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

[Supriyo]

<p>I have seen ken Rockwell's images, but most of them seem to be somewhat generic to me. They are technically great, and pretty, but I have seen similar images in many PN portfolios. None of Rockwell's images evoked any special emotional response in me. On the other hand, Ansel Adam's landscapes, though reiterated in the media, do generate such emotions. So I don't know. I can't say I have thoroughly reviewed all of Rockwell's works, specially his 90's works. If you can refer to any particular photo that you find worthy, I can take a look, and may be I will change my mind. So far what I have seen in his website are mostly generic compositions, and colors seem over-saturated.</p>

[yockenwaithe]

<p>I was just being facetious, I am not a huge fan of Rockwell's, though I know there are many who dislike him [and his nuclear green trees]. A photographer I've actually been looking at is Mr. Ellis, mostly because his work has some huge variety in it</p>

[Uhooru]

<blockquote>

<p>Why are we stuck on the same artists and photographers is what I'm getting at?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm just wondering why are you saying "we"?</p>

[yockenwaithe]

<p>Society! There is so many reproductions, calenders, etc. of St Ansels work, but try to look up a calender for christs sakes and you can't find it! [for reference I looked up 'Edward Weston calendar', and lo and behold I got a TOWEL with an Ansel Adams print on it for almost the entire first page! Surely SOMEONE has made a calendar of such a famous photographer, no?]</p>

[yockenwaithe]

<p>Lichtenstein blatantly stole comic book images; regardless of whether or not he got licensed he didn't even give credit to the respective artists, many of whom didn't actually know that their work was being ripped off. He may have gone into other stuff, it may have been good, but I will still not respect someone who steals art from another person, especially in the sheer numbers he did.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p><em>Good artists copy, great artists steal.</em> —Pablo Picasso</p>

</blockquote>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>'Edward Weston calendar'</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Spencer, my main point was not whether you're in school or not.</p>

<p>And if I were looking for a photo calendar, I'd probably go for an Adams calendar. Weston photos, IMO, don't lend themselves to calendars. Sorry, I thought you were interested in photography, not calendars or other kitsch paraphernalia! Seriously, an Edward Weston calendar is what you're after here? Go to the library. Look at one of the many books on Weston. Time much better spent than hanging Weston on your refrigerator.</p>

<p>Don't sweat what society is doing. You're here. You're among photographers who care about photography. Start a thread on a photographer you do like and you're not sick of. See where that goes.</p>

[randrew1]

<p>Adams was not only a great photographer and a great marketer, he was a great printer. He had the eye to look at a scene and visualize how it would look after a customized printing. Have you ever seen a straight print of his "Moonrise"?</p>

<p><a href="https://whereisharold.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/ansel-adams-moonrise-original.jpg">https://whereisharold.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/ansel-adams-moonrise-original.jpg</a></p>

<p>This is the more common version:</p>

<p><a href="http://castlegallery.cnr.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Moonrise.jpg">http://castlegallery.cnr.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Moonrise.jpg</a></p>

<p>One of Adam's favorite sayings was, "The negative is the score, the print is the performance." He changed his performance interpretation over the years.</p>

<p><a href="https://edkphoto.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/12-7-2012-1-00-22-pm.jpg">https://edkphoto.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/12-7-2012-1-00-22-pm.jpg</a></p>

 

[yockenwaithe]

<p>Though the 'Moonlight' picture is one of his worst if I do say so myself, I don't see what makes it aesthetically pleasing</p>

[yockenwaithe]

<p>I guess I'm more a 'function over form' person on everything except art it seems</p>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>There is a panoply of distinguished photographers, nearly all building on those that went before and their peers as well. Adams was a very fine one, and I enjoy his photos, but how many of us would want the same meal every day? I continue to tour as many disparate photographic visions as I can. Vitality in variety, and the opportunity to emulate particular skills in order to improve.</p>

[Supriyo]

<blockquote>

<p>Adams was a very fine one, and I enjoy his photos, but how many of us would want the same meal every day?</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> Sandy,<br /> I agree, but at the same time should point out that it is not the chef's fault, but the one who is force feeding that stuff everyday, in this case the media.</p>

[johne37179]

<p>I was fortunate to spend nearly a month with Ansel back in 1968 in Yosemite. We went out nearly every day to a location he had chosen to take a photograph. We would hang out for a couple of hours, he might have his assistant set up the tripod and camera. Then when the light didn't agree to cooperate to his vision, we would pack up and go home -- no film exposed. Ansel worked incredibly hard at his images. I think in that month he exposed no more than one sheet of film. I never saw a print, so maybe he never was satisfied. Unlike most of use who shoot like crazy to get an image we like. He composed the image in great detail before he went to the location and it it wasn't there to be captured, he went home.</p>

[yockenwaithe]

<p>Function over form gets things done, can't have a nice looking skyscraper made of cardboard, no matter how nice it looks can we?<br>

And I do find Ansel Adams photos absolutely beautiful I feel I should say, but there is the fact that I've seen his photos enough that, while they are still beautiful, they have lost their magic touch. I respect him and his craft, but I think it's time the media moved on. Variety is the spice of life as 'they' say after all</p>

[Supriyo]

<p>Good things should never be experienced too much, not under casual settings. Otherwise they tend to lose their charm.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Variety is the spice of life as 'they' say after all</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

You can always get that variety here at PN, while Ansel Adams can shine like a sun over you, forever. You need not look at the 'sun' directly :-)</p>

[johne37179]

<p>Spencer, I think you are comparing apples and elephants. There is no doubt that Ansel's work was the epitome of its time and subject. However, it is like comparing the best the Wright brothers did to a non-stop flight from Chicago to Sydney with first class meal service. They really are not in the same realm. Photographs are made in the mind and then extracted by the great artists and put into a form that was available to them that enabled them to share that vision. All artists are constrained by the tools available to them. It si what they do with those tools that matters. One can only imagine what the mind of Ansel would produce with the tools available today.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>I think it's time the media moved on.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is so chic to blame the media. Why not take some responsibility yourself? What new books have you bought or taken out of the library lately? What's the last photography exhibit you saw? Who's the last photographer you initiated a thread about on PN? What media are you paying attention to that keeps bombarding you with Adams. It's not one I spend a whole lot of time with.<br /> <br /> When I don't like what the media is offering, I change the channel!<br /> <br /> Unless you're living in a dictatorship where art has been censored or destroyed, you ought to have ample opportunity to explore other photographers. The world works the way the world works, and mainstream and pop culture like icons and heroes. This is not news.<br /> <br /> <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=moriyama&client=safari&rls=en&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiP__WH-svNAhVBVWMKHQhsDV4QsAQIJA&biw=1434&bih=802">HERE'S</a> a google image search of a still living photographer who's work I find intriguing, moving, and personal. What do you think?</p>

<p>How'd I find out about Moriyama? I hang out in circles that see beyond Ansel Adams.</p>

[donald_miller5]

<p>then you have Well, you have those with a true appreciation and talent to move on and then you have the pop culture and those whose who imagine themselves to be Rennasaince people who think it happens on some fprm of spontaneous generation with no effort. To put myself in the first group would be pretentious but I do not want to be part of the other group either.</p>

 

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>It is so chic to blame the media. Why not take some responsibility yourself? What new books have you bought or taken out of the library lately? What's the last photography exhibit you saw? Who's the last photographer you initiated a thread about on PN? What media are you paying attention to that keeps bombarding you with Adams. It's not one I spend a whole lot of time with.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Quite a nasty rant at a poster for expressing an opinion that appears to have been completely twisted. The subject of the original post is what the general public sees as great photography, not what Spencer Lange sees as great photography. Nothing in his post implies that he doesn't take responsibility for himself. Nothing in his post implies he doesn't know about photographers.<br>

</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>How'd I find out about Moriyama? I hang out in circles that see beyond Ansel Adams.</p>

</blockquote>

 

 

 

 

That's not what he was talking about or what the original post was talking about. It's great that you can "hang out in circles" but the post here is about the general public, not about individuals on photo.net.

<p> <br>

<br>

</p>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>Go forth, take the best photos you can and "Live long and prosper."</p>

[charles_h2]

<p>For me, there are several reasons that Ansel Adams remains popular. The thought that others are left in the dust is short sighted. One can be successful without being popular. Not every artist gets to perform on an international stage. Mr. Adams influenced by some of his fellow photographers took a new approach and changed the direction of photography, and most of us are still in it's gravitational pull. This was the turning point a century ago.</p>

<p>The perception of photography as too mechanical and “realistic” to be a truly fine art was then still widespread. Partly in reaction, “pictorial” photographers tried in various ways to soften realism, resorting to soft-focus lenses, brush strokes on the negative, soft-texture papers—anything that would make their photographs not look like photographs. But some independent spirits such as Edward Weston were taking the opposite tack, producing sharply focused pictures and printing on glossy papers. “Such prints retain most of the original negative quality. Subterfuge becomes impossible. Every defect is exposed, all weakness equally with strength. I want the sharp beauty a lens can so exactly render,” said Weston.<br>

Ansel realized that, as Imogen Cunningham said, “there are fewer good photographers than painters. There is a reason. The machine does not do the whole thing.” He also realized that the two-dimensional, monotone nature of a black and white photographic image was in itself a radical departure from reality and needed no further embellishments. He was readily converted to Weston’s and Strand ‘s approach. Looking over many of his negatives, he saw he would have to start over. After 1931 he steadfastly objected to use of the word “pictorial” in reference to his work.<br>

With West Coast photographers of a similar bent, among them Weston, Cunningham, and Willard Van Dyke, he formed Group f /64. The number designates a very small lens aperture capable of producing an image with maximum definition. The group’s advocacy of “straight” photography had a revolutionary influence on attitudes in the world of photography.</p>

<p>What I find most encouraging was their support of one another. I feel that the greatness of the artists of the past in no way diminish the greatest of today's artists. I'm happy for anyone who can break through, and make a living doing what they love.</p>

 

[johne37179]

<p>I'd add Pirkle Jones to the list of West Coast photographers. I met him at Ansel and Virginia's home in Yosemite and have always liked is work. He was a fine photojournalist the brought an art to his work that transcended most photojournalism efforts.</p>

 

[aplumpton]

<blockquote>

<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:<br /> <a href="http://petapixel.com/2016/06/21/photographer-fan-ho-dies-age-84/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://petapixel.com/2016/06/21/photographer-fan-ho-dies-age-84/</a></p>

</blockquote>

<p>C. Watson, thank you. Your appreciation resonates with me. I am ashamed to say that I did not know of Fan Ho (-1 for my curiosity), but his work is absolutely what great photography should aspire to. One may say his love of humanity, light and composition is similar to that of a Cartier-Bresson and Boubat, and possibly equally dated (as also Adams and Karsh) in terms of photography progress, but his images are delightful, surprising and pure magic. He says, I believe, that his approach was to simply wait for light, subject and composition to simply fall into place. A good thought for present day photographers possessing multifocal optics, automation and multiple shot capabilities.</p>

[rds]

<p>Maybe because he was the best?</p>

[yockenwaithe]

<p>It's very doubtful he was 'the best', maybe in his field [again, doubtful], or in his time [debatable]. but saying anyone is the best is a subjective matter anyhow. There are many photographer I consider better than him, but that again is merely an opinion, not a fact, as my tastes differ from the next person.</p>