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

Helge · Jan 30, 2021

Sirius Glass said:
I disagree with you. The painterly style is dead. Ansel Adams was not painterly. The art world agreed long ago that painting is not photography and photography is not painting. In a sentence, you are just plain wrong.

Well that's good to know. Thank you.
I've got one for you too: You're wrong.
How's that?

Unless you can tell me how Ansel differentiates himself significantly from romantic landscape painters, I can't see no reason why anyone shouldn't think there isn't a strong connection. I mean the circumstantial evidence is right here in this thread.
No one is contesting that there is something different from the painters to Ansel (that would be a feat, if there wasn't). But the main sensibility and mindset is there in Ansel.

removed account4 · Jan 30, 2021

Helge said:
Well that's good to know. Thank you.
I've got one for you too: You're wrong.
How's that?

Unless you can tell me how Ansel differentiates himself significantly from romantic landscape painters, I can't see no reason why anyone shouldn't think there isn't a strong connection. I mean the circumstantial evidence is right here in this thread.
No one is contesting that there is something different from the painters to Ansel (that would be a feat, if there wasn't). But the main sensibility and mindset is there in Ansel.

couldn't agree more !
photographs from the beginning relied on painting for direction+distraction, and Adams was no different. The notion that he would have never seen or understood romantic landscape painting and claims that his work shows no strong connection is strange ( understatement ).
The art world has never come to a conclusion that painterly photography, photographs whose makers work the surface like a painter works a canvas, adding and subtracting elements using gum arabic and paint, or diffuse soft lighting and lenses is dead. The current trend ( with film or pixel) shows exactly the opposite. AND If you look at the "art world" ( galleries from Gagossian to Von Lintle ) you will see photographers who do these things, and others that one might consider "painterly" with a camera and lens &c. and their work sells for thousands. Pronouncements that painterly / pictorial photography is dead is like suggeting the bubonic plague doesn't exist anymore or as Perez stated back in the aughts that film photography is dead. all of these things are untrue.
Maybe painterly photography is dead to you ? and Adams photographs have nothing to do with landscape painting to you? that could certainly be true. to each their own.

warden · Jan 30, 2021

Helge said:
Well that's good to know. Thank you.
I've got one for you too: You're wrong.
How's that?

Unless you can tell me how Ansel differentiates himself significantly from romantic landscape painters, I can't see no reason why anyone shouldn't think there isn't a strong connection. I mean the circumstantial evidence is right here in this thread.
No one is contesting that there is something different from the painters to Ansel (that would be a feat, if there wasn't). But the main sensibility and mindset is there in Ansel.

It's clear to me that Adams was influenced by landscape painting in his early career when he made those dreamy soft focus images, and also later in his career when he made sharp f/64 images.

Vaughn · Jan 30, 2021

Of course AA was influenced, few live in a cultural vacuum.

Sirius Glass · Jan 30, 2021

Helge said:
Well that's good to know. Thank you.
I've got one for you too: You're wrong.
How's that?

Unless you can tell me how Ansel differentiates himself significantly from romantic landscape painters, I can't see no reason why anyone shouldn't think there isn't a strong connection. I mean the circumstantial evidence is right here in this thread.
No one is contesting that there is something different from the painters to Ansel (that would be a feat, if there wasn't). But the main sensibility and mindset is there in Ansel.

jnantz said:
couldn't agree more !
photographs from the beginning relied on painting for direction+distraction, and Adams was no different. The notion that he would have never seen or understood romantic landscape painting and claims that his work shows no strong connection is strange ( understatement ).
The art world has never come to a conclusion that painterly photography, photographs whose makers work the surface like a painter works a canvas, adding and subtracting elements using gum arabic and paint, or diffuse soft lighting and lenses is dead. The current trend ( with film or pixel) shows exactly the opposite. AND If you look at the "art world" ( galleries from Gagossian to Von Lintle ) you will see photographers who do these things, and others that one might consider "painterly" with a camera and lens &c. and their work sells for thousands. Pronouncements that painterly / pictorial photography is dead is like suggeting the bubonic plague doesn't exist anymore or as Perez stated back in the aughts that film photography is dead. all of these things are untrue.
Maybe painterly photography is dead to you ? and Adams photographs have nothing to do with landscape painting to you? that could certainly be true. to each their own.

Vaughn said:
Of course AA was influenced, few live in a cultural vacuum.

Yes, but the first two are unable to distinguish between influence and the same as. There is no hope for them. Why waste time talking to walls?

Wayne · Jan 30, 2021

Sirius Glass said:
Yes, but the first two are unable to distinguish between influence and the same as.

The distinction came across as pretty clear the way I read it:

Helge said:
His compositions, his tonal relationships, and of course his subjects are very much grounded in the history of painting and especially nineteenth century landscape.
Is it one to one identical in style (if that was possible)? No, of course not. How could it be, with the completely different set of tools and time?
But his work is clearly in the same family.[/QUOTE]

BrianShaw · Jan 30, 2021

michael_r said:
Aren't we all just dancing around the real explanation? Ansel Adams was a better photographer than William Mortensen. That is why Ansel Adams is better known. QED

LOL... that’s how to bring the discussion to a conclusion!

Helge · Jan 30, 2021

michael_r said:
Aren't we all just dancing around the real explanation? Ansel Adams was a better photographer than William Mortensen. That is why Ansel Adams is better known. QED

No. As per Douglas Adams: The interesting thing is almost never the answer.
The real question and the process towards finding it, is where the meat and crux is.
Possibly:
Why is Ansel a better artist?
What motivated Mortensen?
Or both of them hopelessly naive, as they might appear, or are they intelligent? Etc.

