Martin Guitars/History Channel/Hands on History
Ken Cashion
about Martin guitars. What a missed opportunity for an instructional
and educational program for the many, many Martin fans and that
includes most guitar players.
But what was there instead?
Another guy being arrogant and self-elevating in front of a
camera. His major screw-ups were no doubt edited out and
filled with what is known as "MTV vomit editing." His burning the
inside of a side bout was left in because the guy said it could be
fixed and the program would have been too short without that segment.
If you look at it on tape and back up some, you will see that
the neck he sawed out needed more work on the patent head. I don't
know if he left material or removed too much. If he removed it, he
was inside the line he was supposed to be leaving on the piece .
I noted that his work on the sound hole was on a test piece
and not on a guitar top.
After all the talk on a previous program of his about surf
boards, he was talking about trying them out. (After he had
demonstrated he could hot-wire cut, saw and sand styrofoam.
Wow!).
We saw all the surf board prep and him in a wet suit...at
least he wasn't in Speedos. Then we saw a few distant clips of
him busting his rear-end on the beach. Where were all the close ups
of those falls after all the close-ups we had seen of how elegantly he
held a disc sander?
This is just more modern journalism.
Mr. Rogers has better visits to factories.
Instead of the Martin and surf board programs, I would
rather they had shown a new Hitler piece.
Ken Cashion
Jim Page
>>Instead of the Martin and surf board programs,
>>I would rather they had shown a new Hitler piece
It was pretty lame. Having been to the Martin factory, I found myself looking
past the host into the background to see what was going on.
Still, we are guitar players. My wife watched the show and enjoyed it. She
had also been to the factory, and after watching the show stated that we need
to go back. I was VERY happy to hear that!
Here's a Hitler story for you. My dad had been in the 82nd Airborne during
WWII, and in Berlin just after the war. He was told by an uncle to gather
stuff over there for the local town museum, for which the uncle was curator.
He did-- quite a bit of stuff, 90% of which I guess is in the museum to this
day.
Anyway, he had several of Hitler's "works of art," mostly little watercolors of
public squares and ornate buildings. He gave most to folks who liked that kind
of thing. I can remember seeing these as a kid, but had forgotten about them.
When my mom came up to live with us, long after my dad had died, she saw a
pastel rendering--about 16" x 20"-- of what I thought was a Swiss market scene
that I had in my office. She said something to the effect of, "I am surprised
you would have that Hitler art on the wall." I was shocked when I looked at
the signature, compared it to a Hitler signature and realized it indeed was by
Hitler.
I took it off the wall, out onto the patio, and set it on fire with charcoal
lighter. My business partner was aghast: "You could sell that to SOMEBODY!!!"
Somehow I wouldn't want the proceeds from such a thing in my house any more
than I would the painting or pastel rendering or whatever you would call it.
It gave me the creeps.
--Jim
To e-mail, remove "FRAMUS" from e-mail address shown
SPRint3876
>
>>>Instead of the Martin and surf board programs,
>>>I would rather they had shown a new Hitler piece
"Sure the Germans have made mistakes over the years, that's why pencils have
erasers." Lenny from the "Simpsons"
Leo in Tucson
Ken Cashion
>When my mom came up to live with us, long after my dad had died, she saw a
>pastel rendering--about 16" x 20"-- of what I thought was a Swiss market scene
>that I had in my office. She said something to the effect of, "I am surprised
>you would have that Hitler art on the wall." I was shocked when I looked at
>the signature, compared it to a Hitler signature and realized it indeed was by
>Hitler.
>
>I took it off the wall, out onto the patio, and set it on fire with charcoal
>lighter. My business partner was aghast: "You could sell that to SOMEBODY!!!"
>
>Somehow I wouldn't want the proceeds from such a thing in my house any more
>than I would the painting or pastel rendering or whatever you would call it.
>It gave me the creeps.
I am so glad you did this. Now that it is lost to history, no
one knows about Hitler or what he stood for.
Well done.
Ken Cashion
Frank Wiewandt
> >I took it off the wall, out onto the patio, and set it on fire with
charcoal
> >lighter.
Bravo! I'm with you on this.
Then Ken wrote:
> I am so glad you did this. Now that it is lost to history, no
> one knows about Hitler or what he stood for.
Well, sarcasm aside, I too would have hoped that some kind of record
of the painting had been made for posterity, but I don't feel much of
a sense of loss without one. I doubt Hitler will be remembered to many
for his contributions to the world of art. I don't think I'm alone in
thinking that's *not* what he'll be remembered for.
I also have confidence that even though this painting may be "lost to
history", there is little doubt that folks will not forget Hitler's
monsterous crimes or "what he stood for". Makes a few paintings & the
developement of the VW pretty trivial if you ask me.
> Well done.
Whatever.
Regards,
Frank Wiewandt
Jim Page
Frank answered Ken better than I could have.
While I appreciate Ken's point, and have much enjoyed many of his contributions
in the past, I think my action had a certain validity.
The picture wasn't THAT well done, anyhow. If you took the time to look at it
carefully, the people shown walking about in the square were totally out of
proportion to the size of the buildings.
Ken Cashion
wrote:
>Jim,
>
>> >I took it off the wall, out onto the patio, and set it on fire with
>charcoal
>> >lighter.
>
>Bravo! I'm with you on this.
>
>Then Ken wrote:
>
>> I am so glad you did this. Now that it is lost to history, no
>> one knows about Hitler or what he stood for.
>
>Well, sarcasm aside, I too would have hoped that some kind of record
>of the painting had been made for posterity, but I don't feel much of
>a sense of loss without one. I doubt Hitler will be remembered to many
>for his contributions to the world of art.
But this does not eliminate the fact that he was an artist.
I have seen some of his art and I think it pretty damned good.
It is superior to much in galleries. He, like many artists, thought
his talent greater than it was. He applied at the school with the
best reputation and highest standards and was rejected...as would have
been many more famous artist before and after.
We have discussed "context" in another topic.
Context in this case means that a viewer can look at a
painting and judge it as a painting.
Imagine some one who goes to a gallery and while looking at
paintings, stops in front of one and says, "I think this painting is
crap!"
And the gallery guide says, "But that is painted by the most
famous artists in the world."
I know people who would then say, "Well, when I look at it
from this angle it looks a lot better...yes, I can see what you
mean...I mis-spoke...this is indeed a wonderful piece of art."
The reverse of this case can be true, as well.
The painting under discussion was enjoyed for its art, but the
viewer did not have the ability to separate the art from the artist.
I think he was a good artist but I know that for anyone to say
anything good about him makes them a neo-nazi, anti-semitic, radical
right-wing, skin-head, ....naughty person.
> I don't think I'm alone in
>thinking that's *not* what he'll be remembered for.
He will be remembered for many things by many people. The
older German has a different opinion of him than the younger. When I
was in Berlin in 1964, I talked to a lot of old people about the man
and most all of them volunteered...."he was a very bad man."
When pressed to say what was bad about him, I often heard,
"he was a very bad man...he started wars on two fronts."
But the point being made is that such a bad man could be a
good artist and produce pleasurable paintings. His building designs
were great and he often would change a designers drawings to improve
on them...and long after he was dead, those people would say that he
had a good sense for building design.
No matter what all he did horrible, some things should be
considered on its own merit...in that context.
>I also have confidence that even though this painting may be "lost to
>history", there is little doubt that folks will not forget Hitler's
>monsterous crimes or "what he stood for". Makes a few paintings & the
>developement of the VW pretty trivial if you ask me.
Only if you lack the ability to focus on narrow issues. By
focusing on each narrow issue in the context of their time, you will
get a more complete understanding of the period than if you only view
his history from the results...many of which were outside his sphere
of influence.
Frank, this is still an unpleasant topic for a lot of people.
I almost got in trouble with an organization's personel department
because I said, "Hitler did not violate all of the ten commandments
because he honored his father and mother."
Wow! How bold of me! By the time the discussion was over
they saw that they had over-reacted to the statement...a true
statement.
Someday, we will know more about this fascinating man but it
won't be in our life times because too many people only see one thing
when they see an image him.
Ken Cashion
Jim Page
>>The painting under discussion was enjoyed for its
>>art, but the viewer did not have the ability to
>>separate the art from the artist.
That is precisely the point. I wish I could have had that ability. But once I
realized who had painted that picture, and saw how tiny the people in it were
in relationship to the buildings surrounding them, it gave me the creeps. It's
as though Hitler, even in this trivial image, couldn't help but display his
contempt for the individual.
Still, the man had a sure sense of color and an assured stroke, at least with
pastels. His mastery of perspective, too, was worthy of admiration. That may
seem to be a lot to say based on one example of his work, but art has been my
career and I don't think those attributes can be faked or intermittent.
And I will say that Hitler's painting (at least this one) was not overtly
disturbing, as I have found to be the case in the paintings of, say, John Wayne
Gacy. Gacy's paintings, even though they are of clowns, seem extremely
menacing.
I suppose that this facet of Hitler's personality-- the fact that he was an
artist-- is one of the factors that made him so fascinating to certain of his
subordinates. Albert Speer mentions this, as well as the fact that in private,
Hitler could be the most boring of companions.
>>The older German has a different opinion [of Hitler] . . .
That reminds me of the statement Dylan made on one of his early album liners
that he met some folks in Germany who looked at Hitler the same way that some
folks in the South looked at Robert E. Lee.
I will grant that Hitler is much more interesting to study, in my opinion, than
many of the other 20th Century politicians.
