What makes Ansel Adams so special?

[Jim Jones]

. . . It's not enough to be good. It's not necessary to be liked. Lead, and others will follow, but lead well. Leave a temple guard to preserve and protect your legacy. Teach your followers in your way, the only way. The rest of the world will know you then.

The fame of many creative people lies no more their artistry than in their character. Hemingway, Beethoven, Van Gogh, Weston, and Frank Lloyd Wright created personas nearly as great as their art. Adams was capable, driven, and articulate. In the act of promoting good photography he inevitably promoted himself. Being a fine artist is good. Helping others to become a fine artist is great.

 

[jstraw]

Special? In what?
A great Crafstman/Photographer, but surelly not special at all.

Cheers

André

Great but not special?

 

[JBrunner]

I think "great" or "special" is semantic in the context of my OP. Perhaps I should have said "Why is Ansel instantly recognized above all other photographers, by the non-photographer, or non-collector" There have been some insightful replies. I am now pretty sure it was a vast combination of things done well.

 

[André E.C.]

Great but not special?

Personnal opinion of course, I can think of many even greater photographers than Adams, but that isn`t enough to make them special.
I have one Yashica J, it`s not a GREAT camera, but just for the fact it was my first and a gift from my Grandfather, makes it the most SPECIAL camera I own.
Great is my Hasselblad for example, but not as special as my old J!


Cheers

André

 

[André E.C.]

..."Why is Ansel instantly recognized above all other photographers...

Above? Again , a matter of personnal taste, for me Adams was one of the best, but surelly not the one, Paul Strand, E.Weston, Stieglitz, White, Caponigro and Siskind were all better than Adams itself.
Adams contribution was of extreme importance to the media, but as a photographer, he`s somehow overated IMHO.

Cheers

André

 

[mark]

Being recognized ABOVE any other, is a common saying. It means more readily recognized.

It is not ranking him or his abilities above any other.

If you ask the regular Joe or Jane who Steiglitz(sp) was they will most like not know who you are talking about. If you ask who Ansel was, they would most likely say "Oh, the BW guy." He wold be recognized ABOVE steiglitz(sp)

 

[André E.C.]

If you ask who Ansel was, they would most likely say "Oh, the BW guy.

That`s kinda sad!:rolleyes:

Cheers

André

 

[JBrunner]

Thanks for clarifying that mark. That is what I mean.

 

[André E.C.]

Being recognized ABOVE any other, is a common saying. It means more readily recognized.

You mean more commercial then?

Cheers

André

 

[mark]

I guess you could call it that.

Not the talentless Paris Hilton type of commercial. More like the Metallica type of commercial.

 

[JBrunner]

Yes, it doesn't have to do with ability or contribution, for instance I personally hold Weston in higher esteem. But if you ask my neighbor about Weston, he will say who? but if you say AA he will know right away who I am talking about. When I walk into a poster shop, I see AA posters, but not Weston, so commercial is part of it, but it is also awareness.

 

[Chuck_P]

If he's overrated it's because of arguments that some of you have already made, and that I agree with, that his images are greatly commercialized and, simply, more folks are aware of him. However, I don't think I can take the position (that's my interpretation of some of these posts, all interesting) that his contributions and openness to teaching his methods are overrated as well. I picked up "The Negative" three years ago and was just blown away at what I had missed for so many years. I can only describe that as a revelation in my book experiences, some may laugh, but oh well . I'm a better photogher for it, is what I'm trying to say.

I'm definitely drawn to look at other works and I enjoy them, I'm not one dimensional. But, for some reason, I find myself somewhat deeply drawn to his photographs (again, some may laugh), I want to step into them. So far, that has not happened to me with other works----I'm certainly open for it to happen, though. Probably just a matter of time.

CP

 

[copake_ham]

Yes, it doesn't have to do with ability or contribution, for instance I personally hold Weston in higher esteem. But if you ask my neighbor about Weston, he will say who? but if you say AA he will know right away who I am talking about. When I walk into a poster shop, I see AA posters, but not Weston, so commercial is part of it, but it is also awareness.

