The Legendary Louis Armstrong

The contributors of 20th Century America have recovered two of the the legendary Louis Amstrong's diary entry.  This is the first of two diary entries, describing Armstrong's thoughts on abstract expressionalism in the 1940's

November 4, 1947
        Lately I’ve been seeing and hearing a lot of an art movement called “abstract expressionism.”  My friend Joe Glaser explained to me these “abstract expressionists”, starting sometime after the war, painted art that tried to “emphasize their emotions by usually spontaneously painting, or even dripping paint, to create a seemingly random works of art. Also I have heard that they paint this way in order to “release“ creativity from their unconscious minds. At first, I thought that it was strange, yet very interesting there was art created in a fashion as abstract expressionism and I also thought that type of art would be very fair.  That was what I thought of it until three days ago, the newspaper posted Jackson Pollock’s Lucifer in the Arts section.  What I expected it to be was nothing as I intended.  At first sight of Lucifer, to me then, it was just a complete overwhelming chaos of random whiplashes and drips of paint on canvas.  With just one glance of the painting, it made me consider if it should even be considered “art”. “Was this the art I found so interesting, a complete chaos of paint?”, I thought to myself, immediately after seeing the Lucifer.  After, I began to read the comments about Pollock’s “painting“.  I then read some Italian writer’s comment saying it was a work of “chaos, complete lack of harmony, and total absence of technique.”  Well that made me think at least someone agrees with me.
        Well after reading that Art section, I began to generalize Pollock’s works and all abstract expressionism in a negative light.  It wasn’t until I realized  that the thing I loved most wasn’t that different from Pollock’s work, which was jazz.  This epiphany made me realize that just like random paints and colors on the canvas that make the painting, are the random notes and sounds that make up jazz music no more different?  That realization made me appreciate what type of art the abstract expressionists made, that it wasn’t just chaos it was, for me at least, an “organized chaos” created from inside an artist.
        So after my prolonged realization I began to take interest in Pollock’s works.  I heard on the radio just the other day that intrigued me, how Mr. Pollock creates his works.  According to the radio Jackson Pollock, instead of using a conventional easel, he affixes his canvas on the floor, and pours and drips paint from a can, and instead of using brushes, he uses sticks and knives to manipulate the paint.  The radio continued to say, which I found most interesting, that each of his paintings were a “result of both split-second decision making and happenstance, choreography and chance”.  It’s just very odd that he doesn’t use conventional methods to paint and instead uses unheard-of methods, and that’s probably why I find Pollock so intriguing.

Here is another authentic diary journal from the great jazz player, Louis Armstrong, describing the fashions he experienced in the late 1940's

July 23, 1947

     My cousin Jesse currently owns a clothing and shoe store down in Manhattan.  The war had taken a toll on his store, with his clothes being rationed, he quickly became out of business.  But the war is over now, and he’s now back in business.  He invited me and Lucille to come visit his store yesterday, which we accepted to come over.  When we got there, I had to hand it to him that the store was pretty impressive with its large variety of clothing and shoes. 
I remembered during the war, the government had rationed and restricted the use of wool and silk, so my clothing choices were very limited and I had to wear clothing that was limited on fabric.  It was somewhat uncomfortable, especially when I had to play during jazz gigs.  Its different now though, because there’s no restrictions on how much or what kind of cloth that designers can use.  
     After the war, I started following the trend of wearing long suit coats and full-cut trousers because they somewhat showed luxury and opulence, something that was very lacking during the war.  That fashion became very popular for men throughout America, both veterans and civilians, particularly for that reason.  As for shoes, post-war fashion stressed moccasins, oxfords, and brogues as shoes, which I wore already.
Another trends I was getting into was wearing casual shirts.  I never wore a casual shirt at any of my gigs, but it was always good to wear it once in a while, relieved from the sometimes uncomfortable suit coats.  I’ve just noticed, but it was really getting common to see a man in the streets of Queens wearing a casual shirt without a jacket.
Anyways at Jesse’s store, I found everything that I wanted, the long suit coats, trousers, some casual shirts, and even some oxford shoes I had picked out.
     Besides me, Lucille had a chance to try out a new trend called the “New Look”.  According to Jesse, the “New Look” clothing line was introduced in Spring 1947 in France by designer, Christian Dior , which had become very popular in Europe and eventually spread to here in America. The “New Look” had emphasized long skirts, small and nipped-in waists, and the round curvatures of the body. Its popularity arose from the same reasons long suit coats and full-cut trousers became popular for men, that the wartime restrictions suppressed the luxury and elegance of fashion, and the “New Look” was ready to restore and gratify it.
     Lucille and me got to buy a few clothes that we wanted, but that trip to Jesse’s store got me thinking how much fashion has arisen since the wartime rationings.