In defense of Ansel

Bill, you think the book was sepia because the early prints were sepia? I haven't seen the 'century' exhibit, but, when looking at the companion book, assumed they just printed it using warm ink. This year's AA calendar is printed the same color. I don't like it, and didn't purchase the book because of that color. An AA exhibit of three or four years ago that came through my area included a few early prints; I don't remember them being so warm.

Having seen just about every print that he made and has been exhibited west of the rockies, I have to say that Adams was a very good and creative photographer. I agree that as the materials that became available to him changed, so did his printing style. In the early years of his work the papers were not as capable of portraying the white that his latter choice of materials was. Like the Oriental Seagull and Agfa Brovira (I think) and we have to remember also that the materials he had at his disposal were all graded papers and the ability to render different tones within the same paper was not available. 1/2 a grade was all that he could get with his developers. And I still say that we must look at all of his work and try to look at the prints themselves in some sort of chronological order before expressing our views of his work. And remember our own prejudices regarding the genre in which he worked.

Ansel Adams� legacy�not AA himself�seems to me to be a victim of its own success. AA became a celebrity, and as with celebrities in music, sports, the movies, etc., promoters or sellers of b&w photography see him as their cash cow/ace-in-the-hole. Everywhere in the entertainment/art world, it�s always the same few �stars.� AA is what the buying/viewing public wants�or has been conditioned to want. I certainly sympathize with the artists or professionals who have a hard time making a living because the only thing people want is another reproduction of �Moonrise.� I�ve long wondered this might be a reason why some of the LF community have turned against him or his work�or least have little positive to say. My own beat is academia, where �reputation� is half or more of the battle and very resistant to change.

 

To make matters worse in AA�s case, it�s always the same few negatives among the 40,000 he is reported to have shot and developed. Someone said somewhere that he himself was unhappy with the fact that publishers kept asking for the same images. So it�s difficult for all except the archivist/scholar/historian to form an opinion of the totality of his work. At the same time, since photography invariably involves a lot of trial-and-error, the artist who preserves every negative is running the risk that future generations will judge him or her by inferior work. Brett Weston probably went too far, but when he destroyed all his negatives he was on the right track, I think. I also have in mind a couple of �masters� of LF b&w who in my opinion are very ill served by comprehensive historical editions or collections of their work. The federal gov�t owned nat�l park images done by AA and because they�re in the public domain constantly reprinted in cheap editions is another case in point�at least they don�t seem to me to be up to his usual standard.

 

I learned a lot from Kenneth Brower�s article. The point about size is a good one. If AA enlarged, then why not hang enlargements? I haven�t seen the exhibit or read Szarkowski�s commentaries, but since at least two of his MoMA publications (Photographer & the American Landscape and American Landscapes) are partly historical, i.e. pre-enlarger, maybe he was thinking in terms of AA�s predecessors. However that may be any purism on this point would be entirely out of place. The 19th c. was all about grandiosity. Consider the panorama paintings, for example. I don�t think W.H. Jackson would have hauled that 20x24� camera around if an enlarger had been available.

 

Personally, I don�t think it�s necessary or wise to promote AA (or any artist like him) by denying the realities of the modern world. AA�s work at Manzanar and throughout his career for the Sierra Club prove that he wasn�t denying them either. You can like and admire AA without being a reactionary with your head in the sand. So I find this �controversy� a little puzzling. Because I grew up in California and have visited Yosemite many times from the 1950s on, it�s impossible for me to imagine how a New Yorker views these landscapes. But like many of us I suspect, for me AA is very much part of the living past, an old friend (who I never met), teacher (if only from books), and point of reference. He�s not a celebrity at all, but just a damn good photographer who made sure he was in the right place at the right time and nailed a helluva lot of shots.

Remember The Mountain Bed

 

 

Do you still sing of the mountain bed we made of limbs and leaves:

Do you still sigh there near the sky where the holly berry bleeds:

You laughed as I covered you over with leaves, face, breast, hips and thighs,

 

You smiled when I said the leaves were just the color of your eyes.

 

 

Rosin smells and turpentine smells from eucalyptus and pine

Bitter tastes of twigs we chewed where tangled woodvines twine.

Trees held us in on all four sides, so thick we could not see...

 

I could not see any wrong in you, and you saw none in me.

 

 

Your arm was brown against the ground, your cheeks part of the sky,

Your fingers played with grassy moss, as limber you did lie:

Your stomach moved beneath your shirt and your knees were in the air...

 

Your feet played games with mountain roots as you lay thinking there.

 

 

Below us the trees grew clumps of trees, raised families of trees, and they

As proud as we tossed their heads in the wind and flung good seeds away:

The sun was hot and the sun was bright down in the valley below...

 

Where people starved and hungry for life so empty come and go.

 

 

There in the shade and hid from the sun we freed our minds and learned

Our greatest reason for being here, our bodies moved and burned.

There on our mountain bed of leaves we learned life's reason why...

 

The people laugh and love and dream, they fight, they hate to die.

 

 

The smell of your hair I know is still there, if most of our leaves are blown,

Our words still ring in the brush and the trees where singing seeds are sown.

Your shape and form is dim, but plain, there on our mountain bed...

 

I see my life was brightest where you laughed and laid your head.

 

 

I learned the reason why man must work and how to dream big dreams,

To conquer time and space and fight the rivers and the seas

I stand here filled with my emptiness now and look at city and land...

 

And I know why farms and cities are built by hot, warm, nervous hands.

 

 

I crossed many states just to stand here now, my face all hot with tears,

I crossed city, and valley, desert, and stream to bring my body here:

History and future blaze bright in me and all my joy and pain...

 

Go through my head on our mountain bed where I smell your hair again.

 

 

All this day long I linger here and on in through the night.

My greeds, desires, my cravings, hopes, my dreams inside me fight:

My loneliness healed, my emptiness filled, I walk above all pain...

 

Back to the breasts of my woman and child to scatter my seeds again.

 

 

-woody

Yeah Tribb. I remember the equation now. Thankyou Woody for romance.

Thanks Trib, I needed that. A worthy addition to the LF forum

discussion of AA at 100.

 

I am no longer in Houston. I have escaped Texas for the green

hills of Georgia. Pleases end me an e-mail address that works

GREAT THREAD! I enjoyed reading all the posts!

Dear Domenico,

1. Watch please your mouth when slurring "sucked" etc.

2. Stop reading (or perhaps just buying) books on photography because they simply have punched your brains out. I've never seen your pics (surprise) but it's quite obvious you're full of yourself. I suggest you spend more time in the darkroom trying to master what AA so kindly described for us (have you actually been in a darkroom?). AA's writing style alone, inspired many young (and old) photographers who struggled with their prints so much before. AA's mastery cannot be explained, it must be felt. If you only spend a little time with his books you might have understood where AA's genius was coming from.

3. Comparing Ansel Adams to Bresson, Stiglitz (and others) is no different then comparing Beatles to Mozart (just an example). AA was in essence a landscape photographer, those you try to compare him to were not. Street (or snap) photography takes a different approach than landscapes. You can compare them all you want, but your conclusions will NEVER add up.

4. There is a number of jerk offs on this forum who time and again try to discredit AA's accomplishments. I refuse to understand it but I cannot let it stand. I've tought photography many young people. You would have to see what reading AA's books did to their sense of aestethics as well as camera and darkroom skills. I know you have no clue what I'm talking about. So be it.

Witold,

you are absolutely right.

I have very little right to express my opinion on this matter. And

you are right also when you say that the photography books i

bought have never been opened. I am sorry. Has always been a

shortcoming of mine to appear more intellettual than i really am.

When i was a kid my parents used to tell me that i was stupid

and no good, and being child i used to believe them.

The only way to cope with the pain was to buy books and " look "

intellectual. I thought i had outgrown this issue , but looks like

therapy for me is going to be a lifetime committment.

 

Please, let me say that i wasn't comparing Adams work with

Bresson's . We were talking about popularity. I do apologize if i

led you to this kind of misinformation, this too derives from the

same issue: i find it very hard to explain myself with proper

words especiall considering that i am not writing in my mother

tongue.

 

When i read in your post that you were in doubt if had ever set

foot in a darkroom , i was puzzled and upset , because i couldn't

understand if you knew me or you have a deep understanding

of the uman behaviour( although i think the latter is true since

you are a teacher and obviously an observer).

You are right , i never did such a thing, just the idea of staying for

hours in a room with just a faint green light doesn't only makes

me uneasy......it's hard to explain.

 

In one thing i have to say you are wrong. I would never compare

Mozart with the Beatles. Although almost contemporaries their

music stiles were TOTALLY different .

While one was german the others were British , which has a

great effect on the outcome of the finished product, i agree with

you .

 

Although the tone of your post is benign , since you start it with

"dear Domenico" ( and i thank you for that) , i have to say that

the " jerk offs " expression has taken me by surprise and hurt

me somewhat. Then after a little reasoning i have realized that

you, as a responsible educator, did it with a deeper purpose.

You wanted to shake me , from my state of ignorance and

propell me in a world of discovery and creativity. This is what

they call TOUGH LOVE. And i thank you for that. I also promise

you that i will struggle not to use words like "suck" in such a

gratuitous way.

 

Again thank you for caring and pointing out these flaws of mine,

Domenico

georgia? aww tex, the hell you say! been to see tom yet? give him a big sloppy kiss fer me.

 

sorry friends...

 

linhof66@hotmail.com

 

me

Trib you tramp. You'll kiss just about any old hick! Love, Lumberjack

yojimbo!

 

kisses to you too lumberjack...

 

here, got some more woody lyrics fer ya... they're a little crumply, sorry, been in my pocket.

 

3rd

 

 

 

My flying saucer where can you be...

Since that sad night that you sailed away from me?

My flying saucer, I pray this night...

You will sail back.... before the day gets bright

 

My flying saucer, fly back for home...

You will get lost in the universe alone.

My flying saucer, end all my fears....

Sail back tonight, love and kiss away my tears

 

My flying saucer, I pray this night

You will sail back before the day gets bright

You will sail back before the day gets bright

I'm so glad, Domenico, you've managed to read to my post. I'm just as glad to have read yours. And yours proves my whole point. A display of sarcasm at its best, just to prove you did not get it. I simply attacked your primitive language that should have not taken place. I realize you belong to that awsome group of individuals who believe free country should allow everything and anything. It's one thing to disagree, and another to demean. Your posts regarding Ansel Adams as a rather average photographer were little else but academic discussions. There is different definitions of that but I like looking at it as something that if said backwards would not have affected the total balance of what was said in the first place. A typical derivative of what's being tought in many collage courses, the skill of dicussing without having any grasp of the subject. In other words plain BS. You're dead wrong on putting AA at a much lower level than those GREAT ones (Bresson, Steglitz etc). Just as you misunderstood my Beatles/Mozart example. There have been very few accomplished photographers in the history of the field, who mastered the entire process, from chosing a subject, through shooting for a desired result, to a final (predetermined) output. And what a great output that was. There has never been any myth about AA's work. Only such a myth could have made him more popular than he deserved. Europe is just beginning to recognize his genious. Wait and see in a few years. It has always had to do with one fundamental difference between European and American mentality.Europeans would often say What form of art is that? How could it be art if all one needs to do is look around and take a picture? Artist must be capable of using pencil, brush, or chisel. He cannot just use a film and record what anyone can easily see. Artist is one who draws, paints, sculpts etc. Photographer? No way. Look through photography schools in all of Europe and see for yourself what they require. That's the mentality that never affected American approach to seeing art. That's why Ansel has been far more recognized here than elsewhere. But that does not (and should not) take away anything from what he's so greatly accomplished. I will also say that anyone who tries to judge Ansel's work (be it technique, expression, composition) but who is not a complete photographer, is at a substantial loss. Judging just his photograph is like taking the whole thing out of context. But some live to critique others. That's what they do. In a way it helps us, photographers, because no matter what's been said there may be some truth to it, or at least something to think about.

Wow, what a thread! Let me add a few comments.

First, backround.

 

I have been involved in photography 50+ years and a printer for 40+. My first encounter with AA was in 1961, the book "My Camera in the National Parks". In it, a brief explanation of the zone system, which I took to heart without actually learning it. Disaster!! I put important shadows on zone 1, using Adox R-14 in a Rolleicord. Fortunatly, the exposures were too good to be true, so I did a few believing the meter as well.

 

Ansel has been vilified even back then. Recovering from the mistake, I sought out help, attending a few meetings of the Chicago Camera Club, and when I asked About Ansel, a big sneer showed up on the face of a member. He trotted over to a file cabinet, laying on top was a mounted print of Ansel's covered in dust! "Here's what we think of him!" he stated, and tossed, I mean tossed, the print at me!

 

I never went back.

 

Another recollection. I now live in Portland OR, and a few years ago, the Oregon Historical Society had a retrospective on photographers who worked in Oregon. Ansel had one print,and as soon as I saw it I knew that he had printed it on Ilford Ilfobrom, with the same look I was getting, which I didn't like. And, here was a master, printing in the mid 60's who didn't have a better print than I did on that paper.

 

So, it seems that Ansel put his pants on one leg at a time, just as we do.

 

Ansel is the reason I continued on, and the reason is that, as hopeless as it was to consider following in his footsteps (touring Death Valley the first time, I would see a picture possibility unfolding and when I got to the primo spot, there in front of me was another Ansel, already done!) I realized that he hadn't photographed everything; there was lots more to do. And in doing it , I evolved my own sense of photographic possibilities.

 

Ansel doesn't need defending. He is a giant, upon whose shoulders one needs to stand if one is to see further.

 

Lawrence

What can i say Witold,

 

we'll probably never be friends...

I have no intention to change your mind, and you will not

manage to change mine even though you are trying so hard.

 

Adams is not and probably will never be my cup of tea( unless

you point a gun at me ), I find 90 % of landscape photography

boring unless is filtered through the artist individual imagination.

 

Please, please don't insist, you are starting to sound like one of

those born again christians fanatics.

You assume too many things about me and you don't even know

me. Don't think that your profession might give you special

rights, in my life i have known plenty of teachers and professors

who were or narrowminded or they didn't know what they were

talking about. So, please, don't put yourself on the pedestal .

I reserve the freedom to express my opinions , freedom that you

say shouldn't be allowed to me .

I would love to have a discussion with you with a bottle of fine red

wine and brie cheese ( ah , these europeans !) , but i don't think

it will ever happen.

By the way who ever told you that Europeans view Photography

not yet as a form of Art?

Can't quite understand what the arguing is about. We all have our opinions and whether you like the guy or not he was, is and will continue to be a great influence in the world of photography. I should understand what the arguing is about, I know. After all, when I was a kid I was so bright my parents called me Sun.

Well, I come late to threads anyways, but here's my 2 pfennig: I agree with Domenico, almost to a T, but disagree strongly with what Witold wrote. Aside from the latter getting into personality issues, and the former writing that Adams' portraits sucked (I found them mediocre, but quite technically competent), it really does come down to a matter of taste. Hate broccoli, hate fish, hate beer, always will; will never acquire taste. Love camembert, love steak, love flan, love Scotch whiskey; never needed to acquire taste, it was love at first bite or first sip.

 

Same goes for photography. Now, I actually like Adams' works, but it stops there. I admire them technically, and am moved by them in an emotionally detached way, like listening to a Haydn symphony. That's my emotions, and you can't argue with emotions -- they're either there or they're not. Trying to convert someone to be overflowing with emotional empathy for the works he feels nothing for in particular is like the efforts of some naive psychiatrists 50 years ago trying to convert homosexuals to like women. Ain't gonna happen.

 

However, to reach my emotions, I have found that photography needs to have an element of the intellectual about it. This is why I can respond, in awe, to Edward Weston's work, but not to Adams. There was a great mind at work there, behind the lens. Same goes for my favourites of all time, Weegee, Walker Evans, Leni Riefenstahl, Albert Renger-Patzsch. To me, looking at their works -- to use the music analogy -- is like listening to Sibelius' Seventh Symphony or Rachmaninoff's Die Toteninsel. Blows me away every time.

 

As for the East Coast/Urban vs. West Coast/Rural debate, I hope this ain't gonna end up with our posses poppin' each otha, and puttin' da smack down on yo ass, bee-yotch, like dat otha East Coast/West Coast feud.

 

Nonetheless, me and my homeys are just waiting to see what happens if Walka Evans gets dissed next year for his c-note dead presidents anniversary. Word!

Isle of the Dead? Dull middle.

 

I once made the first ascent of a 6000 m mountain in the

Karakorum range of Northern Pakistan. We started climbing at

midnight, and as dawn arrived we had just broken through a

large overhanging snow cornice onto the summit ridge. About

two hundred miles away to the east, the sun was streaming past

K2, tumbling over the serrated lines of the intervening mountain

ranges, and blushing our summit with delicate touches of

pink-tinged magic.

 

Adams captures my feelings at that moment far better than any

other photographer, despite the multitude who try, and despite

his use of B+W. I actually believe that his approach to nature is

limited and restrictive: he seems to feel that silent awe is the

only appropriate response to mountain landscapes. But he

expressed that single idea with such magnificence I cannot

understand people who say he was merely a technician.

Struan: "Dull middle" in Die Toteninsel? I prefer "reverie," but to each his own. At least you're cultured enough to know what I'm talking about. So, ti salud!

 

Besides Weston, there was one other photographer who does it for me, and relates nature to me the way Struan describes his own response to Adams' pics, and that's Vittorio Sella, who, incidentally, was one of Adams' inspirations.