Sirius Glass · Jan 30, 2021

michael_r said:
Aren't we all just dancing around the real explanation? Ansel Adams was a better photographer than William Mortensen. That is why Ansel Adams is better known. QED

Nicely done. Thank you. Thus ends the thread. Now we can move on and not have to deal with the senseless blather.

Wayne · Jan 30, 2021

michael_r said:
Aren't we all just dancing around the real explanation? Ansel Adams was a better photographer than William Mortensen. That is why Ansel Adams is better known. QED

I agree, but this is the internet where discussions never, ever ever ever ever

end

macfred · Jan 30, 2021

I'm not really a Mortensen fan, but I have two or three publications that are well worth reading for photographers working with analog techniques. One of them is 'On the negative' from 1941.
By the way, these books are on my shelf right next to AA's ...

Here I have a link to an article about Mortensen - 'Mortensen revisited', which is also very interesting and contains links to other Mortensen articles worth reading.
https://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Mortensen/mortensen.html

Mike Lopez · Jan 30, 2021

Helge said:
Well that's good to know. Thank you.
I've got one for you too: You're wrong.
How's that?

Unless you can tell me how Ansel differentiates himself significantly from romantic landscape painters, I can't see no reason why anyone shouldn't think there isn't a strong connection. I mean the circumstantial evidence is right here in this thread.
No one is contesting that there is something different from the painters to Ansel (that would be a feat, if there wasn't). But the main sensibility and mindset is there in Ansel.

This. +1.

AnselMortensen · Jan 30, 2021

Interesting that they are as polarizing now as they were then.

I like them both.
So there!
Nonny nonny boo boo!

BrianShaw · Jan 30, 2021

AnselMortensen said:
Interesting that they are as polarizing now as they were then.

I like them both.
So there!
Nonny nonny boo boo!

We can see that... LOL.

removed account4 · Jan 30, 2021

Sirius Glass said:
Yes, but the first two are unable to distinguish between influence and the same as. There is no hope for them. Why waste time talking to walls?

the distinction is that one is photography and the other is painting. and romantic landscape painting influenced landscape photographers as soon as they learned how to focus.

Vaughn said:
Of course AA was influenced, few live in a cultural vacuum.

"like"

eddie · Jan 30, 2021

I don't understand why comparisons of photographers has to be so tribal.

Mainecoonmaniac · Jan 30, 2021

eddie said:
I don't understand why comparisons of photographers has to be so tribal.

Not my intention to be tribal. I just want to know why one achieved and the other fell into relative obscurity. Both have books on technique and style.

DREW WILEY · Jan 30, 2021

Yeah, but early photographers influenced landscape painters too. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

eddie · Jan 30, 2021

I'm referring to those who feel the need to denigrate the work of one because they prefer the other.

DREW WILEY · Jan 30, 2021

Well, I wouldn't recommend a vote over it. One is a household name, the other is .... who?? History has its own way of flipping the coin. Like Clint Eastwood said in the movie Unforgiven, to the dying Sheriff he had just gunnied down, "Fair got nuthin' to do with it". But this is a ridiculously artificial just for fun thread anyway, as far as I'm concerned, like pitting a brahma bull against a giant squid. Just depends if you're underwater, or on land.

Mainecoonmaniac · Jan 30, 2021

eddie said:
I'm referring to those who feel the need to denigrate the work of one because they prefer the other.

Their comments are more about them than about photography.

removed account4 · Jan 30, 2021

eddie said:
I don't understand why comparisons of photographers has to be so tribal.

its always coke vs pepsi ... even in the 1800s. I don't even like cola unless there's a Havana libra involved, I'd rather have a moxie

removed account4 · Jan 30, 2021

michael_r said:
Why Mortensen specifically? Ansel Adams is better known than any photographer, or almost any photographer.

I think its because in the mid 1900s there was a feud and AA and his crew to b*tch slapped Moretnson in a very public way and then ruin his reputation.
its not much different than the DvA threads on this site you know when people call digital or hybrid practitioners "fauxtographers". or call people that use lo-fi equipment hacks...
its really sad how people treat each other. . and its not like AA would have lost any street cred if he just did his thing and let Mortensen do his... its just photography..

Vaughn · Jan 31, 2021

jnantz -- time "bitch-slapped" Mortensen...and Mortensen was just as much the protagonist as AA. He gladly entered into the fray. I prefer Mary Alinder's viewpoint of it in Group f.64 where Mortensen won the written battle (a much better and entertaining writer than AA), but lost the war...

"...Mortense's photographs proved the old adage, 'All that glitters is not gold." They looked gimmicky,. They treated women as gross sexual objects, Titillation was a common thread. Technically, they were very difficult to make...Few followed the daunting technical trail he had laid: a twisted path to no good purpose."

removed account4 · Jan 31, 2021

michael_r said:
I admit I kind of glossed over that whole Mortensen business when I studied Adams.

its obvious I did too.

Vaughn said:
jnantz -- time "bitch-slapped" Mortensen...and Mortensen was just as much the protagonist as AA. He gladly entered into the fray. I prefer Mary Alinder's viewpoint of it in Group f.64 where Mortensen won the written battle (a much better and entertaining writer than AA), but lost the war...

"...Mortense's photographs proved the old adage, 'All that glitters is not gold." They looked gimmicky,. They treated women as gross sexual objects, Titillation was a common thread. Technically, they were very difficult to make...Few followed the daunting technical trail he had laid: a twisted path to no good purpose."

. thanks for schooling me Master Vaughn, its more than obvious I'm wallowing in cluelessness here and I need to remove my"minister of disinformation badge" dangling from my ear gauge ...
I did see antiques roadshow once and what was thought to just be a ring of cut glass in a large setting with cheep costume jewelry baguettes turned out to be worth a small fortune. definitely not gold, anything buy Uncle Earl or an original Adams contact print..

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

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency