Edward Weston? What am I missing?

[Merg Ross]

When I visited Edward's house as a young lad there was a small card, with a printed quotation, inside the glass doors of his secretary desk. I was intrigued, but only years later did I fully understand and appreciate the wisdom of the words.

The card was a quotation from Louis Armstrong, and read: "Man, if you gotta ask what is it, you ain't never gonna know".

Satchmo was right.

[paulr]

I love Pops, but I think the "If you have to ask ..." business is snobbish, and it's wrong. Lots of people asked, listened, and learned how to swing.

Lots of people asked about Weston, looked, and got hooked. That was my experience, btw.

[theBDT]

Some of the Art Snobs always try to read into the photograph and try to give it meaning. Just appreciate the beauty and talent of the maker and quit going deeper. Would you analyze Michaelangelo ??

The unexamined life is not worth living. I always thought art existed mostly to help me more deeply appreciate the world around me. Furthermore, if art said nothing, how could it possibly inspire and influence the art of succeeding generations? This forum necromancy post is almost trolling; "art snob" straw men on one side, and pure innocent appreciation of "beauty and talent" on the other.

And yes, I would analyze Michelangelo; in fact I have already, I had to as part of my art history classes. He helped found the Renaissance in southern Europe, and eventually helped to begin the Rocco-co movement afterwards. His career arc was in itself interesting: when he painted the Sistine Chapel ceiling he was in a different place, spiritually and artistically, than when he painted "The Last Judgement."

Actually, I think it honors the artist to think deeply about a work, and to uncover its more mysterious messages. What was the point of resurrecting this thread again?

[Bill Burk]

There's a current show in Monterey some of us are nearby and can get to, so it's relevant again.

Maybe Sachmo's quote was simply a "dodge."

Certainly the unconscious mind plays an important role in creating art, so the artist may not even know consciously what is in it. The analysis, doesn't it try to uncover the unconscious motives? Maybe the artist has horribly ineffective verbal communication tools so they rely on the visual to get the point across.

[paulr]

The analysis, doesn't it try to uncover the unconscious motives? Maybe the artist has horribly ineffective verbal communication tools so they rely on the visual to get the point across.

That kind of analysis is very old fashioned. Most critics these days would consider it pretty suspect and presumptuous. How could we ever know what Weston's motives were?

I wouldn't ask a critic such a question. I might ask the artist, but I wouldn't trust the answer. Look at the motivations Stieglitz claimed for his Equivalents over the years. Over a half dozen different ones, most of them completely incompatible.

Art gives us a lot to think about without trying to guess why someone made it.

[Merg Ross]

Art gives us a lot to think about without trying to guess why someone made it.

Or what it is. Which is why Weston chose to place the Armstrong quote next to decades of his work. He was less concerned with the origin than with the message.

Anyway, I thought it was an interesting anecdote and will leave further analysis to the pundits of this forum.

[Sal Santamaura]

...You finally responded to a four year old thread...What took you so long?

In the first place, he didn't become a member here until two years after the thread was started. Second, he did exactly the right thing reviving the thread rather than starting a duplicate one. Finally he is to be applauded for searching and using this archive as the resource it was intended to be.

..."Man, if you gotta ask what is it, you ain't never gonna know"...Satchmo was right.

In my experience, he sure was right. Many people analyze and then claim to intellectually appreciate different types of "art." In my opinion, "art," like religion, cannot be grasped intellectually. It can only be "felt."

[Drew Wiley]

Satchmo said more in one sentence than all these verbose art critics have explained
in thousands of pages of showing off to each other with their peacock vocabularies.

[paulr]

Except that he was proveably wrong, a million times over. He didn't give credit to all the people who have expanded their tastes, their worlds, the things they can appreciate and love. Hell, I didn't even like jazz when I was a kid. Now it runs through my veins.

I suspect he was really trying to say "I don't know how to explain it." I doubt he was trying to give fodder to snobs, anti-intellectuals, and those interested in nothing but reinforcing their own prejudices—which, unfortunately, he seems to have done.

[tgtaylor]

Another thing about Armstrong that isn't generally known is that he often closed his letters with

Red beans and ricely yours,

Which reminds me: I found some smoked ham hocks yesterday to put in my (red) beans and have been on the lookout for pickled pork. Anyone know where you can find it here in the SF Bay?

Red beans and ricely yours,

Thomas