tim atherton said:
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)
Why does the concept of Ansels work have to be complicated, almost magical? From what I read he was not a 'magical' kind of man, but quite straight forward and unpretentious who did not talk in the tongue of an
artiste (french accent)
There is no confusion and the concept is very simple, but what you say above almost suggests that because the two are so different, the is little point in even considering the idea that a photograph can resemble the original scene. I personally think this is very silly.
Of course the image is a two dimensional represention of a scene and
not actually made of boulders and soil. But it IS related....not matter how much it deviates. The fact that a human created representation and the real scene are different entities does not stop us lumping painters into various styles, such as 'impressionist etc' does it? There are radical differences in painting styles, techniques etc and it does make on heck of a difference to the appearance as an image and how well is 'resembles' the original scene in literal if not emotional terms.
I think people are making things far too complicated in the case of this image. Sure, the image might be greater than the sum of its whole...but is this not because Ansels composition and spatial relationships, choice of lighting, control of lighting and values etc bind the image together in such a way? This still does not explain how the image represents a radical departure in its depiction, even 'improvement' of the original scene. Ansel was a master of binding relationships and this is what he has done here IMO.
What Ansel did in the case of this image is sublime and all about supreme balance and control of the 'raw materials' he had about him. From what I have read of Ansel in how own words, he rarely makes claims that his images were radical departures. Yes, he 'visualised' and 'pre-visualised' but these are grandiose terms ( and as prentious as
he got) for 'looked at the scene and decided what he wanted the print to look like before he took the shot and made it so'. Nothing more. Water bath here, dodging and burning here....just the right amount of toning...Voila! A print that if we tried to (and did) do all the same things we would fail to come anywhere close to his efforts. This is why so many people chase his tripod holes and produce pleasant,
instantly recognisable images...but rarely come even close to the splendour of his. Most of their efforts actually resemble those of adams and are immediately recognisable as imitations are they not? I myself have seen countless. If Ansels images were radical departures would 'immediate recognition' not be difficult. Heck, I have have seen TV documntaries (on various unrelated subjects) pan across Yosemite and have recognised for certain elements of Ansel Photographs, if not entire scenes! If I am able to make such recognitions from TV, from the imitations of those following in his footsteps half a century later...I am still not convinced his images were radical departures....but in many cases supremely sublte ones epitomising control and balance, not fantasy.
He is a great photographer and his vision was part of that, but unified with his technical skill he was able to being about the 'fine print' which was a perfect balance of all his considerations. In comparison look at some of Roman loranc's darker efforts. I like Romans work in general but not some of his OTT, darker work. Some if this IS a considerabe departure from the reality (it makes no claim to resemble).
I think the simplicity of Ansels work is what makes it so admirable. There is no 'trick', no use of long exposures and deep ND filters, special darkroom technique with this and that chemical and masking etc. His self-imposed 'brief' was usually so simple that most of us would find it too tight, restrictive, even choking.
A lot of what he did took enormous perserverance and 'getting out there' to find the right raw materials, both physical arrangements and critically, light and then fulfilling the final print. What nails it for me is that you could have been standing right next to him and still not come close in your efforts. They would strongly remeble one another but be POLES apart.
Tom