Edward Weston? What am I missing?

[theBDT]

Gosh! All these horrible art snobs lurking about! I hope one doesn't come creeping out of a dark alley late at night, to clobber me with his peacock vocabulary! Articulate people are scary!

The number of straw men assembled in this thread could fuel the fire at Burning Man. What are we arguing against again? Criticism? Thought? Examining a photograph beyond the initial "wow, that's cool" phase? What?

[theBDT]

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.

Excuse me? He trundled in, dropped an inflammatory statement that had superficial relevance to the thread and absolutely NO thought or compelling argument behind it. He has yet to come back to defend his position, or to at least explain why he bothered to assert it in the first place. Some interesting discussion about the nature of art has arisen, but hardly because of him.

I think it would have been MUCH better for him to have started a fresh thread with a fully-realized argument/assertion. What he said has almost nothing to do with Weston specifically, and everything to do with art in general. Considering the time that has elapsed, and the fact that some of the original posters are no longer active here, I think resurrecting this thread was a mistake.

[Drew Wiley]

Articulate people don't annoy me - it's these career wordsmiths who use verbose
embellishment as a smokescreen for the fact they don't really see that much in the first place ... Weston's prints don't have to be explained to be moving. People have
eyes too.

[Merg Ross]

... Weston's prints don't have to be explained to be moving. People have
eyes too.

Exactly. And that is why Weston chose to put the quote beside his work. Edward put it there, not Satchmo.

[Sal Santamaura]

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...

Excuse me?...

You're excused.

...He trundled in, dropped an inflammatory statement that had superficial relevance to the thread and absolutely NO thought or compelling argument behind it. He has yet to come back to defend his position...I think it would have been MUCH better for him to have started a fresh thread with a fully-realized argument/assertion...I think resurrecting this thread was a mistake.

Marv's post consisted of an (accurate, in my opinion) observation, a suggestion and a rhetorical question. I can find nothing inherently inflamatory about it. Unless its perceptiveness hits a nerve.

Posters here are not required to present fully realized arguments/assertions. This is a forum, not an art history academic setting; opinions are perfectly acceptable.

Marv's post was entirely relevant to the thread's subject. He used the forum archive as its originator intended. He's not obligated to defend his opinion to anyone. In my opinion, those holding differing opinions who've responded since then are frustrated by his absence because they'd like to word-whip him into agreement. Opinions don't need to be defended; they stand on their own.

[paulr]

Opinions don't need to be defended; they stand on their own.

Opinions stated as fact, especially when they insult or negatively characterize whole groups of people, and especially when they're stupid, are very likely to get the kind of response this one got.

[Sal Santamaura]

Opinions stated as fact, especially when they insult or negatively characterize whole groups of people, and especially when they're stupid, are very likely to get the kind of response this one got.

Marv may not have received sufficient legal advice to know he should have started with "in my opinion," but his post is clearly stating an opinion. His opinion does negatively charactierize one group of people; that is also clear. It's inherent in the opinion.

It's not so clear that his opinion is stupid or that he didn't anticipate the kind of response it got.

[paulr]

I don't know where the "legal advice" hyperbole comes from. If any rules have been broken, they concern good vs. bad rhetoric, and how to not sound like a jackass. You could get counsel on these matters from any decent midddle school teacher; the rates would cheap by any standards.

[Darin Boville]

I don't know where the "legal advice" hyperbole comes from. If any rules have been broken, they concern good vs. bad rhetoric, and how to not sound like a jackass. You could get counsel on these matters from any decent midddle school teacher; the rates would cheap by any standards.

Wow, Paul. Is that really you? The vibe of your posts the past few weeks (months) has really changed!

--Darin

[theBDT]

Marv's post was entirely relevant to the thread's subject. He used the forum archive as its originator intended. He's not obligated to defend his opinion to anyone.

Really? Because, at least in this thread, he seems like a common troll. And hey, well trolled, well trolled indeed...

Also, if you make statements and aren't prepared to explain (if not defend) them, why bother making those statements in the first place? At that point, you are being openly hostile: you're not inviting a healthy and lively forum discussion so much as you are making proclamations from a high horse...

I don't much care if he comes back to "defend" his point of view, frankly. He's been exposed for what he is...