Jason,

Plowing through all of the accumulated B.S. and psuedo-intellectual posturing posted here, what makes AA "great" is that he, more than anyone else, "captured" the grandeur of what was (and for many, IS) still seen as the raw, natural beauty of the U.S. "West".

AA shot at a time when it was still possible to think of "the West" as a place of endless possibilities.

It also helped that AA's posters first began to capture people's imagination in the 1960's during the early days of the "environmental movement".

And you have to admit - no one else has taken as iconic a photo of El Capitan as did AA!

 

[mark]

Jason,

Plowing through all of the accumulated B.S. and psuedo-intellectual posturing posted here, .......

Gee George. You should not hold back your feelings. It is not healthy. Go on, let it all out.

 

[Daniel_OB]

Ansel Adams was true and complete artist. What set him apart are his photographs, his work, and his life. Hat down.
www.Leica-R.com

 

[Will S]

Watching the video of him that is for sale on John Sexton's website you definitely come away with the impression that he was a really nice guy and a wonderful human. That says a lot about anyone.

Will

 

[EricO]

Recently I went to an exhibit call “Icons of American Photography: From 1850-1960” at the Cleveland Museum of Art. Across the street at the Cleveland Institute of Art there was an Ansel Adams exhibit. I’m not a big fan of his but did find that many of his photographs made me say, “ahhhhh!’ out loud. I was trying to explain to a friend why I thought his work were so great. I started by imagining that I could visit the exact places where he photographed to duplicate his photos. Then I imagine how much work it would take for me to find that special angle, exposure, lighting, etc. of a landscape. Would I have to rise at 4am? Would I have to wait for a 10 minute window at twilight? Then I started to appreciate Ansel Adams. No matter how uninteresting I find some of his landscape photos I realize that the amount of work that goes into capturing the scene is way beyond my skills. That’s when I began to understand what makes him great.

 

[temujin]

in answer to the question, i feel one reason why adams has become such a monumental figure in popular culture is the fact that his subject matter appeals to a wide range of people, across all political, cultural, and socioeconomic strata. both artists and people with no particular interest in the artistic world enjoy his prints. it is, shall we say, a rather "safe" and ubiquitous subject matter. adam's lanscape photography simply has a wider appeal than the work of, say, man ray or ralph gibson. his acendancy over other landscape photographers can partially be explained through his undeniable technical proficiency.

however, another reason for adam's eminance is the fact that he, along with the other f/64 folks and allied critics & art historians, were on the winning side of the battle to define "fine art photography". they simply destryed the reputations of the competition, may fine technicians and visionaries among them. others here have mentioned mortensen, and i feel this example illustrates that, while adams may have been a brilliant technician, he was a rather loathsome human being. adams actively sought to destroy mortensen's career because it didnt conform to the f/64 definition of fine art, and after he succeeded in destroying mortensen's career, he even had the indecency to joke about his artistic demise. "artists" with such a small-minded and fascist mentality as this should not be idolized, unless you want others force-feeding their definitions of art to you.

 

[Roger Hicks]

however, another reason for adam's eminance is the fact that he, along with the other f/64 folks and allied critics & art historians, were on the winning side of the battle to define "fine art photography". they simply destryed the reputations of the competition, may fine technicians and visionaries among them. others here have mentioned mortensen, and i feel this example illustrates that, while adams may have been a brilliant technician, he was a rather loathsome human being. adams actively sought to destroy mortensen's career because it didnt conform to the f/64 definition of fine art, and after he succeeded in destroying mortensen's career, he even had the indecency to joke about his artistic demise. "artists" with such a small-minded and fascist mentality as this should not be idolized, unless you want others force-feeding their definitions of art to you.

Even though I'm basically on your side in this one, I think you may be overstating matters.

Everyone whom I know who ever met AA (alas, I failed to take advantage of an introduction) has a higher opinion of him than 'a rather loathsome human being'.