Ken Cashion
>Ken Cashion wrote:
>
>>>The painting under discussion was enjoyed for its
>>>art, but the viewer did not have the ability to
>>>separate the art from the artist.
>
>That is precisely the point. I wish I could have had that ability. But once I
>realized who had painted that picture, and saw how tiny the people in it were
>in relationship to the buildings surrounding them, it gave me the creeps. It's
>as though Hitler, even in this trivial image, couldn't help but display his
>contempt for the individual.
But you didn't notice this until after you knew he had painted
it. Regardless of the artist, this could have been the message, yet
you weren't sensitive to it until then. The people were small (and
stylized) because Hitler was then at heart an architect and the
buildings were what was important to him.
I worked a long career with scientists whose motto seemed to
be, "Seek and ye shall find" (even when the data doesn't support the
finding).
Also, Hitler's fanatical opinions were then undeveloped. His
change from an inspiring artists to the hideous person he became is
easily traced and he explained it all as he went along and where his
opinons came.
Few leaders have left the paper trail he did. This also makes
him interesting.
Many of his other paintings (excluding a good self-portrait)
were just architectural subjects.
My wife has always told me that I will go out of my way to
keep people out of my photography. (Trips to Britain have produced a
slide library of near 8,000 slides -- few people are in them.)
>Still, the man had a sure sense of color and an assured stroke, at least with
>pastels. His mastery of perspective, too, was worthy of admiration. That may
>seem to be a lot to say based on one example of his work, but art has been my
>career and I don't think those attributes can be faked or intermittent.
You are correct. He was a very good architectural artists and
much later when all the great plans and models were being developed
for his Berlin of the future, he had the best architects working on it
-- and Germany had some good ones -- he would often re-draw some
detail such as the columns in front of a doorway and he would explain
why he thought that would be best.
Do not think he was the great egomaniac while doing this.
There are several stories of architects taking pencils out of his
hands while he was drawing to use the pencil to change something he
proposed and they had some really loud arguments about some
architectural feature.
At these times, he was one-on-one with peers and those who
knew him were amazed at this change.
On one occasion, the session ended and someone needed to ask
Hilter a political question. This took place within ten minutes of
the architectural discussions and the guy thought he might sway Hitler
to reverse a position.
Wrong!
When the "fellow" architects left the room, he was MISTER
Hilter again and listened to none of the guy's good arguments and
finally Hitler said the German equivalent of "What part of 'no' did
you not understand?" while giving him a wave of his hand which meant
"you are excused...and you had better depart NOW."
>And I will say that Hitler's painting (at least this one) was not overtly
>disturbing, as I have found to be the case in the paintings of, say, John Wayne
>Gacy. Gacy's paintings, even though they are of clowns, seem extremely
>menacing.
Yes.
>I suppose that this facet of Hitler's personality-- the fact that he was an
>artist-- is one of the factors that made him so fascinating to certain of his
>subordinates. Albert Speer mentions this, as well as the fact that in private,
>Hitler could be the most boring of companions.
Yes, many of these asides about Hitler's personality was
recorded by Speer and others. Galland said some of the same things,
as did Udet, Rudel, and Hartmann.
>>>The older German has a different opinion [of Hitler] . . .
>
>That reminds me of the statement Dylan made on one of his early album liners
>that he met some folks in Germany who looked at Hitler the same way that some
>folks in the South looked at Robert E. Lee.
Yep, dead heroes (ours and others') get a bum press later.
But it is easy to be firm about Hitler.
Few people will disagree and say things like, "Well, now, I
don't know. I think Hitler may be just misunderstood." Oh, yeah.
Sure! :o)
Ken Cashion
Leonardo
Ken Cashion wrote:
>
> But it is easy to be firm about Hitler.
>
Yes it is.
Screw fucking Hitler.
I want to know about megalomaniacal 'guitar' players.
Lenny Alcamo
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Frank Wiewandt
Another great name for a band.
Frank Wiewandt
misifus
> My wife has always told me that I will go out of my way to
> keep people out of my photography. (Trips to Britain have produced a
> slide library of near 8,000 slides -- few people are in them.)
That alone is enough to condemn you, out of hand.
-Ralph (I know that Ken will understand, but for others - it's a joke.)
--
Misifus-
Ralph Seibert
mailto:rsei...@cox-internet.com
http://www.ralphandsue.com
Ken Cashion
>
>
>Ken Cashion wrote:
>
>>
>> But it is easy to be firm about Hitler.
>>
>
>Yes it is.
>
>Screw fucking Hitler.
>
>I want to know about megalomaniacal 'guitar' players.
Thank you for sharing.
Ken Cashion
Ken Cashion
wrote:
>> Screw fucking Hitler.
>
>Another great name for a band.
A rock polka band?
Ken Cashion
Hedberg
wrote:
No, an opera company specializing in the works of, who else, Wagner.
Harold