Yeah????
Good Cognac beat excellent vodka any day.
Originally Posted by Ole Tjugen
Yeah????
Good Cognac beat excellent vodka any day.
Finally, a hard liquor flame war!
Over the years I've had many friends named Art.
Now what was the question?
Just in case anyone tries to find this essay, I believe the actual title was "The Achievement of Edward Weston: The Biography I'd Like to Read." It's also reprinted simply as "Edward Weston" in Adams' book "Why People Photograph." Sorry if this is repetitive, I haven't read the entire thread.
Brian Ellis
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
Ah, thanks Brian. That's the one. I have the version by the first title you mention, in a book called EW:100 Centennial Essays in Honor of Edward Weston. A little paperback that's long out of print, but probably easy to snag for a few bucks online. Lots of great essays about the Man.
Here's a passage that I think speaks to John's original idea:
"As a practical matter, it seems to me that the biographer of an artist ought not only to begin with a commitment to use the subject's work as primary evidence, but to remember the nature of Aristotle's argument for its centrality--that it is a unique curative for sickness--and assume that art begins in unhappiness. True, the goal of art is to convey a vision of coherence and peace, but the effort to develop that vision starts in the more common experiences of confusion and pain. Which is to say that if we are to use the artist's work as our evidence about his life, we must, to some degree, turn it around and find the negative that stands behind the positive. If a work shows a beautiful woman or an orderly landscape, the biographer ought to inquire about the nature of the world in which the artist usually felt he lived, the one he struggled to place in a more affirmative perspective.
"What I would really like to know from a biography about Edward Weston--and I hope a major one will be written someday--is where the greatest pictures came from. I think they did not necessarily come from the sometimes foolish man who was a vegetarian but enjoyed bullfights, the one who believed in astrology and wore a velvet cape. They must have come from a more thoughtful person, one who suffered enough to learn."
--Robert Adams
Vodka is useful for mixing drinks, while cognac is limited for those purposes (French 75s come to mind)...but we were drinking straight shots is a series:
1st shot for the hosts
2nd shot for the guests
3rd shot for those who would be here drinking if they were still alive
4th shot for health (I think)
5th shot for uhhh well I forget what that one is for, 6th and 7th shots too.
Note: avoid doing this outdoors in Arizona, where there is lots of cactus(don't ask how I know this)
Good Vodka with a cyrillic label does make a difference! Amazing stuff---much best than the swill I used to clean my 14" Commercial Ektar in the mountains.
"I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness and respecting her seniority"---EB White
this is kind of funny ..
i learned a few weeks ago of some sort of vodka-snob-ho-down
where the vodka-connaisseurs drank all sorts of vodka cheep and expensive
without knowing what they were drinking.
strangely enough they picked the cheepest of the cheep claiming all sorts of delicious qualities the expensive hooch didn't have ...
i guess the difference is the day after when might have been nursing a hangover
and looking for the 4$ bottle of mr popov for a little of the " hair of the dog ... "
and then realized what they were drinking ...
There was a Mythbusters episode where they tested the theory that a Britta filter could turn cheap vodka into great vodka. They had a blind tasting that included the untouched cheap vodka, some untouched good vodka, and samples of the cheap vodka that had been run through the britta once, twice, three times, four times, etc. etc..
The test pannel included a vodka expert, a self proclaimed martini expert (basically a lush), and someone else (maybe a bartender or chef ... I forget).
The lush couldn't tell anything apart from anything else ... her answers were basically random. The bartender guy could tell the good from the bad. He wasn't fooled into thinking the filtered vodka was good vodka. But amazingly, the vodka expert not only picked the good and the bad vodka, but was able to line up the filtered samples in the exact order of how many times they were filtered ... in other words, he could tell the differences between 3-times filtered crappy vodka and 4-times filtered crappy vodka.
They concluded that filtering makes crappy vodka better, but doesn't make it good.
The daybooks were done already, who is so self important that we would want to hear anything from them? Besides even in the daybooks parts were torn out and burned.
I was in a *** drinking ***** with **** and ******** ***** walked in an pissed off *** ****** who was under the table ******* the ##### to .
The nex t morniing I wa on th e doones agin with my cammmeras and ass who donkey muled and my holders got wet.
I mess my friends in
Man....where are the gin drinkers? Anyone else hopelessly devoted to Hendricks?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks