Moonrise Hernandez

[Klainmeister]

No I have not, so that is perhaps why I don't get it.

The only reason I mention that is that I also didn't understand the image until I finally, after many years of seeing it reproduced, got to see one in person. It's a remarkably simple, yet captivating image in reality.

 

[markbarendt]

I don't even "get it" in my own work, why shots that include religious symbolism are more popular with my chosen audience. I much prefer the nature shots I have taken, they move me directly and personally.

This is an interesting point.

We don't necessarily need to "get it" (like it) to make photos our audiences like.

 

[semi-ambivalent]

This could have a lot to do with its wider appeal. Wider because church symbolism means a lot to people, and those who appreciate it don't necessarily have the same strong feelings for nature symbolism...I don't even "get it" in my own work, why shots that include religious symbolism are more popular with my chosen audience. I much prefer the nature shots I have taken, they move me directly and personally.

Very likely. The cross is of course a potent Christian symbol but for myself (an apostate) the crosses are simply a reminder of death and I key them against the moon's permanence. And I like the black. Much of Adams's work is nothing to me except brilliant craftsmanship but Moonrise touches a nerve. I have an on-going, rather shallow, tourist's romance with that part of the country and that certainly plays into my response as well. I have a faded bouquet of silk flowers from that cemetery (from a trash pile) in my darkroom. Can't explain that, but, there it is.

s-La-Chosa-will-do-a

 

[mike-o]

Can someone explain to me why Moonrise Hernandez is a good photograph, as I don’t get it.

Are you saying you don't like it? In that case, the only response to your post is "de gustibus non disputandum est." Or, the more updated "that's why Baskin Robbins makes 31 flavors."

If you think that the photograph lacks aesthetic merit, then I would be interested in hearing why you think that. If you're unable to articulate the reason for your judgment, then the problem lies not with the photograph but elsewhere.

In other words, I am making a distinction between your subjective reaction to the photo, which is legitimate in all cases and needs no explanation, versus an objective assessment, which, if truly objective, requires an explanation.

If you have no opinion and are simply wanting to understand what others see in it, there's no shortage of discussion of this photograph. Try this:

http://www.hcc.commnet.edu/artmuseum/anseladams/details/moonrise.html

or this:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?57477-Why-Moonrise-over-Hernandez

I personally like the photograph although I have not spent a whole lot of time thinking about it, so I haven't got any hard formed opinion as to its aesthetic value. Like most people, however, my automatic reaction is that since I like it, it must be good.

 

[mike-o]

In a Capitalist economic system money is the only metric.
s-a

The only metric of what?

I suspect the answer is a tautology.

 

[semi-ambivalent]

The only metric of what?

I suspect the answer is a tautology.

The only metric of the value of an object, act or condition. It's hard to promote something like parks (my example), even though people want them, love them and use them heavily because we have a hard time placing dollar values on the things that parks offer their users. It's why news reports like to include cost of damages from storms or crime even though the greatest loss is often non-material. It's how capitalist societies appear to work. I took if for granted people would know what I meant because I use the dollar filter too.

s-a

 

[Dali]

Can someone explain to me why Moonrise Hernandez is a good photograph, as I don’t get it.

Beyond the technical aspect, does this picture mean something to you?

 

[BrianShaw]

Beyond the technical aspect, does this picture mean something to you?

Yes, that is the question. For me (one who "doesn't get it") the answer is that the technical qualities are quite obvious, and the story that goes with the image is quite interesting. Having seen originals as well as reproductions I think I understand the technical virtues and the reasons why it is a masterpiece. (If anyone has not seen an original Ihighly encourage doing so!)

But, no... the image doesn't mean much to me beyond the technical aspects. That's the problem I have with it, I suppose: it looks much like a lot of what I've seen in the SouthWest (albeit mostly without a moonrise) and aside that technical quality and the story of how it was captured the image does not "speak to me". Even the crosses don't cause me to feel any more spiritual or religious than I normally do.

The image speaks volumes to others and for that (and them) I feel quite happy. I get more from Snake River and Tetons myself. Go figure.

 

[pbromaghin]

Last autumn, I spent several minutes with my nose pressed up against the glass of a Moonrise print in the Gallery collection (owned by Ansel's daughter). I had seen several reproductions from magazines and books but they did the original no justice at all. This was printed late in his life and so was probably more to the dramatic style. I thought the crosses were a bit blown out, but the sky was wonderful in the delicacy of the clouds. It is not among my favorites, but seeing the straight print now for the first time, I am amazed at the skill that went into the final print.

 

[DREW WILEY]

"Moonrise" never really turned me on. I've seen several vintages of the print (before and after sel
intensification), and have even had my work displayed side by side with mural-sized versions of this
and numerous other AA classic images. I understand its historic importance, and find the anecdotes
about its capture to be a bit of spice to the history behind it. Maybe it's just that I'm from the Sierra
and respond more to how AA captured the essence of light in the mtns than in the desert. Who knows. To each his own.

 

[Alan Klein]

Can someone explain to me why Moonrise Hernandez is a good photograph, as I don’t get it.

I was at the AIPAD Photo show last year in NYC. They have about 75 renowned photo dealers from around the country and world. Each had a booth selling their photos of all kinds. A few had Adams as he is so popular.

So I see one of these "Moonrise" prints that's going for US$60,000. Interesting photo I thought though it was quite above my price range. So I'm walking around to the other side of the show and sure enough, there's another "Moonrise" at another dealer. It was going for about $150,000. I have to admit, I couldn't see why it was worth more then the first one I saw. But then again I didn't look that close.

Just then, some rich middle age guy comes along with this beautiful girl about half his age. "Well," he impresses her with contempt in his tone for what he's looking at. "My "Moonrise" was around $200,000 and it is much, much better than that one."

I listened silently. I suppose he was right. After all, he had the hot chick.

 

[semi-ambivalent]

I listened silently. I suppose he was right. After all, he had the hot chick.

Perhaps I should re-evaluate my Capitalist metric...

s-brunettes-are-the-new-blondes-a

 

[Dali]

Just then, some rich middle age guy comes along with this beautiful girl about half his age. "Well," he impresses her with contempt in his tone for what he's looking at. "My "Moonrise" was around $200,000 and it is much, much better than that one."

Typically the kind of vulgar behavior we can expect from this kind of guy... I hope he left the price tag on the print to show his "friends" how much he loves art... You did the right thing by ignoring such moron.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Not a defense of either the jackass or the pricing, but a possible explanation for the difference (a distinction that would have been utterly lost on the jackass) - the $60K copy could have been a very late production copy, and the $150K one an early vintage print. I suspect the dealer who sold the $200K print to the jackass knew he was a jackass and raised the price accordingly.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I like it and to me that is all it matters.

Jeff

 

[DREW WILEY]

Don't judge the artistic merits of a print by what it sells for in some hyped-up auction or show market. The two things aren't directly related. Asking prince is 1)related to what they think they will
get away with; 2)related to supply and demand; 3)more about the autograph on the image and its
collectibility than often the image itself. Just look at the prices demanded for kindergarten-techniqe and archivally worthless Cindy Sherman prints. When Ansel died, a Moonrise print went at aution for
40K, another for 60K, then one well over 100K. But he printed something like 350 of them! Not exactly rare. So all of a sudden the market was flooded and the prices were back down to around
15K, right at the price where you could have walked right into a dealer and bought one all along,
or even for less, when he was still alive! Never underestimate the appeal of conspicuous consumption
when it comes to what people will pay for art.

 

[c6h6o3]

I've been to many AIPAD shows and have seen at least a dozen Moonrises printed by Adams. Not one of them was identical to any of the others. Size, contrast, tonality of the sky (the gamut from light grey to pitch black). There was something different about each one. He certainly interpreted it many different ways over the years. With that many different Moonrises, the great disparity in price doesn't surprise me in the least.

It never ceases to amaze me how a photograph like that one can command 100s of K$ while truly breathtaking work by the likes of Frederick Sommer or Aaron Siskind goes a beggin'. Although, at this year's AIPAD show the prices on Sommer's work were quite elevated over years past. $30-$50K. However, none of them was tagged as having been sold.

 

[semi-ambivalent]

Aaron Siskind goes a beggin'.

I haven't been on APUG very long but that might be the first time I've seen him mentioned. His images of things ground into (NY?) asphalt streets are amazing. I wish I could afford him.

s-a

 

[jimgalli]

The vote is in and closed on Moonrise. You don't get a vote. Sorry. It really doesn't matter what you think.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Moonrise Hernandez is a VERY heavily manipulated print with extensive dodging and burning. In truth, it was made in the darkroom. See SEXTON, JOHN. MOONRISE, HERNANDEZ. ANSEL ADAMS PRINTING NOTES —“TRANSLATION” at Dead Link Removed

 

[PKM-25]

I get it…as a viewer would get it. I only ever hear criticism from photographers of Adam's work, none of the every day person….that ought to tell you something…

I hear music when I see this. I feel the chill in the air from a November afternoon in the South West. I really don't care if it is his best or if I like another one better. It has what I see many images…especially those made on film these days, lacking….it has distinct mood. It is also a journey back in time, a journey into who Ansel wanted to be and ended up being.

No one can argue how intrepid photography of this caliber was in 1941, this was just not seen until then. In my opinion, if you don't get it, then you are looking at this as just a photograph of which it is not. Moonrise over Hernandez is and will always be a mile marker if not a milestone in the history of photography.....that leaves a mark that can not be erased but gets handed down through emotions generation to generation.

You don't have to like it, no one does. But the fact of the matter is that people do, it's a feel kinda thing...It will always be a great photograph, because it started as one.

 

[Vaughn]

Even though Galli say my vote no longer counts, it is a stunning image. Not my favorite "Adams", but a very very well done image. I think PKM-25 makes some fine points.

I am moved by many many images. I try not to let any bias rule my looking at photographs. But of course it does. Rocks and trees are fine by me. Portraits, since I generally do not take them are harder for me to approach...it has to be a pretty dang fine portrait to move me -- we see so many of them...far more images of people have been taken than of any other subject. But because I photograph the light reflecting off the landscape, I am pretty tough on landscape photographs, too. So I guess it evens out.

People give showering praise to images here that make me cringe -- I want to shout out, "But can't you see.......!" But it better to be nice and encouraging, especially when no honest critique is asked for. Dang...I need another scotch...

Vaughn

 

[ROL]

People give showering praise to images here that make me cringe -- I want to shout out, "But can't you see.......!" But it better to be nice and encouraging, especially when no honest critique is asked for. Dang...I need another scotch...

+1. Eye of the beholder. Some are blind.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Would you all like it as much if Adams had done all the dodging and burning manipulation using Photoshop?

Using Photoshop would have required the exactly same artistic interpretation on the image he had originally captured.

 

[Vaughn]

+1. Eye of the beholder. Some are blind.

Okay, I am on my second scotch -- nothing pisses me more than when I point out, lets say, an upper corner of blank sky that destroys the sense of balance in an image...and I hear back, "But that was just the way it was!"...I want to wring their neck and say, "Then don't take the bloody picture -- or at least don't print the dang thing!"

But I don't because I actually know what they are trying to say and we all have to make these errors and hopefully learn from them.

Would you all like it as much if Adams had done all the dodging and burning manipulation using Photoshop?

Probably not, since it would have been taken at a different point of time in the history of photography and probably would have been too heavy a hand put on the sharpening filter. And in color and printed too large -- I have seen Moonrise printed in mural size...too bloody big.