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

[donald_miller5]

From what I read Ansel Adams did not suffer those who did

not embrace his vision of a perfect world (there are those on

PN whom seem to be inspired by him) and there are some

who !did not get their due (whether you liked them or not) as a

result of his influence.

[Supriyo]

"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."

 

Spencer,

I strongly feel you should give some examples of photographers who you think are better than Ansel in his genre,

landscape. Preferably, they should be contemporaries or his predecessors, otherwise the comparison would not be very

fair. Also state some guidelines as to why you think they are better. That way, we will have a fruitful discussion, otherwise

this thread is getting too boring.

 

I don't think, Weston is a good comparison to Ansel, due to difference in genre.

[fotolopithecus]

<p>Ansel Adams is the template of what a Landscape photographer is. He was a character, he invented things like the zone system, he is the most copied, he wrote a lot, and lived a long time. Almost every Landscape photographer is just repeating what Adams already did, but in color, with slight variations.</p>

[yockenwaithe]

<p>K.R. Whitley for one, though I am talking photography in general and not just the game he played. He has marvelous composition, the colors are absolutely gorgeous, and there is enough variety to make me keep coming back to his photos without getting bored.<br>

And the comparison wasn't who is the best in landscape photography it is me wondering why Ansel is consider the best photographer is general, and general photography extends to everyone</p>

[johne37179]

<p>Donald, that is not the Ansel Adams I knew. Ansel welcomed pretty every photographer who sought him out. At times there would be half a dozen around the dinner table in Yosemite. I met lots of competent and aspiring photographers at those dinners.</p>

[donald_miller5]

<p>E.J. - As I said "from what I read " and I certainly can not dispute someone who has met him personally and was acquainted. I will tell where I read it though so you do not think I am blowing smoke. When we were discussing Imogene Cunningham on one of Fred's threads (rhymes) I looked up couple of things about her and this was her take on him. I will see if I can find the actual piece, not to dispute you but to explain why I wrote that.</p>

[johne37179]

<p>I only knew him for the last ten years of his life. The Ansel I knew was humble, open, unassuming, gracious, entertaining, generous and generally a lot of fun to be with.</p>

[Supriyo]

<blockquote>

<p>And the comparison wasn't who is the best in landscape photography it is me wondering why Ansel is consider the best photographer is general, and general photography extends to everyone</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

When you say, Ansel Adams is the best photographer, you are referring to his perception by the masses, not the photographic community. These two are two different things, because I don't think the photographic community subscribe to the notion of Ansel being the greatest. I am not interested in a discussion of why certain artists become celebrities, because that will not improve my photographic potential. If you want to discuss the photographic merits of Ansel Adams as compared to other photographers, I am interested in such a discussion. However I think when making a fare comparison, it is important to maintain equal standards. For example, you cannot compare street photography to landscape or still life. If you want a critical discussion on Ansel Adams, I think you need to limit it within the landscape photographers at the least.<br>

<br>

You have given one example of K. R. Whitley. While his work is reasonably good, he is a contemporary artist, shoots in color with all the modern gear and ease of travel. Is it fair to compare him with someone from 40/50's who used large format black and white? Also, you talked about variety. I am not sure if 'variety' is a relevant criterion to judge somebody's artistic merit. Great artists are not known for variety, they are known for a few landmark works in their genres.<br>

<br>

I don't know about others, but I will give my reasons for considering Ansel Adams great. but I am not saying 'he is the best photographer in general'. Here is my reason:<br>

After Theodore Roosevelt expanded our national parks in the beginning of the 20th century, it was still not convincing to the general public why thousands of acres of land should be left as is without any development. Nature conservation was in its infancy, mostly in the minds of a few visionaries in US. Ansel Adam's photographs gave the general public a convincing reason to preserve these natural beauties through their visual appreciation and secured the future of our national parks. He used photography as a powerful means to move the masses, infinitely more powerful in this case than debates and lectures, and succeeded in what he aimed for. Even if you discount his contributions to photographic techniques and art, I would still consider him a great photographer for the above reasons.</p>

[yockenwaithe]

<p>Well it's a good thing the original question was about the masses, not photographers wasn't it? I asked why the public thinks he is the greatest [which was basically answered by a few- marketing combined with quality]. I think he is a great photographer, though I myself am tired of seeing his stuff everywhere. I don't discount what he did for the parks either- as a nature lover that is one of the greatest reasons I see him as a great man.<br>

And I think that in general those regarded as great artists have a good deal of variety, just many of their most famous works don't exhibit it.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>If you want to know one reason Ansel Adams is so appreciated, look at the "directed work" of his contemporary, William Mortensen -- the latter was widely published in the "mass" photomagazines when Adams' work was mostly ignored.<br>

Adams deserves to be appreciated, as everyone does, in the context of his career and his times, not only in terms of <em>our</em> times and conditions.</p>

 

[Supriyo]

<blockquote>

<p>I asked why the public thinks he is the greatest [which was basically answered by a few- marketing combined with quality].</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Yes, it was answered long back, and the reason I reiterated those answers is because I felt they weren't clear to you. For example, now you are saying Adams is a great photographer, but it did not seem to me, you believe that from the rest of the thread. <strong><em>" how many times can one look at the same perfectly exposed colorless image of the wilderness before it ceases to be novel?"</em></strong> - This is what you said about Ansel Adams' work. May be it is not just the media. May be that the people including non-photographers appreciate the beauty of monochrome landscapes, more than you do. May be that, they do not characterize them as 'colorless'. May be that to you monochrome images are 'colorless' is THE reason for your confusion about the fame of Ansel Adams?<br>

<br>

Early on in this thread you brought up the contribution of marketing as the singlemost important reason for Ansel Adams' fame (<em><strong>"</strong></em><em><strong>A. Adams became the household word due to marketing, which worked better for him than for most of us."</strong></em> - Spencer Lange). What I am trying to tell you is, that's not completely true. When Phil questioned your statement, you brought up the example of Lichtenstein and stealing in art and it went in a different direction. Overall it never appeared to me that you have any favorable view of Adams as a photographer and thats the reason you are questioning his popularity in the first place. So I wanted to explain to you, why Adams and his works are and will be important, even for future generations, and it is not due to media hype.<br>

<br>

And one more thing, great artists usually do not long for fame among the masses (with exceptions no doubt). They thrive on their work, and the interaction with informed viewers who know how to appreciate their works. The world is not fair. Commercial movie stars (which include some talented ones) are infinitely more famous than many talented actors, for instance. Instead of resenting the fame of certain artists, we can all look for artists that appeal to us in libraries, exhibitions and develop our own niche of appreciation. I think Fred was right when he made that suggestion.<br>

<br>

I would thank you for starting this thread and raising a question, and I hope you got a broader perspective about your question from everyone here compared to what you originally conceived.</p>

[donald_miller5]

<p>I do not think you can isolate the dynamics of why a photographer becomes a celebrity. I belive the OP used the term "left in the dust". This goes back to what I said about all the right at the right time. Many are relegated to obscurity because they are overshadowed or ignored by mainstream, ppular or "in" artists. Would Andy Wharhal have the same success at a different or would he have the same influence. Wphic hat we take away or how we improve our photograpic ability in large part depends on what we are exposed to. We may discover something today but I question whether it would influence us as much as compared to if we were exposed to it in a different phase of our lives. So, who is a celebrity and how and why they become celebrities is imprtant.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Well, I have a couple of books entirely on Edward Weston on my bookshelf and none of Ansel Adams...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Same for me, Phil--and I really like nature and wilderness photography. I have even more books on Eggleston and his work.</p>

<p>Spencer, do you know <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=Eggleston&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwizzICe3s7NAhXD6yYKHfaQD6cQsAQISg&biw=911&bih=511"><em><strong>Eggleston's work</strong></em></a>? I highly recommend it.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>As is the case for so many artists, Eggleston's work has <a href="http://www.pdnonline.com/news/Egglestons-First-Ev-4928.shtml"><em>continued to evolve. </em></a></p>

