What makes Ansel Adams so special?

Tony Egan · Oct 29, 2006

Hi J,
Maybe you need a few non-photographic reasons when all else fails:
- He had a distinctive first name
- He had a memorable, alliterative full name
- His name/books always came first on the alphabetical lists
- He was hard-working and morally sound - qualities Americans like
- He had the good sense to have only one son to avoid jealousy and in-fighting over his legacy
- He sported an attractive, manly beard for most of his life

I think the reason one name comes up over others is complex and often not related to the craft. One of Australia's best known photographers (Max Dupain) became that way shortly before his death on the back of one image called the Sunbaker. In one single image he empitomised how Australian's liked to see themselves. Relaxed, suntanned, healthy, living by the beach, carefree, earthy, sand-covered people. (And it was basically just a holiday snap of a friend.)
Perhaps it's the same with Adams? The American ideal of the courageous adventurer, hiking, camping, taking in the wilderness and all the possibilities and dreams offered by the American frontier? It is the heroic wilderness images which most people recognise. Sure beats peppers and full-figured nudes in the doorway! How can "joe-anne average" relate to that?!

Tony Egan · Oct 30, 2006

p.s.
Thinking on this a bit more maybe it's because over many years when non-photographers have asked photographers to show them a "good photo" they have more often than not chosen an Ansel Adams? Why? Because he is appreciated and recognised by photographers for all the reasons stated above and the work is relatively "safe". Rather than grab say a Man Ray or Atget and say, see, great photo, Adams work finds a home in the hearts and heads of most "regular" people. This feeds into the demand and supply of posters, prints, books calendars etc. The more this pattern is repeated the more universal the household name or "brand" becomes?

MattKing · Oct 30, 2006

National Parks

I really like AA's photographs, even if most of my exposure to them has been through posters and books.

In response to the question raised, I think it would be a mistake to discount his influence on politics, and in particular the politics that resulted in enhancing the US National Parks system.

Like so many other special photographers (e.g. FSA photographers), his work had an effect outside the realm of Art and Photography.

Matt

removed account4 · Oct 30, 2006

people relate to landscape more than they relate to anything else. they want to feel connected to the world around them and the "higher power". the ansel adams photographs that are "iconic" show pristine landscapes in all their glory, idealized. in addition to having a body of work that everyone could relate to, his photography became synonymous with the environmental movement + sierra club, and everything that is "good" about america.

Bill Mitchell · Oct 30, 2006

The reason that AA is well known to the general public isn't because of he photography, but because of his decades long conservation work. His public fighting with James Watt brought him to the attention of the ecology movement, just about the time that print prices were going from $25 to $25,000. Basically, his new manager successfully marketed what he'd already been doing for years.
For photographers, his status came because he set the highest standards for craftmanship, and shared his techniques and philosophy with everyone.
Personally, I think he was a great landscape artist, but that view is not universally shared.

reellis67 · Oct 30, 2006

I think that his work with the Sierra Club has a lot to do with public appeal as well as what has been mentioned. Those big photo books of lands that were going to be lost had to have had some impact on the way the general public saw his work.

- Randy

Bromo33333 · Oct 30, 2006

MattKing said:
I really like AA's photographs, even if most of my exposure to them has been through posters and books.

In response to the question raised, I think it would be a mistake to discount his influence on politics, and in particular the politics that resulted in enhancing the US National Parks system.

Like so many other special photographers (e.g. FSA photographers), his work had an effect outside the realm of Art and Photography.

Matt

If you get to see some actual prints - you will be in for a treat!

matti · Oct 30, 2006

I haven't seen an actual print of one of Ansel Adams photographs, only reproduced in "The Negative" and other books. Probably all prints are much more impressive as prints and not reproductions. But maybe his prints also look better at larger sizes, especially when the subject itself is ment to look impressivly big.

/matti

Tom Stanworth · Oct 30, 2006

c6h6o3 · Oct 30, 2006

Donald Miller said:
Take away the aspect of nature and the great landscape, and how effective was he at seeing?

Even without taking them away, the vision is still banal. Adams was a photographic illustrator, not an artist.

Still, some of his early work leaves me breathless. My favorite portrait ever is his portrait of Edward Weston under the eucalyptus tree. There is no finer print than his original contact prints of that picture. Seeing a contact print by Adams of that image is what inspired me to get serious about large format photography.

smieglitz · Oct 30, 2006

keithwms said:
...Of course, Adams was probably the most technically adept photographer of his generation (or perhaps any generation!) so he knew very well how to get what he wanted...

I'd argue that Arch-Ansel William Mortensen was just as "technically adept... so he knew very well how to get what he wanted," if not moreso.

Joe

Bromo33333 · Oct 30, 2006

c6h6o3 said:
Even without taking them away, the vision is still banal. Adams was a photographic illustrator, not an artist.

