Discussing a Ansel Adams photograph (some photographic "comfort food")

Donald Miller · Aug 12, 2006

This is a classic Ansel Adams image. He used the near/far relationship to bring the illusion of depth to the scene and overly dramatic skies to the point that it becomes boring for me.

Adams influenced me at the outset. But having spent time in locations where the Adams genre of images can be readily seen and photographed by anyone who visits these places, his work leaves me somewhat underwhelmed today. That was not the case until I spent an appreciable amount of time in those types of locations.

Adams, in my view, sought to fashion compositions from groupings of forms...in an attempt to portray an experience, if you will...whereas a photographer such as Weston sought to portray the essence of the individual forms. In certain ways these two were polar opposites in their approach.

I have a greater appreciation for the work of the latter.

I am not taking the position that Adams should not or could not bring a certain visual experience to another person. I am simply stating that this is my experience of seeing his work.

MurrayMinchin · Aug 12, 2006

This image resonates at a deeper level for me because, if I remember correctly, he took this image while on a break from photographing Japanese American families who were imprisoned during WW2 in 'internment camps'. It's not a record of a place in time...it's the photographic representation of his emotions.

Someone asked me a couple days ago what I thought about Ansel, and I came up with this;

"One hell-of-a-guy who co-authored a system of exposure and development whereby those who didn't become entangled within the technical aspects of the system could use the more consistant results it offered as a springboard towards a purer means of self expression.

Many people who entered the system, never came out. Many people so enthralled by the Master Himself and his images, never found their own way of seeing. A few generations of photographers later, some hate him without knowing much about him.

If I were the editor of a music magazine, I wouldn't send the jazz critic to an opera, or the rap critic to a string quartet...I wonder how many of these people who dismiss his photographs have ever spent any appreciable length of time in Nature?

History will tell of his enduring importance. Safe bet in my mind."

Murray

MurrayMinchin · Aug 12, 2006

Donald Miller said:
But having spent time in locations where the Adams genre of images can be readily seen and photographed by anyone who visits these places...

I hear ya talkin' Donald, but I don't see the photographic evidence. Words are easy...having your prints stand shoulder to shoulder with Ansel's stuff is a wee bit harder!

Murray

Jerevan · Aug 12, 2006

This is still one of my favourite AA photographs. I don't have the means to travel to the places themselves and therefore I can't say how much the photos would mean to me if I had had the possibility. I never have had the chance to see any of them in original or any size bigger than say, postcard size.

To me, he comes through as a craftsman in every positive aspect of that word.

There's no denying he has had a huge impact on how I see and the technical part of my photographs. The three books were the only ones I had for seven years - and I still use them for reference and help. If Mary Ellen Mark was the first one that made me want to make photographs, then Ansel Adams was the one who gave me the tools to make them with. And I still think in zones...

juan · Aug 12, 2006

Someone described Adams' photographs as Wagnerian - and I think that's a good description. (For those who might not know, Richard Wagner was a late-Romantic composer of orchestral works and opera).

A couple of years ago, I had a chance to see an Adams exhibit at the University of Florida. The works came from a private collection and most were not the prints one usually sees today. This collector sought out vintage prints - prints made near the time the negatives were exposed. Thus, there were many prints from famous negatives, but the prints were smaller - and far less contrasty - less bold - in other words, far less Wagnerian. Many from 4x5 negatives were printed smaller than 8x10. These prints demonstrated how much Adams vision changed over the years - and they challenge his own expressed ideas about visualization. Did he really visualize the dramatic prints that he made later in life (and was unable to make them until more modern materials came along) or did he change his visualization as he grew as an artist?

Adams did take photographs of things - and his feelings about them. He also explored relationships - as Donald says frequently near-far. It's interesting to see how differently viewers can react to them - what they bring to the print and what they search for.

Like Donald, I was influenced by his work early and am less so now. I have not only his three books from the 80s, but the five little books that preceeded them. Those books were my introduction to photographic theory and performance (yes, I view photography as a performance - I'm a musician, what can you say?)

The instant photograph is pure Adams at his best - Elsa's arrival at the cathedral after the long procession.
juan

mark · Aug 12, 2006

It is hard for me to put into words what I feel when viewing AA photographs. After a showing of his work there is a lump in my throat. To me this image is great on two levels; technical, and emotional. I don't care when he took the image nor do I care what the circumstances were, what I care about is what it says to me. To me this image says "Yep, God exists".

Folks can go on and on about who AA was and what he was. I won't try. I just know how I feel when I see many of his images.

magic823 · Aug 12, 2006

Last fall I had the pleasure of attending Per's Owen's Valley Workshop. While in Lone Pine, the wife and I visited this exact spot because I love this image so much. It's located a bit behind the cemetery at the Manzanar Interment Camp. As luck would have it the lighting and the clouds were very much like this. However, the boulder field is now overgrow with lots of scrubs and grasses. I ended up taking pics of the cemetary monument with Mt. Williamson in the background. Reminds me I need to get in the darkroom and print those.

AA to me represents the magical age of photography that is now lost in our rush of life and materialism (and digital). His dedication, his craftmanship, and his images will never really be dupicated. Some may be better now, but for his time he "was" the photographer's photographer. His example (amoung others) motivates me to be a better photographer myself.

roteague · Aug 12, 2006

One of my more favorite AA images. I am drawn in this image to the sunlight as it streams through the clouds. Like a lot of people I found inspiration early on in the works of AA, and while I still like to view his work, I have moved into a different direction and have found inspiration in other places. But, I don't think anyone can argue that AA isn't the father of landscape photography, as it is practiced now.

matt miller · Aug 12, 2006

mark said:
I don't care when he took the image nor do I care what the circumstances were, what I care about is what it says to me. To me this image says "Yep, God exists".

Folks can go on and on about who AA was and what he was. I won't try. I just know how I feel when I see many of his images.

Well said.

tim atherton · Aug 12, 2006

magic823 said:
AA to me represents the magical age of photography that is now lost in our rush of life.

You don't think there was a "rush of life" when this was taken? the midst of a new war, women entering the factories, the military industrial complex winding up to full speed, families broken apart, sons, husbands and fathers going off the the Pacific Theatre, the unbelievable shock of Pearl Harbour less than a year before...?

Doesn't sound that different from today (in fact I'd say, today is still probably less stressful)

bjorke · Aug 12, 2006

mark said:
I don't care when he took the image nor do I care what the circumstances were, what I care about is what it says to me. To me this image says "Yep, God exists".

Sorry but I find this comment rather disturbing, chilling. I know you say you don't care (disturbing enough) but does that imply that if the camera were 180 degrees around, facing the internment camp, that such knowledge would be different?

A pretty picture is just that -- a pretty picture. What you see is all you get, and to extend "knowledge" further is a very dangerous practice.

As illustration, consider these two TV commercials: one local, one not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3byt7xMSCA&search=human element

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GX3dFDmYHo

Allah akbar, y'all

df cardwell · Aug 12, 2006

Ive been thinking this over.

I think the more one knows about photographic technique, the less one is likely to appreciate Adams as a photographer. One becomes blinded by the technical aspect, and never looks past the initial impact.

This is hardly Adams fault, after all he didnt invent his technique. He pretty much employed the basic catalogue available to skilled photographers between the world wars.

One can gain insight to his work through music. Listen to great Romantic musicians: Landowska, Casals, Horowitz.

Post-Modernisms veneer of irony, calculated detachment, and technical perfection often makes the Romantic expression seem hysterical when heard in our frantic and structured times.

Vladimir Horowitz might be the closest reference we can find for Adams. Listen to Horowitz in Moscow, with a book of Adams pictures before you. Let the music guide you through the pictures and let yourself forget all the Zone System stuff.

Casals is a pretty good alternative if you prefer a cello to piano.

And Landowska is good to listen to... just because.

Donald Miller · Aug 12, 2006

bjorke said:
Sorry but I find this comment rather disturbing, chilling. I know you say you don't care (disturbing enough) but does that imply that if the camera were 180 degrees around, facing the internment camp, that such knowledge would be different?

A pretty picture is just that -- a pretty picture. What you see is all you get, and to extend "knowledge" further is a very dangerous practice.

As illustration, consider these two TV commercials: one local, one not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3byt7xMSCA&search=human element

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GX3dFDmYHo

Allah akbar, y'all

Very well stated. Thank you.

Alex Hawley · Aug 12, 2006

tim atherton said:
You don't think there was a "rush of life" when this was taken? the midst of a new war, women entering the factories, the military industrial complex winding up to full speed, families broken apart, sons, husbands and fathers going off the the Pacific Theatre, the unbelievable shock of Pearl Harbour less than a year before...?

Doesn't sound that different from today (in fact I'd say, today is still probably less stressful)

Someone pointed out earlier that his location was near the Manzanar Internment Camp location. Not being familiar with that region, I wasn't aware of this before. Could Adams have taken this photo during the same period he was photographing at the Internment Camp?

I agree with Tim. I think the stress and pressures of the current era pales in comparison to those of that era. Ever notice how endelible the WWII period is on anyone who lived through it?

tim atherton · Aug 12, 2006

bjorke said:
Sorry but I find this comment rather disturbing, chilling. I know you say you don't care (disturbing enough) but does that imply that if the camera were 180 degrees around, facing the internment camp, that such knowledge would be different?

A pretty picture is just that -- a pretty picture. What you see is all you get, and to extend "knowledge" further is a very dangerous practice.

As illustration, consider these two TV commercials: one local, one not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3byt7xMSCA&search=human element

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GX3dFDmYHo

Allah akbar, y'all

I'm guessing they both use the same ad agency...?

"Pretty" is so closely allied the the sentimental and sentimentality - one of the most dangerous of human responses and emotions (Hitler was an incurable sentimentalist and sentimentality was one of the keys to the rise of fascism in Germany in the 30's)

Photography often can play (and frequently has played) a big roll in that

Jim Chinn · Aug 12, 2006

While he is best known for the grand landscape, I probably was more inspired by some of his still lifes, images of trees and architecture. No grand landscapes on the great plains except the ever changing weather and panorama of clouds in relation to semi-rolling land. But I think his ability to really show quality of light has always been something I try to achieve.

One thing I always liked about Adams is the fact that many of his most famous images were made either a few feet from the car or from the roof of his station wagon. I think this one was from the platform he had on the roof of the wagon. I know in his youth he hiked to get images, but Clearing Winter Storm and Moonrise, Hernandez, NM were just off the shoulder of the road shots.

Alex Hawley · Aug 12, 2006

bjorke said:
Sorry but I find this comment rather disturbing, chilling. I know you say you don't care (disturbing enough) but does that imply that if the camera were 180 degrees around, facing the internment camp, that such knowledge would be different?
Allah akbar, y'all

I find your glorification of Hezbollah rocket attacks and Islamic martyrdom disturbing and very chilling. Even more disturbing is injecting it into this thread on this forum.

Have a good'n ya'll!

Artur Zeidler · Aug 12, 2006

Alex Hawley said:
I find your glorification of Hezbollah rocket attacks and Islamic martyrdom disturbing and very chilling. Even more disturbing is injecting into this thread on this forum.

I'm fairly sure Mr Bjorke didn't make the video...? I doubt he makes recruiting videos for the US Army either?

Artur Zeidler · Aug 12, 2006

roteague said:
But, I don't think anyone can argue that AA isn't the father of landscape photography, as it is practiced now.

There is actually a far more direct and authentic lineage that goes from the
early photographers of the western landscape, from Watkins, Russell, Jackson
and O'Sullivan et al through to Sommer (and arguably Weston) and others, and on to Robert Adams, Connor, Baltz, Gohlke, Richard Misrach, Joel Sternfeld, Klett and others. Ansel Adams is more of a side branch - a sturdy one, but an off-shoot nonetheless.

mark · Aug 12, 2006

bjorke said:
Sorry but I find this comment rather disturbing, chilling. I know you say you don't care (disturbing enough) but does that imply that if the camera were 180 degrees around, facing the internment camp, that such knowledge would be different?

A pretty picture is just that -- a pretty picture. What you see is all you get, and to extend "knowledge" further is a very dangerous practice.

Hmmmm....Never chilled anyone.

I react to a photograph, not the history, or purpose, or design behind it. Turn the camera around and I would react differently to what the camera was pointed at. I gave my opinion of how I felt when I first saw this image. It was in a gallery and my dad took me to see the AA exhibit. I saw and still see a barren cold unfeeling forground strewn with difficult footing, But the promise of hope is in the distance, you just have to get there, pass the tests presented in the forground.

Yes I know when it was taken and what Adams was doing when he took it. I learned that long after first seeing this image. Turning the camera around will evoke a different feeling. I have seen those images and I think Adams was not a good documentary photographer. Just my thoughts. There are much more impressing (as in impression) photographs of the Japanese Internment Camps.

SO no, my original statement should not imply that I do not care about what was behind the camera it should imply exactly what it says. When viewing this Photograph I see the presence of God. Now If my seeing the presence of God in nature in some way offends you then that is your issue to deal with not my concern. If you have a problem with my viewing a photograph on it's own without bringing in the entire history of the image then so be it. SOme folks just can't see past the uglyness to see the beauty. And no, this is not just a pretty picture to me. WHat are your thoughts on the presented photograph?

Mark

P.S. the links you posted were too slow to load, and I am impatient, so I have no idea what was in them.

tim atherton · Aug 12, 2006

Alex Hawley said:
I find your glorification of Hezbollah rocket attacks and Islamic martyrdom disturbing and very chilling. Even more disturbing is injecting into this thread on this forum.

actually, I find the god botherers inserting stuff into the thread rather more disturbing - but then there you go

pentaxuser · Aug 12, 2006

It looks tremendous but I doubt it's reality. Did the sky really have that intensity? Did the shafts of sunlight really catch that one white boulder? It looks like the effect Hollywood uses when God is about to address one of his subjects. However you don't think this way when looking at it. It addresses our emotions, maybe even preconceptions of what the great outdoors look like and what lies behind the majesty of nature. I suspect it appeals most to those who can relate to it in this way. I wonder if it would have the same effect on say a non Christian non western educated Mongolian who'd spent all his life in the Gobi Desert and had never been subject to "Western" scenes and our concepts of God and the outdoors?

Interesting adverts posted by Bjorke. Both are Allah u Akbar messages but in the first it is Dow Chemicals that is portrayed in this light. I am unsure which of the two disturbs me the most. I am sure that a multi-national can have as little conscience or as much sincerity( depending on your outlook) in portraying itself as the force for good with all the other virtues that go with such a force as we might believe is used in the second.

pentaxuser

tim atherton · Aug 12, 2006

Tom Stanworth said:
Ansels work if not realistic was a representation of how he felt as one poster put it....that sounds as good as reality to me - his 'inner space' or not, his images sre a product of his reponse to a real scene and although not literal are hardly a radical departure.

Donald, your quote states that art is a departure from reality. I have always felt that whilst some photography is art, not all photography therefore is. I am not sure Ansel was an artist as such, but this definition in my head makes not a jot of difference to my admiration for his achievements.

this apparent confusion between the thing photographed and the photograph itself often seems to arise in these discussions. The two are very different.

(One is a real "thing" - whatever - rock, mountain, pepper, garbage can, nude etc etc. The other is a real photograph - sounds simple, but people seem to tie themselves in all sorts of knots confusing and conflating the two)

magic823 · Aug 12, 2006

tim atherton said:
You don't think there was a "rush of life" when this was taken? the midst of a new war, women entering the factories, the military industrial complex winding up to full speed, families broken apart, sons, husbands and fathers going off the the Pacific Theatre, the unbelievable shock of Pearl Harbour less than a year before...?

Doesn't sound that different from today (in fact I'd say, today is still probably less stressful)

I think it is very different today, mainly in purpose. In that day and age we mainly had one wage earner families, no "fast" food, and more community involvement. The rush today is very "me" centered and I think it effects our photography, and not in a good way. I'm sure I'm romantisizing a bit, but when you look back we had much more broad passion for our photography. Sure some of us still have it, but in our day and age of digital snapshots and self-printing, I think the craft of photography is dying. There's probably not more than a handful of people doing dye transfers anymore. A few more do carbons (my love). Soon it will be hard to do silver based.

I'm not anti-technology. Hell, I teach programming for a living. But too much technology in photography creates shortcuts. With shortcuts people don't have to put in the time and pain to really learn their craft. Soon its lost.

Steve

df cardwell · Aug 12, 2006

Folks, I despair about this discussion surviving.

The conversation about the pictures is getting better.

The judgementalism about other folks comments is getting worse.

What's the deal ?

.

Discussing a Ansel Adams photograph (some photographic "comfort food")

Donald Miller

MurrayMinchin

Membership Council

MurrayMinchin

Membership Council

Jerevan

juan

mark

magic823

roteague

matt miller

tim atherton

bjorke

df cardwell

Donald Miller

Alex Hawley

tim atherton

Jim Chinn

Alex Hawley

Artur Zeidler

Artur Zeidler

mark

tim atherton

pentaxuser

tim atherton

magic823

df cardwell

Discussing a Ansel Adams photograph (some photographic "comfort food")

Membership Council

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency