What makes Ansel Adams so special?

[David H. Bebbington]

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

Murray

What have I done? Pursued my own vision and attempted to discover some truth about life and the world. My level of public recognition is modest and does not compare with AA, one of photography's greatest success stories in terms of popularity and print sales, but so what? Are you saying, Murray, that until I (or anyone else) can equal AA's sales figures, we are not entitled to have an opinion? I am sure you know better than that!

Funny stuff, fame! Musical examples come to mind - Mozart versus Salieri, Beethoven versus Spohr, Benny Goodman versus Fletcher Henderson (FH was a prolific black composer and musician, had his own band, got nowhere because of racism and sold his "book" to BG who earned squillions with it), Rahsaan Roland Kirk versus Ian Anderson of "Jethro Tull", Elvis Presley versus "Shifty Henry" (the composer of "Jailhouse Rock", persuaded to sell all rights to the song for $25). Fame means ****-all and should not be trusted under any circumstances!

Regards,

David

 

[Curt]

There are so many myths that it's difficult get to the kernel of them. AA wasn't the first to photograph Yosemite, Jackson and others were there. So what if there was a Mortensen conflict. He didn't like James Watts either, does that make him evil? Paul Strand had a fallout with Stieglitz, some people don't care for some other people what's new about that? Ansel always gave credit to Fred Archer as coinventor of the zone system, it would have been easy to just claim credit for the entire thing.

What makes him great is that he was consistent in his approach and shared what he knew with others. He had the integrity to do what he thought and not what others thought.

What makes Ansel Adams so special? is the question. Special in what regard? Ansel Adams the man, the westerner, the Californian, the American photographer, the teacher, the environmental advocate, the artist, the naturalist, the preservationist?

I think he was a special person because he was a dynamic individual with a tremendous amount of energy that he directed into his photography and shared it with anyone who was interested.

http://www.geocities.com/thereaganyears/environment.htm

 

[Roger Hicks]

...he was a special person because he was a dynamic individual with a tremendous amount of energy that he directed into his photography and shared it with anyone...

No question. The only thing I'd add is that some people seem to have a need to go beyond admiration (and I admire AA greatly) into the realms of worship, as if he and the Zone System are the Way, the Truth and the Life.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[DrPablo]

I can't be bothered to go through 11 pages to see if this was mentioned by someone else, but here is my thought.

I don't think Ansel would have been such a towering figure 50 years earlier (or no more so than Timothy O'Sullivan in the 1860s), and I certainly can't assume he'd stand out if he were born in 1980 and shooting with a 1Ds Mark II.

Ansel had the dual fortune of 1) beginning his career just as panchromatic films were becoming available, and 2) photographing some of the great landscapes of the west before they became overrun with tourists and smog.

The panchromatic part can't be overlooked, and I think it's far more important than the zone system. The panchromatic film allowed him to have dark, dramatic shadows and skies, and allowed him to exploit contrast filtration. This, combined with his meticulate (and obsessive) printing technique and his very deliberate contrast control (i.e. the zone system) allowed him to create the iconic images of the west.

But it's only because he was there at the right time. I don't think he'd particularly stand out right now. These towering leaders and figures can only be assumed to be great in their own era. You can't assume that Sir Isaac Newton would make a contribution to quantum physics or relativity, and you can't assume that Einstein would make a meaningful contribution to 17th century mechanics. And I think Ansel's huge contribution to photography is entirely dependent on the contemporaneous availability of panchromatic films.

 

[Chuck_P]

No question. The only thing I'd add is that some people seem to have a need to go beyond admiration (and I admire AA greatly) into the realms of worship, as if he and the Zone System are the Way, the Truth and the Life.

Cheers,

Roger

C'mon Roger, so what if people do go beyond admiration. How should it affect you so?

I admire him for many things (which others have state perfectly), least of which are some some of his most well known landscapes. I'm not into "landscape" photography, but I am into photography, and learning the ZS has completely changed my entire photographic experience and I am so much better a photographer because of it---------it's that simple, and it escapes me as to how annoyed others become with that sentiment. It was his enthusiasm and willingness to "pass it on", that I am most greatful for. Sure, there's other ways of doing things and that's wonderful too.

I just can't understand the derision (not that you are guilty of that, but just in general) that takes place when it comes to AA.

 

[Jim Jones]

I can't be bothered to go through 11 pages to see if this was mentioned by someone else, but here is my thought. . . I think Ansel's huge contribution to photography is entirely dependent on the contemporaneous availability of panchromatic films.

Adams made the most of the panchromatic film, achromatic and perhaps apochromatic lenses, improved cameras, and sophisticated darkrooms of his day. Timothy O'Sullivan, Eadweard Muybridge, Carleton Watkins, and even W. H. Jackson sometimes did almost as well by making the most of blue sensitive film, landscape and rapid rectilinear lenses, primative and often crude cameras, and contact printing. Such photographers did not obsessively imprint their images with their own distinctive vision. Instead, they presented their subjects clearly and honestly in a way that lets the viewer apply his own vision. This isn't the only approach to art, but it comes nearest to being the universal one.

 

[Russ Young]

There are a lot of myths accepted as fact in some of the earlier postings. I doubt that these folks [/I]want[/I] to learn the reality but here goes:

1. f'64 and AA did not invent the "Grand American Landscape" nor did they take the iconic images of Yosemite. See Carleton Watkins, Charles Leander Weed, Timothy O'Sullivan, J. J. Reilly, Edward Muybridge and many others from the 1870s and 1880s. As stated in the f/64 manifesto for their 1932 exhibition, they admitted they invented nothing new but were turning to the pre-1900 aesthetic. Shame they didn't do it as well as the originals- hold a mammoth plate by Watkins of Yosemite in your hands and you'll not remember the names of his 50 year later imitator. Look at Watkin's work in In Focus: Carleton Watkins published by the Getty, 1997, and you'll appreciate that Ansel only stole form the best.
Although the case isn't as clear, I believe AA also ripped off the aesthetics and locations of his friend John Paul Edwards, his fellow Pictorialist and later fellow founder of f/64.

2. Besides the Sierra Club, the main reason AA became a household name was the couple of Beaumont & Nancy Newhall. The Newhalls made him famous int he 'high art' world when they were curators at MOMA. Without them showing him there, the Sierra Club would never have heard of him. Additionally, their writing uncritically idolized AA and for decades, the Newhalls were THE photohistorians of America.

3. AA named the Zone System but did not invent it. Like many other aspects, he ripped this off from William Mortenson (see Mortenson on the Negative, 1940 edition, chapter entitled "Origin of the Nine Negatives; Mortenson alas didn't coin a catchy name for a well-known system, he just explained it well.
AA was so petty that he did his best to prevent Mortenson's archive from being placed at the Center For Creative Photography; fortunately he was not successful and the two photographers' work rest there side by side. For an account of how AA tried to destroy all trace of Mortenson long after the latter's death, see A. D. Coleman, William Mortenson, A Revival published by the Center for Creative Photography, page 87.
AA also copied Mortenson's series on photography. Mortenson preceeded him by a decade or more in all cases and Mortenson wrote in a far more lucid style. Additionally, most of Mortenson's volumes went through more editions than any of AA's.
It is a tribute to AA's power (and pettiness) that he was able to almost totally erase any memory of Mortenson, who was far better known before 1950.

Russ

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Are you saying, Murray, that until I (or anyone else) can equal AA's sales figures, we are not entitled to have an opinion? I am sure you know better than that!

You're right David. It's just that some peoples negative reaction to anything Ansel reminds me of this guy I know who has rockclimbing magazines mailed to his place of work, owns a huge bag of gear, knows every knot in existence and can "tie them behind my back in a cold shower", talks about how easy the hardest routes are, but only shows up a couple times in the spring with complete rookies thereby having an excuse for not climbing the hard stuff.

How many great photographers since Ansel have been scornful of him? Few I would think.

Murray

 

[Roger Hicks]

C'mon Roger, so what if people do go beyond admiration. How should it affect you so?

Because there's so much more to life and photography than hero worship and Ansel Adams.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Dave Miller]

There are a lot of myths accepted as fact in some of the earlier postings. I doubt that these folks [/i]want[/i] to learn the reality but here goes:

1. f'64 and AA did not invent the "Grand American Landscape" nor did they take the iconic images of Yosemite. See Carleton Watkins, Charles Leander Weed, Timothy O'Sullivan, J. J. Reilly, Edward Muybridge and many others from the 1870s and 1880s. As stated in the f/64 manifesto for their 1932 exhibition, they admitted they invented nothing new but were turning to the pre-1900 aesthetic. Shame they didn't do it as well as the originals- hold a mammoth plate by Watkins of Yosemite in your hands and you'll not remember the names of his 50 year later imitator. Look at Watkin's work in In Focus: Carleton Watkins published by the Getty, 1997, and you'll appreciate that Ansel only stole form the best.
Although the case isn't as clear, I believe AA also ripped off the aesthetics and locations of his friend John Paul Edwards, his fellow Pictorialist and later fellow founder of f/64.

2. Besides the Sierra Club, the main reason AA became a household name was the couple of Beaumont & Nancy Newhall. The Newhalls made him famous int he 'high art' world when they were curators at MOMA. Without them showing him there, the Sierra Club would never have heard of him. Additionally, their writing uncritically idolized AA and for decades, the Newhalls were THE photohistorians of America.

3. AA named the Zone System but did not invent it. Like many other aspects, he ripped this off from William Mortenson (see Mortenson on the Negative, 1940 edition, chapter entitled "Origin of the Nine Negatives; Mortenson alas didn't coin a catchy name for a well-known system, he just explained it well.
AA was so petty that he did his best to prevent Mortenson's archive from being placed at the Center For Creative Photography; fortunately he was not successful and the two photographers' work rest there side by side. For an account of how AA tried to destroy all trace of Mortenson long after the latter's death, see A. D. Coleman, William Mortenson, A Revival published by the Center for Creative Photography, page 87.
AA also copied Mortenson's series on photography. Mortenson preceeded him by a decade or more in all cases and Mortenson wrote in a far more lucid style. Additionally, most of Mortenson's volumes went through more editions than any of AA's.
It is a tribute to AA's power (and pettiness) that he was able to almost totally erase any memory of Mortenson, who was far better known before 1950.

Russ

Well put, and well worth repeating.

 

[schroeg]

And some trivia....

* Adams was a classically trained pianist early on
* He broke his nose during one of the strong aftershocks of the 1906 SF earthquake

We all owe a great debt to him. He was a true artist.

 

[Roger Hicks]

We all owe a great debt to him.

Why? Plenty of people are completely uninfluenced by him, and surprisingly many don't like his work or are indifferent to him. Quite a few even reckon his influence to have been malevolent. Personally, I'd reckon I owe bigger debts of gratitude to Roger Fenton, Margaret Bourke-White, Ferdinand Hurter, Vero Driffield, Aleksandr Rodchenko, Ragubir Singh, Loyd Jones, Brassai and many more.

This is not to do him down: merely to repeat my previous assertion that he wasn't the be-all and end-all.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[temujin]

AA was so petty that he did his best to prevent Mortenson's archive from being placed at the Center For Creative Photography; fortunately he was not successful and the two photographers' work rest there side by side. For an account of how AA tried to destroy all trace of Mortenson long after the latter's death, see A. D. Coleman, William Mortenson, A Revival published by the Center for Creative Photography, page 87.
AA also copied Mortenson's series on photography. Mortenson preceeded him by a decade or more in all cases and Mortenson wrote in a far more lucid style. Additionally, most of Mortenson's volumes went through more editions than any of AA's.
It is a tribute to AA's power (and pettiness) that he was able to almost totally erase any memory of Mortenson, who was far better known before 1950.

Russ[/QUOTE]

russ is much more clearly making the point that i was attempting to make - adams was not merely arguing with mortensen, he tried to wipe the memory of mortensen's work out not only after the decline of mortensen's career, but after the man was six feet under and unable to defend himself! it doesnt matter if mortensen started the arguement first or not, he was merely arguing, and not trying to exclude adams from his rightful place in the artworld.

 

[copake_ham]

What have I done? Pursued my own vision and attempted to discover some truth about life and the world. My level of public recognition is modest and does not compare with AA, one of photography's greatest success stories in terms of popularity and print sales, but so what? Are you saying, Murray, that until I (or anyone else) can equal AA's sales figures, we are not entitled to have an opinion? I am sure you know better than that!......

David,

You seem to resent AA because of your perception that he was a great financial success. As if there is anything wrong in that.

As a matter of fact, his financial success was only achieved later in his career. Through much of the 1940's and '50's - when he was producing some of his most notable work - he was a not financially successful and considered finding another line of work. His ability to continue to practice his art was very dependent upon the fact that he had formed a close professional and personal friendship with the editor of Arizona Highways magazine. This editor would toss AA various freelance "assignments" without direction - many of which resulted in photos published first in the magazine (a tourist promo mag published by the AZ Dept. of Highways). While these assignments paid very little - they were enough to provide a subsistence income while also allowing AA the freedom to shoot what he wanted rather than what might have been expected from a regular assignment.

Arizona Highways continues to be a spectacular expository for landscape and other photography today. They recently relocated their offices and while doing so uncovered a trove of AA photos that were never published. Fortunately for those of us who respect AA and his work, these have now been donated to the Center for Creative Photography at the University of Arizona in Tucson.

 

[Chuck_P]

Because there's so much more to life and photography than hero worship and Ansel Adams.

Cheers,

Roger

Not to be too abrasive.....but, what is your freaking problem with one individual being positively influenced by another? Oh, I see, you just can't stand it when the influence is AA. We all know that there are many great photographers out there, now and historically speaking. So what, if they are not as equally known by all. Please don't consider it your job to be derisive toward one in order to shed light on others.

With all due respect, Roger, a healthy degree of respect by someone does not have to mean "worship" or even "hero", but you would have us all to believe so. Any post that I have seen from those that are not derisive toward AA, simply reveals a sense of respect for the accomplishments and contributions, that's all. But you seem to see that as "worship".

Rediculous.

 

[mark]

Arizona Highways continues to be a spectacular expository for landscape and other photography today. They recently relocated their offices and while doing so uncovered a trove of AA photos that were never published. Fortunately for those of us who respect AA and his work, these have now been donated to the Center for Creative Photography at the University of Arizona in Tucson.

I cannot echo your sentiments about AZ Highways. I have been very disappointed with their photography lately. The good stuff seems to be few and far between these days. I was pretty disappointed in this last issue. Especially lake photos.

I wish Dykinga was represented like he used to be. I was even pretty unimpressed with Gary Ladd's most recent spread. Good tips, but I thought the reproductions were horrid. I also don't like the whole "if you want a print of this picture...." advertisements. This is just my opinion though.

 

[copake_ham]

Not to be too abrasive.....but, what is your freaking problem with one individual being positively influenced by another? Oh, I see, you just can't stand it when the influence is AA. We all know that there are many great photographers out there, now and historically speaking. So what, if they are not as equally known by all. Please don't consider it your job to be derisive toward one in order to shed light on others.

With all due respect, Roger, a healthy degree of respect by someone does not have to mean "worship" or even "hero", but you would have us all to believe so. Any post that I have seen from those that are not derisive toward AA, simply reveals a sense of respect for the accomplishments and contributions, that's all. But you seem to see that as "worship".

Rediculous.

Chuck,

You will ultimately discover that part of the zeitgeist of this site is to "rag" on anything that is too "American". And goodness knows, AA is totally AMERICAN. It's just the way it is here.

Roger is simply the "leader of the pack". He also has his acolytes here who serve as the "Amen Chorus".

It's a political thing in part - perhaps not fully undeserved given the status of who's been running the US lately - but, yes, it does get tiresome.

I am still waiting for Roger and company to tell me something...

If AA is not one of, if not "THE", seminal landscape photographer - who, pray tell is?

I would never dispute that our dear departed Euro friend, HCB, defined "street". Why do these folk have a problem understanding that AA defined "landscape"?

 

[Curt]

I would never dispute that our dear departed Euro friend, HCB, defined "street". Why do these folk have a problem understanding that AA defined "landscape"?

Weegee for one.
http://museum.icp.org/museum/collections/special/weegee/

Bruce Davidson.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/28/features/blume.php

W, Eugene Smith.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Eugene_Smith

I could go on for hours, American photographers have been on the top since the beginning so get over it. AA, E. Weston, B. Weston Strand, Evans, Stieglitz, the list is way to long to list the hundreds of photographers. Brady and others pioneered the best of photography; that's what we do and we do it the best.

Curt

 

[MurrayMinchin]

I could go on for hours, American photographers have been on the top since the beginning so get over it. AA, E. Weston, B. Weston Strand, Evans, Stieglitz, the list is way to long to list the hundreds of photographers. Brady and others pioneered the best of photography; that's what we do and we do it the best.

Oh, that's why the rest of the world just loves the US to bits...you're so cuddly and subtle!

Murray

 

[copake_ham]

Oh, that's why the rest of the world just loves the US to bits...you're so cuddly and subtle!

Murray

Murray,

For the record, this was NOT my point!

Some of us are much more sensitive - we tend to come from places like NYC and are much more respectful of all artists!

My only point is that AA is a (if not, THE) seminal landscape photographer. His art transcends his nationality even though it is virtually impossible to separate his nation (as a geographical locale) as the source of his art!

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Murray,

For the record, this was NOT my point!

Some of us are much more sensitive - we tend to come from places like NYC and are much more respectful of all artists!

My only point is that AA is a (if not, THE) seminal landscape photographer. His art transcends his nationality even though it is virtually impossible to separate his nation (as a geographical locale) as the source of his art!

No problem here!

Just teasing Curt for getting all HOOORAWWWW on us

Murray

 

[David H. Bebbington]

David,

You seem to resent AA because of your perception that he was a great financial success. As if there is anything wrong in that.

Absolutely not. Let me reiterate: I have the most profound respect for AA's technical expertise, I fully acknowlege that he is revered by very many people as the dean of landscape (although Europeans would say American landscape, as a reminder that America is not the world), I admire his tenacity in acting deliberately as a polemicist for the American landscape, the Sierra Club, conservation, the National Parks concept, etc., and I am truly delighted that his work was so in demand and gave so much pleasure to people that he was able to make a lot of money selling prints. As a professional, I have unqualified respect for any other professional who is able to do something superbly well.

BUT - again, as I have said before - I personally (as opposed to professionally) find AA's work so oversentimentalized that its emotional impact on me is virtually zero. As regards fame, again as I tried to indicate earlier, I am neutral - I am in no way envious of people who become rich and famous, but nor am I impressed by this - I cited some examples of how one talented person can become famous, while another equally or more talented person can remain in obscurity - and as we all know, it is possible today to be famous for absolutely nothing (Paris Hilton and the thousands of others).

I hope this clarifies matters!

Best regards,

David

 

[Curt]

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Anyone remember this, Murray, post I made when I found the HCB information and was excited to see his work on the internet?

My only point is that AA is a (if not, THE) seminal landscape photographer. His art transcends his nationality even though it is virtually impossible to separate his nation (as a geographical locale) as the source of his art!

Ansel Adams is so closely tied to a geography, the American Southwest, that it is hard to separate the two. I am as proud of the Southwest as the Swiss are of the Alps, and why not, I live here.

Oh, that's why the rest of the world just loves the US to bits...you're so cuddly and subtle!

With all due respect, Roger, a healthy degree of respect by someone does not have to mean "worship" or even "hero", but you would have us all to believe so. Any post that I have seen from those that are not derisive toward AA, simply reveals a sense of respect for the accomplishments and contributions, that's all. But you seem to see that as "worship".

AA was so petty that he did his best to prevent Mortenson's archive from being placed at the Center For Creative Photography; fortunately he was not successful and the two photographers' work rest there side by side. For an account of how AA tried to destroy all trace of Mortenson long after the latter's death, see A. D. Coleman, William Mortenson, A Revival published by the Center for Creative Photography, page 87.
AA also copied Mortenson's series on photography. Mortenson preceeded him by a decade or more in all cases and Mortenson wrote in a far more lucid style. Additionally, most of Mortenson's volumes went through more editions than any of AA's.
It is a tribute to AA's power (and pettiness) that he was able to almost totally erase any memory of Mortenson, who was far better known before 1950.

Gee if I had known that Ansel Adams had tried to erase Mortenson from history and destroy all traces of Martinson then I would have totally disregarded all of Ansel Adams work and not looked at any of it!

You don't have to tell me twice that someone is poison, this kind of information must be spread and spread fast, everybody must know what happened. Has anyone called CNN, BBC, CNC, GDP, and the Soviets?

That guy Adams had a lot of nerve spending almost all of his life living a lie while working on the extermination of the Mortenson.

There should be a Mount Martinson in Hollywood named after the portrait photographer William Mortenson. Better yet name a mountain near Murray's home after him, they are cuddly and well spoken up there.

Dear Roger, all of our hero's are cowboys, haven't you heard. Oops, Ansel wore a cowboy hat.


What's next? Paul strand has a dispute with the great Steiglitz over a woman, or was that Stieglitz?, then shows his stuff to Ansel Adams down in the Southwest and influences him to go straight and kill off any collective memory of William Mortenson.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Not to be too abrasive.....but, what is your freaking problem with one individual being positively influenced by another? Oh, I see, you just can't stand it when the influence is AA. We all know that there are many great photographers out there, now and historically speaking. So what, if they are not as equally known by all. Please don't consider it your job to be derisive toward one in order to shed light on others.

With all due respect, Roger, a healthy degree of respect by someone does not have to mean "worship" or even "hero", but you would have us all to believe so. .

With all due respect, Chuck, what's your freakin' problem with anyone else's point of view?

I feel the same way about Cartier-Bresson as I do about AA: another brilliant photographer, but not God. The 'star system' in any sphere is corrosive and childish: only a child always wants to know, in absolutes, what's 'best', and then defends his special choice as the ultimate. I'd be as dismissive to anyone who was overawed by (let us say) Leicas or Sergei Eisenstein. Leicas are great cameras; Eisenstein was a great director; but it strikes me as legitimate comment to suggest that breadth is no bad thing, and that even the greatest fans of AA, HCB, Leicas or Eisenstein might do well to reflect occasionally on the imperfections of their objects of admiration.

I am by nature contrarian; I like to make people think; and some people appreciate what one called 'a gentle kick up the mind'. This is probably why my column has now been restored to AP as weekly, with a column in the magazine one week, and one on the webside the next.

To borrow your own phrase, please don't consider it your job to tell everyone else what to think -- and especially, don't to try to tell me what I am thinking or saying, which you have misunderstood anyway.

Fortunately I'm now going to be away for a week -- at Arles, looking at contemporary photography -- and with any luck this will have blown over by the time I get back.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Roger Hicks]

Oh, that's why the rest of the world just loves the US to bits...you're so cuddly and subtle!

Murray

Yeah... People like Roger Fenton, Julia Margaret Cameron, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Aleksandr Rodchenko, Brassai, Doisneau, David Bailey, Sebastiao Salgado -- who's ever heard of any of them?

Cheers,

Roger