Still, some of his early work leaves me breathless. My favorite portrait ever is his portrait of Edward Weston under the eucalyptus tree. There is no finer print than his original contact prints of that picture. Seeing a contact print by Adams of that image is what inspired me to get serious about large format photography.

Eh, I think without going to some of the active threads about what and artist or art may be - it seems to me that calling a photographer an "illustrator" is like calling a painter's work "derivative" - meaning it is a mark of contempt.

Whether you like his work, or subject matter (I happen NOT to like his subject matter of his most famous stuff) - his impact on art and photography is quite clear. Offering him contempt for that work is a misplaced reaction, I think.

Having said that - pictures like "Moon over Half Dome" is a sight to behold and is one of hte most important photos ever taken. So famous it has become cliche - art or illustration distinction non-withstanding. (kind of like the Mona Lisa - loses all impact in real life when it has been reproduced and observd ad nauseum)

TheFlyingCamera · Oct 30, 2006

Some years ago I went to see an Ansel Adams retrospective that was touring. They had prints from both his early and his late years of the same images. It was interesting to see that his printing style had changed over time to become contrastier and contrastier. By the time he quit printing, he went from about a grade two to a grade four and a half, which would explain why he needed to know so much about controlling tonality in a print - he HAD to burn and dodge more to preserve detail in his highlights and shadows.

The earlier prints he made were quite beautiful. The later prints were harsh. I'm glad he was around and had the impact that he did, and his reputation as an educator and enthusiast were certainly well deserved. To me, though, the jury is still out on Ansel the artist. I would say that there were contemporaries of his who were his equals, and there are certainly a few folks here on APUG who are essentially unrecognized but could stand beside his shoes just as well.

Terence · Oct 30, 2006

TheFlyingCamera said:
The earlier prints he made were quite beautiful. The later prints were harsh. QUOTE]

I like contrastier prints. I'm told I'll grow out of, but they said the same thing about acting juvenile . . . being in my mid-thirties, neither looks like to change any time soon.

The first time I saw an original "Clearing Winter Storm in Yosemite Valley" (might have the name slightly wrong), I was simply blown away. When they had a larger print of it at the MOMA/QNS a couple years ago, I was even more blown away. But it was seeing the price for one in a Santa Fe gallery that blew away the idea I could EVER afford one even if I hit the lottery.

His earlier prints seemed muddier to me. Different strokes/grades for different folks I guess.

Early Riser · Oct 30, 2006

Adams work might seem cliche' nowadays but at the time it was rather revolutionary. Prior to the days of the Group 64, which included Adams, Cunningham,Weston and some others, photography was most often the poor man's version of a painting and many photographers worked in a painterly, soft focus style called pictorialism. Adams and f64 thought that photography was an art and medium in it's own right and it's merits should be highlighted and not masked to look like a painting. They decided that a photograph should be sharp and have detail, to a degree not readily available in painting. The name f64 was a reference to the aperture that at the time gave an image it's greatest amount of focus and detail.

Adams contribution to the elevation of photography as an art is unmatched. His forwarding of the technology and methodology of photography through the zone system and all of his books is without peer. Whether you consider his work cliche or the benchmark for photography does not alter his amazing contributions.

reellis67 · Oct 30, 2006

Early Riser makes a good point here. I think that it is often easy to forget the circumstances in place at the time of work that happened in the past, and in this case, understanding that pictorialism was *the* way to photograph is important to understanding what Adams, Cunningham, Weston, et al. were doing by introducing a very different aesthetic and what impact they had on the future of photography and the art world.

- Randy

Bromo33333 · Oct 30, 2006

Early Riser said:
Adams contribution to the elevation of photography as an art is unmatched. His forwarding of the technology and methodology of photography through the zone system and all of his books is without peer. Whether you consider his work cliche or the benchmark for photography does not alter his amazing contributions.

I think it was revolutionary - though yesterday's revolution is today's cliche - it is a vicim of its own success!

Terence · Oct 30, 2006

Bromo33333 said:
I think it was revolutionary - though yesterday's revolution is today's cliche - it is a vicim of its own success!

Like the Che Guevara with a Nike swoosh on his beret? Simple, but brilliant.

Bromo33333 · Oct 30, 2006

Terence said:
Like the Che Guevara with a Nike swoosh on his beret? Simple, but brilliant.

I wonder how someone would do a PoMo version of Ansel Adams ... anyone?

darinb · Nov 1, 2006

Here are a few factors to consider, some not yet mentioned:

1. His foundation among amateur photographers as a great photographer--a wider public would later draw upon this sentiment in forming “Ansel Adams” the brand name.

2. The Environmental movement.

3. Photography becoming recognized as a serious art form.

4. (flowing from #3) Beaumont Newhall’s History was pretty much the only game in town textbook-wise.

