ansel adams

having frequented this forum for quite a while, i know there are many very capable and knowledgeable professionals here. i do not wish to offend any of you, but for a long time, i have harbored a certain distaste for the famous ansel adams - perhaps some of you can alter my point of view with some additional information. while i certainly can appreciate adams technical acheivements, and recognize that he created many dramatic images, when i read his books, there is a definite thread of ego-centrism in his words that i do not enjoy. his mention of donating negatives to universities so that "others can learn from printing his negatives" was one of the first things that caught me very early on. but it was not until i started seriously studying the history of photography that i realized how many of his images were little more than deriviative interpretations of earlier photographers' work. i understand that we all do that to a certain extent, but mr adams, in his dissertations on how he created this image or that, never seems to mention that the same shot was made by timothy o'sullivan 60 years earlier, or that a certain view of yosemite was essentially a copy of an image made by carleton watkins in the 1870s. this lack of homage to the pioneers from whose examples adams created his best work is very disappointing, and smacks of a great inner insecurity. IMHO, there are many photogrpahers who earn far higher marks from me for sheer artisitic vision, compositional skill, and yes, even technical prowess. consider eduoard baldus, gustave legray, carleton watkins, pascal sebah, etc, who endured the primitive technology of wet plate photography, hand made lenses and cameras, who carried hundereds of pounds of equipment to the remotest parts of the world to create images that have never been equaled since. i would be interested in hearing some alternate points of view, or references to anything you might have read where ansel does indeed recognize the heritage of his craft.

Everything we do is derivitave of someone elses work. How many

artists doing impressionist work do you know who attribute Monet? I

am not a huge fan of Adam's work, although there are many I consider

to be masterpieces. I had the opportunity to meet him not too long

before his death and found him to be both gracious and giving of his

knowledge. A little known fact was that he was listed in the phone

book, and, if you were stumped on a technical problem, he would

accept phone calls from anywhere and anyone and try to help the

photographer solve the problem being faced. History has already

judged him to be one of the giants of photography and nothing will

ever diminish that!

You seem to discount that Ansel is human and has all of the faults

that come with that. In my readings of Ansel's work he does make

mention of other artists works that inspired particular images. Also,

Ansel considered himself to have only made a dozen or so masterpieces

in his life, a far cry from the assuration that everything he touched

turned to gold. Many of Ansel's greatest acheivements came from work

outside of photography, he used photography to open the door but he

was involved in many environmental organizations longer than almost

anyone else in history.<P> Ansel is famous. Most famous people have a

natural instinct for seperating themselves from the pack. This can be

annoying and egotistical, but it is what makes others talk about them

and helps to create their fame. Ansel has been good for photography.

Most photographers are willing to tell you about "the time they met

Ansel." He has inspired many and taught us all at least a little bit.

You kind of have to accept Ansel warts and all.

For a lot of photographers of my era, I am 47, Adams was the one

source of information on the zone system that was readily available

when we started in L.F. photography. Add to that his penchant for

detailing how he created his images and you have a one stop source of

information. A photographer who was passionate about his craft and

unlike many of his contemporaries WILLING to share his secrets and

thoughts. He desired to have his images used by the next generation

as learning tools, he compared the negative to a score, able to be

interpreted in many ways. He was bigger than life to many of his

students and "fans" if you will, and he was, in the field of

photography, very much sure of himself. Maybe vane, maybe not all

that prone to crediting his photorgaphic fore fathers, but willing to

give of his time, talent and knowledge. I suppose he could have

destroyed all of his negatives as some have done, but he felt that

there was value to using his images in the future, I beleive he would

have loved to see what could be done in Photoshop 10 somewhere in the

not so near future.

 

<p>

 

I hope you see a trend in my thinking, I feel that his sharing of the

knowledge, even if you had to buy the book was possibly his greatest

legacy. He was, is and in all probability will be a controversial

figure for years to come. The one thing he won't be is forgotten

soon, his was more than 15 minutes of fame.

 

<p>

 

At one time I thought he was the only photorgapher worth looking to

for inspiration. I have found many more, but they all took a LOT more

looking for than Adams. But if I had not had him as a model I

probably would not have sought out the other photographers that mean

so much to me now; it was his persistence in producing the very best

he could that I took away from my studies of his works.