It's easy (and far from commendable) to get caught up in a movement where you agree with some of their aims and some of their methods, but still feel less than happy overall. I'd like to think that AA was thoughtless, rather than vicious, in this regard, and that he underestimated his own power to harm Mortensen. Mortensen was a less versatile and skilled photographer, but a vastly more entertaining and lucid writer.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[David H. Bebbington]

I have AA's book trilogy, frequently give calendars of his work as presents, fully acknowledge his skill and dedication, but ... I really feel he is the Norman Rockwell of photography. My inspiration has come from HCB, Eggleston and many others - but not AA.

Regards,

David

 

[copake_ham]

I have AA's book trilogy, frequently give calendars of his work as presents, fully acknowledge his skill and dedication, but ... I really feel he is the Norman Rockwell of photography. My inspiration has come from HCB, Eggleston and many others - but not AA.

Regards,

David

As there is a growing body of opinion that Norman Rockwell was much more than a "mere illustrator" and was quite a accomplished, if realist, artist (in an era when realism was de classe) - your comparison is not as much of a "damning with faint praise" as you perhaps intended.

My take is that AA was the definitive landscape photographer. His style inspired and was "aped" by thousands of picture postcard shooters whose product graces the countless racks in countless souvenier shops throughout the land. But their mimicry does not diminish his originality - if anything, it confirms it.

Now if you are not a landscape photographer then yes, I can see where you would find little inspiration in his work. But I don't think that because you find no inspiration from him in your work in anyway diminishes AA as a seminal photographer of his genre.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

I searched my name on this old, haggard thread and can't believe I'm not here yet!

Ansel was taking his landscapes and creating a body of work before anybody cared about his subject matter. He was printing dramatically before there was a market for it. He fought to save the places where he photographed before there was even a name for that.

He was at the crest of the wave his whole career...a view lost on those in the trough.

Oh, and it didn't hurt to be photographing in a "wilderness" with millions upon millions of visitors a year, and to be from a country where photographic artists, if not well paid in the beginning, were at least respected.

Of the nay-sayers...what have you done in comparison?

Murray

 

[David H. Bebbington]

As there is a growing body of opinion that Norman Rockwell was much more than a "mere illustrator" and was quite a accomplished, if realist, artist (in an era when realism was de classe) - your comparison is not as much of a "damning with faint praise" as you perhaps intended.

My take is that AA was the definitive landscape photographer. His style inspired and was "aped" by thousands of picture postcard shooters whose product graces the countless racks in countless souvenier shops throughout the land. But their mimicry does not diminish his originality - if anything, it confirms it.

Now if you are not a landscape photographer then yes, I can see where you would find little inspiration in his work. But I don't think that because you find no inspiration from him in your work in anyway diminishes AA as a seminal photographer of his genre.

What I meant was that, in my view, both AA and Rockwell were superbly skilled artists offering a highly sentimentalized view of the world (I would say, hopelessly over-sentimentalized to the extent that any connection to reality is lost). Even AA's fans say things look better in his pix than in reality, which is odd if he was working in a "realistic" style (I don't think either he or Rockwell was).

Regards,

David

 

[Chuck_P]

adams actively sought to destroy mortensen's career because it didnt conform to the f/64 definition of fine art...

Who was out to destroy who when Mortensen wrote "The Fallacies of Pure Photography"? It may have been Mortensen who attacked the proponents of straight photography first. IDK.

According to AA's autobiography, it was Mortensen who wrote that article around 1933 in the magazine of the day called Camera Craft. Adams wrote regarding that article: "I answered his charges in what became one of the fiercest verbal battles in photographic history".

Is this just a severe tongue lashing in defense? Could Mortensen dish it out and not take it? Or, an outright assault by Adams who, you say, wanted to destroy him?

Interesting, to say the least.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Of the nay-sayers...what have you done in comparison?

Hehehe.

This is pointed to all those who deride the man...not just the last couple posters

Murray