William Mortensen

Every time I see a demonstration of Corel's Painter program, I think of Mortensen - it's the hand of the artist, or at least the program, exemplified.

Even though I am much more in the Weston camp, I find Mortensen very interesting. As for writing style, the books were actually written by Mortensen's ghost writer, George Dunham, so don't look to the style for much information on Mortensen.

Mortensen's wife has said that he chose his models based on who he wanted to sleep with. He arrived in Hollywood in 1921 escorting a friend's sister aboard a train. The young woman was Fay Wray of King Kong fame.

He is well worth reading and his modeling books give you a great deal to think about - some of it dated, but like all rules, you should be aware of them before violating them.
juan

I found "The Model" and "Monsters and Madonnas" in university libraries here, and I must say it was quite an interesting read. Mortensen's approach is very oriented towards classical canons of aesthetics. He's a much more flowery writer than AA can be, and you get the sense that he is someone very concerned by art and craft. He is a photographer of humans, not of things.

Some of his setups are absolutely tacky, quixotically painterly, but he had the genius of gesture, face expressions, and light composition. It's something that I find was never the strength of his putative enemies like AA or Weston.

Mortensen needs to be studied more, especially with regards to today's contemporary art practices, because he is that perfect example of a total control photographer. He controls setting, light, models, props, tones, and when something is missing, he just adds it. Not that different from the work of control freaks like Jeff Wall or Andreas Gursky.

I don't think the opposition between Mortensen the Pictorialist and Adams the Anti-Pictorialist is a good one; if anything separates these two "camps", it's their sensitivity and taste, not so much their approach to photography. While Adams would not go so far as to introduce drawn elements, he remains a "Super-Pictorialist" in the words of Berenice Abbott in her essay "It has to walk alone" because he put such an emphasis on the final print, as Mortensen did.

Mortensen: American Self Loathing

Ole said:

The polarisation seems to have been a lot stronger in the USA than in Europe, though.

Click to expand...

In a nation founded by puritans, it seems hardly a mystery that successive styles would emerge and the proponents of each would claim the moral standard, casting its predecessor into the flames of hell. America seems to have been quite uncomfortable with the mythology that Hollywood brought us. It was incredibly seductive but there seems to have been a doubt in our collective mind that it was OK to dip into the darkness of Machiavelli, the Borgias, the warped visions of Poe. We went for it, big time, but we thought that probably we shouldn't go there. Seems to me we had it as a guilty pleasure. I wasn't around in the thirties, but it wasn't all that distant a view when I was growing up. Perhaps the Romantic vision offered a mythic foundation that was somewhat easier for us to accept.

Some say that Adams was "the last nineteenth century artist"; it is easy to see why if you take a look at his work with reference to Alfred Bierstadt, et al. This can reveal a certain contradiction within the aesthetic and belies any claim that his work was objective or without a mythological foundation. His predecessors were painters who presented an idealized vision that spiritualized the landscape in the Romantic tradition of the 19th century. I doubt that there would be much argument against the proposition that his work did that also. Some references in other media: Listen to Beethoven's 6th symphony. Read Nathaniel Hawthorne's _Ethan Brand_ or _Rapaccini's Daughter_.

The landscape of the 19th century was alive with spirit. So it was with Adams. Wasn't one of the hallmarks of pictorialism its references to painting? You won't find a telephone pole in an Adams Yosemite landscape. In painting, if you had the skills, it might be easier to exclude stuff like that. But, exclude he did. Almost 100 years after Carleton Watkins shot the pristine Yosemite, Saint Ansel was presenting it as if it were the same place, untouched by time.

So, what's going on? One could say that we are witnessing a conflict of competing mythologies. Mortensen's work dealt with mythology, specifically that of early Hollywood, which America embraced so enthusiastically. Was it "newer" in any way than Adams'? I don't think so, although the technologies were new for both him and Adams. Mortensen looked back to Medieval and Renaissance history and character. The traditions in painting that inform his work are much older than those upon which Adams' perspectives were built; they preceded the fascination with the landscape that arose as social focus went from agriculture toward industrial development. And, of course, the handwork that Mortensen did in his productions reflect that as well.

Witch hunting never died in America. The witches just keep changing clothes.

Ole said:

I'm sure he (Mortensen) would have been a lot better known without the smear campaing (sic) by Ansel Adams!

Click to expand...

Ole:

I have to take a little issue with this. As someone else has mentioned in the thread, both of their archives are at the University of Arizona in the Center for Creative Photography. They just closed a show called "The Triumph of Group F/64", which compared and contrasted the two schools or movements. There was an almost equal number of prints from both sides, including "pictorialist" images by members of Group f/64. There was also a lot of documentary material, including articles by both Adams and Mortensen. From this exhibition, I would have to say that the smear campaigning came from both sides!

You can find dozens of his books listed on Amazon.com -- just search for "William Mortensen" under books and there are used copies all over the place, at decent prices, for those who want to read him. Just ordered two myself!

David Brown said:

Ole:

I have to take a little issue with this.

Click to expand...

The overt destruction of Mortensen by adams is well documented. Seems odd, doesen't it that he would be so hard on the person that did the ground work for his (?) zone system? Read up on what adams did when he found out that Mortensen had a show in the same building. Go dig him up. Even dead I bet he still pissed himself over the recent show. Adams is Mortensens' bitch, is how the current young set would term it. (speaking from geezer-land of course)

I would challenge a few of the generalisation made in earlier posts:
- George Dunham actually wrote all Mortensen's work?
- Mortensen's writing is more flowery than Adams?

No doubt George and Bill were close collaborators but evidence of his writing before the two met showed Mortensen had a deft touch of phrase and expressed himself with the confidence, clarity and humour which comes through in his books. The view that Bill was a bit of a literary dunce and George was the brains behind the organisation is I think a gross simplification.

I would not characterise the Mortensen/Dunham writing as flowery. I find the books to be much more readable, lucid and funny than Adams' writing. I think they are the most entertaining and informative books on photography that I have read.

There is a readily available book call William Mortensen A Revival which covers a lot of the Mortensen vs Dunham territory and also assays the archive which in reality is quite bare. No negatives or proof sheets and very few original prints or manuscripts. The only drawback of this book is 40 pages of heavy going "queer theory" deconstruction of the Mortensen/Dunham relationship which could be summarised in two short sentences. Were Mortensen and Dunham gay lovers? We don't know!

vet173 said:

Adams is Mortensens' bitch, is how the current young set would term it. (speaking from geezer-land of course)

Click to expand...

I could be wrong (being a semi geezer myself) but isn't that backwards?

Seriously, I wasn't saying that Adams did not write bad things about Mortensen, I was just pointing out that Mortensen responded in kind. I have read both.

I guess what I find so intriguing is that this controversy that happened so long ago is still such a hot button issue to many photographers today.

"I could be wrong (being a semi geezer myself) but isn't that backwards? "

No, that's about correct. Mortensen published first and was rather successful at it, Adams was running to catch-up.

Just a thought.

Adams was running to catch-up.

This is silly. There is more to history than shrinking it to the level which you comprehend.

Tony Egan said:

I would not characterise the Mortensen/Dunham writing as flowery. I find the books to be much more readable, lucid and funny than Adams' writing. I think they are the most entertaining and informative books on photography that I have read.

Click to expand...

I whole-heartedly agree. Come on, everyone, buy The Model and see if you don't agree.

Without prolonging the debate over who cast the first stone...Adams' letters to Weston -- when they were both up-and-comers -- referred to the established Mortensen in unflattering terms. BUT Mortensen was hardly their only target, as their private correspondence shows.

I'm concerned we're now into a pointless tug of war with staunch defendents and detractors on both ends. Mortensen was hardly the epitome of the movement Adams was countering, just one in a very long line. No matter what techniques Mortensen originated or championed or how much his writing helped people understand the basics of photography (and this was before Adams' writing), there is no doubt that Adams eclipsed everyone on the merit of the photography alone and became the most-discussed and influential fine art photographer ever. Took him a long time, but his imagery is guaranteed to last forever. But look, we're not Democrats and Republicans here. Ansel Adams and William Mortensen were both bright stars in a very large galaxy, and some stars burn out sooner than others. Who cares if they hated each other?

In a positive way, instead of the either/or that seems to divide us here, I see photography as an ever-widening sphere. And each time a Steichen or a Weston or an Avedon or a whomever comes along with a different approach, the sphere grows in size.

That makes more room on the sphere for us, and you just know it's never going to stop growing.

D.

DWW: well said. Thanks.

I know that for a short time Mortensen was a teacher in Salt Lake City. At the time he was fairly highly thought of but was found to be photographing his students in the nearby wooded canyons as his typical subjects. One can only think of how thin the rail was he was given to be ridden out of town in the earliest 20's in a conservative Mormon community. It was then he decided to move to LA to seek his fortune or perhaps simply further employment.

Here is a brief bio I found while looking about...

http://www.thescreamonline.com/photo/photo06-01/mortensen/commandtolook1.html

David William White said:

...
That makes more room on the sphere for us, and you just know it's never going to stop growing.

D.

Click to expand...

The past is not over, yet!

