How come Ansel Adams remains so popular while others are left in the dust?

<p>Controversial opinion here I know, but I say this because so many people know of Ansel, but what about the other [arguably better] photographers? I for one think Edward Weston is a great photographer, but one that gets very often overlooked. Lee Jeffries in the same vein has a very unique set of images, though I'd understand if not many knew about him.<br>

Why are we stuck on the same artists and photographers is what I'm getting at? Is the new too difficult to comprehend [no matter how good the new may be], so we keep going back to the old?<br>

Take it as you will, I mean no disrespect</p>

<p>Why do people drone on about Led Zeppelin, Nirvana, The Beatles and so on? Same deal. There is a whole universe of alternative choices many quite as "good". What about van Gogh, Monet and the impressionists in general? Picasso etc etc. It seems to be human nature and in the nature of recycling previous opinions as your own.</p>

<p>Sorry Phil- should of clarified by 'overlooked' I mean he gets a mere footnote compared to Ansel in books and the likes. Though many of the textbooks I've looked through make mention of him, and he'll get maybe a good paragraph, Ansel gets at least a page, which seems goofy to me considering that Ansel only really did landscapes whilst Weston did so much more</p>

<p>Spencer, like Phil, I've not found Weston being overlooked. I think he's right up there and gets a lot of recognition and appreciation. In the world at large, few names get mentioned, which is probably true of most disciplines, not just photography.</p>

<p>Adams has several things going for him in terms of why his name and his work have endured. He was a master technician and changed the way prints and printing techniques were conceived and executed, pivotally. The quality of his prints is unrivaled. He also chose a subject, Yosemite, that has its own iconic presence and majestic draw. His work, while often less emotionally satisfying to some, still has a stunning and overwhelming presence and is of a much beloved and revered subject. It's a winning combination.</p>

<p>I wouldn't compare Adams to Van Gogh or Picasso except for their endurance over time. Van Gogh and Picasso were consummate artists, changing the means of expression and the face of painting. Adams refined but, IMO, didn't really alter how photography could express what it expresses.</p>

<p>It's not that Picasso, Van Gogh, or Adams are the same old same old by any means. It's that they are the exceptions standing out for one reason or other through history. Historical significance is hard to measure with more contemporary artists, though a photographer like Salgado is certainly making a splash in real time. As to others who will eventually join the canon, give it time.</p>

<p>Ansel was not only a good photographer he was a good marketer.</p>

<p>Just talking textbooks for schools and all that- can't vouch for actual books, though I've seen so many photo books of Ansel Adams and probably around two of Weston in stores and at work [and I work at a book distributor, so I see loads of books], so more of the pop culture the 'first photographer everyone thinks of' kind of thing.<br>

Or maybe Weston does get the credit I just haven't seen it; anyhow I digress, he was good, but not God-tier is the point I'm trying to get across, I think books should have more photographers in them instead of just the original innovators, so we can see how they influenced future generations instead of just saying they did</p>

<p>I'm not exactly a fan of St Ansel, but have couple of his prints. He inspired many peeps and folks continue to look for his tripod indentations....others, however, developed their own style. More recently, and without going over the history, I've noticed that some people actually excelled what Ansel and others (F64, etc) have done. Few years ago I saw incredible shot of Mono Lake and more recently someone with mare compact made "better" shot of the Antelope Cyn, than the one that sold for 6mil recently. Hint hint.</p>

<p>A. Adams became the household word due to marketing, which worked better for him than for most of us. I do give him credit for swaying the "viewers" in DC in order to gain momentum in creating national parks. I mean, not just Yosemite. Anyway, being ecology minded person, I take my hat off to him for that, more than evoking emotion in his photos....he was a supreme printer, tho.</p>

<p>By the way, the AA images, that I have, are the least iconic on the totem pole, tho they (somehow ?) work better for me. It could be that I'm not big on iconography. :>)</p>

