When the unrest in Libya first began almost four years ago, newspapers and magazines reported about the explosion of art in the streets of Benghazi and Tripoli. Graffiti and murals covered every inch of bullet-ridden surface, lending the streets a visual vibrancy that matched the revolutionary fervor in post-Gaddafi Libya. Art exhibitions were being held for the first time. The international press regularly gave shout outs to Libyan artists, like sculpture artist Ali Wakwak and ceramicist Hadia Gana. International organizations like the Goethe Institute and the British Council invested in efforts to promote local cultural production, funding literary and arts events in Libya.

The passions that fuelled the revolution were soon replaced by disillusionment with the stagnating democratic process. However, a number of institutions have emerged recently to rekindle the creative energies unleashed by the 2011 uprising. Among them is Noon Arts, an arts collective helmed by Najlaa Alageli and Nesreen Gebreel, two Libyan women who’ve spent much of their lives abroad.


“I was really struck by, not just the firearms, but, to me, what was a cultural revolution,” said Gebreel. “All this burgeoning talent was just bursting out. All the street art, all the music, in the Benghazi headquarters, that’s all you could see.”

Many of the circumstances that kept Libyan art from flourishing under the Gaddafi regime and, prior to that, under the Italian colonization, persist today: a dearth of public and private art institutions, a lack of art education and the almost nonexistent art market. With no real institutional support, Libyan artists remain largely unknown, not just to the local public, but to the world at large. It’s part of the reason Alageli and Gebreel started Noon Arts.

“I go to exhibitions in London, and I see the Lebanese, I see the Palestinians, I see the Egyptians, everybody,” says Alageli. “And then I see nothing of Libya.”

Libya’s exclusion from the global consciousness around the visual arts can be traced back to the Italian colonization. The Italian authorities did little to encourage creative pursuits in Italy and even prevented most Libyans from pursuing secondary education.

“It was [Italy’s] fourth shore, and it was mostly for the land, to grow food for their starving people in Sicily,” says Hadia Gana, a conceptual artist from Tripoli who is represented by Noon Arts. For the Italians, Libya was culturally bereft—a perception that continues to pervade Western perspectives. In his 2011 book, The Arabs: A Journey Beyond the Mirage, journalist David Lamb disparagingly wrote of the country: “Take away the oil and the guns and Kadafi would be the leader of a cultural backwater ranking alongside the Dijiboutis and the Somalias and the other forgotten nations of the world.”

The political and social repression of the Gaddafi regime subdued artistic expression, especially for artists who were pursuing conceptual styles.

“There were art exhibitions and that sort of thing but it was very much controlled by the government,” says Gebreel. “So it was all propaganda.”

Says Gana: “You couldn’t go very clearly against the government and you couldn’t do things that were clearly nude, clearly sexual. Because you have the political taboo and the social or cultural taboo.”

Grafitti artist Aymen Ajhani, who began spraying his paint on Libya’s white walls anonymously in 2009, challenged these taboos head on with his signature stencil, a Hand of Fatima with the middle finger extended upwards. The Hand of Fatima, or Hamsa, is a hand-shaped amulet popular in the Middle East. Ajhani’s modern rendering of it was politically charged, a visual “screw you” to the powers-that-be. Ajhani had exploited an image very closely associated with Islamic mysticism and transformed it into a lewd gesture.

“It was getting crazy, because people were asking [about] who was making it,” says Ajhani, “They felt that I was insulting them.”

Ajhani encountered other challenges as well. He couldn’t purchase spray paint without showing his I.D., making it easy for authorities to track down dissenters who use the paint for anti-government art.

The Gaddafi government did, however, give Libyans unprecedented educational opportunities. Bashir Hammouda, Ali Wakwak, and Ali Gana, Hadia Gana’s father, are part of what is referred to by Libyan historians as the “first generation” of Libyan artists. They were artists of the 1970s who traveled abroad on scholarships and received their arts education in places like Rome and the U.K., where they were exposed to new alternative styles and mediums. Gana says part of the problem was lack of demand. Art was a luxury most Libyans could not afford.

“You didn’t have galleries. You had like, two, and from time to time, you had another because they can’t sell,” says Gana. “There’s no art market, that’s the main problem.”

