithm design and transparent governance is necessary. By investing in education, AI ethics and strong regulatory frameworks, governments can ensure that AI becomes a tool for societal progress while minimising unintended adverse consequences.

Professor Ashley Braganza, Professor of Business Transformation, Brunel University of London and Asieh Hosseini Tabaghdehi, Senior Lecturer in Strategy & Business Economy, Brunel Business School, Brunel University of London

Office Rebel: Maximilian Gedra's Avant-Garde AW25 Collection Promotes Sustainability and Inclusivity

Made of thousands of silvery safety pins, this ingenious gown was part of Maximilian Gedra's new collection. Photograph: Jay Zoo

Maximilian Gedra's new collection, titled The Office - Dystopian Hysteria, presented at Berlin Fashion Week for Autumn/Winter 2025, reinterprets corporate wear, infusing it with avant-garde design elements aimed to challenge traditional norms, writes Antonio Visconti. Photography by Jay Zoo

The silvery dress captured

in an atmospheric moment

on the runway in Berlin

INSPIRED by the contemporary workplace, Maximilian Gedra's expressive collection features an array of dramatic silhouettes and contrasting textiles. Eye-catching looks command attention with dramatic tailoring and colossal shoulders, meant to represent the pressure of corporate culture. Evocative combinations of materials include faux fur, leather, wool and cotton. 

The designer aims to explore the complexities of modern office culture and the need for equal rights within the workplace through his designs. He is making a critique of what he considers outdated professional attire. 

Committed to sustainable practices, the designer uses repurposed materials and turns them into new creations with embroidery and repainting. Two standout pieces from the collection include a dress made from thousands of safety pins and another with more than 10,000 hand-sewn, upcycled buttons, both demonstrating a commitment to environmental responsibility and artistic flair. 

Gedra wants to address sustainability and inclusivity in fashion and his new collection also encourages a reevaluation of beauty in fashion. By challenging traditional aesthetics, he creates a platform for discussion about how design can transcend superficial standards, offering more diverse expressions of individuality. 

Scroll down to see more highlights from Maximilian Gedra's collection including backstage