- Joined
- Dec 10, 2009
- Messages
- 6,297
- Format
- Multi Format
I think might be leaning too much on the puritan aspect, but then AA's images were far better suited for the Sunday papers...and Mortensen's photos were solidly of his time. They were not porn because he was an expert of scratching out/spotting out pubic hair. Which I have always thought a bit silly...but I was surprised to find that it was also my father's (b. 1922) definition between porn and Art. (the other standard was if it had a plinth in it, it was Art.)I wonder if AA struck a chord with American's love of the grand landscape and Puritanical roots. Mortensen deal with subjects of lust and monsters. Some of his photographs are pretty erotic and grotesque. His photography may be too ahead of it's time. Photos of Robert Maplethorpe and Joel Peter Witkin are pretty accepted in the art world.
Probably should put it that Adams made photography more accessible to the average photographer.
AA images look good on most office walls. Same cannot be said of what Mortensen did.
I think the main problem is that very few have been interested in Mortensen aesthethic, considered as "old fashioned", but a lot were and still are hooked by Ansel Adam's work.
I wonder if AA struck a chord with American's love of the grand landscape and Puritanical roots. Mortensen deal with subjects of lust and monsters. Some of his photographs are pretty erotic and grotesque. His photography may be too ahead of it's time. Photos of Robert Maplethorpe and Joel Peter Witkin are pretty accepted in the art world.
AA images look good on most office walls. Same cannot be said of what Mortensen did.
Timing. The type of work William Mortensen was doing had run its course in the public eye and it was time for photography to continue on. AA was at the right place at the right time, and had the talent and intelligence to be a unifying figure and take advantage of it...and take photography in a new direction. AA's vision has run its course, what is pure in today's photographic world? But no need to toss him in the rubbish heap, nor William Mortensen. Both are building blocks of today's newest work...whatever that may be.
Sure, just move up a bit from post you quoted to see what I said.Right!
Btw there is no comparison at all between the two. Mortenson lived and worked in a time / spirit which is represented in Europe by Man Ray. Highly experimental, totally focused on symbolic content and not at all a perfectionist in the final presentation of the image. Art, and modern art in the sense that the message is what it’s all about . Adams is sort of the opposite: Craft. Perfectionism in the final result, the beauty of nature as it is, not directed at all on symbolic value of the image.
Why do you think Ansel Adams is better known than William Mortensen? Both have books on photographic aesthetics and techniques. Has “pure photography” won over Pictorialism?
Even AA experimented with soft-focus lenses.
"clown" ???? don't like him I suppose? To this day Mortensen can be viewed as pioneering love hate approach to photography.Well, Mortensen was something of a clown if he thought of himself as a Surrealist.
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?