<p>Les</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I beg to differ- marketing can be everything! Without marketing would Banksy have gotten anywhere, especially considering he practically stole one of his most iconic early images [the rat] from a much earlier graffiti artist-Blek Le Rat? Or Roy Lichtenstein [an artist I will forever hate] who blatantly ripped images out of comic books and sold them for sizeable sums while the originals artists were scraping by? Marketing has a large influence on how people view art as a medium whether us as the artists/photographers like it or not</p>

<p>And I would agree *but* Banksy should be called a street artist, not a graffiti artist, as selling your art isn't what the whole point of graffiti is. He is marketing himself as a graffiti artist and that brings in the whole mysterious secretive side of doing something illegal, which I'm sure helps him to sell his 'work' [which goes for hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars!].<br>

There is no doubt in my mind that if others came around and tried to do what Banksy is doing, they'd be called imitators despite the fact that many many good graffiti artists came before him [by the general public, any graffiti artist worth their salt know of Blek]. THAT is the marketing bit- acting as though he is innovative despite not really being all that new- that propels Banksy beyond the throngs of the ordinary graffiti artist</p>

<p>BeBu; <em>"Ansel was not only a good photographer he was a good marketer."</em> and the government money behind him. No question he was a very good artist in photography, with an excellent pre-visualization for effect and power, turning images to high standard of artistry. But, still, the publication thru all those background helps he received, was making him an outstanding, and respected, created individual in his life, not like many whom become great after they died, and died moneyless and pure. Still, I like the way he created those prints, bravely altered prints as he pre-visualized them.</p>

<p>Because Adams caught the imagination of at least a part of the general public where most great photographers from days gone by were appreciated only by photographers and collectors. Why? Because his subject matter was often easier to appreciate.</p>

Ansel Adams was also a teacher. He would go to great lengths to explain his Zone System. Using the development process went a long way to achieving the tones, highlights and shadows needed to create a great photo from one that would merely have been a well composed photo. His three books, <I> The Camera, The Negative, The Print</I> show how much he was willing to share to help others get the finest prints possible. His Zone System was the Photoshop of its day.

<p>Where would the OP get the impression that Edward Weston was "overlooked". Its really not the case.</p>

<p>Photography 101 lets one become familiar with Ansel, Edward, Bill (Brandt) or Henri (Cartier-Bresson). Photography 201 is less constrained and opens one's eyes to stimulating photographers and artists of many aesthetics, countries and movements. Unfortunately, the public often equates quality with the familiar or easily assimilated. At one time, I recall that many households happily displayed pictures of elephants kicking up dust as they moved in a grouop across an African plain. That left a lot of otherwise valuable art in the dust. </p>

<p>Like many photographers, Ansel was not widely recognized until relatively late in his career. I think what separates Ansel from the pack is not only his photography, which is certainly outstanding, but his print making, which may be without parallel. I had the great good fortune of spending some time with Ansel late in his life both in Yosemite in the summer and he visited me in Seattle. Back in those days I could have purchased an Ansel Adams 16 x 20 print on the open market for $100. Today it would be worth at least 1000 times that if not more. Unfortunately I didn't have the $100 to buy prints back then. I have my memories and all the letters and postcards Ansel sent. I also found out a year or two ago the Ansel had several of my prints in his personal collection which is now at the Center for Creative Photography at the University of Arizona.</p>

<p>I thought about that at times. I think of the book "Guns, Germs and Steel". All the right elements came together at just the right time to launch his almost pop popularity and high profile.</p>

<p>Thank you all for [again] reiterating that Edward Weston wasn't overlooked *in classes and books*, I've got that point down. I'm saying that, in general, he isn't as famous, and having never taken a photography class I can affirm that I would never had heard of him had I not bough a history of photography book, but the whole thing is not the point anyhow.<br>

What about the other photographers, the one living today that don't get any recognition for their work unless you happen to be photographically minded? A good majority of people have not studied photography and therefore wouldn't know of many besides what has become mainstream</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A good majority of people have not studied photography and therefore wouldn't know of many besides what has become mainstream.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is a fine reason for those wanting to know more about photography to study photography, or at least get beyond the surface of popularity. Start googling around, go to bookstores, go to museums, go to galleries. There are plenty there to be found.<br>

<br>

It seems fairly unremarkable that only a few people in every field—from philosophy to music to photography to the hi-tech industry—become famous. In order to find the non-mainstream and non-poular people in any field, one has to do a bit of work/study. This is a shock?</p>

<p>Fred, you mean knowledge about photography is not just point and shoot? Are you suggesting that many have undeveloped knowledge and may have a negative view as a result? I could be quite positive about that. <br>

I've always thought the real love of photography took a really long exposure across decades!</p>

<p>Hero/brand worship amounts to embalmed taste. I could happily live without seeing another Adams or taxidermic Karsh portrait.<br>

Fan Ho recently passed away. Every bit the equal of the above:</p>

<p>http://petapixel.com/2016/06/21/photographer-fan-ho-dies-age-84/</p>

<p>Why do we keep going back to the old, legendary photographers (and yes, Weston was a great photographer too) instead of focusing on who is working today? Why do we remain focused on the genius of Picasso, Degas, Van Gogh, Rouault and Michelangelo?</p>

<p>They were leagues better, that's why. They were, and are, the best of the best, by any standards.</p>

<p>They aren't by any means 'better', and in fact there are probably a great deal of people who don't see them as the end all be all; in addition quite a few of their works [Especially those of St Ansel] have become boring over time, just being rehashed endlessly- how many times can one look at the same perfectly exposed colorless image of the wilderness before it ceases to be novel?<br>

Point is, there are many new photographers and artists who are showing the world in ways we've never seen before but if we're comparing apples to oranges of course they aren't the same as the originals, the world has changed since the early half of the 20th century and so will photography, we cannot just say that the new is defunct and objectively bad because we don't want to believe that anything can be better than what is commonly accepted</p>

<p>It's not a zero sum game. Quite the opposite.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>quite a few of their works [Especially those of St Ansel] have become boring over time, just being rehashed endlessly</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Spencer, I have one Ansel Adams book, <em>Yosemite and the Range of Light</em>, which was given to me as a gift about 35 years ago. I looked at it a lot when I first got it and periodically look through it again to remind me what it has to offer. I don't rehash it endlessly and if I found it becoming boring, I'm pretty sure I'd put it on the back burner until I felt like taking another look. Rarely do I google Adams and I was recently in Yosemite and went hiking instead of visiting his gallery. <br>

<br>

I'm not sure for whom they are becoming boring over time and who's rehashing them endlessly. Is someone taking you by the hand and forcing you to look at Adams photos? If you're unhappy with the textbook you're talking about, have you checked out Amazon or any local bookstores for other textbooks that might be more useful to you? If you found a good one, your teacher (if you're doing this through school) might be interested to know of it. Any time I've been in school, especially having to do with art, photography, and philosophy, I supplement whatever books are assigned with stuff I seek out on my own. It helps broaden by base of knowledge.<br>

<br>

If you're tired of talking about Adams, is there a contemporary photographer whose work you like a lot that you'd want to discuss? Maybe think about starting a thread about that photographer. It might be interesting to see if others here have heard of the photographer and what they think about the photos. <br>

<br>

Many possibilities to avoid boredom!</p>

<p>It's more or less a 'oh wow, another of of the 10 Ansel Adams photos I've seen before' whenever looking through photography books, the Yosemite one in particular, while it IS a good picture, is the same picture almost everyone has seen at one time or another. What once inspired awe now inspires ennui, therefore I look to find new things rather than looking at the same things several times <br /> And I'm not in school and don't plan on going, I'm too poor</p>

<p>Maybe I'll do one on Ken Rockwell, he's really good :)</p>