What makes Ansel Adams so special?

[Jim Chinn]

I have always liked Adams work. I probably would never had gotten involved in LF if not for his books, posters and images I saw in galleries. I don't know if he was a great artist, but he is one of the greatest and most important photographers of the 20th century.

What is interesting to me is that while in his prime he was hailed as a great help to the fledgling enviromental movement. 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. His work also inspired millions to visit these locations helping fuel the huge influx of tourists today bemoaned by many enviromentalists. 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.

Personally, I have always enjoyed images of beauty from nature, both the grand landscape and the simple details of tree or plant which Adams could excute with perfection. I just find it interesting how a man who really had the best interests of the environment at heart can later be villified.

 

[DrPablo]

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.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

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.

Agreed. People buy cars based upon glossy brochures and the idealism of certain images is as important as the reality of mankinds impact. Without ideal images we see little of what we are losing while the warts 'n all images show us the what is occurring. I have been to many places where my images could be accused of idealism, but I would disagree. They may represents vignettes, but there are (shrinking) paradises left and I think being reminded of their beauty is important...even if the large open quarry 20 miles down the road is also very real.

 

[David H. Bebbington]

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.

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!

Regards,

David

 

[Chuck_P]

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.

This is unfortunate, but it is easy to look back and try to place blame. But I don't think blame can be placed at all. As early as 1923, Yosimite was experiencing a rush of humanity. He wrote in 1923 that he wished Yosimite was more like it must have been 40 years earlier and so he had to continue to climb higher to get away from the bustle.

IMO, he was, first and foremost, a photographer and his love of photographing the natural scene came first. On one of the DVD's that I have about him, he explained that he felt his photographs exists in their own right but that they early on basically became a tool for the conservation movement surrounding Yosimite anyway, which he did not turn away from.

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

 

[DrPablo]

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 actually wasn't familiar with either, but it was interesting looking at their respective portfolios. They both seem to have complete compositional control, which to me is sort of the ultimate in authenticity to self. I'm not sure one is more or less honest than the other, though Godwin certainly has more human (and animal) elements. The difference seems to be predominantly B&W in Godwin's case versus highly saturated color in Cornish's case. They both present their subject in a very sublime way. I think that can be a pretty honest statement of what they saw when they were composing, whether or not it's the literal truth. In that sense they're not so different from Ansel Adams, i.e. creating an aesthetic ideal.

 

[Roger Hicks]

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

Roger Fenton

Cheers

R.

 

[copake_ham]

....
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

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".

In fact, I would believe that most folk who in the past proudly wore the label "conservationist" would now, were they still alive, wear a badge with "environmentalist". Sometimes, words just evolve but mean the same thing.

Environmentalism is simply an effort to understand the interrelationships of organisms and the mutual dependency thereof within a given ecological system. It is really nothing more than a more scientific systemic approach to what the earlier conservationist movement "felt" intuitively.

As one who regularly donates to the non-profit "Nature's Conservancy" organization I do so because I am an "environmentalist"!

 

[DrPablo]

Roger Fenton

Cheers

R.

Add Bradford Washburn to the mix. His landscapes rival anything ever produced by Ansel Adams. And hey, they were friends.

Dead Link Removed

 

[Chuck_P]

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".

Copake,

I see your point and it is well taken and it is probably very true that conservationists can also be thoughtful environmentalits; I did not mean to imply that someone is one or the other. But, just for clarification, I did not say that all environmentalists are enviro-radicals. I have simply lumped environmentalists as having common sense or having none relative to my own sense of reality and I admit it is a very simplistic to do so in that manner. I know some so-called "enviornmentalists" that have expectations of others that are so unrealistic as to display an incredible lack of common sense.

I think AA was just a conservationists and a thoughtful environmentalist.

Chuck

 

[Rafal Lukawiecki]

What makes him so special to me? He was the first, and one of only a few photographers whose work made me feel very emotional. The first time I actually saw a real print of his I did cry a tiny bit.

R.

PS. I wonder if I get to have the last post on this thread.

 

[c6h6o3]

Roger Fenton

Cheers

R.

Good choice, although I would hardly characterize him as a "rival" to Ansel Adams. Adams never saw the day....

 

[Jeff Searust]

good PR.

See what he and his group did to William Mortensen and others that were rivals.

 

[michael9793]

don't forget where our national parks would be without him.