Ansel Adams Half Dome, Evening, From Olmsted Point (c. 1959)

I'm not sure it is even possible to evaluate Ansel Adams' artistry without being at least confused by the results of his photographic popularity.
And it is very difficult for almost all of us to put ourselves into the shoes of those who were evaluating Ansel Adams' work when it was new.

I find much of Adams' work to be timeless. He seems to be criticized more nowadays than in the past, and that's fine, but there are many Adams images that I don't tire of looking at. Clearing Winter Storm is just one example.

Dale

I cannot agree with you. Looking at some of his photographs (especially yosemite) I see a world without human trace, a pristine wilderness, and he looks at the dramatic scenery as if he were the first man ever (and he was, kind of).
But this holds no longer true.
Nature has become a very fragile and precious subject. There is damage and effect as a consequence of our modern world.
So his way of looking at nature or landscape has become a romantic idea, and therefore has lost some of its artistic value. It is still beautiful and breathtaking, maybe a good reminder or an important memory, technically extremely advanced in the prints, a fine masters work, but somewhat outdated maybe?
The world has changed dramatically in the last 50 years. And we can no longer deny it. And neither can we when we look through our viewfinders or on our groundglasses.
Just my opinion.

Yes, the world is always changing; always has and always will. But it's still possible to view scenes that don't have people in them. Perhaps there are people nearby, but does that mean that you must have people in all your photos? I disagree with that premise.

Dale

images39 said:

Yes, the world is always changing; always has and always will. But it's still possible to view scenes that don't have people in them. Perhaps there are people nearby, but does that mean that you must have people in all your photos? I disagree with that premise.

Dale

Click to expand...

Of course i agree with you. Its not about whether or not there should be people in a photograph. The question i would like to raise is if photography like AA has practised it would/could nowadays still hold it's artistic value, looking at the world from today's point of view.
Compared to the equally dramatic landscapes of salgado, gursky or even sugimoto, AA's work seems almost from another time long gone.
Dont know if this make sense to you.

If one's work is about the light -- people in the image are not significant one way or another. Then or now.

Seems like saying Mozart is old fashion and did not age well because nothing written for guitar.

I didn't interpret the "without a human trace" comment to necessarily mean that the images were devoid of people. I took it to mean that they didn't show the effect that people had on the landscape. Again, I'll refer back to photographers like Robert Adams (whose photos rarely contain people) and others in the New Topographics style who attempted to show a 'man altered landscape' rather than pristine, idealized views. This doesn't invalidate AA's work in any way, but I do agree that it reflects a mindset/philosophy that may not be so relevant today.

AA, of course, has images of people, houses, cities, fences...all that stuff.

Interesting that the New Topographics was basically started from one exhibit, and evidenced a big shift from self-taught photographers, to a more academic approach to modern photography.

logan2z said:

I didn't interpret the "without a human trace" comment to necessarily mean that the images were devoid of people. I took it to mean that they didn't show the effect that people had on the landscape. Again, I'll refer back to photographers like Robert Adams (whose photos rarely contain people) and others in the New Topographics style who attempted to show a 'man altered landscape' rather than pristine, idealized views. This doesn't invalidate AA's work in any way, but I do agree that it reflects a mindset/philosophy that may not be so relevant today.

Click to expand...

Robert Adams chose to concentrate his photography upon man's effect on the landscape, and that's fine. But there are many landscape photographers, past and present, who choose to portray beauty in the landscape instead. I don't see how their mindset/philosophy is in any way irrelevant today.

Dale

i always ask people who they prefer, Weston or Adams? Their answer pretty much tells me how they think about photography.

Ansel was a great printer, for the time. I don't think his prints hold up very well these days. I've seen a lot of them and sometimes it is just a shame that they were spotted so poorly or dust was left visible or the focus wasn't really right. I daresay that someone could do better today too, but that goes for a lot of old photographers.

Kilgallb said:

Look at an actual print by the master, you will change your mind.

Click to expand...

I don't think "print quality" is the test of a great photograph.

voceumana said:

My personal preference is for Adams's earlier printing--somewhat less dramatic, but, to my eyes, more realistic.

Click to expand...

Walker Evens said he didn't like Ansel's black skies.

images39 said:

Robert Adams chose to concentrate his photography upon man's effect on the landscape, and that's fine. But there are many landscape photographers, past and present, who choose to portray beauty in the landscape instead.

Dale

Click to expand...

I don't think the two are necessarily mutually exclusive. Robert Adams himself said he was shocked/dismayed at how beautiful some of his photos of tract homes in Colorado were.

I'm certainly not trying to start an argument or upset anyone fond of Ansel Adams's work, it just appeals to me less than the style of work I see from photographers like Robert Adams, Mark Ruwedel, Fay Godwin and others like them who try and more faithfully reproduce the landscape in photographs, rather than a more idealized view of it. As others have pointed out above, perhaps that's partly to do with AA's printing style rather than the subject matter he chose to photograph.

Arthurwg said:

Walker Evens said he didn't like Ansel's black skies.

Click to expand...

I do not think black skies defines AA's work. It is a narrow definition. For fun, I checked out the 26 images used for the Special Edition Prints...4 or 5 do have what I would consider black skies...several have skies darker than I would normally print my own negatives...dark but not black. All subjective, of course!

It helps to understand/appreciate a piece of work to see or experience it as the artist intended.

Since I live not far away I spent some time recently hunting for the church in Ansel's Moonrise Hernandez picture, just north of Espanola, NM. Big thrill finding it. But then I found a picture of the original negative. Surprised to see how light the sky was originally, followed by how black in the finished print. Indeed, it wasn't shot at night.

Moonrise was included in a picture book from the 40's or 50's and the sky in the print is medium gray. He printed it darker in later life--as it is with all of us, his tastes changed over time. Lots of his frequently published works of landscapes were taken at a time when he accessed them by hiking or pack mules--with cameras larger than 4x5. Pretty dedicated to his work, in that regard.

I consider him to have been a great artist--as much as for his portraits and non-landcapes as for this more popular works. His portrait of Martha Porter, Pioneer Woman is among my favorites.

I've come to think of AA as a kind of "pictorialist", rather than an F64 purist. True, he didn't use soft focus but his manipulation of the print was similar to techniques used by those artists.

Vaughn said:

cowanw -- why would I think AA's pictorial work has not aged well? I do not even think the term applies here.

Click to expand...

I have written and lost three times an researched response to you and am beyond frustrated.
so point form;
Adam's work was seen as unique, dramatic, sweeping with uniquely perfect viewpoints evoking awe in the viewer 9 ironic since Awe was one of Mortensen's requirements in a good photograph) Adam's work was seen as modern in the 1970's when commercial promotion techniques and presentations and an affectation for nature and spirituality became popular. Over time, scholarship has revealed that Adam's signature work, heroizing the Landscape, can well be seen as the disciple of a line of 19th century western American photographers such as Harrison, Jackson and O'Sullivan, to name just a few.
Trying to present Adam's signature work as full of human activity is not entirely forth right; his premise was the redemptive and spiritual effect of nature on the viewer, the transformative potential of the wilderness. (this too is a 19th century American view of photography)
Adams work achieved peak popularity as a result of marketing in the 1970's and capitalized on the preservationist trends in environmentalism and its relationship to the evolving nature of society in the 1960's and 1970's. Prior to that he was not known nationally although he was known in photographic circles.
To say an Adam's image "is ageless. That is what one might see and experience if one was there...and knew what to look for." is frankly not accurate. The reality as seen on his negatives and what representations of his initial image are vastly different in fact and tone from his beautiful images, not the least being "Winter Sunrise, Sierra Nevada, from Lone Pine". What is particularly attractive of Adam's images is the fact that he can make an dramatic and operatic image that amateur photographers with their tripods in his very holes can only strive to, because reality is not what is seen in Adam's images.
"Seems like saying Mozart is old fashion and did not age well because nothing written for guitar."
I expect people can cope with the fact that the rock band guitar did not exist in 18th century, but that doesn't make Mozart's style au courant with modern style and has nothing to do with ageing well; but perhaps Adams is more Antonio Salieri than Amadeus Mozart. We will see in 200 years!
All of which is to say that there is no reason why you should not like Adam's images just as you might like Karsh's portraits. It is just that they are not the apotheosis of photography that is suggested by the number of hits his name gets on this site.

Now, not counting " I like it and I can look at it forever" or anything else with "I" in it, will you make the effort to say why Adam's images have aged well or continue to be as relevant as they were in the late 20th century?

I would say the AA's images did not 'capitalize' on the environmental movement...but instead were (and Ansel himself) an important part of it...and that the same message that grew out that movement and spurred by images such as AA's (and his activism) is still the most single message important today -- and his images still speak to that cause. If you think environmentalism is a thing of the pass, you are not paying attention.

The landscape photographers of the 1800's were a big influence on landscape photographers of the 20th Century...Adams took it further than just representational renderings of the landscape. He was not repeating their work...he took it further, which is one thing an artist tries to do.

You speak of his 'premise', you will need to back that up with facts. He had no one 'premise'.

To say an Adam's image "is ageless. That is what one might see and experience if one was there...and knew what to look for." is frankly not accurate.The reality as seen on his negatives and what representations of his initial image are vastly different in fact and tone from his beautiful images, not the least being "Winter Sunrise, Sierra Nevada, from Lone Pine". What is particularly attractive of Adam's images is the fact that he can make an dramatic and operatic image that amateur photographers with their tripods in his very holes can only strive to, because reality is not what is seen in Adam's images.

Extremely accurate. Referring to the Half Dome image...the scene depicted is so close to reality that you do not even reconize the fact. If you were standing there looking intently into the distance at Half Dome, lit up by the sun and the bight sky behind it, the foreground hills would darken with only minor detail and texture evident. Shift you attention to the foreground hills, one's pupils dialate and detail and contrast improves. His images accuracy captures the experience of being there. A printing that brought out the foreground detail and contrast (like many digital printers tend to do), the scene becomes ordinary and unlike the true experience.

Depicting reality accurately is not, and has never been the only job of photography...and with art in general, not important either way...it is up to the artist what is important.

Vaughn said:

Depicting reality accurately is not, and has never been the only job of photography...and with art in general, not important either way...it is up to the artist what is important.

Click to expand...

Part of the goal in my opinion, is to make the viewer feel what you felt standing there.

StepheKoontz said:

Part of the goal in my opinion, is to make the viewer feel what you felt standing there.

Click to expand...

The question becomes, how do you do that? I like getting my viewer's feet wet...make them stand in the water they are seeing! Lots of fun.

AA's image, in my mind, does that wonderfully. Ansel knew that the light striking the North Face was streaming over his home in Yosemite Valley to get there. He did not darken the sky to near black or even halfway there. Creating white clouds against a dark sky would have stolen the attention from the very light that he was experiencing and celebrating.

Edited to add this paragraph: The other way I like to use light is to capture the viewer's eyes, lead them through the image and trap them -- get the visual area of their brain working long enough for them to start constructing their own image from the photograph in front of them.

Mill Creek -- watch your shoes!

Vaughn said:

The question becomes, how do you do that? I like getting my viewer's feet wet...make them stand in the water they are seeing! Lots of fun.

AA's image, in my mind, does that wonderfully. Ansel knew that the light striking the North Face was streaming over his home in Yosemite Valley to get there. He did not darken the sky to near black or even halfway there. Creating white clouds against a dark sky would have stolen the attention from the very light that he was experiencing and celebrating.

Edited to add this paragraph: The other way I like to use light is to capture the viewer's eyes, lead them through the image and trap them -- get the visual area of their brain working long enough for them to start constructing their own image from the photograph in front of them.

Mill Creek -- watch your shoes!

Click to expand...

It doesnt work for me.
But i am glad it works for you.
Feels a bit like religious euphoria coming from your post, but there is nothing wrong with that.

The opposite being secular boredom?? Makes sense to talk about an image that one either loves or hates. Fun either way.

Vaughn said:

I would say the AA's images did not 'capitalize' on the environmental movement...but instead were (and Ansel himself) an important part of it...and that the same message that grew out that movement and spurred by images such as AA's (and his activism) is still the most single message important today -- and his images still speak to that cause. If you think environmentalism is a thing of the pass, you are not paying attention.

The landscape photographers of the 1800's were a big influence on landscape photographers of the 20th Century...Adams took it further than just representational renderings of the landscape. He was not repeating their work...he took it further, which is one thing an artist tries to do.

You speak of his 'premise', you will need to back that up with facts. He had no one 'premise'.

To say an Adam's image "is ageless. That is what one might see and experience if one was there...and knew what to look for." is frankly not accurate.The reality as seen on his negatives and what representations of his initial image are vastly different in fact and tone from his beautiful images, not the least being "Winter Sunrise, Sierra Nevada, from Lone Pine". What is particularly attractive of Adam's images is the fact that he can make an dramatic and operatic image that amateur photographers with their tripods in his very holes can only strive to, because reality is not what is seen in Adam's images.

Extremely accurate. Referring to the Half Dome image...the scene depicted is so close to reality that you do not even reconize the fact. If you were standing there looking intently into the distance at Half Dome, lit up by the sun and the bight sky behind it, the foreground hills would darken with only minor detail and texture evident. Shift you attention to the foreground hills, one's pupils dialate and detail and contrast improves. His images accuracy captures the experience of being there. A printing that brought out the foreground detail and contrast (like many digital printers tend to do), the scene becomes ordinary and unlike the true experience.

Depicting reality accurately is not, and has never been the only job of photography...and with art in general, not important either way...it is up to the artist what is important.

Click to expand...

Your suggestion that my attention span is diminished regarding the environmental movement is ... well... not a strong debating point. The 19th century environmental movement was one of conservation, concerned with the preservation of notable monumental features of nature or of significant areas of landscape. Theodore Roosevelt championed the US governments Federal response, but it should be noted that the photographs of Carleton Watkins (for whom Yosemite’s Mt. Watkins is names) had influenced the unprecedented decision to set aside Yosemite Valley as a state park in 1864, and the photographs of William Henry Jackson had figured in Congress’ decision to create the first national park, Yellowstone , in 1872. Abraham Lincoln signed the Yosemite grant in 1864. In the 1930's environmentalism was more concerned with the amelioration of the effects of the dust bowl. The post WW2 time was Adams time, a resistance to the development and increased public access to wilderness lands. Radiation and pollution were to replace concerns of conservation of natural wilderness in the latter 20th century. Adam's view of the transformative aspects of nature and conservation has little to do with reuse reduce and recycle.
Your refusal to accept the Adam's had a premise is puzzleing. It is clearly recognized that Adams himself felt that the Romantic artists were “sincere but limited ‘scene’ painters” who were primarily “commemorating in dramatic style the huge ‘external events’ of landscapes….Few examples of what I call the internal event were revealed.”
“Everyone has a right to visit Yosemite . But no one has the privilege of usurping it, distorting it, and making it less attractive to those who seek its experience in its simpler, unmanipulated state….The preservation of the primeval qualities does not relate to the mere protection of material objects. The significance of the objects of nature; the significance which concerns poets, dreamers, conservationists and citizens-at-large, relates to the ‘presence of nature.’ This is mood, the magic of personal experience, the awareness of a certain purity of condition .”
Adams was concerned with the ‘affirmation of life’….Response to natural beauty is one of the foundations of the environmental movement.”

Monolith, The Face of Half Dome, Yosemite National Park, pushed his photography from hobby to art. Adams recalled this “first true visualization” in his autobiography
as depicting “not the way the subject appeared in reality but how it felt to me and how it must appear in the finished print.”
This artistic impulse was closely tied to the spiritual affirmation Adams found in the writings of Edward Carpenter, who articulated the achievement of an elevated state of being through connection to the unity of universal transformation. For Adams, that universality was in the natural scene.
Adams continued to convey a sense of separation between human society and the last bastions of wilderness In choosing to show only that smallest part of his beloved Yosemite in his creative works—that which was most wild and pristine—Adams set up a particular way of seeing the national parks, and even more broadly the natural environment, as divorced from the human world. His imagery attributed to the intellectual distinction between the human and natural worlds
that Adams represented in his photographs, and which the American public readily consumed. This matters because Ansel Adams’s vision is a cultural phenomenon, both as recognizable popular art and as a way of thinking about the natural world that was his subject. Recognizing the varieties of ways in which the human environment and natural world are involved, as Adams did not, might allow us to generate a new understanding of wilderness that will continue to protect the fundamental worth that Adams and generations of Americans have placed upon nature preserved.
Here really is the clincher. Adams never reconciled the elitist view of the preservation of the wild with the accessibility of people like himself much less of some one in a wheel chair or without the financial ability to mount a mule expedition.
Suggesting that Adams's work is accurate to the unaided eye is contradicted by Adams own writing.
The way Adams captured images was more than a mere reproduction of what he saw. Capturing highlights and shadows, empty skies and dense forests, each photo intensified and purified the actual scenes themselves. He explained this concept as the spiritual-emotional aspect of parks and wilderness; natural spaces are not solely practical but also provide a deeper and arguably transcendental experience that is unmatched by creations from the human hand. Adams advocated for limited “resortism” and restrictions on the overdevelopment of land and infringement on endangered species. In his photos, Adams sought to accentuate the “internal event” rather than just the “external event”.
“The effect of the natural scene on the artist is an emotional one,”He visualizes his work, bringing in the quality of esthetics, to try to convey an emotion. “It’s really the impact of recognition….Photographing ‘scenery’ is the very thing I don’t believe in, because that’s often a two-dimensional affair. So the element of immediate, emotional impact is very important.”
With all due regard, what you think the purpose of photography is (your last paragraph) is irrelevant to this debate, You have asked for proof which I have tried to present in terms of quotes and opinions of students of the study of photography and Adam's.
I ask you to support your opinions with quotes or perhaps academic opinions of others.
Lest I come off as irritating, we are just debating a subject and your appreciation of Adams's work in unquestioned as is the beauty of it. I really liked it when I was younger, but I am more of a portraitist. and less of a Western American scenic aficionado. Partly I suppose because Adams was best in his own milieu. He did come to Canada, his only foreign expedition but like his Alaskan and Hawaiian expeditions, not so worshiped.
Most of these words come from the Ansel Adams web site and from
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/...httpsredir=1&article=1165&context=nchcjournal
and I apologize for conflating Adam's and Adams's throughout my posts.

voceumana said:

Moonrise was included in a picture book from the 40's or 50's and the sky in the print is medium gray. He printed it darker in later life--as it is with all of us, his tastes changed over time. Lots of his frequently published works of landscapes were taken at a time when he accessed them by hiking or pack mules--with cameras larger than 4x5. Pretty dedicated to his work, in that regard.

I consider him to have been a great artist--as much as for his portraits and non-landcapes as for this more popular works. His portrait of Martha Porter, Pioneer Woman is among my favorites.

Click to expand...

For what it is worth- small format like his portrait of Cox and O'Keefe. And the cynic in me says that if he really spot metered 5 areas like he said, then her demeanor probably was related to wishing he would just get on with it. And super nit picky -no catch lights in the eye.