<p>Sometimes that evolution extends to the type of printing, not just to the photos themselves.<em><br /></em></p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[yockenwaithe]

<p>Just looked at some of Eggleston's stuff- pretty neat. He looks like he shot on Kodachrome? I could be wrong but his photos have that slide film feel to it, I'll make sure to look at some more of his work when I have more time</p>

[Supriyo]

<blockquote>

<p>I do not think you can isolate the dynamics of why a photographer becomes a celebrity. ...<br>

... Many are relegated to obscurity because they are overshadowed or ignored by mainstream, ppular or "in" artists.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I think I can and I should isolate the dynamics of the celebrity factor of any artist when judging his/her value. IMO, artists who become famous mainly through media hype enjoy short lived fame, that last for one or two generations. Sometimes, the true value of someone's work or legacy is realized much later, after the limelight has faded off. I think that applies to Ansel, Weston or any other photographer from the last two centuries. Photography is still nascent compared to other art forms, and many photographers who are household names today could fade off 100 years from now. However, I think Ansel is too bright, too important to fade off, although other obscure photographers could regain equal status as him in future. Thats why, I think it is important to separate the celebrity factor while evaluating the impact of someone's work.<br>

<br>

It took 200 years for people to realize the true worth of Shakespeare's works.</p>

[hjoseph7]

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

<br>

I guess you never have been to an Ansel Adams exhibition. Or read any of his books... </p>

[yockenwaithe]

<p>If someone HAD to go to an exhibition or read books [technical books nonetheless] to understand the concept of marketing on someone's popularity, then out concept of pop culture in the past would require quite a bit of museum visiting to understand. As it stand I own exactly 0 of his books and have seen exactly 0 exhibits tailored towards his photos, yet it is still quite obvious the effect marketing had on him becoming popular after you know where to look.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Supriyo, I read Donald's statement a little differently. Here's my take on one dynamic of celebrity. Let's take Andy Warhol, but it applies to many others. Warhol was both a product of the sensibility of his time and a creator of the sensibility of his time. Warhol is a bit of a special case, because his pop celebrity, which went along with his art, was actually part of his art. In so many ways, his life and his living was his art. Many great artists and celebrities have this sort of reciprocal relationship with their times, feeding off the era and helping to create it. In that sense, I would feel like I was missing a lot if I didn't consider Warhol in the context of the times in which he lived and along with the dynamics of what made him famous.</p>

<p>With some vague comparisons to Warhol, I'd consider Liszt. He was the consummate showman. And his music bears that out. I feel as if I can hear the dynamics of his celebrity in his piano compositions. Liszt certainly employed hype compared, for example, to Chopin (his contemporary and much less flashy) to achieve his fame and I don't think his music has the depth or merit of Chopin's, but his showmanship as evidenced in his music is part of why he's pretty much as well known today as Chopin. There's room for both. I'm glad Liszt was such a showman and, if his music survives because of it, so much the better.</p>

[Supriyo]

<blockquote>

<p>Warhol is a bit of a special case, because his pop celebrity, which went along with his art, was actually part of his art.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Fred, I too think Warhol was a special case where his social interaction helped to define his art. It is probably true with certain other artists too, graffiti painters, or rappers come to mind. However ultimately, I think the legacy of an artist will be determined by how well his/her art can speak to mankind over the vastness of spacetime.<br>

<br>

I think there is a distinction between the factor of celebrity in Warhol's case and that of Liszt. While in Warhol's case, the celebrity factor was probably an essential part of the art itself, in Liszt's case it doesn't seem so (from your description, I am not familiar with his music). Warhol's popularity I think was both a machinery and a side effect of his art, whereas in Liszt's case it seems to be merely a magnifier and hence separable from the art. With time, the magnifying effect will wear off.</p>

[donald_miller5]

<p>It will not wear off, it will fade just like a phoito, certain elements will fade while while other aspects will remain. Futiure scholars will see a skewed history. People who knew him and were alive in his day will pass and with it valuable knowledge. As I learned on this thread there are many around today who interacted with Ansel Adams with different experiences. In time all that will remain is what is written like the stuff I read.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>I think the legacy of an artist will be determined by how well his/her art can speak to mankind over the vastness of spacetime.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I used Warhol to counter this kind of sentiment. I don't believe Warhol's art will be that enduring, but if history books remain, his legacy should nevertheless remain. Warhol, I believe, was so much a product of his time and not all that timeless or universal. I actually think that's part of his genius and I don't say it at all negatively. I don't believe great artists necessarily need to transcend the time or culture they're in. I don't think distant future generations will get from Warhol what we who grew up in the sixties get. I do think future generations will likely get from Michelangelo what people for centuries have been getting, if his statues survive, of course. They are different types of artists. Warhol may well still be studied in 300 years, but my guess is that it will always be relative to his place and time and era. Michelangelo's work will transcend that, IMO.<br>

<br>

Getting back to the thrust of this thread, this is why fame is relatively unimportant to discussions of art and photography, other than in a commercial, monetary, or business sense. There are so many great artists working in studios all over the world who will likely never be heard of and not have a legacy. There are so many reasons for that, one of which is often simple luck. But their art is important nonetheless.<br>

<br>

Most people who become famous do so from promotion, whether self promotion or promotion by others. So many of the great artists we know were promoted by patrons. Not that long ago there were a couple of exhibits in San Francisco about Gertrude Stein and her brothers, who were collectors and patrons. To a great extent, they were responsible for so many now famous painters being shown and getting recognition. Hell, in a lot of cases, the Steins were responsible for putting food on their table. Among those whose work they recognized as having something and whose work they brought to the public were Matisse, Picasso, and Gaughin. They were doing this from the standpoint of both art and investment potential.<br>

<br>

Promotion was hardly unique to Ansel Adams and the fact that he was well promoted in no way detracts from his singular importance to photography. And I say that as someone who is not terribly moved by a lot of his work.</p>

[donald_miller5]

<p>Some form of public exposure is vital. Lets carry this to the most extreme. What if the greatest ay rtist who ecer existed created the greatest piece of art that ever existed but never let anyone see it or presented to public exposure? Is it art? Do people have to know about it to be art? Does an artist have to produce art so it can be on display or just for its own sake and the artist's personal sense. Does an artist have to display his work to be an artist? With a few eceptions some sense of celebrity or media exposre comes into play. If you want to get enhancement there has to be some form of making it available or celebrity. It is just a matter of degree. </p>

[Supriyo]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't believe Warhol's art will be that enduring, but if history books remain, his legacy should nevertheless remain.<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Fred,<br>

I also don't believe Warhol will affect the mankind the same way Michelangelo will. However looking at Warhol's art, I think future generation will get some idea about the generation, the world he belonged to, more so than by reading history books. I think thats where his legacy will be. This is what I meant when I said: "legacy of an artist will be determined by how well his/her art can speak to mankind over the vastness of spacetime.". I agree, the future generations won't experience the same feelings as someone contemporary of Warhol feels upon seeing his work.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't believe great artists necessarily need to transcend the time or culture they're in.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I wasn't referring to any universal or timeless appeal of art as in Michelangelo. What I had in mind was whether the future generation will be able to understand and appreciate the art (even if the message is not relevant to their culture) without the associated media hype. In my mind, this property somehow correlates with quality. So, Warhol vs Liszt (again based on your description) ... I think Warhol has enough aesthetic quality that his art will be appealing to future generation, while Liszt's will not be due to lack of depth (I have seen Warhol's work, but not Liszt, I plan to tonight and compare with Chopin). You may disagree with me, and since this is just my hypothesis, I will not counter.</p>

[Supriyo]

<blockquote>

<p>Does an artist have to display his work to be an artist? With a few eceptions some sense of celebrity or media exposre comes into play.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Donald,<br>

Art in most cases is a mode of communication between the artist and the community. However I will distinguish between 'displaying art' vs celebrity. celebrity is associated with a person and relates to the fame or wealth or power of that individual. That is not the same as communicating to the patrons of the art via the language of the art itself. For a successful artist, celebrity status is a side-effect, not a necessity (IMO).</p>