 

<p>

 

Personally I don't buy into having to acknowledge your heritage at

every turn. If you are interested in the history of photography, you

will see the influence of other's in someone such as Adams work. I

prefer that he share HIS knowledge with me not his spend time

crediting someone who won't share thier thoughts, theories and

technique. that doesn't help me, his sharing did and still does.

 

<p>

 

There is an old saying that some times a cigar is just a cigar;

somtimes a beautiful images is just a beautiful image regardless of

who did it or why.

I met Ansel Adams briefly in 1977 when I was in college. Our large

format photography instructor, who had previously worked at the

gallery in Yosemite teaching Ansel's workshop, arranged for us to

meet him. The visit was only 1-2 hours, but aside from marveling at

his work, I was pleasantly surprised that he was a very down-to-earth

person ~ "like us", if you will.

 

<p>

 

His writing I found to be very detailed & I have not thought of it as

having an attitude, per se. Making his negative available for others

to learn a craft from is a very unselfish act. Yes, he acknowleges

that he's a master photographer, but in printing a master's

negatives, one would learn what it really takes to make a fine print.

Please remember that Brett Weston destroyed all of his negatives on

his 80th birthday. The weekend our class was in Monterey, we also met

Morley Baer, Brett Weston, Mark Weston (and "The Darkroom") and Pat

Weber ~ all fine photographers in their own right.

 

<p>

 

In terms of his photography being similar to Timothy O'Sullivan's and

Carleton Watkins', it's not. Similar in some ways maybe, but quite

different. (Who else has shot "Moonrise Over Hernandez?") Could it be

that you don't enjoy fine black & white landscapes as perhaps another

subject? (I.e., Micheal Kenna)

 

<p>

 

I am not an "Ansel Adams" nut, I appreciate his work for what it is &

I have a different perspective that you do about his personality. (I

shoot mainly medium format transparencies ~ my last B & W work was a

co-worker's wedding.)

 

<p>

 

Read Ansel's books & learn photography ~ his instruction is as

timeless as his work.

 

<p>

 

~Ted

I think anyone who accomplishes a lot as an ego a little larger than

average. If you didn't you'd never try to accomplish.

 

<p>

 

Nevertheless, if Adams's only contribution were to legitimize

phtography as an art, and it's hard to argue that he did not do this,

that alone is enough. Adams did more than that, both in terms of his

art and his teaching.

 

<p>

 

If you haven't seen his photographs first hand, it's difficult to

judge his work. The same is true of any photographer's work.

 

<p>

 

Go to Yosemite, if you haven't, and visit the Ansel Adams Studio. You

can buy an original for $150 or so. (Check out the prices on John

Sexton's work while you are there. Lucky if you can find one for

$600.) If you visit, I suspect you will find at least one of Ansel's

images that you will want to own.

 

<p>

 

However, if you give Ansel a good chance, and you still don't like

his work, there is nothing wrong in that. It's just a matter of

taste, and only you can decide what you like and don't like.

As far as the failure to appreciate the great 19th-century landscape

photographers, the fault lies more with critics who did not take

photography seriously as an art form until relatively recently, than

it does with Ansel Adams, who did much to bring about a wide

appreciation for photography as an art form.

 

<p>

 

I think it is an act of considerable humility for Adams to have

donated his negatives. Some are notoriously difficult to print

(particularly "Moonrise over Hernandez"), and a lesser

human being--particularly one who advocated a systematic approach to

pre-visualization and perfecting exposure--might have prefered to have

kept such "failures" under wraps.

Let�s also acknowledge that many of AA�s most-read writings�-including

the "Examples" book�-were done in the final years of his life (in his

late 70s and early 80s) and his memory may have been rusty. The

O�Sullivan "White House Ruin" photo is a good example. In "Examples"

Adams writes, "I had stood unaware in almost the same spot on the

canyon floor, about the same month and day, and at nearly the same

time of day that O�Sullivan must have made his exposure, almost

exactly sixty-nine years earlier." . . . But in the book "Our National

Parks" is reprinted a letter from AA to the Newhalls (dated October

26, 1941) in which AA had written, "I photographed the White House

Ruins from almost the identical spot and time of the O�Sullivan

picture! Can�t wait to [get to the darkroom to] see what I got!" I

seriously doubt this kind of discrepancy can be ascribed to an

intention to deceive or to hide the source of his inspiration. (Just

as baffling: both books date the photo to 1942, even though the letter

recalling it was written in 1941!--but then, Adams acknowledged in

"Examples" that he was terrible with dates.)

 

<p>

 

It�s always tricky to try to read too much into the mind of another

person without meeting them, volumes of memoirs notwithstanding. For

instance, what if I admitted that I think it�s extremely arrogant when

non-disabled people in these forums literally won�t lift a finger (by

using the "Shift" key) to make their letters readable, instead

requiring hundreds of other people to do extra work? (I usually just

ignore such posts, but the title on this one made it impossible to

pass up.) We each have our own idiosyncracies, and AA is no exception.

I don�t think Adams was a genius-�to my eye, Weston and Strand and

Sudek seemed to show more of those qualities-�but the breadth and

depth of AA�s influence (technically, environmentally/politically,

financially�-remember, he completely transformed the valuation of

photographs�-as well as in getting photography respected in artistic

circles) require even his harshest critics to acknowledge his

important role in the history of photogra

"It's just a matter of taste, and only you can decide what you like

and don't like."

<p>

I really agree with what Charlie said. Some people see Ansel as a

sort of minor deity while others wouldn't give his photos a second

look. It's like that with any photographer in any genre. For

example, last year in my art history class we covered some modern

photographers. There were a few individuals who were absolutely in

love with anything done by David LaChapelle. I, on the other hand,

got nothing and continue to get nothing out of his work. Does this

mean he's overrated? Does this make him a bad photographer?

Absolutely not. It just means that my taste differs from that of

other people. The same thing goes for Ansel or anybody else one

could name.

<p>

My personal take on Ansel was that he was a very talented

photographer and an incredible technician. Personally, I like his

photogaphs and have found them to be a good source of inspiration.

When I was first getting into photography his books really helped me

get a good understanding of the technical side of things. I learned

photography with his books as my guide and ended up with a very good

handle on view camera technique and the zone system, among other

things. However, it wasn't so much his images that helped me as it

was his meticulous description of technique.

<p>

I give Ansel a lot of credit for what he did as a photographer as

well as what he did for photography as an art form. That said, do I

consider him to be the best there ever was? No, I do not. There

have been photographers before and since him who have accomplished

just as much as he did. True, most have not become the sort of urban

legend that Ansel has become, but that's not to say that they weren't

just as good as photographers, if not better than Ansel was.

<p>

It all comes back to a matter of taste and perception.

<p>

We as humans are tend to look at issues like this very subjectively.

I look forward to hearing other people's views on this subject. I

really think it's interesting how widely people's opinions can vary

when it comes to something as deceptively simple as a single

photographer.

<p>

I wonder what Ansel would say...

Of the photographers who have passed on that I haven't met but wish I

had, Ansel and Morley Baer head the list. I am sure Ansel Adams had

an ego. Most very talented people do. Everything I have read by or of

him point to this fact. But I have read more into his story than

that. I have read (and gotten from many I know who knew him

personally, not just from writings) that he was a tremendous teacher,

selfless and untiring in helping others. He shared his talent freely

while struggling to make a living in a tough profession. He didn't

know it all and admitted that fact. He didn't tolerate substandard

work and constantly pushed himself to produce images of the highest

quality. He never quit working for good images or to help others to

improve their images or appreciation for photography. From the

biographies of him one can see he wasn't perfect, but then no one has

ever been perfect. But for an imperfect guy, like or dislike his

images, he sure gave back a lot more to his profession, vocation,

avocation and calling, more than most would in ten lifetimes. Ansel

wasn't a saint but I have no quarrel with those who would diefy his

memory as long as they remember he was human. And it is that human

quality of the man that only serves to enhance Ansel the Legend. I

don't think one can have a greater legacy than that he/she was good

at what they did and they helped others.

Original? He was and even when others photographed a site before him,

he still did it his way. His influence will be felt in the world of

photography for a long time to come. No, Ansel wasn't God, but I bet

God has an Ansel Adams print hanging in view wherever s/he may be

these days.

Photography is a very difficult craft--big egos are abundant, the big

egos with little talent or contributions are the most pitiful. Ansel

Adams shared his trade secrets not just to a few but to the masses and

that alone sets him many notches above photographers who foolishly

believe that they will somehow lose revenue and status if they give

away their hard-won knowledge. By the time he decided to donate his

negatives for future research, he had probably been encouraged by many

to do so given the international recognition he had earned, I'm not so

sure it was an act of self-pride.