5. William A. Turnage in 1971.

6. John Szarkowski

(Note, I see these as the factors in Ansel Adams becoming “special” where that means “famous,” not special as in unique, worthwhile, or treasured. For those you have to look more inward than outward, I suppose.)

--Darin

EdR · Nov 2, 2006

Interesting stuff. For me, Adams contribution to the technical and methodological side of photography is as great as his images. But while the former contribution becomes less significant today given that many people are able to grasp and use the techniques that were once pioneering, many of his images remain timeless.

At his best, the quality and quantity of information in his images (tonal dynamic range, detail, form) is what makes him "special".

Roger Hicks · Nov 2, 2006

What has astonished me about the few original AA prints I have seen is that they rarely look as good as the repro in books, because he was addicted to over-enlarging, especially from his Hasselblad negs.

Like many other posters, I find his early work more attractive: more memorable, tonally nicer, and less of a cliche. The cliche was not inherently technical, but as someone else pointed out, his choice of subject matter: the Heroic West, or to give it another name, faux-wilderness.

As for his contributions to sensitometry, the naming of Zones was a work of genius, but everything else was merely a restatement (often in heavily jargon-ridden language) of basic sensitometry dating back to Hurter and Driffield in 1890.

The way that he and his gang treated Mortensen was pretty unpleasant too.

So why is he so popular? Because he was, indeed, a technically skilled photographer, often with a brilliant eye for composition, who showed people what they wanted to see in a very palatable manner. Those who met him (alas I missed my only opportunity in the late 1980s) add that he was a very nice guy, too, and far less doctrinaire than some of his followers: the relationship between AA's teaching and the behaviour of fundamentalist Zonies is a bit like the relationship between what little we know of Christ (after heavy revisionism AD 100-300) and the behaviour of the more manic fundamentalist Christians.

Cheers,

Roger

Tony Egan · Nov 2, 2006

Roger Hicks said:
The way that he and his gang treated Mortensen was pretty unpleasant too.
Roger

I get the sense Mortenesen's legacy is being re-evaluated. I only became aware of him in the last few years and found a copy of "Mortensen on the Negative" (1940) in a used bookstore last year. It was one of the most entertaining technical books on photography I have read. He comes across as a very bright, self-assured and unpretentious man - and funny! Maybe f64 was just jealous of the jokes!? He did make an unflattering comment about "Weston's cabbages" at one point in the book.

Roger Hicks · Nov 2, 2006

Tony Egan said:
I get the sense Mortenesen's legacy is being re-evaluated. I only became aware of him in the last few years and found a copy of "Mortensen on the Negative" (1940) in a used bookstore last year. It was one of the most entertaining technical books on photography I have read. He comes across as a very bright, self-assured and unpretentious man - and funny! Maybe f64 was just jealous of the jokes!? He did make an unflattering comment about "Weston's cabbages" at one point in the book.

Dear Tony,

I'm sure you're right about the re-evaluation, and I wholeheartedly agree about the jokes. We have most of his books, including Monsters and Madonnas, though alas it's the reprint not the original.

Cheers,

Roger

juan · Nov 2, 2006

I've seen a good number of Adams prints in person - probably in the range of 1000 by now. At one exhibit about 20-years ago, I carried along my copy of "Examples: The Making of 40 Photographs." I'll assure you that the real prints were far superior to the reproductions in the books.

I once read Adams' prints described, correctly IMHO, as Wagnerian (Richard Wagner, the composer principally known for his dramatic operas), and I think that, along with good timing and marketing, is the key to his success. The drama of the American west and the way his printing evolved evokes emotion in the general public. Folks are able to see the world as they want to see it.

I think for photographers, Adams brought a systematic approach from music that was lacking in the work of many. Yes, I know other great photographers were systematic in their methods, but the average photographer was not until Adams began to lead the way. Besides, in the 70s his five little volumes were about the only guidance available for serious photographers who lived away from the major cities.

I had the opportunity to see a collection of Adams prints from a rarely shown private collection. The collector had sought out prints made near the time that the negatives were made. I could see how Adams interpretation of his negatives changed drastically over the years - it was not just paper contrast, but print size and color, too. Some of his famous huge images began as warm-toned prints smaller than 8x10. But it was his later, huge and dramatic prints that the public fell in love with. Adams had begun to make them at just the right time for marketing.
juan

What makes Ansel Adams so special?

Tony Egan

Tony Egan

MattKing

Moderator

removed account4

Bill Mitchell

reellis67

Bromo33333

matti

Tom Stanworth

c6h6o3

smieglitz

Bromo33333

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council

Terence

Early Riser

reellis67

Bromo33333

Terence

Bromo33333

darinb

EdR

Roger Hicks

Tony Egan

Roger Hicks

juan

What makes Ansel Adams so special?

Moderator

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency