Why do you think Ansel Adams is better known than William Mortensen?

[SchwinnParamount]

Ansel and his friends mounted a force full and successful attack on Mortensen. The result was that Mortensen's reputation was badly damaged. The reputation never recovered.

Yep, I've read that in a both the Weston biography and the AA biography... plus in the Beaumont Newhall book.

Personally, Mortenson's images have always kind of left me yawning. AA's crisp, fully-toned, and realistic prints have left me breathless. I'm not alone in this.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Yep, I've read that in a both the Weston biography and the AA biography... plus in the Beaumont Newhall book.

Personally, Mortenson's images have always kind of left me yawning. AA's crisp, fully-toned, and realistic prints have left me breathless. I'm not alone in this.

Indeed you are not alone, I am with you on all counts.

 

[eddie]

Liking one doesn't preclude you from liking the other. I was one of the many photographers, of a certain age, drawn to photography through the majesty Adams depicted. I'm still a fan. But, as my image making interests evolved, I have come to appreciate Mortenson more than I had before. I'd gladly hang both of them in my home.

 

[BGriffin23]

But my older brother recalled when portfolios of ten AA prints sold there for $40 - four dollars a print!

How large were these prints?

 

[removed account4]

Sorry couldn’t find the right link b4 it am has to do with Paul Strand
https://www.anothermag.com/art-phot...rand-paved-the-way-for-photographic-modernism

 

[alanrockwood]

Who's William Mortensen?

 

[Louis J. P II]

Who's William Mortensen?

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts...who-ansel-adams-called-anti-christ-180953525/
https://www.google.com/search?q=Wil...Fw1kKHUzSDp4Q_h16BAghEAE#imgrc=AOWzw0IRDOD81M

 

[Sirius Glass]

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts...who-ansel-adams-called-anti-christ-180953525/
https://www.google.com/search?q=William+Mortensen&client=firefox-b-1-d&sxsrf=ALeKk01Aqk7AmYPHxQBpgBEh5Cvy3DOnqA:1611138989205&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=YWx3vo7_AOGZzM%2Co9X8QCV1gUf6pM%2C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kQb7FrMxOSGSKDdFAwc9EE5YO89Yg&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjU9om5qKruAhUFw1kKHUzSDp4Q_h16BAghEAE#imgrc=AOWzw0IRDOD81M

Me thinks you missed the snark.

 

[4season]

I can think of a number of reasons:

• Adams had some influential friends: Alfred Stieglitz, Georgia O'Keefe - and Beaumont and Nancy Newhall (MoMA)
• His Yosemite images have aged well
• And ongoing promotion via the gallery in Yosemite Valley, books, calendars, posters, etc

 

[DREW WILEY]

Some images do better with age or hindsight; some don't. Mortensen's look strained to me; over the top, rather dated and corny.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Ansel and his friends mounted a force full and successful attack on Mortensen..

I see third parties writing stuff like this all the time. But where is the evidence, why are the documents not archived? Is it just a talking point to keep people interested in exhibitions?
The general public have never heard of most of these third parties.

 

[cowanw]

I see third parties writing stuff like this all the time. But where is the evidence, why are the documents not archived? Is it just a talking point to keep people interested in exhibitions?
The general public have never heard of most of these third parties.

Well, one was Beaumont Newhall, who made no mention of Mortensen at all in his first edition of "The History of Photography" later saying his (Mortensen's) work was perverse. Willard Van Dyke said "his work was disgusting". Weston, Roi Partridge, John Paul Edwards and Nancy Newhall all wrote Camera Craft articles or participated in throwing shade with the weight of the Museum of Modern Art's Department of Photography behind them.
Why are the documents not archived? Well, when you are written out of the histories, like Anna Atkins for example, the documents are not written.

I would recommend anyone who has an interest in Mortensen beyond his fantasy work to look at " Me And Mortensen, Photography With The Master By Robert Balcomb"

 

[Alan Johnson]

https://archive.org/details/cameracraft411934phot/page/n6/mode/1up
Here are the original exchanges including p183 AA, p217 Mortensen, p297 AA

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Looks like thread quickly turned into bashing of Mortensen. AA was not better photographer and certainly not imaginative by comparison. But he was easy to like ... by comparison. The fueds mentioned are just proof of hostility not evidence of Mortensen's work quality. There were other fueds brewing at the time although more nuanced.

If somebody like Maloof found a box of Mortensen's negatives/prints today, he would have become the star of all stars.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Looks like thread quickly turned into bashing of Mortensen. AA was not better photographer and certainly not imaginative by comparison. But he was easy to like ... by comparison. The fueds mentioned are just proof of hostility not evidence of Mortensen's work quality. There were other fueds brewing at the time although more nuanced.

