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

[Mainecoonmaniac]

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?

 

[Vaughn]

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.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

There was no way for Mortensen to have public exposure on the same level. He is still being "discovered" by many to this day. I would venture to say Mortensen is a revelation to many when compared to AA. But they are not directly comparable. Completely different style of photography.

 

[awty]

Mortensen was brilliant. Adams dumbed down artistic expression in photography enough that it allowed anyone to think they could achieve greatness simply by following formula. Very smart, too hard to teach artistic endeavour, much easier to teach about chemistry and physics.

 

[awty]

Probably should put it that Adams made photography more accessible to the average photographer.

 

[otto.f]

Some people are more inclined to fame than others. There are many brilliant people around who just don’t have anything with going public.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Some people are more inclined to fame than others. There are many brilliant people around who just don’t have anything with going public.

AA images look good on most office walls. Same cannot be said of what Mortensen did.

 

[voceumana]

Adams did a lot of work for the US Government, including many photographs of the National Parks, many of which are in the National Archives and available to the public, but their contemporaneous usage would have given him lots of free publicity. Adams was also very politically active in terms of protecting the environment and our wilderness areas--he met with Pres. Regan regarding his dislike for Secy of the Interior Watts, and Adams declared Regan opaque--"incapable of transmitting light in either direction." Regan though if Adams met Regan his charm would get Ansel to back off--it didn't work.

Ansel worked in a lot of different arenas from nature to commercial, whereas Mortenson seemed to just be working in one area. That probably offered a greater chance for exposure to the public and fame.

Adams's professional career continued through WWII, and the US grew to an adult aesthetic during the war years, and Ansel's style probably fit the new aesthetic better. The Wikipedia article on Mortensen explains a lot in just a few words: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Mortensen

Apparently Adams appreciated Mortensen's technique, just didn't like his subject matters and the way it was applied.

 

[AgX]

Ansel Adams is a very American topic. And Mortensen maybe too.

 

[BrianShaw]

It’s not a matter of “who’s better”... apples and oranges. AA won the fistfight and Mortensen lost.

 

[Alan Johnson]

The original debates between Adams and Mortensen are available for reading over several editions of Camera Craft. Contrary to what is often written about some kind of epic battle they appear quite friendly, probably enabling both to build a following.
https://archive.org/search.php?query=camera+craft&page=1
Unfortunately for Mortensen, pictorialism went out of fashion, all over the world, not just in America.
He did not leave much of a technical legacy, only developing to gamma infinity for the purpose of expanding the range of skin tones in portraiture which has few followers. I have "Mortensen on the Negative".
Adams straight landscapes remain highly popular and his technical legacy extensive for those enthusiastic enough to follow his procedures.

 

[rick shaw]

AA made photos people liked and would buy.

Supply and demand.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

Having never heard of Mortensen before this thread, after a quick google search, my inclination was that people could hang AA's on their wall without fear of having their neighbors talk about them, and couldn't do that with Mortensen's. I think fear and social attitudes probably had a lot to do with art in general in those days. The fear, and need to keep up appearances was high in those days.

 

[halfaman]

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.

 

[removed account4]

because modernism was king

 

[rick shaw]

Could it be because Ansel Adams was never described as "The Anti-Christ of American Photography".

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Mortenson was up against Group f/64. A group made up of heavy hitters. Very much like an NHL all star team playing in the Olympics.
Being firmly in the AA camp, after reading the exchanges between AA and M, I sided with the underdog, M. Who are they to say we are photography, and you aren't?? M's and AA's work is so different, you can't compare them.

 

[Wayne]

The Beatles vs The Kinks

 

[Vaughn]

It’s not a matter of “who’s better”... apples and oranges. AA won the fistfight and Mortensen lost.

Actually, Mortensen won the battle (the written one), but lost the war.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

AA was my gateway drug to photography. I always had an interest in it, and it wasn't until I found a book back in the early 90's that described the process through his eyes, that I started taking it serious.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

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.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

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.

That's exactly what I was alluding to.

 

[rick shaw]

I wonder if AA had more megapixels?

 

[juan]

Because Adams didn’t take an unescorted train ride and hit on a 14-year old Faye Wray. Tongues wagged.

 

[BrianShaw]

I wonder if AA had more megapixels?

... better lenses too?

... and a 1-degree spot meter?