It seems that the Mortensen's vs Adams' philosophies beat, debate and argument goes on - even after all of these years. In my view there is room for both views in our vast, wide world of photography for, after all, their negatives are now housed in the same resting place! There are many Mortensen images that I love. Others leave me cold. The same with A.A.'s images. Neither one of these guys was right and neither one was wrong, IMHO. It's a matter of personal taste. I lean more towards Mortensen's approach, but so what? Others feel differently!

Cheers,

Gene

What is interesting is that both artists once found their way has stayed true to it till the end.

Does one stop searching?

Did they?

Isn't that what art is all about- search till the end?

If you stop , don't you die inside?

Soft/ Sharp?

Is that what this comes down to?

No more choices?

So how do I/you make a difference?

They achieved such a high standard/perfection

Can one even "imrove" on what they have done?

I like them both ADAMS/MORTENSEN


but more then perfection I want soul



just thinking out loud.


ILYA

Two of Mortensens's books, The Model and Outdoor Portraiture, arrived today (thank you ABE Books). I shall read these and then comment.

What interests me though is the idea of AA being an ultra-pictorialist. Was AA a pictorialist?

No.

I don't know if this is still available but if anyone is interested in a video on William Mortensen check out this site:

http://www.pictorialism.com/tapem.html

I bought a copy several years ago. Apparently the 'tog/astronomer selling the tape acquired the rights from the Mortensen estate. This film on Mortensen is narrated by Vincent Price. Spooky, but I guess Price was somewhat of a collector and art critic back in the '50s. I got a chuckle because the web page lists the title as:


He doesn't actually stare too much in the video.

I thought the tape was interesting and worth the Price (sic) at the time. It runs 35 minutes and portrays WM as somewhat of a martyr persecuted by the (unnamed) modernist adversaries. It also includes a segment by one of his models (Jeanne Crain).

"As a free bonus I am including a 16 minute video on the same tape entitled: "Creatures and Creativity". This video shows the work of a modern day pictorialist who was inspired by Mortensen's work and faithfully carries on in his tradition" in the words of the author and distributor of this tape. This is a very tacky promotional piece, tacked on to the Mortensen film. The images in this "tribute" to WM show just what a genius WM was by comparison. Compare the work of Mortensen to the parroted pieces.

I have almost the entire Mortensen book catalog and highly recommend "The Model" as others have. It is a photography book unlike any other. (Reserve a copy of your remake for me Emil.) "The Negative" and "Pictorial Lighting" by WM are also worthwhile, especially if you wish to see how his technique came together.

Mortensen was conceptual and interested in executing the idea to form a "picture" as related in the video. Adams and his cronies were seemingly interested in a much narrower vision, transcribing reality as sharply as the photographic instruments would allow. Mortensen, however kitschy some of his work may be, created some overlooked masterpieces. He was every bit an excellent technician irrespective of his contemporaries' opinions.

Joe

"The past is not over, yet! "

I don't care about their styles, techniques or philosophies, what I absolutely detest is how Mortensen was rat packed into oblivion. WM was 'disappeared' in the same fashion as Alfred Cheney Johnston on the east coast by a pack of arrogant, small minded, jealous and greedy little twits. There is no other way to view this stupidity.

Thanks to the Internet they have been resurrected and the books are available. To the suggestions here I would add 'The New Projection Control' and 'Print Finishing' so you can see what started the firestorm. Mortensen was actually teaching people exactly how to open and run a photo studio.

"What interests me though is the idea of AA being an ultra-pictorialist. Was AA a pictorialist? "

Most definitely, he would use any and every manipulation to fit the photograph to fit a pre-conceived print.

The attachments are scans from:
The Encyclopedia of Photography
The Complete Photographer
National Education Alliance
copyright 1942, 1943, 1949

Ansel Adams published a nice article on 'Mountain Photography', his article, his selections, his descriptions.

"Adams is Mortensens' bitch,"

Strange way to put it but I will let others decide.
Scans same source as above.
Now where was it that I heard 'develop to gamma infinity' before? 6 stops under-exposed is pretty trick too.

1942, 1943, 1949 are after the zone system was conceived, aren't they. AA would do anything to manipulate the photo to his pre-conceived vision, Yes, he was a pictorialist.

Just a thought.

gandolfi said:

here in Denmark, the book has now been re-photographed (with one of my students as model) and will be published in an 20'th century language..

Click to expand...

When ? and where ?

Yes, he was a pictorialist.

Well, now.

You might go to the primary sources and see if Bill and Ansel agree with the pigeonholes you have prepared for them.

You might be able to drag ANYBODY that made PICTURES into a Post Modern / Deconstructed camp of Pictorialism, but THEY might have a different viewpoint.

They both talk freely about their views on Photography and art. Look at their OWN words, then decide.

df cardwell said:

Look at their OWN words, then decide.

Click to expand...

There you go.