If somebody like Maloof found a box of Mortensen's negatives/prints today, he would have become the star of all stars.

I took the time to learn about Mortensen. I studies many of his photographs. The more I learned the less I liked him.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Looks like thread quickly turned into bashing of Mortensen. AA was not better photographer and certainly not imaginative by comparison. But he was easy to like ... by comparison. The fueds mentioned are just proof of hostility not evidence of Mortensen's work quality. There were other fueds brewing at the time although more nuanced.

If somebody like Maloof found a box of Mortensen's negatives/prints today, he would have become the star of all stars.

I agree. Both AA and Mortensen both equally good photographers. They just have different technical and artistic bents. One just fell into obscurity. Ansel Adams had a long lasting impact on commercial photography. I started assisting in the 90's. In the 80's everything had to be in focus and the work bokeh was not in the vocabulary of photographers. Things shifted in the 90's and the commercial world started to embrace Pictorialism again. I think art directors became more sophisticated and didn't reject shots that are soft or blurry. Now everyone is obsessed with bokeh and Petzval lenses highly coveted.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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?

AA had far better marketing help.

 

[removed account4]

AA had far better marketing help.

that pretty much sums it up

 

[benjiboy]

Why are policemen's balls bigger than firemen's balls? because they sell more tickets

 

[Arthurwg]

Looks like thread quickly turned into bashing of Mortensen. AA was not better photographer and certainly not imaginative by comparison. But he was easy to like ... by comparison. The fueds mentioned are just proof of hostility not evidence of Mortensen's work quality. There were other fueds brewing at the time although more nuanced.

If somebody like Maloof found a box of Mortensen's negatives/prints today, he would have become the star of all stars.

No Way. Let's remember that many, maybe most of Mortensen's pictures are simply ugly. Can't say that about Ansel's.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Like I said earlier, a clown of a surrealist, trying too hard to be psychologically artsy. Reminds me of all the trashy paste-up composite wannabee neo-surreallist photography of the 70's, now totally forgotten. Really an odd comparison or contrast - AA vs Mortensen. One had taste, the other just obnoxious noise. Noise often works for attracting attention; but holding attention afterwards is a different story.

 

[removed account4]

If somebody like Maloof found a box of Mortensen's negatives/prints today, he would have become the star of all stars.

probably this is true ... I mean he was doing a lot of the things people nowadays take for granted, like jerry uelsmann. I can appreciate some of the work AA did but I get bored with it kind of quickly because it is so common now to see some sort of everything in focus dramatic landscape, especially from the same tripod holes as AA. Not that it didn't take imagination to do that sort of work (and have the right avenues and people chatting about it to make you famous) its too bad AA and his pals through Mortenson under the bus, it would be interesting to see what photography would be like today if his career would have been able to have continued success using the techniques he wrote about.
thinking about it, I'm not sure if it is the AA imagery I am tired of or the people going on and on and on and on about how he invented the zone system and turning him into a Deity and hunting for his tripod holes. I got WM's the negative book for my birthday recently, I find it to be less dry and more interesting than AA's book with the same name I got 32 years ago..

 

[DREW WILEY]

I doubt it. Even Outerbridge's analogous edgy stuff has garnered only minor attention in recent times, even though, as a color carbro printer, he was in a far higher skill league than Mortensen. Evolutionary dead ends that didn't survive shifting tastes. On the other hand, Outerbridge's constructivist photo abstractions have landed a solid place in early 20th C photo history.

 

[Sirius Glass]

probably this is true ... I mean he was doing a lot of the things people nowadays take for granted, like jerry uelsmann. I can appreciate some of the work AA did but I get bored with it kind of quickly because it is so common now to see some sort of everything in focus dramatic landscape, especially from the same tripod holes as AA. Not that it didn't take imagination to do that sort of work (and have the right avenues and people chatting about it to make you famous) its too bad AA and his pals through Mortenson under the bus, it would be interesting to see what photography would be like today if his career would have been able to have continued success using the techniques he wrote about.
thinking about it, I'm not sure if it is the AA imagery I am tired of or the people going on and on and on and on about how he invented the zone system and turning him into a Deity and hunting for his tripod holes. I got WM's the negative book for my birthday recently, I find it to be less dry and more interesting than AA's book with the same name I got 32 years ago..

John, people are not turning Ansel Adams into a deity, he has been a deity for many decades.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

No Way. Let's remember that many, maybe most of Mortensen's pictures are simply ugly. Can't say that about Ansel's.

John, people are not turning Ansel Adams into a deity, he has been a deity for many decades.

I was one of them when I first studied photography 35 years ago. I still think he's one of the greats. I was missing the point. Ansel Adams went against convention of pictorialism. Seeing him as a deity misses the point. Photography can't grow if we just follow photo-gods. True for everything else.