The 2011 uprising provided Libyan artists with a market for the first time. The overthrow of the Gaddafi government meant no more institutionalized censorship. People exercised a new freedom of expression and produced adventurous forms of art. Ali Wakwak, who is also represented by Noon Arts, utilizes the remnant materials of war – bullet cases, military gear, gun barrels – to create sculptures. Gebreel says the Noon Arts collective has provided the artists with something else they have never had before: a platform for international critique.

“You can’t really improve unless you have critique,” says Gebreel. “We also have to work with artists that are looking to grow as well, whatever age they are.”

Noon Arts held their first exhibition in Tripoli, at the building of a popular architectural firm. More than 500 people attended, among them ambassadors and diplomats. It was a jubilant event that not only provided local artists with a platform to display their work, but a space where ordinary Libyans could view it for the first time.

“It created a lot of buzz and people were quite happy, because for 42 years there’s hardly been any exhibitions that are not attached to some kind of political propaganda,” Alageli says.

They’ve held several exhibitions since, including a wildly successful one in Malta where sculptor Mohammed Bin Lamin showcased sculptures he had produced from the remains of war. “To bring the artwork from Libya is a lot of work,” Alageli says. “We had sculptures that were made out of bullets. You need diplomatic passes to transport them.”

Despite the continued unrest in Libya, Alageli and Gebreel are planning a 2015 exhibition at London’s Shubbak Festival, which celebrates contemporary Arab culture. Ajhani will be there as well, showcasing his street art. Meanwhile, Libyan politics have once again descended into chaos. Violence characterizes life in the cities, while rival political powers have been jockeying for control through militia battles that take place in civilian areas. There is no clear governing power. The schools have been closed and there are constant electricity blackouts. Many artists, like Ajhani, who now works out of Copenhagen, have been driven out. But Alageli and Gebreel say that art is more important now than ever.

“’[Art] gives you hope, it gives you positivity,” Gebreel says. “People always need positivity. Sometimes, you know, if you look at history, the most creative times are during wars or during recessions.”

  • Italian man claims to be ‘human cheetah’ with lightning-fast reflexes
    Photo credit: CanvaA man with fast reflexes.

    At first glance, this probably looks like a camera trick. Ken Lee, an Italian content creator, has built a massive online following by doing something that doesn’t quite feel real. Viewers refer to him as the “human cheetah” because it appears he has near-instant reflexes.

    Grabbing objects out of the air with uncanny precision, flicking clothespins and lighters, and throwing a blur of punches and kicks at impossible speeds, it is easy to call him unbelievable. Half the audience thinks his viral speed videos are fake. The other half is just as convinced they are watching something incredibly rare.

    Hands so fast they blur time

    In the video above, a timer runs to confirm its authenticity. In what looks like half a second, he reaches out and snags the lighter from the table. To prove it is real, he does it twice.

    Having amassed millions of followers on his TikTok page, the identity behind the mysterious influencer remains largely unknown. Active since around 2022, with almost 100 million accumulated likes, Lee has cultivated a fandom around his self-proclaimed “Superhero per Hobby!”

    Do you believe it is real? Is this person the fastest human alive? Many followers cannot wait for the next video to be posted. Plenty of his fervent fans are Italian, so sifting through the remarks takes a bit of hunting. Here are some comments that sum up how much people enjoy the fun and the spectacle:

    “Ken lee the fastest and the best”

    “Most dangerous human”

    “Is this what the lighter sees before my homie steals it”

    “It was sped up during he grabbed the lighter, if u count up with the timer u would be off by like 0,5 seconds whenever he grabs the lighter.”

    “If the flash were human”

    “How is it possible to get such powers ?”

    “I blinked and I missed it”

    People love good entertainment

    The awe of peak performance attracts people to watch elite athletes, musicians, or even dancers. There is something that deeply satisfies all of us when a human appears to push a skill to its limit. Whether it is real or fake seems to matter less than the opportunity to chime in on some good entertainment.

    How far could any of us go by practicing and repeating a particular motion over and over until it is mastered? Beneath the flashy nickname and his viral speed videos, Lee’s content has a way of drawing people in. This is not a superpower. Just repetition. Focus. Obsession. And maybe some digital wizardry.

    Testing the science of speed

    If you wish to question the validity of Lee’s performances, maybe some basic science can help. Human reaction time is not just a reflex. A 2024 study found that the nervous system can fine-tune responses in real time. Practice can make movements appear almost automatic.

    It has been well established in research that the gap between seeing something and responding has a limit. A 2025 study concluded that the most elite extremes allow for reaction times of 100 milliseconds. At that speed, the human brain can barely process that something has happened.

    Science explains Lee is not necessarily moving as fast as we might perceive him to be. And therein lies all the fun of it. We cannot prove it is real, nor can we actually prove that it is fake.

    Maybe Lee is the “fastest man alive” or the so-called “human cheetah.” Or maybe he is just a remarkable entertainer. Either way, he has clearly tapped into something strange and fascinating: a blend of human ability and fantasy that people do not want to miss.

    To give context to Lee’s videos, watch this performance on Tú Sí Que Vales:

  • Despite all the likes, literallys and dropped g’s, English isn’t decaying before our eyes
    Photo credit: LisaStrachan/iStock via Getty Images Fear not: There isn’t anything that needs saving.

    As a linguistics professor, I’m often asked why English is decaying before our eyes, whether it’s “like” being used promiscuouslyt’s being dropped deleteriously or “literally” being deployed nonliterally.

    While these common gripes point to eccentric speech patterns, they don’t point to grammatical annihilation. English has weathered far worse.

    Let’s start with something we can all agree on: Old English, spoken from approximately A.D. 450 to 1100, is pretty unintelligible to us today. Anyone who’s had the pleasure of reading “Beowulf” in high school knows how different English back then used to sound. Word endings did a lot more grammatical work, and verbs followed more complicated patterns. Remnants of those rules fuel lingering debates today, such as when to use “whom” over “who,” and whether the past tense of “sneak” is “snuck” or “sneaked.”

    The language went on to experience centuries of tumult: Viking invasions, which introduced Old Norse influence; Anglo-Norman French rule, which shifted the language of the elite to French; and 18th-Century grammarians, who dictated norms with their elocution and grammar guides.

    In that time, English has lost almost all of the more complex linguistic trappings it was born with to become the language we know and – at least, sometimes – love today. And as I explain in my new book, “Why We Talk Funny: The Real Story Behind Our Accents,” it was all thanks to the way that language naturally evolves to meet the social needs of its speakers.

    From dropping the ‘l’ to dropping the ‘g’

    The things we tend to label as “bad” or sloppy English – for instance, the “g” that gets lost from our -ing endings or the deletion of a “t” when we say a word like “innernet” – actually reflect speech habits that are centuries old.

    Take, for example, “often.” Originally spoken with the “t,” that pronunciation gradually became less favored around the 15th century, alongside that “l” in “talk” and the “k” in know. Meanwhile, the “s” now stuck on the back of verbs like “does” and “makes” began as a dialectal variant that only became popular in 16th-century London. It gradually replaced “th” whenever third persons were involved, as in “The lady doth protest too much.”

    While dropping the “l” in talk may have been initially frowned upon, today it would be strange if you pronounced the letter. And the shift makes sense: It smoothed out some linguistic awkwardness for the sake of efficiency.

    If people learned to look at language more like linguists, they might come around to seeing that there is more than one perspective on what good speech consists of.

    And yes, that absolutely is a sentence ending with a preposition – something many modern grammar guides discourage, even though the idea only took hold after 18th-century grammarian Robert Lowth intimated it was a less elegant choice based on the model of Latin.

    Though Lowth voiced no hard and fast rule against it, many a grammar maven later misconstrued his advice as an admonition. Just like that, a mere suggestion became grammatical law.

    The rise of the grammar sticklers

    Many of today’s ideas about what constitutes correct English are based on a singular – often mistaken – 19th-century view of the forces that govern our language.

    In the late 18th century, the English-speaking world began experiencing class restructuring and higher literacy rates. As greater class mobility became possible, accent differences became class markers that separated new money from old money.

    Emulation of upper-crust speech norms became popular among the nouveau riche. With literacy also on the rise, grammarians and elocutionists raced to dictate the terms of “proper” English on and off the page, which led to the rise of usage guides and dictionaries that were eager to sell a certain brand of speech.

    Another example of grammarian angst reconfiguring the view of an otherwise perfectly fine form is the droppin’ of the “g.” It became so tied to slovenly speech that it was branded with an apostrophe in the 19th century to make sure no one missed its lackadaisical and nonstandard nature.

    Up until the 19th century, however, no one seemed to care whether one pronounced it as “-in” or “-ing.”

    Evidence suggests that -ing wasn’t even heard as the correct form. Many elocution guides from the 18th century provide rhyming word pairs like “herring/heron,” “coughing/coffin” and “jerking/jerkin,” which suggest that “-in” may have been the preferred pronunciation of words ending with “-ing.” Even writer and satirist Jonathan Swift – a frequent lobbyist for “proper” English – rhymes “brewing” with “ruin” in his 1731 poem “Verses on the Death of Dr. Swift, D.S.P.D..”

    Embrace the change

    Language has always shifted and evolved. People often bristle at changes from what they’ve known to what is new. And maybe that’s because this process often begins with speakers that society usually looks less favorably on: the young, the female, the poor, the nonwhite.

    But it’s important to remember that being disliked and bad are not the same thing – that today’s speech pariahs are driven by the same linguistic and social needs as the Londoners who started going with “does” instead of “doth” or dropped the “t” in often.

    So if you think the speech that comes from your lips is the “correct” version, think again. Thou, like every other English speaker, art literally the product of centuries of linguistic reinvention.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

  • 10 boys and 10 girls were left alone in separate houses and the different results are just wild
    Photo credit: Canva(L) Kids wrestling in the yard; (R) young children playing chess

    It sounds like the plot of William Golding’s Lord of the Flies. However, in the mid-2000s, it was a very real and very controversial reality television experiment.

    Footage from the UK Channel 4 documentary Boys and Girls Alone is captivating audiences all over again. It offers a fascinating and chaotic look at what happens when you remove parents from the equation.

    The premise was simple but high stakes. Twenty children, aged 11 and 12, were split into two groups by gender. Ten boys and ten girls were placed in separate houses and told to live without adult supervision for five days.

    The Setup

    While there were safety nets in place, the day-to-day living was entirely up to the kids. A camera crew was present but instructed not to intervene unless safety was at risk. The children could also ring a bell to speak to a nurse or psychiatrist.

    The houses were fully stocked with food, cleaning supplies, toys, and paints. Everything they needed to survive was there. They just had to figure out how to use it.

    The Boys: Instant Chaos

    In the boys’ house, the unraveling was almost immediate. The newfound freedom triggered a rapid descent into high-energy anarchy.

    They engaged in water pistol fights and threw cushions. In one memorable instance, a boy named Michael covered the carpet in sticky popcorn kernels just because he could.

    The destruction eventually escalated to the walls. The boys covered the house in writing, drawing, and paint. But the euphoria of freedom eventually crashed into the reality of consequences.

    “We never expected to be like this, but I’m really upset that we trashed it so badly,” one boy admitted in the footage. “We were trying to explore everything at once and got too carried away in ourselves.”

    Their attempts to clean up were frantic and largely ineffective. Nutrition also took a hit. Despite having completed a cooking course, the boys survived mostly on cereal, sugar, and the occasional frozen pizza. By the end of the week, the house was trashed, and the group had fractured into opposing factions.

    The Girls: Organized Society

    The girls’ house looked like a different planet.

    In stark contrast to the mayhem next door, the girls immediately established a functioning society. They organized a cooking roster, with a girl named Sherry preparing their first meal. They baked cakes. They put on a fashion show. They even drew up a scrupulous chores list to ensure the house stayed livable.

    While their stay wasn’t devoid of interpersonal drama, the experiment highlighted a fascinating divergence in socialization. Left to their own devices, the girls prioritized community and maintenance. The boys tested the absolute limits of their environment until it broke.

    The documentary was controversial when it aired, with critics questioning the ethics of placing children in unsupervised situations for entertainment. But what made it so enduring, and why footage keeps resurfacing years later, is what it reveals about how kids are socialized long before anyone puts them in a house together. The boys weren’t born anarchists and the girls weren’t born organizers. They arrived at those houses already shaped by years of being told, implicitly and explicitly, what boys do and what girls do. Whether that’s a nature story or a nurture story is the question the documentary keeps asking without quite answering, which is probably why people are still watching and arguing about it nearly two decades later.

    This article originally appeared two years ago. It has been updated.

Explore More Culture Stories

Culture

Despite all the likes, literallys and dropped g’s, English isn’t decaying before our eyes

Culture

10 boys and 10 girls were left alone in separate houses and the different results are just wild

Media

9-year-old girl asks Steph Curry why his shoes aren’t in girls’ sizes. The response was perfect.

Art

Why Michelangelo’s ‘Last Judgment’ endures