Today's enviro-radicals even have a name for Adams images (and all pretty wilderness pictures). They call them eco-porn. Images by people such as Robert Adams and Richard Misrach are for more relevant in their eyes as they demonstrate man's disregard for the land.
I think both are honest, and frankly it's not the photographers who are polluting and disregarding the land. People will accept land use restrictions if it's for a good cause. I mean I don't think there are massive protests in front of the department of the interior demanding liberalized overflight routes in the Grand Canyon, and there has only been applause since they've mandated shuttle bussing up and down Zion Canyon.
Idealizing a landscape is a great way to inspire people to advocate for it. And besides, no one who has a strong point of view is entirely honest. All sides here are practicing the art of persuasion. Images can be tools to persuade, and there's no reason that Ansel's portfolio shouldn't be the iconic images for conservationists.
Idealizing a landscape is a great way to inspire people to advocate for it. And besides, no one who has a strong point of view is entirely honest. All sides here are practicing the art of persuasion. Images can be tools to persuade, and there's no reason that Ansel's portfolio shouldn't be the iconic images for conservationists.
Today many radical environmentalists believe he did far more harm than good to the environment by giving a false impression about the pristine condition of wilderness and the lack of man's impact.
Assuming you are familiar with British landscape photogs, you might care to compare and contrast someone like Joe Cornish (lush dream-like color, idealization to the nth degree) and Fay Godwin, who was being passionate about the English countryside, tended to beauty rather than ugliness but nonetheless seemed to get just a little realistic grit into her pictures, which (at least to me) ring a lot truer as a result!
I am still waiting for R. Hicks and his minions to show me work that rivals Ansel Adams. For that matter it doesn't have to rival just a career and portfolio of over 50 years worth of photography. Talk is cheap.
lee\c
....
Anyway, I think there is a fundamental difference between "conservation" and "environmentalism"; being one who works in the environmental field, that is a conclusion that I have come to. IMO, Adams turned into a conservationist who advocated "wise use" of what the environment offered. An environmentalist, well, can be someone (or entity) with common sense or someone (or entity) without commonsense, those so-called "enviro-radicals", IMHO.
Chuck
Roger Fenton
Cheers
R.
Chuck,
In all honesty, I think this is a specious distinction. And, I do not think that those of us who consider ourselves "environmentalists" are by definition "enviro-radicals".
Roger Fenton
Cheers
R.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?