I just found this after searching the BBC site for Welles. These were culled from the H2G2 (The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Earth Edition):
Aphorisms
Welles was also known for his quick wit and sociability. To close, here are a few of his more memorable quotes.
Man is a rational animal who always loses his temper when called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason.
Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what's for lunch.
Everybody denies I am a genius - but nobody ever called me one!
I don't pray because I don't want to bore God.
I don't say that we ought to all misbehave, but we ought to look as if we could.
I feel I have to protect myself against things. So I'm pretty careful to lose most of them.
I hate television. I hate it as much as peanuts. But I can't stop eating peanuts.
I have the terrible feeling that because I am wearing a white beard and am sitting in the back of the theatre, you expect me to tell you the truth about something. These are the cheap seats, not Mount Sinai.
If you want a happy ending, that depends, of course, on where you stop your story.
My doctor told me to stop having intimate dinners for four. Unless there are three other people.
Nobody who takes on anything big and tough can afford to be modest.
Only very intelligent people don't wish they were in politics, and I'm dumb enough to want to be in there.
Race hate isn't human nature; race hate is the abandonment of human nature.
When you are down and out something always turns up - and it is usually the noses of your friends.
I like the Old Masters, by which I mean John Ford, John Ford, and John Ford.
Orson Welles' Aphorisms
-
Gus Moreno
- Member
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 6:15 pm
-
Glenn Anders
- Wellesnet Legend
- Posts: 1906
- Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 12:50 pm
- Location: San Francisco
- Contact:
I would interpret the statement like this:
The first part is almost Marxian. He is saying that the middle class (though necessary for a democracy), longs to rise to the status of the wealthy, looking up to them, fawning over them, while keeping the poor where they are. And so, the middle class tends to maintain the status quo, which means that society cannot advance, in fact remains conservative, if not reactionary. Terrible things may be done in the society's name, so long as the middle class is happy and satisfied.
In other words, it explains why America, once the most admired of nations, full of pride and idealism, is now blustering and fearful. It explains why we are in Iraq, why we are so despised.
The second part of the statement may be related to the first, in that we tend in youth to take chances, explore, be playful, and learn, but by middle age we have often become satisfied, safe, greedy, and careful. We decide, on a basis of our experience, what can be done and what cannot. We begin to value property and possessions over life. In other words, we begin to die. And in old age, we are either at peace with our accomplishments or regretful of opportunities missed. We are spent, and use whatever power we have gained or kept to hang on to our possessions until we die. We tend to become the walking dead.
My guess is that Welles, more than most men, would have given anything to have remained 26 his entire life. He had so much to offer, and he was getting so much done.
Glenn
The first part is almost Marxian. He is saying that the middle class (though necessary for a democracy), longs to rise to the status of the wealthy, looking up to them, fawning over them, while keeping the poor where they are. And so, the middle class tends to maintain the status quo, which means that society cannot advance, in fact remains conservative, if not reactionary. Terrible things may be done in the society's name, so long as the middle class is happy and satisfied.
In other words, it explains why America, once the most admired of nations, full of pride and idealism, is now blustering and fearful. It explains why we are in Iraq, why we are so despised.
The second part of the statement may be related to the first, in that we tend in youth to take chances, explore, be playful, and learn, but by middle age we have often become satisfied, safe, greedy, and careful. We decide, on a basis of our experience, what can be done and what cannot. We begin to value property and possessions over life. In other words, we begin to die. And in old age, we are either at peace with our accomplishments or regretful of opportunities missed. We are spent, and use whatever power we have gained or kept to hang on to our possessions until we die. We tend to become the walking dead.
My guess is that Welles, more than most men, would have given anything to have remained 26 his entire life. He had so much to offer, and he was getting so much done.
Glenn
-
Christopher
- Wellesnet Veteran
- Posts: 220
- Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 8:03 pm
- Location: New York City
-
Gus Moreno
- Member
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 6:15 pm
I would tend to disagree too, although I applaud Glenn for putting his thoughts on the issue out there.
If that's what Welles was really thinking, one has to wonder, whether he would have preferred the two-tiered model of society, with a tiny ruling elite lording it over an enormous poverty class, such as we find in most "third-world" countries. Or would he have preferred a state-controlled socialism such as was found behind the Iron Curtain during the Cold War. Those would seem to be the two main alternatives to a strong middle-class and democratic capitalism.
Perhaps Welles was associating the middle-class with the city, automobiles, suburban sprawl, and the loss of "community", things which he often railed against in his films. We can really only guess at what he meant by such statements. But I think it's worth trying to guess even if we'll never know for sure. Certainly the middle class could stand to scrutinize it's own values and beliefs more often and more carefully then it does.
As far as middle age being the enemy of life, that would seem to be a rather absurd generalization, but the idea that middle-class middle-aged people are often too concerned with comfort and materialism is not invalid (as if the rich aren't too, though). It's not implausible to think many of them would value security over freedom and would gladly trade the latter for the former.
And Welles was probably right about the energy of youth and the wisdom and experience of old age being a good source for creativity. But Welles himself did alot of great creative work himself when he was middle-aged too.
If that's what Welles was really thinking, one has to wonder, whether he would have preferred the two-tiered model of society, with a tiny ruling elite lording it over an enormous poverty class, such as we find in most "third-world" countries. Or would he have preferred a state-controlled socialism such as was found behind the Iron Curtain during the Cold War. Those would seem to be the two main alternatives to a strong middle-class and democratic capitalism.
Perhaps Welles was associating the middle-class with the city, automobiles, suburban sprawl, and the loss of "community", things which he often railed against in his films. We can really only guess at what he meant by such statements. But I think it's worth trying to guess even if we'll never know for sure. Certainly the middle class could stand to scrutinize it's own values and beliefs more often and more carefully then it does.
As far as middle age being the enemy of life, that would seem to be a rather absurd generalization, but the idea that middle-class middle-aged people are often too concerned with comfort and materialism is not invalid (as if the rich aren't too, though). It's not implausible to think many of them would value security over freedom and would gladly trade the latter for the former.
And Welles was probably right about the energy of youth and the wisdom and experience of old age being a good source for creativity. But Welles himself did alot of great creative work himself when he was middle-aged too.
-
Glenn Anders
- Wellesnet Legend
- Posts: 1906
- Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 12:50 pm
- Location: San Francisco
- Contact:
Perhaps, I should not have begun with that reference to Marx, which just popped into my head to get me primed.
The aphodrism is more directed to the condition humane than to any particular political system.
More simply:
If you have some advantages but not a lot, if you are comfortable, you play it safe. While you may support the Arts (what I think Welles is driving at, pretty much), you hold your nose at many things new and "vulgar" the poor produce, and give lip service to "the finer things" without often really wanting to take time and effort to fully experience them.
Conversely, if you are middle aged, you tend to know what works for you and find a rut, but you fear the loss of power old age may bring (whatever its satisfactions in perspective gained) and want to be young -- to be 26 again.
Fortunately, or unfortunately, neither political systems nor science (yet) can guarantee us boons to solve these connundrums.
I refer you to "The Immortal Story" or "Fountain of Youth."
Glenn
The aphodrism is more directed to the condition humane than to any particular political system.
More simply:
If you have some advantages but not a lot, if you are comfortable, you play it safe. While you may support the Arts (what I think Welles is driving at, pretty much), you hold your nose at many things new and "vulgar" the poor produce, and give lip service to "the finer things" without often really wanting to take time and effort to fully experience them.
Conversely, if you are middle aged, you tend to know what works for you and find a rut, but you fear the loss of power old age may bring (whatever its satisfactions in perspective gained) and want to be young -- to be 26 again.
Fortunately, or unfortunately, neither political systems nor science (yet) can guarantee us boons to solve these connundrums.
I refer you to "The Immortal Story" or "Fountain of Youth."
Glenn
-
MortSahlFan
- New Member
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2020 6:54 pm
OW Aphorisms
Gus Moreno wrote:I've always been baffled but intrigued by this one:
"The middle class is the enemy of society and middle age is the enemy of life"
Anyone care to take a crack at deciphering that one?
In the "Orson Welles: Interviews" book (highly recommend), Orson also says that commerce (and also says "advertising" in another interview) is the enemy of art.