Ansel Adams preserved his negatives so that they could be printed by

others. Brett Weston famously burned his so that no one else could

print them. I think it is difficult to say which was the more

"egotistical" act (if either was).

i want to thank you all for your thoughtful responses. i am

gratified to hear the stories of adams congenial attitude in his

personal dealings with students. this thread has been quite

informative, and i appreciate your input.

I invite all to read <U>Ansel Adams: A Biography</U> by Mary

Street Alinder. Far better than AA's autobiography, it is careful to

reveal Adam's the man (as MSA knew him, which was rather

well) and also retain her respect for Adam's accomplishment.

Adam's was a man of his time, which is not ours.<P> My opinion

is that his lasting value to the world will be as someone who

fought tirelessly for preservation of wilderness (although not the

way others might have, at least he helped get the ball rolling in

the populace at large by expanding our consciousness of it; as

someone who also fought for the recognition of photography as

a modern art form through the championing of his own work and

others; and for his teaching and mentoring skills as a

photographer. And then way back there on the list as a

photographer in his own right.<P

Some people idolize him, In his time AA was not immune to

such flattery but my understanding his that he was also capable

and a willing participant in lampooning his own image. And he

certainly hadan innate willingness to suck up to the powerful and

famous. But then, can't the last can be said of virtually every

artist? After all that is where the money is.<P>

Someone pointed out that when you go to the Adams gallery in

Yosemite you can buy an original Adams for $150 vs. $600+ for a

John Sexton. Beaware that these are not "original" prints made

by Adams, but are printed from his negatives by someone

appointed by the Adams Trust. This has been so since at least

the 1970s if not the mid 1960s. And the prints are marked as

such.

You can reject Adams' work on aesthetic grounds if you so desire.

Many competent photographers will disagree with you and may ask you

to produce work that rivals the work you disparaging.

 

<p>

 

Unless you meet a person and interact with them, it borders on

foolishness to make public pronouncements regarding their

personality. I have never met Ansel face to face [or face to ghost

as in the case of Mr. Wimberley]. But I did correspond with him

shortly before his death. I was about 17 and I actually sent him a

letter, accompanied by several photographs, wherein I requested to

become his apprentice. IMHO, an egotistical person would have had a

good laugh and tossed the package into the bin. That is not what

Ansel did.

 

<p>

 

Ansel sent me a signed reproduction of one of his most famous

photographs and a letter. He did not address my request directly. I

think that was done out of kindness. He said that he liked my work

and that the photographs that I had sent to him would be included in

his archives. He encouraged me to continue to hone my skills.

 

<p>

 

His prolific photographic work serves as a goal for many. He did not

hide what he learned; but rather shared it with us so that some might

even excel his technical knowledge. That can not be said of many of

the other great photographers.

 

<p>

 

Am I an �Adams Nut�? I don�t know exactly what that means. I can

say that in my library his books come right after the Bible.

One of the best things about AA was that he was a good teacher to the

masses of younger photographers. He was a superb writer and could

explain the magic of photography in an easily understood manner. He

could not only teach, he could do. He has kept countless thousands of

aspiring photographers, me included, from having to re-invent the

wheel. Incidentally, if you ever see an exhibit of his work, it will

be quite difficult to slam dunk him. There is quite a difference

between the printed page and an Adams' print.

About 25 years ago, I had the opportunity to see an exhibition of

Adam's work. I was completely bowled over. I was 15 at the time and

just beginning to develop and print 35mm. I remember clearly the

extrordinary impact those images had; they are a guiding light 25

years later. Reproductions certainly do not do them justice - to

stand inches from a huge image and to be drawn into each tiny detail -

is something you only get whenyou see them in the flesh.

Many fantastic answers-what a great resource. I am not an Adams

expert, but would suggest a few directions: (1) Adams and others

helped establish B&W photography as a TRANSLATION of reality-no

photograph of his looks as the scene appears to our eyes; at least not

mine. In this respect, we are looking at art-not documentary or

record photography. (2) In many of the "nature" photographs, there is

an ethos at work, something about the grandeur of nature and man's

perhaps less significant status in it than many of use assume. These

aren't blind scenery shots (like I take!). (3) Look at more than the

"greatest works" photographs-see pictures of flowers, buildings, even

PEOPLE. As many have pointed about, I think one of the greatest

lessons here is to keep working and taking pictures. We have to

admire anyone who maintains a lifelong passion for their craft and the

desire to teach. The best teachers; the only teachers, of course, are

interested in bringing out what is in you, the student, and not

themselves. There are few and far between, but I have been privileged

to know some in my lifetime. The

I met him also in a workshop. His books may impart an impression of

elitism but nothing could be farther from the truth. I've known

photographers with little skill or artistry who are none-the-less very

covetous of their sites, their practices, their techniques, and even

their equipment choices and exposure methodology. Yet Adams would

share ANYTHING with anybody and not hold back anything. He was

generous to a fault, especially later on (he had a short period during

which he believed in destoying his negatives). I think reading

anything but generosity into his writings is mis-reading, though I can

see where it comes from. Maybe he didn't express himself as well in

text as he did in photos. By the way, I had an instructor who

believed that it has ALL been done already, or at least will have

soon, and that we are all rehashing the photographic visions of those

who came before us. Kind of lumps us all together as imitative hacks.

I prefer to think that we all build on and improve on what has come

before and some of us actually find a little insight along the way.

One occasionally hears disparaging remarks about Western Landscape

photographers following "St. Ansel's tripod holes".

 

<p>

 

It is delightful, then, to see that Ansel Adams himself excitedly

followed O'Sullivan's tripod holes, as Micah's example of his letter

to the National Parks service shows :-)

 

<p>

 

That little detail really humanizes the man, and to me, makes him the

greater for it.

When I was 14 or so my Father and I were heading into the High

Sierras on a backpack trip. As we crossed over the Kings River Bridge

we passed a little gnome of a fellow carrying a rather large view

camera. With just a couple of B�HowdiesB� we continued on our way. At

that time I told My Father that some day I would like a camera like

that. We had no idea that we had passed Mr. Adams. Well as I became

more photo astute I realized who it was we had seen that day. A

little man with a big camera, who has set the bar for photographers

all over the world.

One can pick apart what ever they want in an effort to make them

selves feel better or more important, for we all need to boost are

egos at times to keep the immensity of the great void from swallowing

us up, but what photographer who has looked at Mr. Adams work has not

been influenced by it to some degree. He may not be the B�Greatest

everB� but he is one of them. To this day, it is his books in my book

case, not gathering dust but dog eared. For the truly great ones are

those that teach. As far as copying others works, my best pictures

are those that emulate Mr. Adams style, and if I can ever find that

same spot out at ManzanarB�B�

What we need are more photos and less ridicule. By the way I did

not buy a view camera until I was 44 so I have a lot of photos to go

on my way to my own B�GreatnessB�.

Hate to be-smirch your cherished childhood memories there Frank, but

Ansel stood 6'1".

 

<p>

 

Granted his shoulders were stooped as he got older, but look at the

pictures of him with Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter in his biography.

Or for that matter, look at the shot of him with John Sexton, Alan

Ross, Ted Orland and Chris Ranier. He might have been gnome-looking

with his broken nose and beard, but I'll bet you saw some other older

photgrapher that day.

 

<p>

 

Morley Baer has related how he was mistaken for Ansel at a distance

years after Ansel passed away. Rather than confuse people, he said

he'd just smile and wave. He was a big fella too.

Is there any gallery (outside of visiting an art museum) that has a

collection of Ansel Adams' works? I must admit I only know a few of

his pieces, and the way he handles himself has an... aire.. I

suppose that is slightly grating. True, you can appreciate the work

depite the man, but I don't have much to base any appreciation for

the work on. If anyone could help, I'd be most indebted.

 

<p>

 

Thanks in advance.

 

<p>

 

Erica Hall

In California, there are three AA galleries

(Yosemite, Mono Lake, Monterey) operated by his family,

and the AA center/Friends of photography in SF.

All of them have websites easily found with google.com

Erica,

I think you are reacting more to how the cult of Adams acolytes

treats St. Ansel as a near deity, rather to Adams himself, who

wasn't above a little self satirization & parody. From what I

understand, he had a pretty good sense of humor. You also have

to remember that he lived in very different times. And like all

successful (how ever you define success) people, especially

artists, he was his most boisterous and enthusiastic advocate.

But unlike others he saw the need to raise public

consciousness not just of himself and his own work but of

photography as an art form. This is rarely true of artists,

especially photographers.

 

<p>

 

I admire Adams, but don't worship him. He was a very effective

teacher of photography and a passionate and effective advocate

of the preservation of wilderness, and these are where you will

find the basis for judging him.

 

<p>

 

Please read a copy of Mary Street Alinder's biography of Ansel

Adams.

I think his most enduring achievements are found in his books

and