Ansel Adams and the Bellagio

[jdrose]

Hello,

 

 

I went to see the Ansel Adams display at the Bellagio. Interesting.

 

http://www.bellagio.com/pages/about_press_pressrelease.asp?PressID=124

 

 

 

I must say that Mr. Adams had a fine technical talent. The prints are

dazzling, deep, rich, sharp, and simply stunning. A display you must see.

 

However, his compositions were underwhelming. They seem a little boring and

simple to me. Does anyone else see the same thing...or is it just me?

[juergenf]

There is nothing 'boring' about climbing up a huge mountain with a heavy glass plate camera and returning with some of the finest photographs the world has ever seen.

 

If AA's composistions seem "a little boring and simple" to you, then why did you bother to visit this exhibition in the first place?

[h._p.]

I've got to agree with you about Adams's work, it never does much for me and I'm pretty good at producing boring landscapes myself...<div></div>

[phyrpowr]

JD, I love most of Adams' work, but some look boring and ho hum to me too (e.g., never did get excited about "Moonrise over Hernandez"). No interest in a number of photographers that some people think are the Second Coming. It's just personal taste, nothing to worry about

[flemming_s._christensen]

Gentlemen, see some of Ansel Adams medical and health photographs here

 

http://138.23.124.165/collections/permanent/object_genres/photographers/adams/medical/default.html#

 

Relax and enjoy. I did.

Flemming

[beeman458]

"Does anyone else see the same thing...or is it just me?"

 

Nope, it's not just you.

 

In order to understand AA's efforts, see his efforts as one might see the back of a sumo wrestler who just thumped down in front of an opponent; thump... dust swirling about, sismic tremors echoing off the hills in the distance:)

 

Those 8x10 cameras couldn't be moved about like HCB could move about with his Leica's:) You get your photographic view in your mind, tell yourself what you're wanting out of this session and then spend the next ten/fifteen minutes setting up legs, body, film plates, metering, swings, tilts, cloth, magnifer in hand so as to get focus lock.... and theeeeeen click, maybe a couple of bracketing clicks and it's off to the next one:)

[brent_mcsharry1]

There are lots of issues here. It can be touchy amongst photographers - adams is close to a deity to some people. I certainly would not recomend posting this message on a forum such as Q tan's large format page, but full credit for speaking honestly in a forum such as this, and making us all think about why Adam's awesome reputation exists.

 

A few things I would say in Adams favour.

 

Black and white scenics are not for everyone. This was the only available medium in his day, and he took this medium to new limits.

 

As you say, the detail he was able to extract with far inferior optics (uncoated lenses), far heavier equipment and less advanced chemistry/grain film emulsions and papers is truly unbelievable.

 

Any composition adams produced has been copied, perhaps with subtle variations/improvemnts millions of times. This does not mean such compositions were boring/old hat when adams shot them. I would certainly challenge you to find wilderness images that pre-date adams in which you find more inspiring composition.

 

Finally, particularly if you are drawn to wide angle shots with detailed and prominent foregrounds and far stretching vistas and incredible depth of field, you must remember that the extreme wide angles from ansels day neither had the detail, contrast, lack of barrel distortion or high quality center filters (to overcome cos^4 vignetting) that allow modern images to be captured with such beauty.

 

If you are inspired by good scenics, I suspect you would be hard pressed to find a photographer whose compositions you do enjoy who was not inspired or guided in some small way by the work of Adams.

 

I similarly find some back and white movie clasics a little boring, simple and underwhelming, until I realise what an incredible contribution such films have had on the far more sophisticated modern movies by both pioneering new techniques in movie making and also inspiring the movie makers whose modern works I love. the movie then seems to come alive once again. Hopefully Adams work can be appreciated in this same light.

[Spearhead]

<i>There is nothing 'boring' about climbing up a huge mountain with a heavy glass plate camera and returning with some of the finest photographs the world has ever seen.</i><p>

 

The implication here is that because you like Adams' photographs, we all should. Then it seems likely that you should be required to like all the photographers that I do, so I will assume that you like the work of Moriyama, Meatyard, Giacomelli, Garduno. Fair?<p>

 

Or, as Jack so aptly puts it, it is "personal taste".<p>

 

<i>If AA's composistions seem "a little boring and simple" to you, then why did you bother to visit this exhibition in the first place?</i><p>

 

So we should see something once, make up our minds and never revisit it? We should only look at what we already like? Our opinions will never change? Seems like a very limited way to go through life.<p>

 

For what it's worth, I agree with JD. I find Adams' work represents the triumph or craft over art. That doesn't mean he isn't important to the history of photography, but there is no requirement for me, or anyone else, to like his work.

[pico_digoliardi]

<i>There is nothing 'boring' about climbing up a huge mountain with a heavy glass plate camera [...]</i><p>

Did he really do that? Did he use glass plates? Did he climb mountains to make the pictures? <p>

As I recall, a lot of his work was done from a tripod on top of his stationwagon or within walking distance of it.<p>

And he used film, not glass plates.<p>

[randall ellis]

Sorry Pico, he *did* use glass plates early on, many of which were destroyed in a darkroom fire early in his career. And he did travel up mountains with pack horses, also early in his career. Much more appears to be written about his later life achievements than his earlier work, but he did indeed do these things.

 

- Randy

[pico_digoliardi]

Thanks for the correction, Randy. I forgot about the pack animal stories. Silly me.

 

But to get back to the subject, let's avoid the whole <i>art thing</i> and consider Ansel Adams a great documentary photographer in the tradition and scope of Timothy O'Sullivan.<p>

 

Note the many images Adams made of the same subjects under different seasons, light and weather. The more romantic of them supported the rest of his work. Oh, and it really helped late in his career to have the Sierra Club flogging his work.<p>

(Again, Randy, I stand corrected.)

[juergenf]

"The implication here is that because you like Adams' photographs, we all should."

 

Sorry, that's not what I meant to say. It's just that I'm a huge Adams fan, no hard feelings toward anyone who thinks his composistions are boring ;-)

 

And to JD Rose; if you want to learn more about Adam's life and his working methods, I recommend you buy or rent the film 'Ansel Adams' directed by Ric Burns.

[david j.lee]

the darkroom fire was in 1937. Weston and Charis were there and Adams mentions in his

autobiography that they helped wash his negatives. Charis also mentions, on her book

"through another lens" the incident, and she says that they washed and then hanged the

negatives to dry. i could't find any references to glass plates being destroyed, but Adams

estimated that about a third of his life's work was destroyed on the fire.

JD, i agree with you. as much as i admire Ansel Adams, as much as i love his prints, i

find that his work does not moves me the way Edward Weston's does, and so many

other's ,for that matter.

[vatovec]

AA, was a master craftsmen - so more into the historic position. And he made a big contribution to photography with his zone system exposure/develop/print method (though i never encountered another photographer which uses the full zone system method in my life).

To today`s standards (mine, OK) his photographs are beautiful landscapes and that`s it - for me.

BTW - the one medical photo with the monkey is really great! Now that is some new AA!

[beeman458]

Let's see what Ansel had to say about the fire and the negs in a letter to Stieglitz dated July 29, 1937, from pg 97, "ANSEL ADAMS" "LETTERS AND IMAGES 1916-1984"

 

snip

 

"On top of a rather jittery state of mind we had the misfortune to suffer a fire which consumed half of our new darkroom and burned up a lot of my good negatives. Insurance covers material loss - but the negatives!! However, the negatives that burned had the highest commercial and lowest aesthetic value of the lot. Practically all the prints shown at "An American Place" can be made again. And the Sierra negatives for my forthcoming book "Sierra Nevada" are almost entirely intact. It was luck, in a way. One fortunate thing - I lost many inferior negatives, and can start the slate clean in several directions."

[dave_powell2]

And not all of Ansel's negs burned by accident! My wife's supervisor lived in California next to the Adams house. And one day, she saw him throwing prints and negatives into a little bonfire. She didn't ask why.

 

Dave

[david j.lee]

good. where does it says something about glass negatives? people,focus!

[spanky]

While I have great respect for the commitment to craft that Adams brought to his work, I find that much of it doesn't engage me much. I'd admire a print of his for the skill that went into it, but as subject matter, well, I'd rather view a series of grainy, blury prints from Robert Frank.

[christian deichert]

A large portion of his remaining collection of negatives and plates was donated to the University of Arizona; there was a very nice spread in Arizona Highways, last year, I believe.

 

I think many of Adams's works seem pedestrian now because it's his tripod holes we're shooting from -- in many cases, he's the person that made various over-photographed locations famous.

 

The other thing I respect him for is his technical craft -- his time composing a certain shot in the field was often eclipsed by his time in the darkroom printing it just so.

 

I don't like every Adams photograph, just as I don't like every Monet or Van Gogh painting or every Mozart tune. Doesn't necessarily take anything away from the artist to feel this way; it's as much a reflection of my own individual taste, I suppose. As my Demotivator calendar says, "Never forget that you are unique. Just like everyone else."

[neilpeters]

Adams was a great great photographer. His marketing people were frekin genius's.

 

Most of his negatives and works are at the Center for Creative Photography at the UofA, Tucson. You can look at his unmounted works, wearing white gloves, just ask, its free. The list of photographers who donated/ willed their personal collection to the CCP is overwhelming, and growing constantly. It is one of the jewels of the photographic world. Oh ya, and its free.

 

I was just there last friday night to listen to Laura Wilson, Ruedi Hofmann and John Rohrback speak about the time they spent working with Richard Avedon. (his lifesize, and I mean "huge" prints are on display till Jan 14th. In The American West). About 400 people were there, and there were so many questions after the 3 speakers, they had to cut it short.

 

There are several Adams prints on permanent display upstairs.

 

Adams was much more than a landscape guy, as several people have pointed out, and his work in darkroom/ negative exposure/ development techniques is revered. But I'll tell you one interesting thing, just between us friends, it appears he didn't always enjoy spotting :)

[jaybee]

I went to see the exhibit in August, and believe your description is accurate. To answer Juergen's question about why I went, my wife had booked a "spa day", and I was left with little to do. I'd had enough of gambling when I heard about the Ansel Adams exhibit. I'll admit that I'm not a fan, but wanted to see his work first hand.

 

An old friend once told my wife and me that you know there are ugly people in the world, otherwise you would not be able to recognize those who are beautiful. That applies to the arts, too. Part of learning and developing an understanding of any of the arts is exploring what is available, including things you like and things you don't. When you see different styles and formats, it helps you know what you like about some things, and what you dislike about others. Occasionally, you stumble upon something that changes your mind.

 

Although my visit to the Bellagio did not change my opinion about liking Adams' work, it helped me understand why so many people consider him a great photographer. JD is right -- the prints are dazzling, deep, rich, sharp, and stunning. And I agree that it's a must-see exhibit.

 

Just because I don't like something doesn't mean I can't appreciate it. I don't particularly like Adams, but I now have a better appreciation of his work.

[ilkka_nissila]

I think Adams's work has a very strong emotional impact (and I'm not American and wasn't exposed to them directly until I started doing photography myself). The compositions ... well, I think they support the emotional impact very nicely. "Boring" is not a word I could use in that context. Obviously the technique helps the pictures immensely, but the whole here is greater than the sum of its parts.

[nicolewhitephotography]

Hi,

 

I also went to see Ansel Adams at the Bellagio, Las Vegas.

Previous before seeing the work - and only seeing Ansels images in pages of books I thought they were good landscapes but I didn't like the Large DOF. There was no 'WOW' factor for me.

 

After seeing the exhibition I must say, some (not all) of the images did take my breath away. The composistions were thought out and the technique was if not, almost perfect. I was inspired where I thought I would not be, and I was very glad to have seen the work of one of the best landscape photographers. It may not be my thing, but the work was inspirational.

 

If you get a chance go and have a look, and make up your own mind.

 

nic :-)

[Nowhereman]

About a week ago I saw Lee Friedlander's retrospective exhibition, which is currently in Paris.

What was interesting in the context of this thread were a series of photographs taken in the

West at many of the sites of Anselm Adams' pictures: Friedlander's compositions are a much

morecomplex and interesting and, in my view, he's a much better artist, although Adams was

a great technician and teacher.

 

?Mitch/Paris

[pavel_olavich]

Nicky, you don't like the "large DOF" of AA's landscapes?

 

Most peculiar comment.....landscapes are supposed to show wide, wide DOF, yea?