-
Le Chiffre
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2078
- Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2001 11:31 pm
Re: Orson Welles' Aphorisms
I guess that depends on how "art" is defined. In the 1967 Playboy interview (contained in the Interviews book), Welles defined it this way:
Obviously, he is referring to Andy Warhol here. But the Welles interview was done only five years after Warhol made his famous Campbell's Soup can splash, and Warhol is now considered one of the most iconic and influential artists of the 20th Century. As Blake Gopnick put it in his biography, WARHOL:
Another book about Warhol, Gary Indiana's CAMPBELL SOUP CAN, makes an amusing speculation about Welles and Warhol:
There's another similarity: both men agreed to appear on THE LOVE BOAT, the 1970s TV show about cruise ship romances. Warhol went through with it, but Welles, according to Henry Jaglom, backed out at the last minute. "There's one thing I want on my tombstone," Welles told Jaglom, "'I never did Love Boat.'"
Brian Bethune in Macleans writes:
"In terms of influence, Warhol probably has supplanted Picasso. The latter “made fabulous paintings and sculptures,” says Gopnik, “but Warhol completely changed the definition of art.” To do that and make a guest appearance on The Love Boat is a legacy unimaginable for anyone but Andy Warhol."
Playboy: Some critics assert that modern art can be produced by accident, as in action painting, aleatory music, and theatrical happenings. Do you think it's possible to create a work of art without intending to?
OW: Categorically no. You may produce something that my give some of the pleasures and emotions that a work of art may give,...but a work of art is a conscious human effort that has to do with communication. It is that or it is nothing.
Playboy: What effect do you think the advertiser is having on artists - on writers as well as painters and designers?
OW: The advertisers are having a disastrous effect on everything they touch. They are not only seducing the artist, they are drafting him...sucking the soul out of him. And the artist has gone over to the advertiser far more than he ever went over to the merchant. The classic enemy of art has always been the marketplace. There you find the merchant and the charlatan, the man with goods to sell and the man with snake oil. In the old days you had merchant princes, ex-pushcart peddlers turned into Hollywood moguls, but by-and-large they were honest salesmen trying to give the public what they believed was good, even if it wasn't, and not trying to invade the artist's life unless the artist was willing to make that concession. But now we're in the hands of the snake oil boys. Among advertisers you find artists who have betrayed their kind and are busy getting their brethren hooked on the same drug. The advertising industry is largely made up of unfrocked poets, disappointed novelists, frustrated actors, and unsuccessful producers with split-level homes. They've somehow managed to pervade the whole universe of art so that the artist himself now thinks and functions like an advertising man. He makes expendable objects, deals in the immediate gut kick, revels in the lack of true content. He paints a soup can and calls it art. A can of soup, well enough designed, could be a work of art: but a painting of it? Never.
Obviously, he is referring to Andy Warhol here. But the Welles interview was done only five years after Warhol made his famous Campbell's Soup can splash, and Warhol is now considered one of the most iconic and influential artists of the 20th Century. As Blake Gopnick put it in his biography, WARHOL:
“When we’re looking at the Campbell’s Soup cans, we wonder if they are a critique of American culture or a celebration of it. Are these to be taken seriously or even as a joke? Everything he ever made is part of one big project of sowing confusion about what art is about, what America is about, what Andy Warhol is. That’s the heart of his achievement.”
Another book about Warhol, Gary Indiana's CAMPBELL SOUP CAN, makes an amusing speculation about Welles and Warhol:
"(In 1938-1940)...when Warhol would have been eating his Campbell’s soup, Welles was broadcasting plays on the radio that Campbell’s sponsored. Both men’s celebrity, Indiana says, came to dwarf their artistic reputation, both grasped their significance as a brand, both were manipulative, both had late career slumps."
There's another similarity: both men agreed to appear on THE LOVE BOAT, the 1970s TV show about cruise ship romances. Warhol went through with it, but Welles, according to Henry Jaglom, backed out at the last minute. "There's one thing I want on my tombstone," Welles told Jaglom, "'I never did Love Boat.'"
Brian Bethune in Macleans writes:
"In terms of influence, Warhol probably has supplanted Picasso. The latter “made fabulous paintings and sculptures,” says Gopnik, “but Warhol completely changed the definition of art.” To do that and make a guest appearance on The Love Boat is a legacy unimaginable for anyone but Andy Warhol."
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest