Why Moonrise over Hernandez?

[Stephen Willard]

I have endured many weeks of a particular nagging thought like one of those melodies that runs repeatedly in your mind over and over again and you are unable escape from its repetitions. It was not until I was leafing through my new book Ansel Adams at 100 did I decided to to shed this thought and ponder its answer. It really is not a thought, but rather a question of why. Why Moonrise over Hernandez? In particular, why was Moonrise over Hernandez Adam's most sold print?

I could think of a countless photographs from his body of work that are far more powerful and vivid then Moonrise over Hernandez. There is El Capitain, Aspens, Clearing Winter Storm, Mount Williamson, Heaven’s Peak, Autumn Tree Against Cathedral Rocks, Mount Mckinley and Wonder Lake, Wanda Lake, Lake and Cliffs, or Overlooking the Snake River Toward the Tetons.

So I pose this question to the intelligence of this community of artist photographers in hopes of finding an answer that will put my nagging thought of why to rest.

Why do you think Moonrise over Hernandez was Adam's most sold print?

[Heroique]

Stephen,

I think your question is fair – and I hope we can all acknowledge at once that “units sold” does not (necessarily) indicate “quality achieved.”

And like all good questions, yours quickly raises others that may help amplify it, including:

1) Was "Moonrise" promoted or sold any differently than other AA photos?
2) Has the long-lived popular taste influenced, or reinforced critical taste, and vice versa?
3) Might future popular taste for “Moonrise” decline, and taste for the other AA photos grow?
4) Have other master-photographers consistently admired one or two AA photos, like this one?

I don't possess a strong enough background in marketing (or photographic history) to address your question directly, but I do look forward to learning more from the best answers in this thread.

[Alan Davenport]

Why do you think Moonrise over Hernandez was Adam's most sold print?

No idea, really. Maybe he sold it cheaper than anything else?

[kev curry]

When seen as a 20x24'' print in the flesh, it really is truly spectacular. Just thought I'd say that:)

[csant]

Why do you think Moonrise over Hernandez was Adam's most sold print?

It was? I remember that when I first learned of Adam's work, it were other photographs I saw. Only quite some time later I saw (a reproduction) of the moonrise. And yet later I learned that the moonrise was a "famous" shot… It needs to be said that it has a very "easy" appeal - you can't negate the "ohhh, a moonrise…" effect on the average viewer. Have to say it caught even me when I first saw it.

[Heroique]

There’s also AA’s thrilling story about taking “Moonrise” (he couldn't find his meter; see The Negative, Chapter 6), and I’m curious if that may have added to its “sales appeal” – did a promotional effort ever make use of this story?

Or maybe this is a case where sales are, simply, due to a magnificent photo w/ broad appeal.

That is, it may have “sold itself.”

[Walter Calahan]

It's always been my favorite image of Mr. Adams. It's just a gut emotional reaction. The one element that is so different about this image over his other work is the human element of the buildings and cemetery. For my answer it has to do with the presence of the human element, and the universal cycle of sunset and moon rise.

[Ken Lee]

Why did Michael Jackson's Thriller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_albums_worldwide) sell over 100 million copies ? :)

There are countless reasons. You might say 110 million reasons. But that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Understanding this sort of thing, is like "understanding" the Stock Market. It can't be grasped.

[civich]

The (this) viewer is immediately struck with his own sense of mortality in a remote and indifferent universe. That being said I've always been tickled that AA's most famous photo was as much of a 'snapshot' as you can get with an 8x10 camera and decades of creative intuition.

[Michael Graves]

When I was a younger snot, I was stationed in Monterrey, CA. One town over was a little town called Carmel. Perhaps you've heard of it. In any case, in Carmel, there is a photography gallery that features his work. Back then, I could have purchased any one of his prints for $250.00 to $400.00. If I'm calculating inflation correctly, tha put them at around $1500.00 in 2010 dollars. On one particular visit, they had two different versions of that print exhibited side-by-side. One of them was a more recent print with the rich black sky and the moon that pops out at you. The other was a more traditional sky and the ground was burned in somewhat. They looked like two images of the same village, taken on different days. (Which, of course, begged the question--how did he get the moon to be in precisely the same spot and phase for both images?)

The purpose of my rambling is this. BOTH prints were spectacular. The earlier print was priced $250.00 more than the more recent print BECAUSE it was earlier. Guess that was the way it was done back then. As nicely as the gallery was laid out, the pair of prints still had the effect of drawing viewers immediately to them. I was in the gallery for a while and remember commenting to a friend that accompanied me that everyone who came through the door seemed to get sucked straight over the Moonrise twins. I will die wishing I'd had enough money to buy one of his prints.

[Stephen Willard]

To address this question, one might consider what is actually different about Moonrise over Hernandez unlike the alternative images I noted in my initial question. Moonrise over Hernandez has a human foot print of mankind. It is about a remote modest community of crosses, churches, and dwellings. Hernandez is about an isolated group of people coming together as a tribe to fend off the unforgiving forces of the natural world. Hernandez domesticates the land. It tames the forces of nature for those who fear the land. The mountains are diminished while the tribal dwellings and its crosses become prominent. It makes the viewer feel safe against the elements by the divine light that warms the crosses.

This past summer I spent close to three months in the backcountry with my llamas and cameras living in isolation. I wrote many papers exploring where my place is as an artist, what purpose do I serve as an artist, what is art, about the emotional and physical stress I endure to extract a photograph from the land, and what it means to produce sellable art. Moonrise over Hernandez lies at the heart of many questions I have.

It is my belief it has nothing to do with marketing, but rather everything to do with its content. There is something in Moonrise over Hernandez that makes it more appealing then his other work. I have my suspicions, but at this point I am not willing to state them for fear of influencing the ideas and thoughts that my be posted.

[Toyon]

Your error is in believing that your declarative statement (see below) amounts to anything more than opinion. That arrogation makes it almost impossible for you to gain a perspective on why others might see Moonrise as Adams' most moving work.


I could think of a countless photographs from his body of work that are far more powerful and vivid then Moonrise over Hernandez. There is El Capitain, Aspens, Clearing Winter Storm, Mount Williamson, Heaven’s Peak, Autumn Tree Against Cathedral Rocks, Mount Mckinley and Wonder Lake, Wanda Lake, Lake and Cliffs, or Overlooking the Snake River Toward the Tetons.

Moonrise's huge and enduring popularity is proof that there is something about it that evokes emotion in a great many viewers. I am only guessing here, but perhaps it is the relative scarcity of images that so coherently illuminate a night time scene, or it is the overwhelming sense of scale of the huge sky over the tiny community, or the tiny cross which has been insinuated as a powerful symbol in so many minds.

[John Voss]

...... The earlier print was priced $250.00 more than the more recent print BECAUSE it was earlier. Guess that was the way it was done back then..

The notion of "vintage" prints being more valuable than later renderings is still very much with us. The paradox (though not necessarily true for all photographs or photographers) is that later printings are often clearer renderings of an artist's expression than were their original versions. The mysteries of marketing and valuation remain obscure to me, at least.

[vinny]

all those crosses. people are suckers for crosses.

[Drew Wiley]

I've seen quite a few prints of Moonrise, both before and after the neg intensification. And for some reason, I too am one of those who is not really struck
with the image. I can logically understand why it's remarkable, but it just doesn't
hit me the way it's supposed to. But I was always more interested in the way Adams' handled light, and get a bit turned off when his images get too theatrical
(I'm sure someone will take offence to this - but we are all somewhat different in
our tastes). I seem to like it when his poetry is a litte more understated or perhaps
quiescent. The psychology of images is very interesting, with the way different
people do or don't respond to things.

[willwilson]

I first saw a large exhibit of AA's work at the Corcoran in DC. There where many breathtaking prints. There was also a 40x50 or so print of moonrise that I can say was nothing less than absolutely stunning. It's just one of those photographs that works on every level. We all know the type. People just react to it. It draws you in. It has that once in a lifetime vibe without even knowing the back story.

[Drew Wiley]

Just remembered something. One of the best AA retrospectives was here at the Oakland Museum shortly after his death. It obviously drew in a lot of folks who weren't photographers, and quite a few already heard that Moonrise was his most
famous shot. So I milled about close to that particular image for about half an hour;
didn't say anything, but just listened to other people's reactions. Surprisingly, most
folks had a scratch their head attitude. It was something they "had" to see but didn't
respond strongly too. Only a few people were awestruck or whatever. I just found the experience interesting. Different people have different buttons to push.

[Heroique]

[…] Hernandez domesticates the land. It tames the forces of nature for those who fear the land. The mountains are diminished while the tribal dwellings and its crosses become prominent. It makes the viewer feel safe against the elements by the divine light that warms the crosses. […]

I think I like the quick take above. It’s basically my reaction, too.

Yet, maybe what makes “Moonrise” so powerful & mysterious is its ability to provoke irreconcilable reactions. Not only among us, but in us.

If one looks at it again, one might feel differently about it:

“Hernandez dramatizes the land. It warns about the forces of nature for those who respect the land. The distant mountains feel bigger while the nearby dwellings and its crosses feel tiny. It makes the viewer fear the sublimity of the elements by the divine light that sweeps over the crosses.”

[Kirk Gittings]

Having lived relatively close to the site of this image most of my life and passing by the site regularly since I was in grade school, I have to say that the image astonishes me as much today as the first time I saw it (maybe in 1970?). The image is iconic of the Hispanic villages of Northern New Mexico landscape and the landscape they inhabit. That image has allot to do with why I became a photographer. In the 70's the site appeared much as it did when AA made the image and realizing the vision and expertise necessary to make that image possible from that site has always inspired me. For me it is a regular living example of the transcendent possibilities of b&w photography and will forever inspire me to not casually accept everyday light or lazy "performances" of my negatives in the darkroom.

[evan clarke]

I have endured many weeks of a particular nagging thought like one of those melodies that runs repeatedly in your mind over and over again and you are unable escape from its repetitions. It was not until I was leafing through my new book Ansel Adams at 100 did I decided to to shed this thought and ponder its answer. It really is not a thought, but rather a question of why. Why Moonrise over Hernandez? In particular, why was Moonrise over Hernandez Adam's most sold print?

I could think of a countless photographs from his body of work that are far more powerful and vivid then Moonrise over Hernandez. There is El Capitain, Aspens, Clearing Winter Storm, Mount Williamson, Heaven’s Peak, Autumn Tree Against Cathedral Rocks, Mount Mckinley and Wonder Lake, Wanda Lake, Lake and Cliffs, or Overlooking the Snake River Toward the Tetons.

So I pose this question to the intelligence of this community of artist photographers in hopes of finding an answer that will put my nagging thought of why to rest.

Why do you think Moonrise over Hernandez was Adam's most sold print?

Because the most people like it..

[Deane Johnson]

By the way, it's not Moonrise Over Hernandez. It's Moonrise, Hernandez

[goamules]

Because it captures something of the amazing light and feel of a little village in the land of enchantment.

[Heroique]

Deane, shouldn’t that be “Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico” ?

And a couple more questions about this photo have long haunted me. Now may finally be the time to ask the experts. One question about the sky in the print, another about the real sky in this region of New Mexico.

1) First, my reproduction of “Moonrise” in The Negative – like several other reproductions in the book – show tiny pinholes. Normally, my mind “edits” them out, and they don’t register. But in this photo, the “editing” is more difficult because they appear in the dark sky alongside the moon, exactly where one might expect to see stars! About 5 or 6 pinholes are fairly prominent in my book – and one even “bright” enough to twinkle, near the left side. Makes me curious if the people who’ve seen a real print of “Moonrise” noticed this at all? Or if this is a “book issue,” not a real-life “print issue”?

2) And a regional question about those blurred, surreal, mountain clouds. Since they’re distant, one suspects a long exposure might have created the other-worldly feel. Yet AA’s exposure was a “quick” 1 sec. @ f/32. Now, we all know that AA wasn’t out to transcribe reality, but I still have to wonder if those clouds look “natural” to people who live in the region. If so, is there a name for that beautiful formation? And if not, is there a darkroom process that’s responsible? Perhaps a question for Kirk, who’s traveled through the area so often.

:rolleyes:

[Bill_1856]

Makes me curious if the people who’ve seen a real print of “Moonrise” noticed this at all? Or if this is a “book issue,” not a real-life “print issue”?

2) And I still have to wonder if those clouds look “natural” to people who live in the region. If so, is there a name for that beautiful formation?
:rolleyes:

1) I just had a good close look at my print (which hangs on the wall directlyabove this computer), and there's no twinkle, twinkle little stars.
2) The clouds are called stratus lenticularis, and while not common, they are not rare. I don't believe that I've ever seen them in the Eastern US.

[Mark Barendt]

And a couple more questions about this photo have long haunted me. Now may finally be the time to ask the experts. One question about the sky in the print, another about the real sky in this region of New Mexico.

2) And a regional question about those blurred, surreal, mountain clouds. Since they’re distant, one suspects a long exposure might have created the other-worldly feel. Yet AA’s exposure was a “quick” 1 sec. @ f/32. Now, we all know that AA wasn’t out to transcribe reality, but I still have to wonder if those clouds look “natural” to people who live in the region. If so, is there a name for that beautiful formation? And if not, is there a darkroom process that’s responsible? Perhaps a question for Kirk, who’s traveled through the area so often.

:rolleyes:

Live a few hours away, SW Colorado and was actually within 10 miles of the Hernandez area today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MtJeffersonoregon.jpg

Mountains do weird stuff to clouds, the link above has similar formations.

The clouds in Ansel Adams shot are very believable for me.

[Heroique]

Thank you, Bill and Mark!

I've enjoyed lenticular clouds up here in the PNW, but I've never had the pleasure to see them take that dreamlike form over Hernandez. :)

[Ralph Upchurch]

I think the essence of the appeal lies in the fact that the image depicts the hand of man on the natural environment. There is also a spiritual vein in the image that appeals to values beyond composition, tonality, and image quality.

[Preston]

I have seen several different original prints of Moonrise over the years and it never fails to grab me. To my mind the photograph symbolilizes the harmony between man and the natural world, and the quietude that we all seek.

Happy New Year everyone,

-Preston

[Stephen Willard]

Conceptually, Hernandez depicts a landscape that has been tamed and domesticated by the hand of man. It has a very famine romantic quality that is very soothing to look at. All those crosses light by divine light makes us feel safe from the brutal forces of nature.

On the other hand, El Capitain captures the raw untamed beauty of the land and lacks any presence of mankind. It is much more masculine in nature full of adventure, danger, and unknowns. It is a place were a mountaineer or warrior may go in persuit of conquest, power, and riches.

Can anybody characterize the type of person who make like Hernandez as opposed to the type of person that may be drawn to El Capitain?

[Curt]

It evokes a sense of mystery and he had a good story.

[sun of sand]

I don't think the amount of time taken to take a photograph is what makes it a snapshot or not
the scene necessitated it being taken quickly
He took it because of his intuition telling him to

If you believe he had decades of practice leading to his great creative intuition than the photograph taken in an "instant" only more sells his photographic ability if the photo is seen as a masterpiece


I wouldn't be tickled Id be in awe that a guy driving down the road can see something and stop immediately knowing a particular scene/feeling in that scene would be a great photo and having the knowledge to get an exposure he would think is good enough only adds that much more to it

But that's how it always is ..for everyone trying to be creative
its all instantaneous
Have you ever had a photo get better just by standing there? Of course not.
Through practice your ability increases and your art gets better


I think the photo is popular -beloved by many
I dont understand "popular and critical taste"
because of the
earth/otherworldy
death/heavenly/living
the rural simpler life ideal
the clouds wow factor
the quiet moment ..its a very meditative photo with all those intriquing things that pop into your head


I happen to like a lot of ansels work that is way way less popular
Some you -general puiblic whomever- may be surprised to learn is even by him its so far removed from his dramatic sky/mountainscapes

[sun of sand]

I have my suspicions, but at this point I am not willing to state them for fear of influencing the ideas and thoughts that my be posted.


what a beauty

[Deane Johnson]

Deane, shouldn’t that be “Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico” ?
I think Ansel originally titled it Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico, 1941. The Ansel Adams Gallery now refers to it as Moonrise, Hernandez, perhaps for space reasons if nothing else.

I would assume that it would be most correct to refer to it as Ansel originally titled it. Of course many of us have shortened it to just Moonrise.:)

[Brian Ellis]

"I could think of a countless photographs from his body of work that are far more powerful and vivid then Moonrise over Hernandez."

Of course that's your opinion and kind of begs the question you're asking.

I've never given a lot of thought to it but I'd say one thing that makes it appealing is that it's unusual with so much of the image taken up with pure black sky coupled with the lovely clouds and light underneath. The normal "rules" would say to crop the print a little way above the clouds because large blank black spaces tend to be uninteresting. I'm pretty sure that if I had made the print I would have cropped a lot of that sky out (which is why Ansel Adams is Ansel Adams and I'm me). I think the primitive cemetery in the foreground, coupled with the beautiful clouds and light also add a subconsciously spiritual aspect to the print that many find appealing without necessarily knowing exactly why.

[Henry Ambrose]

The reason it is more famous or more loved and hence sold more is that "Moonrise" poses a larger question and supplies less of an answer. Viewers are allowed the option of making up many answers about what is happening in the photo and what the happenings mean.

"Moonrise" is open ended with plenty of space for viewers to interpret, to fill in the blanks to suit themselves.

Many of the other photographs supply question and answer all in one. Or maybe are completely "look at this amazing scene I saw" rather than "what is this thing I behold?"

[Heroique]

[…] "I could think of a countless photographs from his body of work that are far more powerful and vivid then Moonrise over Hernandez."

Of course that's your opinion and kind of begs the question you're asking. […]

Stephen’s opinion contradicts the question he’s asking – he means it to.


[…] The normal "rules" would say to crop the print a little way above the clouds because large blank black spaces tend to be uninteresting. I'm pretty sure that if I had made the print I would have cropped a lot of that sky out (which is why Ansel Adams is Ansel Adams and I'm me). […]

This insight I've noticed, too – one might call it a “correctness” permissible to sacrifice for sublimity.

The longer one looks, the more sacrifices I think ones “sees.”

[Jim Graves]

I'm not a big AA fan ... I tend to see Adams as an extraordinary technician. His prints are obviously gorgeous and near perfect in printing but they leave me a little cold. I appreciate his craft but usually not his vision ... or lack of it.

I like "evocative" images ... something that raises a response ... maybe a feeling or an emotion or sentiment or even just a memory ... but always something personal.

I love Moonrise ... a humble human outpost in a vast physical setting taken at perhaps the most reflective time of day .... just before night ... with evidence of beliefs and losses and continuing on. I think it is almost a perfect representation of the human condition. Maybe I read way too much into it ... but that's why I like it.

I would bet that AA saw the moon, clouds, light, and reflections and thought ... "Wow ... there's a picture" ... and never intended to evoke anything.

[Eric Rose]

The funny thing is photographers are usually the last to recognize an outstanding photograph as a piece of art. They are so hung up on all the technical stuff such as composition rules, cropping, tonal placement, focal length, film, SBR, etc etc and get all excited about trivial things that have nothing to do with creating something that resonates with a wider audience. Naturally if all we are doing is creating images for our own edification then who cares if we obsess over technical stuff, that's part of the enjoyment.

Now to answer the OP question. The reason it has sold a lot and maybe more than "photographers" may feel it deserves is because the general art buying public like it better.

[Stephen Willard]

Stephen’s opinion contradicts the question he’s asking – he means it to.

Precisely.

[Stephen Willard]

The reason it has sold a lot and maybe more than "photographers" may feel it deserves is because the general art buying public like it better.

Eric your getting close. My question was not why us photographers like Hernandez, but rather why the general art buying public likes it so much?

What type of patron would be inclined to purchase Hernandez? Would they be patrons that have a strong connection to the land? Would they be from an urban or rural environment? Would they more likely be women or men? If we can perhaps narrow down who they may be perhaps we could be in a better position to answer why Hernandez was so popular.

[neil poulsen]

I think it was seeing A.A.'s work that inspired me most towards large format. For me, Moonrise, Hernandez is his best work. There's a lot of complexity in that photograph, and these complexities somehow come together to form an absolutely stunning result.

[QT Luong]

If you look at contemporary art photography, you'll see that there are very, very few natural landscapes (such as the Ansel Adams images that you find more "powerful and vivid") while a man-altered landscape such as Moonrise would fit right in. This might not be just a coincidence.

[Stephen Willard]

If you look at contemporary art photography, you'll see that there are very, very few natural landscapes (such as the Ansel Adams images that you find more "powerful and vivid") while a man-altered landscape such as Moonrise would fit right in. This might not be just a coincidence.

I fully agree with this observation, and I also believe it is not buy chance either which tells me a lot about the demographics of who buys art.

Would any one care to speculate?

[Thad Gerheim]

Why do people in rural areas, or people in general, like security lights? Maybe the moon becomes a great security light, and with ansel's masterful printing, we can see there isn't any bogeymen to get us.
This is an interesting thread, and I can agree that maybe wilderness photos don't have the sense of order, certainty and comfort that a still life of domestic flowers would have.
Just my two cents,
Thad

[civich]

all those crosses. people are suckers for crosses.
Well yea-uh. What Vinny so glibbly put made me wonder how other cultures regard art which to us is significant. Does Moonrise sell in Jakarta?

[Bill_1856]

Just an observation -- I don't know what it means, if anything.
Put your finger over the Moon and it becomes a rather ordinary image. Crop off the village from the bottom and it is still an interesting picture as long as the Moon is included.

[Stephen Willard]

Why do people in rural areas, or people in general, like security lights? Maybe the moon becomes a great security light, and with ansel's masterful printing, we can see there isn't any bogeymen to get us.
This is an interesting thread, and I can agree that maybe wilderness photos don't have the sense of order, certainty and comfort that a still life of domestic flowers would have.
Just my two cents,
Thad

Thad, I think you are getting close. I had never thought of the analogy of the moon acting as street lights. What follows is a list of words that I have plucked from this thread that were used to characterize Hernandez: secure, safe, domestic, romantic, crosses, quaint, community, divine, village...

What does this tell us....?

[Thad Gerheim]

OK, now that I've my coffee. Maybe the simplest answer is that the general public feels, consciously or not, that there is a sense of hope. Is hope a hard thing to photograph? Please don't skewer me for this, but isn't that what Thomas Kinkade's art is about?

[jnantz]

seems like it is "popular" because a lot of people can relate to it.
people like romantic images ...

the only people that really care about (the stories) of how images are made
are photographers and artists and art historians.

[Stephen Willard]

OK, now that I've my coffee. Maybe the simplest answer is that the general public feels, consciously or not, that there is a sense of hope. Is hope a hard thing to photograph? Please don't skewer me for this, but isn't that what Thomas Kinkade's art is about?

Excellent observation. Yes, Hernandez embodies many of the qualities that Kinkade art does, and who buys Kinkada art?

[Cesar Barreto]

I have this old catalogue from AIPAD Show - 1997, wich shows what was supposed to be the only work print from Moonrise and it did belong to Alinder Gallery, at Gualala - CA.
I always enjoyed showing this pair in my classrooms, just to illustrate the concept so well preserved by AA that one should previsualize the picture right from the start. And struggle as hard as one can to make it happen latter in the darkroom.
So I guess it was an important picture for him and it's well know he was quite good on marketing his works.

It's also interesting that a friend o mine heard AA speaking on Arles (?) and then he confessed already been done more than 600 Moonrises and he couldn't stand people asking for more prints from all over the world.

[Heroique]

Fantastic, Cesar! Thank you. :)

And it brings to life Dakotah Jackson's post #6.

(And BTW, a question for the astronomers: If this is the "rise" of a moon near full phase, then I presume we're looking eastward at evening, so shouldn’t the sun be generally behind us? The lower print version makes it appear a bit otherwise. ;) )

[JeffKohn]

I have this old catalogue from AIPAD Show - 1997, wich shows what was supposed to be the only work print from Moonrise and it did belong to Alinder Gallery, at Gualala - CA.
I always enjoyed showing this pair in my classrooms, just to illustrate the concept so well preserved by AA that one should previsualize the picture right from the start. And struggle as hard as one can to make it happen latter in the darkroom.
So I guess it was an important picture for him and it's well know he was quite good on marketing his works.

It's also interesting that a friend o mine heard AA speaking on Arles (?) and then he confessed already been done more than 600 Moonrises and he couldn't stand people asking for more prints from all over the world.
Interesting to see those two interpretations. The plate in Ansel at 100 is somewhere in between the two, which I think I prefer.

[h2oman]

I suspect this is the the most likely explanation:


The one element that is so different about this image over his other work is the human element of the buildings and cemetery. For my answer it has to do with the presence of the human element, ...

[Jeff Conrad]

If this is the "rise" of a moon near full phase, then I presume we're looking eastward at evening, so shouldn’t the sun be generally behind us? The lower print version makes it appear a bit otherwise
Moonrise was made about two days before the Moon was full; the Sun was about 20° south of opposite the Moon. I think the Sun was slightly below the hills to the west, which could make its exact position a bit tough to pinpoint simply by looking at the image.

It should be noted that there is a marked difference between the account given in Examples: The Making of 40 Photographs and the account given in U.S Camera Annual 1943 (quoted in the last post here (http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=001Wam), by Reece Vogel), shortly after the image was made; for many reasons, I tend to believe the earlier account. Though the image was made about 19 minutes before sunset, that the Sun was probably below the hills could have given the impression of twilight, consistent with Adams's initial account.

I think the bottom print in Cesar's example is essentially just a straight print rather than evidence of Adams's early vision of the image; it looks about the same as this contact print (http://notesonphotographs.eastmanhouse.org/index.php?title=File:Moonrise_contact_print.jpg) of the negative.

Certainly, what caught my eye when I first saw Moonrise in the mid 1970s was the stark contrast between the dark sky and the Moon and the clouds. As it turns out, this was more the result of what Adams saw than what actually obtained from a late-afternoon moonrise. I still much like the image anyway.

Incidentally, the title given in U.S. Camera Annual 1943 was Moonrise near Hernadez, New Mexico.

[Heroique]

Thank you, Jeff. Your “contact print” link is especially revealing, since it shows the amount of cropping done to make the “Moonrise” prints we know best. It’s certainly not a negligible amount – left, right, top. A considerable portion of the sky disappears. And the changes do seem to lead, in the end, to the magical sense of space many have felt and described in this thread.

[Stephen Willard]

I have this old catalogue from AIPAD Show - 1997, wich shows what was supposed to be the only work print from Moonrise and it did belong to Alinder Gallery, at Gualala - CA.
I always enjoyed showing this pair in my classrooms, just to illustrate the concept so well preserved by AA that one should previsualize the picture right from the start. And struggle as hard as one can to make it happen latter in the darkroom.
So I guess it was an important picture for him and it's well know he was quite good on marketing his works.

It's also interesting that a friend o mine heard AA speaking on Arles (?) and then he confessed already been done more than 600 Moonrises and he couldn't stand people asking for more prints from all over the world.

Cesar, your posting was very interesting, but is mostly off topic to why Hernandez was such a successful seller. Could you please submit your posting as a new thread titled Hernandez Manipulations, Sugar Coated or Expressive? This would be a very interesting topic to explore.

Thanks.

[Stephen Willard]

This thread has drawn the conclusion that the reason why Hernandez was Adam's biggest seller was because it emdodied many of the qualities that Kinkade art does.

Is there anyone who would like to challenge that notion?

If you are in agreement with this conclusion, then could you articulate who Kinkade's and Hernandez's custumers might be.

[Paul Kierstead]

This thread has drawn the conclusion that the reason why Hernandez was Adam's biggest seller was because it emdodied many of the qualities that Kinkade art does.

Is there anyone who would like to challenge that notion?


Well, yes. I just read the thread through, front to back, and I see no such conclusion, or even remotely close to it. Your reading of this thread is vastly different then mine. I didn't start out with any preconceived notion (I didn't even know it was his best selling), so I suspect your view may be coloured.

[r_a_feldman]

Thank you, Jeff. Your “contact print” link is especially revealing, since it shows the amount of cropping done to make the “Moonrise” prints we know best. It’s certainly not a negligible amount – left, right, top. A considerable portion of the sky disappears. And the changes do seem to lead, in the end, to the magical sense of space many have felt and described in this thread.

The contact also shows the "pinholes" you noted in your post #24 in this thread.

[Heroique]

Many of those tiny spots do line-up w/ the “stars” I see in my version from The Negative.

Could be an astrological conjunction!

[Stephen Willard]

Well, yes. I just read the thread through, front to back, and I see no such conclusion, or even remotely close to it. Your reading of this thread is vastly different then mine. I didn't start out with any preconceived notion (I didn't even know it was his best selling), so I suspect your view may be coloured.

Paul could you please articulate why you do NOT believe there are many similarities between Hernandez and Kinkade's art.

[Bill_1856]

Kinkade's paintings are "schlock" fantasy whereas Moonrise is photographic reality (as interpreted by St. Ansel).

[Paul Kierstead]

Paul could you please articulate why you do NOT believe there are many similarities between Hernandez and Kinkade's art.

Ummm ... well, actually, I don't see any similarities at all. I'm not sure how I could articulate "they are unrelated". Lets examine how they are alike:

- Somewhat representative of reality (i.e not being abstract)
- Incorporating man-made items
- Somewhat scenic.
- Popular.

Otherwise, I'm not seeing it. Kinkade is intended, clearly, to be all homey and give you the warm fuzzies. Where is that in Hernandez? The idea that they share qualities in any significant way is too preposterous to even deny.

[willwilson]

Really Kinkade? Steven, you had me going for a minute. I mean AA could never even dream of doing work that comes close to the majesty that is a Thomas Kinkade.

[Sal Santamaura]

Really Kinkade? Steven, you had me going for a minute. I mean AA could never even dream of doing work that comes close to the majesty that is a Thomas Kinkade.Will, there's an emoticon available that you probably should have included: :rolleyes:

("Roll Eyes (Sarcastic)")

[Heroique]

OK, now that I've my coffee. Maybe the simplest answer is that the general public feels, consciously or not, that there is a sense of hope. Is hope a hard thing to photograph? Please don't skewer me for this, but isn't that what Thomas Kinkade's art is about?

(Stephen didn't start the AA/Kinkade comparison. Thad Gerheim did above. Stephen's just trying to follow-up in good conscience. What’s more, I presume the majority of people who purchase “Moonrise” share motives w/ people who purchase Kinkade. They see and feel “prettiness” by the two artists, but they’re often blind to the key difference: Kinkade is “pretty,” but AA is pretty sublime.)

[Paul Kierstead]

What’s more, I presume the majority of people who purchase “Moonrise” share motives w/ people who purchase Kinkade. They see and feel “prettiness” by the two artists, but they’re often blind to the key difference: Kinkade is “pretty,” but AA is pretty sublime.

That presumption is incredibly dismissive and elitist. And seriously; of all the prints available to them, people would choose Moonrise because it is "pretty"? Seriously? They don't have to buy AA, you know. If they wanted pretty, there is any number of mountains/lakes/trees at sunset to choose from, or slot canyons for that matter. To presume that a large number of people like it, therefore their motives must be shallow, is incredibly cynical.

[Bill_1856]

Kincade's paintings are warm and fuzzy --Adams' photographs are cold and etherial.

[Heroique]

Kincade's paintings are warm and fuzzy --Adams' photographs are cold and etherial.

This is a key insight – one way to distinguish pretty & sublime.

I would only add that “sublime” is also big enough to include pretty, as "Moonrise" does.

[Kirk Gittings]

Am I awake? Pinch me. Are we really trying to define the difference between Adams and Kincade?

[Thad Gerheim]

OK, I'll come clean on this. Some of us go a little crazy in the winter here and I threw in the Kincade comparison to stir the pot. I in no way meant to degrade St. Ansel, only meant to poke fun at the general public, me included.
But, how many of you have seen Kincade's watercolors of just nature? They are very un-Kincade like. If you are in Stanley, Idaho stop by the city office and see the one of Stanley Lake Creek. The funny thing is he gives these away, I guess he can't sell them since the don't have any fuzzy human element in them.

[Kirk Gittings]

addendum to my above post.......a large part of my income over the last 30 years has come from photographing the high end homes of people that collect art. In that time I have seen a few prints of Moonrise, numerous Adams in general and numerous Kincades, but NEVER in the same house. There is no one type of person that collects Adams and Kincade (and frankly Kincade collectors houses are as foofoo as his art-they make my skin crawl).

[Heroique]

(Good morning, Kirk! It’s a tangent born from posts #49 and #51, more about what motivates purchasers & determines “popularity.” It’s certainly not about “who has both,” only whether similar motives might lead one to purchase AA, another to purchase Kinkade. And, it’s a tangent that just might end up getting more attention than it needs, as fun as I think it is.)

[Brian_A]

Maybe it's the story behind Moonrise? Sometimes people like photograph with a story behind it. I do have to agree with kev on page one of this post that after seeing a couple of actual prints (One in a former assistant to AA's house and one in a gallery) they are something else.

[Thad Gerheim]

When an elder lady asked me if I manipulate my photos I tried to point out to her that the sky really wasn't black when Ansel took the Moonrise over Hernandez photo. She got this angry mean look on her face like I was the first one to tell her there isn't a santa claus and stormed out. I don't use that example anymore.

[Kirk Gittings]

(Good morning, Kirk! It’s a tangent born from posts #49 and #51, more about what motivates purchasers & determines “popularity.” It’s certainly not about “who has both,” only whether similar motives might lead one to purchase AA, another to purchase Kinkade. And, it’s a tangent that just might end up getting more attention than it needs, as fun as I think it is.)

Maybe you read this differently than I do:

This thread has drawn the conclusion that the reason why Hernandez was Adam's biggest seller was because it emdodied many of the qualities that Kinkade art does.

[Heroique]

Maybe you read this differently than I do:

Kirk, you're quoting Stephen who's actually referring only to Thad's conclusion, not the “thread's” conclusion, as his words indeed make it seem.

[Kirk Gittings]

(Good morning, Kirk! It’s a tangent born from posts #49 and #51, more about what motivates purchasers & determines “popularity.” It’s certainly not about “who has both,” only whether similar motives might lead one to purchase AA, another to purchase Kinkade. And, it’s a tangent that just might end up getting more attention than it needs, as fun as I think it is.)

Maybe you read this differently than I do:

This thread has drawn the conclusion that the reason why Hernandez was Adam's biggest seller was because it emdodied many of the qualities that Kinkade art does.

[Stephen Willard]

Am I awake? Pinch me. Are we really trying to define the difference between Adams and Kincade?

Not at all. My intent in this thread is to understand way Hernandez was AA's biggest seller. The inference drawn between Hernansez and Kinkade was reasonable if you read all of the postings. It does not mean that its valid, just reasonable.

I am open to other possiblities of why Hernandez was AA's best seller, and I will listen respectfully to anyone's argument. However, this thread is not about those who feel insulted that a reasonable comparison was made between Kinkade and Hernandez.

Again, the thread is about why Hernandez was AA's blockbuster, and nothing more.

[Kirk Gittings]

Actually that is only 1/3 of my last post. I'm not sure what happened to the rest of it.

I'm not in the mood to retype the rest of it.

[Heroique]

Kirk, Stephen doesn’t mean to make monolithic claims about this thread’s conclusions, although that’s what his words seem to say. Stephen is referring only to Thad’s post, and simply wishes to broaden that part of the conversation.

[Paul Kierstead]

Kirk, Stephen doesn’t mean to make monolithic claims about this thread’s conclusions, although that’s what his words seem to say. Stephen is referring only to Thad’s post, and simply wishes to broaden that part of the conversation.

May I draw your attention to:


The inference drawn between Hernansez and Kinkade was reasonable if you read all of the postings. It does not mean that its valid, just reasonable.


Emphasis mine.

I disagree with the reasonable. There are lots of reasonable possibilities listed, and I don't see what they have to do with Mr. Kinkade.

Of course, some others reasons, like it was used as a signature image (i.e. marketing) or the like aren't really discussed.

[Stephen Willard]

May I draw your attention to:
Emphasis mine.


In hindsight, I should have stated "One of the conclusions..."

[Henry Ambrose]

I can understand Kirk's dismay.
This thread has turned surreal.

Stephen, were you serious when you asked the question that started this?
After 9 pages of posts its time to hear your answer.

[mikebarger]

Agreed.

Mike

[Thad Gerheim]

I think Stephen had a very good question and I apologize for my comments that may have offended some. I didn't they would be taken that seriously.

[Heroique]

I think “Moonrise” is what’s surreal, and maybe it’s catching. ;)

And Thad, I think your Kinkade observation is in good spirits, and deserves the same attention as other comments.

[Drew Wiley]

This is a strange thread. Comparing AA/Moonrise to Kincade is like comparing the music
of Mozart to that of Sylvester the Cat. Are you folks blind or something? And Eric and Stephen - if AA was so hung up on technique blah blah - he would have never got the
shot in the first place. Yes, he misplaced his meter and had to wing the exposure, and
later selenium enhanced the neg - but great images most frequently arise precisely because the technique itself has become a subconcious reflex, allowing one to actually
embrace the subject matter intuitively. Mastering technique allows one to concentrate
on visualization itself, because you're not hung up on how to do it! You already know
how. For one, I don't think to myself as I'm shooting, Zone this or Zone that; it's a
simple meter reading and all intuitive after that, even the placement on the curve of
the film with a given developer! Refined technique liberates the photographer.

[Stephen Willard]

I can understand Kirk's dismay.
This thread has turned surreal.

Stephen, were you serious when you asked the question that started this?
After 9 pages of posts its time to hear your answer.

Henry, I have raised many questions in this thread, and I am willing to go where ever it takes me as long as we stay on the topic. If you are referring to the initial question raised in the thread, then yes, I am very seriously trying to understand why Hernandez was so successful in sales. I am trying to understand what is sellable art. Artists are not exempt from having to pay their bills. I have lots of costs in extracting a photograph from the land as landscape photographer, and I have to recover those costs through sales. There is equipment purchases, rental fees for my llamas, film, chemistry, paper, food, fuel, website fees, application fees, marketing expenses, framing expenses, and milage on my vehicle that all have to be paid for through the sales of my photographs. For the past three years I have been able to meet all of my expenses and have little bit left over, but it has not been easy as a one man operation.

So I am asking the question in earnest. Why did Hernandez sell better than say El Capitain? I found Thad comparison with Kinkade very interesting and unexpected, and I would have liked to explore that thought some more. My intent nor Thad's intent was to insult any one on this website. If you disagree then one can politely respond why the comparison is not valid and here is why. However, it must be done in the context of sales and not because AA is real art and Kinkade is trinket art. We all already know that.

When someone personalizes some of the postings on this thread and responds in hostile manner it shuts down the whole debate because people will feel intimidated about how they really feel. And right now I am feeling very frustrated about this hostile behavior because I really want to know the answer to why Hernandez and not El Capitain! This is not a game. I have bills to pay.

[Jim Graves]

I don't understand the hostility regarding the Kinkade/Adams reference either. What's the big deal? Kinkade's forte (if it can be called that) is the light in the window feeling ... Moonrise, Hernadez has some of that appeal. It's an apt comparison ... no one suggested the artists were of the same caliber.

[Paul Kierstead]

... I am very seriously trying to understand why Hernandez was so successful in sales. I am trying to understand what is sellable art.


To be honest, I think you are looking at the wrong artist. St. Adams time has long since past, and really, if his work were to be sold as current work would likely not really sell that well.

If you want to have a discussion about saleable art, you need to ask more about what sells the most (in volume). For example, Gursky, I am sure, has sold far far fewer prints then Adams. I very much doubt that many 'regular' people would want one on their walls, regardless of size. But I wonder who has personally profited more? You can find many others whose work is a great commercial success, but limited in numbers of sales. OTOH, Kinkade has made somewhere in the vicinity of $53 million in the last decade or so (according to Wikipedia), but not likely made much in the way of large sales prices for a single (physically speaking) print/painting. Do you want to be Kinkade (a populist) or Gursky (relegated to museums and possibly corporate spaces)? I suspect they are very difficult to compare. There are the "commercial" artists, who shoot stuff which mostly ends up in corporate lobbies and boardrooms; more edge than Kinkade, but less than Gursky. Typically landscape. All of these fellows have a target market, and play their market well. I suspect their market meshes nicely with their vision (to some extent, anyway) and definitely with their skill set, both with their art and their customers (Curators and CEO's/rich private clients are very different beasts). So I don't think you'll find a universal answer, particularly one that is relevant to your vision and skill set, but it would be a good discussion.




When someone personalizes some of the postings on this thread and responds in hostile manner it shuts down the whole debate because people will feel intimidated about how they really feel.


So, in short, people should not say how they feel because other people will feel intimidated and not say how they feel?

Anyway, the 'personalizes' thing is hogwash. I objected to your summary of the thread. It was not personal.


And right now I am feeling very frustrated about this hostile behavior because I really want to know the answer to why Hernandez and not El Capitain!

One of the top ten rules of forums: If you don't want to discussion to be about pink elephants, don't bring up pink elephants :)

I don't think your question is really the right one. The question is: Why did Hernandez sell?

[Andrew Tymon]

Why was moonrise Ansel most sold image? Maybe it was something to do with this guy:
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/08/24/arts/harry-lunn-jr-65-art-dealer-who-championed-photography.html?pagewanted=1

[Jim Graves]

One of the techniques I've seen for a portfolio review in a group setting that I think is particularly enlightening is to spread one photographer's prints out for all to see and discuss ... remove them from view ... and then ask "Which print do you remember?"

Moonrise, Hernandez is one of those prints you remember ... for whatever reason.

[Kirk Gittings]

Why was moonrise Ansel most sold image? Maybe it was something to do with this guy:
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/08/24/arts/harry-lunn-jr-65-art-dealer-who-championed-photography.html?pagewanted=1

Fascinating. Thanks for that.

[Kirk Gittings]

And right now I am feeling very frustrated about this hostile behavior because I really want to know the answer to why Hernandez and not El Capitain! This is not a game. I have bills to pay.

Stephen,
Even if we knew the answer to Hernandez vs. El Capitan, it probably would have nothing to do with your situation. The difference may have nothing to do with the content of the images. AA was in a different time and situation, he was world famous, photography was being discovered as a fine art and AA was probably the most accessible of the pioneers that were out there. Collecting AA was virtually a sure bet even if you didn't care about the content of a particular image. Every museum had to have a couple or a portfolio. Because of "Santa Fe Style" anything to do with New Mexico was hot. He was an environmentalist at the beginning of the curve. Plus he was multi-faceted, he did commercial work to pay the bills, he wrote books, he was cutting edge technologically-hence there was tremendous buzz about him on a number of fronts. I know I was around then and he amazed me on many fronts! You on the other hand face enormous competition on a well worn path, Your situation is completely and utterly different as the times are completely different.

I wish your question would have been simply something like, "I need to increase sales, does my subject matter (natural landscapes) hinder my sales, because people relate better to human elements in the landscape?". We might then have a chance at making a contribution instead of struggling through this circuitous question with a hint that there was really another more personal question lurking behind it.

[rdenney]

Was it because Lunn marketed it, or because he saw the special qualities that would make it marketable?

I suspect the popularity of the image had something to do with timing. Photographs, unlike paintings, derive a sense of time from an instant, and this photograph shows dramatic timing to a much greater extent than other Adams photographs. The drama of the seemingly miraculous timing fairly leaps out of the print.

I visited the Friends of Photography Gallery in Carmel in the early 90's, and signed Adams prints of ordinary subjects were selling for $30-50K. They were definitely not marketing to those who collect Kincade. In 1980, Adams described the sale of a Moonrise print for some tens of thousands of dollars--that was before the NYGS coffee-table books, when Adams was still primarily known mostly to photographers and photography intellectuals.

C. S. Lewis, in his book An Experiment in Criticism, sought to define art in terms of how it is received by art consumers, rather than whether critics like it. He stated that any book that was loved by its readers must be considered art even though it lacked appeal to critics. True art, he argued, would be enjoyed again and again by artistic consumers. He further argued that so-called lowbrow art might be as likely to cause that enjoyment as highbrow art, and that gets at the disdain shown for Kincade. What Kincade has that is similar to Adams are consumers of art that enjoy their works again and again, seeking to gain further nuance from them over time.

Rick "thinking a lot of photographers would like their photographs to be sold in eponymous specialty stores in shopping malls" Denney

[Brian Ellis]

. . . And right now I am feeling very frustrated about this hostile behavior because I really want to know the answer to why Hernandez and not El Capitain! This is not a game. I have bills to pay.

I don't think there is such a thing as "the" answer. I hope that isn't really what you were looking for. The photograph appeals to different people for different reasons. You've received some of those reasons from some of those people here. I think that's the most you can reasonably expect, i.e. to get some thoughts and ideas about the different reasons for its appeal, not to find "the answer" to its appeal.

[Kirk Gittings]

In 1980..........when Adams was still primarily known mostly to photographers and photography intellectuals.

Not sure where you were, but Adams was a household name in the 60's. Remember the Hills Brothers' coffee can commercials, 1969?

[sun of sand]

why dont we turn this into a why does picasso sell better than warhol or even better how does warhol compete with picasso or perhaps why dont all the household name old masters sell for more money than a rothko who most have never heard of
and what exactly is the fascination with pollock and van gogh?
or if the goal is just to understand how to make more money
how can a dedicated panhandler make more in a day than someone dedicated to the creation of an actual something ..whatever it may be.. invisible t-shirt, scratch & sniff television, telekinetic sculpture

I cant imagine anyone believing themselves to be creative would put aside their creativity to earn more pieces of printed paper
imo once you sell out like that you can no longer call yourself an artist
you are at that point just a producer/provider no matter the quality of the product
Perhaps by selling out you can devote retirement to creating real artwork that nobody cares about and maybe in 20 years of doing so produce a couple posthumous masterpieces instead of a possible 50
"I have lots of costs in extracting a photograph from the land as landscape photographer, and I have to recover those costs through sales. There is equipment purchases, rental fees for my llamas, film, chemistry, paper, food, fuel, website fees, application fees, marketing expenses, framing expenses, and milage on my vehicle that all have to be paid for through the sales of my photographs."

Perhaps it's the diehard attitude that earns the respect which in time makes their work a masterpiece making them a master
maybe those who enjoy the work of an artist have to be diehard themselves in order to create "the master" that can be run up the flagpole for their own gain of indirect fame

He stated that any book that was loved by its readers must be considered art even though it lacked appeal to critics. True art, he argued, would be enjoyed again and again by artistic consumers. He further argued that so-called lowbrow art might be as likely to cause that enjoyment as highbrow art, and that gets at the disdain shown for Kincade.

maybe "high-brow" is a concocted job security plan that gained enough support to be run up the flagpole -staking a place for yourself, legion, country

wiki
"Some art critics doubt that lowbrow is a "legitimate" art movement, and there is thus very little scholarly critical writing about it."

most importantly
"The standard argument of critics is that critical writing arises naturally from within an art movement first, and then a wider circle of critics draws upon this writing to inform their own criticism."
"Lowbrow art ... sometimes it's a sarcastic comment."

"Many lowbrow artists are self-taught, which further alienates them from the world of museum curators and art schools."
"As lowbrow develops.."

"highbrow is synonymous with intellectual; as an adjective, it also means elite, and generally carries a connotation of high culture."

Egghead: A person of spurious intellectual pretensions, often a professor or the protégé of a professor. Essentially confused in thought and immersed in mixture of sentimentality and violent evangelism



I prefer oranges to apples but I sure aint going to stockpile em in hopes of making myself rich either through sale or through becoming newly appointed president of the orange fanclub association
I want to eat them
I just looked at wiki for an apples to oranges writeup and
actually I was surprised

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apples_and_oranges
Egghead should be linked to within

[rdenney]

Not sure where you were, but Adams was a household name in the 60's. Remember the Hills Brothers' coffee can commercials, 1969?

That predates me. I was thinking of when his work became generally available to the public at large, in the form of New York Graphic Society books and posters. I think the first one of those (Yosemite and the Range of Light) came out in 1978 or so, and tentatively enough so that first editions of it are worth something. I was already well into photography and art by that time, so I can't recall how well he was known to the world at large.

But come to think of it, his work and name did appear in pop culture sources (e.g. Life Magazine) pretty frequently before that. I remember one occasion when he complained that their four-color work of on of his black and white prints looked unnatural. And that print may have been Moonrise--which blasts whatever point I was making right out of the water, heh. But that may have been later, too. In fact, it may have been an article about how much it got at auction.

Rick "whose cat also chases its tail and sometimes catches it with unfortunate results" Denney

[Brian Ellis]

I fully agree with this observation, and I also believe it is not buy chance either which tells me a lot about the demographics of who buys art.

Would any one care to speculate?

The presence of a human element that QT mentions may be part of the reason for its appeal today among a certain group of collectors (particularly those who can afford its prices in original form) but "Moonrise" has been popular since it was first sold (not of course at today's astronomical prices but popular nonetheless). While current taste in landscape photography may be part of the reason for its appeal to some people today, I think there's more to its general popularity over a long period of time than that.

[Henry Ambrose]

snipped......

When someone personalizes some of the postings on this thread and responds in hostile manner it shuts down the whole debate because people will feel intimidated about how they really feel. And right now I am feeling very frustrated about this hostile behavior because I really want to know the answer to why Hernandez and not El Capitain! This is not a game. I have bills to pay.

I don't know if you are referring to me or not when you remark about a "hostile manner". I am serious about answering, not hostile toward you. I gave a serious answer that you should go back and read and think about.

I'll also say that even if you can squeeze out the juice of why people buy or don't buy your photos, there is still the making of them.

I appreciate your concern with your career. Times are tough for me too. But you could study why people fall in love and learn reams about it. Do massive surveys, record brain scans, perform testing of all sorts and produce loads of data. But would that make any difference in you going out and falling in love? Or making someone else fall in love with you?

[Bill_1856]

Moonrise is beloved and sells well because it is beautiful, and "beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

[goamules]

We've come close to an aspect that I think has to be considered; Tipping Point. The time when enough people (gallery owners, art buyers, general public/art viewers) have heard about Moon, Hernandez, that they want to show, buy, see it.

I think the print has a combination of intrinsic qualities that people like when they see it, PLUS a buzz and marketing that would increase sales even if it didn't have that artistic quality. Perhaps 50% bought the prints because they love it, and the other wanted to "show off", or have an investment.

Garrett

[Stephen Willard]

Kirk, I never know the correct question to ask when I start a thread of this nature and in most cases it is the wrong question. However, as the debate matures the correct question is asked and many valued answers are provided.

Brian, there is no correct answer to this thread. Just plausible ideas and considerations. It would be nice if one could support his thoughts with any sales he have personally made or observations of what sells based on other people’s sales.

Henry, I was just answering your question. I came clean. I am not looking for apologies nor am I willing to mention any names, but rather just entertain plausible answers. When that happens we can all benefit from it. It is not just for me. It is for everyone here.

Paul, you mentioned two avenues to produce sales. One is selling a name such as Gursky and the other is by selling an experience usually about beauty such as Kinkade. I will never be famous because I am treading on a well worn path as Krik has mentioned, so that leaves me with beauty.

Andrew, your article was very interesting, but I believe there is a reason why Mr Lunn was drawn to Hernandez based on its content. I will try to answer that question based on my own sales I have made this year.

Jim, I hope to do a portfolio review in a few years. I will definitely spread my work on the table and the at the end of the review, ask the question of which image stuck in their minds.

To everyone, it is hard for me to respond to every idea posted because of time constrains. However, no posting goes unnoticed, and all are really appreciated.

Now here is my theory and observations of why Hernandez sells:


I sold 13 large pieces from November to December at an average of $700 per image. All sales were to women. When I reviewed all of my sales this year made directly through me, they were to women. No men purchased any of my photographs this year. They were all urban, mostly professionals, educated, and I would guess had no strong connection to the land.

People will only purchase photographs who’s content has meaning to them. They see the image which reminds them of an experience they have had and then an emotional reaction is realized. If the reaction is sufficiently strong then a purchase is made.

Urban women do not climb towering peaks nor trek through remote wilderness, and thus, cannot relate to those kinds of images or experiences. However, they will go for a short hike through a grove of aspens bearing fall colors. El Capitain would not appeal to women, but Aspens and Hernandez would.

Safety is a big issue with women. They will not walk alone at night nor on trails in the backcountry. There is always the fear of rape and abuse. They feel safe within the intimate interiors of their homes where there are locks and light. Women need to be romanced and everything about them is beauty. They decorate themselves and the interior of their homes to be beautiful and as an expression of their love for beauty. Kinkade’s images project a feeling of being safe. His images are of domesticated landscapes that are ordered and safe. There are no carnivorous animals or deviant perverts lurking in his shadows, but there is a glowing light in his windows. They are romantic in nature and they are about beauty. Hernandez captures many of these qualities, but is executed at a real life level while Kinkade is almost at a cartoon story book level.

I have been talking with Mangelsen sales people over the years and color landscape photography is now out selling his wildlife photography.

I have produce no images with a human element to it. However, I do have a number of images that are more feminine and intimate in nature such as a suite of aspen photographs and they sell very well. Images that capture the raw jagged beauty of the land such as El Capitain where wolves, mountain lions, and bear may inhabit do not sell as well. There is an unknown element of adventure to images like El Capitain that can be unsettling to urban women. Women are not risk takers nor adventurous by nature. They are the ones who bear and raise children and they do not take chances with their babies. They do not conquer, by rather domesticate a safe place for themselves and their childern.

Please note that my answers and observations are not necessarily correct, but rather offer a possibility for others to consider. A number of them are broad generalizations with many exceptions.

My love of landscape photography is in remote wilderness far from civilization. Even though those kinds of images do not sell well, I will continue to produce them because that is where my passion lies. However, I am also gearing up to produce Hernandez types of images because I have to make sales to cover my bills.

This discussion is really helping me to understand my market, where my passion falls, and how I must allocate my very limited resources.

[rdenney]

Your observations ring true to me. We live on six acres of pine woods in northern Virginia, and the management of those woods is a minor contention between me and my wife. She describes herself as a nature girl and prefers the seclusion and quietude of rural life (as long as she is within driving distance of a decidedly non-rural job, and she and I are the same form of hypocrite in that regard).

Relevant to your point, she is always wanting to tend the pine woods to make them look, well, tended. I want to let them grow wild. She wants to remove what falls, and I want to let it lie. She wants the undergrowth cleared away (so she can plant different undergrowth), and I think that what grows there already has earned the right to do so without my interference. I don't think the sense of safety is all of the driving force in her tendencies, though it might be part of it. I also think that she derives a sense of peace from having exerted influence on her surrounding, while I derive a sense of vigor from engaging it on its own terms.

The artworks she collects are signed, limited edition prints by Bev Doolittle, which are not exactly cheap and which are handled similarly to fine prints by well-known photographers. I, on the other hand, buy photographs, usually by relative unknowns whose work appeals to me. There is a connection to your point in that fact. Doolittle is a master of the contrived landscape (including the positive/negative human presence), and the photographs I've collected show the landscape in all its wild disorder, usually without any human element.

She definitely spends more money than I do buying art. She'll spend more money framing one of her prints than I usually spend for already framed photographs.

Rick "generalizing just a little" Denney

[Paul Kierstead]

Aspens is the only Adams on my walls (alas, not an silver print let alone printed by him). It does not seem at all to me to be romantic or warm; in fact, I think if anything Adams stomped that out pretty thoroughly for the most part. El Capitan is very masculine; it is all about big and harsh. I love visiting those places, but am rarely overly fond of their photographs. Last year I did a chunk of hiking in Zion. Breathtaking. Would return at the drop of a hat. I've rarely seen a photograph of it that interested me.

I think that

People will only purchase photographs who’s content has meaning to them. They see the image which reminds them of an experience they have had and then an emotional reaction is realized. If the reaction is sufficiently strong then a purchase is made.

is your most dangerous proposition. It could amount to pandering (which is what I think Kinkade does, if brilliantly). Pandering can be a slap in the face to the customer. As an occasional art buyer, I'm interested in an emotional experience, but it doesn't not have to be one which reminds me of an experience; in fact, I'm more interested in one which presents new experiences, which 'interests' me, not one which makes me reminisce or make me feel fuzzy.

I think it is important to respect the customer.

[Deane Johnson]

I don't sell photographs (nobody wants mine), so I have no practical experience to base this on.

My theory is that people respond most to photographs that provoke an emotional reaction. Moonrise certainly does that. El Captain doesn't, though I like it.

I don't think their thinking goes any deeper than that and it's no more complicated than that.

[Stephen Willard]

It is also my belief that most galleries are owned and run by women, and that the art world is really driven more by women perceptions then men perceptions. Of course, this is a very board generalization and one can site many exceptions.

Perhaps one can assert the reason photography has been hard to sell as art is because it is a medium that is dominated by men, and we as men have been unable to understand women's needs and desire in art and life. Take the simple act of making love. My wife says it is 80% metal and 20% mechanical. The foreplay of conversation and good drink is vital to great sex. For myself it is just the opposite 20% metal and 80% mechanical. These differences between the sexes can lead to divorce and unsellable photographs. There is a subtle, and yet, powerful lesson to be learned here with Hernandez.

[Jack Dahlgren]

Now here is my theory and observations of why Hernandez sells:


Urban women do not climb towering peaks nor trek through remote wilderness, and thus, cannot relate to those kinds of images or experiences. However, they will go for a short hike through a grove of aspens bearing fall colors. El Capitain would not appeal to women, but Aspens and Hernandez would.

There are no carnivorous animals or deviant perverts lurking in his shadows, but there is a glowing light in his windows. They are romantic in nature and they are about beauty. Hernandez captures many of these qualities, but is executed at a real life level while Kinkade is almost at a cartoon story book level.


I have produce no images with a human element to it. However, I do have a number of images that are more feminine and intimate in nature such as a suite of aspen photographs and they sell very well. Images that capture the raw jagged beauty of the land such as El Capitain where wolves, mountain lions, and bear may inhabit do not sell as well.

I do not know your work except from what you have posted on your website, but a quick look at it makes it pretty obvious why people like the aspen photos. They are in the light. Many of your other shots show the foreground in shadow which makes them seem cold and dark. Cold shadowed streams, piles of dark rock, dark and frozen ponds. They don't carry any detail or interest, yet they are right out in front.

I don't think it is about being masculine or feminine, but I think it is about providing something of visual interest in the foreground which matters. Aspens work because the entire scene is ablaze with light. Some of your other shots only have the distant peaks in light. I think you might do well to look for images where there is something beautifully lit in the foreground and use the shadows to frame the subject rather than be the subject.

Look at moonrise. The bright crosses, the bright moon, the lighted windows. They stand out because of the light. People - male and female alike - respond to light.

Catch the light picking out something interesting close by instead of painting the distant peaks. Maybe this means you go out in the morning instead of sunset, but it is worth a try.

[Jack Dahlgren]

Take the simple act of making love. My wife says it is 80% metal and 20% mechanical.

Metal but no leather?

[Jack Dahlgren]

Perhaps 50% bought the prints because they love it, and the other wanted to "show off", or have an investment.

Garrett

Yep.

Sometimes things sell because they are popular and safe. This is especially true if the object is for investment. Iconic work sells because it is iconic. How it got to be an icon or popular may be be a wide combination of things, one of which may be artistic merit, but that is not strictly necessary.

[Kirk Gittings]

IME Stephen, most private galleries are indeed run by women but most photography museum curators are men. Note, I am only saying "most IME". And most of those private galleries run by women are cutting edge contemporary galleries, not warm fuzzy romantic art. Also IME most of the people who collect my art are women (though there is a large portion of buyers that I never know the sex), though I don't know anyone who sees warm and fuzzy in my artwork.

BUT I frankly don't care that much about the demographic of the buyers and I never consider that when making images. Making art has much more personal creative motivations than profitability. I am always pleased when they do sell, and wish more would, but that kind of thinking is the province of my commercial work, where popular appeal and profitability are the primary motivations. Though a fair chunk of my income does come from art print sales these days, it is comforting that these buyers share a common interest in my vision and I don't have to tailor my vision to buyers expectations. To tailor my vision to making sales would IMO turn my artwork into a kind of commissioned commercial assignment ie more work work and destroy the real creative satisfaction that I get from my personal creative endeavors.

I like your thinking thinking below it is much like my own, but I fear you are staking your business plan on false premises. I would start trying to market my images to book, magazine publishers etc., see what they are looking for, and diversify in that way. They do actual market research now:


My love of landscape photography is in remote wilderness far from civilization. Even though those kinds of images do not sell well, I will continue to produce them because that is where my passion lies. However, I am also gearing up to produce Hernandez types of images because I have to make sales to cover my bills.

[percepts]

It is also my belief that most galleries are owned and run by women, and that the art world is really driven more by women perceptions then men perceptions. Of course, this is a very board generalization and one can site many exceptions.

Perhaps one can assert the reason photography has been hard to sell as art is because it is a medium that is dominated by men, and we as men have been unable to understand women's needs and desire in art and life. Take the simple act of making love. My wife says it is 80% metal and 20% mechanical. The foreplay of conversation and good drink is vital to great sex. For myself it is just the opposite 20% metal and 80% mechanical. These differences between the sexes can lead to divorce and unsellable photographs. There is a subtle, and yet, powerful lesson to be learned here with Hernandez.

Metal? Tell us more.

[Jack Dahlgren]

It is also my belief that most galleries are owned and run by women, and that the art world is really driven more by women perceptions then men perceptions. Of course, this is a very board generalization and one can site many exceptions.

These differences between the sexes can lead to divorce and unsellable photographs. There is a subtle, and yet, powerful lesson to be learned here with Hernandez.

I think you are over psycho-analyzing the Moonrise appeal. I think your observations on what is selling for you come down to simple composition.

But there is something to be said for different tastes. I used to be an architect, and my taste was not aligned with the mainstream. It made it not particularly enjoyable for me. I'm a bit stubborn about what I like, so I don't do architecture anymore. But if I wanted to be successful at it, I'd look for a partner to bridge/fill the gap between me and clients taste. This is a very common and effective strategy.

Since your audience is women, why not enlist your female wife as an art director? Have her help you find images that will appeal to clients and which you can produce.

[percepts]

So all you AA experts, tell me how many copies of moonrise did he sell?

[Kirk Gittings]

So all you AA experts, tell me how many copies of moonrise did he sell?

I have heard, FWIW, that somewhere he publicly stated in the neighborhood of 600.

[Stephen Willard]

Since your audience is women, why not enlist your female wife as an art director? Have her help you find images that will appeal to clients and which you can produce.

Jack, I do solicit her critique along with all of her girlfriends, and they are absolutely ruthless.

[Merg Ross]

So all you AA experts, tell me how many copies of moonrise did he sell?


There were many sold through the gallery in Yosemite that Ansel did not print; those are initialed, and not full signature. The number of sales totaled around 750, so I have heard. Perhaps that is the number printed by Ansel himself, excluding the gallery sales.

[rdenney]

These differences between the sexes can lead to divorce and unsellable photographs. There is a subtle, and yet, powerful lesson to be learned here with Hernandez.

While I obviously don't disagree with your thesis, at least as something to consider and discuss, I'm not sure I see the connection with Moonrise. I suspect that photo earned its place and the top of the Adams sales heap long before women were as influential in the art sales world as they are today.

I don't seek out art to buy, but when I am confronted by it, I often become its champion. Thus, I'm usually buying art from its creator, rather than from a gallery owner. My wife, on the other hand, is well known in the local galleries and buys through them even when she knows the artist. She also has a background in sales and one thing I've discovered is good salespeople love to be sold things as much as they love selling things ("suckers for their own schtick" is the way I put it when I feel like skating out onto the thin ice). She often won't buy something without that sales interaction. I, on the other hand, usually decide to buy something, pay for it, and then stand around talking to the photographer about it and other things for an hour. I don't know if my approach is particularly masculine and hers is particularly feminine, but I can see with my own eyes the predominant gender in most retail shopping environments where decorations and art objects are sold.

If we buy into the notion that women are often the customers of art photography, then what do we do as photographers? It's easy for me--I'm an amateur and I make the photographs I want to make. Judging from my wife's reactions to landscape photos, however, she in particular appreciates bright colors, bold light, and the capture of dramatic ephemera such as rainbows. I don't think I could argue that her desires are particularly feminine.

As to the emotion of El Capitan, it's there for me. But the emotion is awe rather than warmth or intimacy, and the gender connection there seems plausible. That said, there is nothing warm or intimate about Moonrise, it seems to me. It is also a grand, dramatic landscape. The difference is that it captures dramatically ephemeral light. Is that particularly feminine? I don't really see how.

Where I see my wife's feminine response to photographs is when we go beyond landscape. She is far more attracted to pictures of animals than pretty rocks. Put an animal in any landscape, and she's right there. There is a bit of the ephemeral in that, but also a feeling of kinship--it makes the scene less forbidding. Is Moonrise less forbidding than Adams's other works? Again, I don't see it.

For the record, we have Half Dome, 1927, Aspens, and Dogwoods and Rain, Tenaya Creek on display in our house, two as posters and one as a Special Edition print. She won't let me take any of them down, and the first two are about as forbidding as anything Adams did, except maybe El Capitan and Clearing Winter Storm. Dogwoods captures that ephemeral light, it seems to me.

So, while I think my own differences from my wife in art buying support your thesis, when I really try to nail it down to the specific photos we have (even the ones I originally picked out), the only trend I can really identify is that she likes them better with animals, and she responds more readily to images with dramatically ephemeral subjects than I do, though I also respond to those. In the end, the only direction I think I could go as a photographer to appeal more to women (assuming my wife is representative, which I know she is not) would be to start taking "nature" rather than "landscape" pictures. Not gonna happen. A man has got to know his limitations.

I would definitely, however, develop a woman-sensitive sales strategy if I was selling my work.

Rick "who would hire his wife to sell his work" Denney

[Bill_1856]

So all you AA experts, tell me how many copies of moonrise did he sell?

I believe about 1300, most of them after the 1975(?) declairation that he was going to stop printing.
I've been thinking about the emotional aspect of the image, and have decided that the appeal is that it is so PEACEFULL! It is very quiet, like the end of the day when one is winding down, getting ready to sleep. Everything is in harmony, even the lenticular clouds are lying down as if to rest (not the dynamic thunderheads in so many of Adams' scenics).
It is like saying your prayers and being tucked into a warm bed, and kissed good night. I cannot think of any other image, either painting or photograph, which conveys this perfection.
"Now I lay me down to sleep...."

[Drew Wiley]

More of my two cents worth. I suspect that Moonrise sold so many more than some of
his other scenes because airhead collectors who didn't know what to buy weresteered that way. And at the time of his death, the figure I heard from good sources for the number of actual printing by himself was around 360. Prints were selling around 6K, then when he died a few auctions jumped up to 35K, 40K, then one 60K as I recall. So lots of folks decided to potentially cash in and the typical price dropped right back down to 6K. Supply and demand. Even at 300+ prints, that's a large number out there for a single vintage image.

[Eric Woodbury]

Among all photographic work, Moonrise is more unique than Ansel's Sierra Nevada work. A similar image of Hernandez has not been made -- the moon, the clouds, the unique light. And the brevity of the event adds to this.

[Merg Ross]

Prints were selling around 6K, then when he died a few auctions jumped up to 35K, 40K, then one 60K as I recall. So lots of folks decided to potentially cash in and the typical price dropped right back down to 6K. Supply and demand. Even at 300+ prints, that's a large number out there for a single vintage image.

I believe a 1948 print went for $360,000 at the Swann Auction in December and the sale of Pirkle Jones' print for $610,000 in 2006. Good for Pirkle; perfect timing!

[Drew Wiley]

1948? I wonder if that was before the neg was enhanced? Interesting.

[Stephen Willard]

So, while I think my own differences from my wife in art buying support your thesis, when I really try to nail it down to the specific photos we have (even the ones I originally picked out), the only trend I can really identify is that she likes them better with animals, and she responds more readily to images with dramatically ephemeral subjects than I do, though I also respond to those. In the end, the only direction I think I could go as a photographer to appeal more to women (assuming my wife is representative, which I know she is not) would be to start taking "nature" rather than "landscape" pictures. Not gonna happen. A man has got to know his limitations.

I would definitely, however, develop a woman-sensitive sales strategy if I was selling my work.

I really cannot articulate what women will buy definitively. I do not have any images with a human foot print in them so I can only speculate that Hernandez type images will sell well. I have had women buy images that I thought a women would never buy so you never really know. I think a few of those images were bought by women for their husbands which might explain why they were atypical. My aspens images are good sellers, but I just started really offering panoramic images recently, and they are generating a lot of interest. In fact, all of my sales for December were panoramic photographs framed out to 26x50" and of course everyone of them was purchased by a women. I suspect big panoramic photographs fit nicely over their couches.

The only definitive claim I can really make is that most of my sales were purchased buy women over the years. The rest is speculation based on plausible reasoning. Has anyone else experienced the same selling pattern of women buy art as I have?

[Jim Becia]

So all you AA experts, tell me how many copies of moonrise did he sell?

I had heard 1046. After some research, I found two different sources that come very close to this number. In his book, "400 Photographs," it states nearly 1000. This gallery, www.agallery.com/Pages/photographers/adams.html states 1041.

While he doesn't mention the number of "Moonrise" in his autobiography, he does mention that when he set a deadline for all orders of his photos for Dec. 31, 1975, he expected less than a thousand in the total order, instead the total was over 3000. It took him the next three years to print these. Jim

[Stephen Willard]

For the past three years I have been able to meet all of my expenses and have little bit left over, but it has not been easy as a one man operation.

Just for the record, I may have misspoke when I made this statement. I do not believe I will cover all of my expenses for 2009. I believe I will be close, but I will still be in the red.

[Michael Alpert]

It is also my belief that most galleries are owned and run by women, and that the art world is really driven more by women perceptions then men perceptions. Of course, this is a very board generalization and one can site many exceptions. . . . These differences between the sexes can lead to divorce and unsellable photographs. There is a subtle, and yet, powerful lesson to be learned here with Hernandez.

Stephen,

I haven't entered into this discussion previously because I thought you were trolling. Now I don't know whether you are trolling or not. After this statement, I hope for your sake that you are.

As I understand it, your question is: what appeals to people who are willing to spend a fair amount of money on an original photographic print (of a well-known image) but who are not especially involved with art. Well, that question is not too hard to address. One can say that many people want artistic work that they can live with (it needs to be pleasant and, in some sense, optimistic), it needs to be a work that they are already familiar with (Moonrise was a popular calendar image), and the work needs to bring prestige to them (it should look, somehow, expensive). Many people want the culture industry's greatest hits; the fact that they are not quite sure where those greatest hits originated is a secondary issue. Thank goodness that the artworld also includes many people who support values and interests that have more substance and more clarity. In any case, I don't think that your conception of masculinity or femininity, as it relates to specific images by A. A. or by anyone else, is even remotely relevant.

[Stephen Willard]

Stephen,

I haven't entered into this discussion previously because I thought you were trolling. Now I don't know whether you are trolling or not. After this statement, I hope for your sake that you are.

As I understand it, your question is: what appeals to people who are willing to spend a fair amount of money on an original photographic print (of a well-known image) but who are not especially involved with art. Well, that question is not too hard to address. One can say that many people want artistic work that they can live with (it needs to be pleasant and, in some sense, optimistic), it needs to be a work that they are already familiar with (Moonrise was a popular calendar image), and the work needs to bring prestige to them (it should look, somehow, expensive). Many people want the culture industry's greatest hits; the fact that they are not quite sure where those greatest hits originated is a secondary issue. Thank goodness that the artworld also includes many people who support values and interests that have more substance and more clarity. In any case, I don't think that your conception of masculinity or femininity, as it relates to specific images by A. A. or by anyone else, is even remotely relevant.

You are probably correct. In fact you most likely are correct. I am not sure what you mean buy trolling. It was a thought that just popped into my head so I posted it to see where it would go. It was something I never thought of before, and I do find it an interesting consideration. I would be willing to stand by claim and debate it at some other time, but right now it would be way off topic.

[Merg Ross]

1948? I wonder if that was before the neg was enhanced? Interesting. Drew, Pirkle's was a 1948 print, made just after the negative had been intensified.

[D. Bryant]

In fact, all of my sales for December were panoramic photographs framed out to 26x50" and of course everyone of them was purchased by a women. I suspect big panoramic photographs fit nicely over their couches.



It's Phallic symbolism Stephen, plain and simple - that is women buying the big long panos.

Don Bryant

[Stephen Willard]

It's Phallic symbolism Stephen, plain and simple - that is women buying the big long panos.

Don Bryant

Don you are absolutely correct, but given that observation I would think that El Capitain would be as popular as my panoramics. :)

[Stephen Willard]

I would like to thank all of you for your postings. I think there is a lot of wild, crazy, and wonderful ideas presented in this thread that I hope we all will benefit from. If I did not respond to all the postings it does not mean that your contribution fell on deaf ears. I do have time constraints, and I am slow to develop my responses which probably speaks to my lacking IQ. I had a lots of fun with this thread, and yes, it may have gotten a little bumpy along the way, but that is okay to.

I am most definitely go to sprinkle some of my future work with a human footprint to see what happens. I already have a number of images of this nature that I am very excited about, but it could take as long as two years to acquire them with many revisits until I get the right light and atmospheric conditions necessary for the compositions I can envision.

Thanks again....

[Patrick Dixon]

You might be interested to know that this photo of Derwent Water Jetty by Michael Place is apparently is one of the most purchased photographs in the UK at least. Prints are sold in their thousands at IKEA and it hangs on walls throughout the land.

http://www.michaelplace.co.uk/images/DeviantArtSubmissions/Derwent_Water_Jetty_by_placey.jpg

But get some of those Llamas in the shots would be my advice :-)

(For me as a novice photographer, the most interesting thing about this thread has been to see how much the fairly ordinary negative was transformed into the final print.)

[percepts]

Bit like flying ducks. Very Kitsch!

[percepts]

Is "Moonrise over Hernandez" Kitsch or maybe it's the "Emporer's New Clothes" ?

http://www.anseladams.com/ProductImages/aa_originals/1701115102.jpg

[goamules]

Since my last reading and this one, this thread took a turn for the better. Reasons for popularity went from technical details to the values of people. And Stephen's "list or reasons" post seems very close to what I've seen in most art areas and women and men.

We know that the genders have different viewpoints, and that within gender, you can break down desires several more times, like we've been doing. I think you were spot on about people needing an emotional tie, before they buy something.

Thoughts lead to emotions which leads to behavior.

Even the poster that said he "just bought it because he liked it..." or whatever, needs to realize there is an underlying reason he likes it. Some will look at a dark landscape with a distant, lit mountain and think, "I'd like to hike there and discover what's in that valley..." Some with think something different, and their emotion may be more anxious and they won't want to buy. But the first guy would.

What you've found is a female clientele, and you're narrowing down what sells with them. Good! But realize there is another group, say men who like trains, that would buy landscapes with railroad tracks in them. Some people are even attracted to the macabre or "ugly". But you're right, most people aren't, and instead want something comforting.

So, what are other things that lead to comfortable emotions in most people? It might help to think about that, as you are, if you want to tailor your shots. Most people just shoot what they love, and hope for a clientele to agree with them. But you can think of tailoring as doing photographs on commission.

[Stephen Willard]

What you've found is a female clientele, and you're narrowing down what sells with them. Good! But realize there is another group, say men who like trains, that would buy landscapes with railroad tracks in them. Some people are even attracted to the macabre or "ugly". But you're right, most people aren't, and instead want something comforting.

So, what are other things that lead to comfortable emotions in most people? It might help to think about that, as you are, if you want to tailor your shots. Most people just shoot what they love, and hope for a clientele to agree with them. But you can think of tailoring as doing photographs on commission.

These are two good points. There are markets where men will be actively engaged in purchasing art. The first is when a retired couple moves to Colorado where I live and wants images of Colorado on their walls. When people go on vacation they want to take the place where they vacationed back home with them in the form of a photograph or art. And finally, when a couple buys a second home here in the Mountains of Colorado. In all these instances men will most likely be making the decision of what art is purchased. On occasions, I have test marketed my work in these markets and found the types of images purchased are more like El Capitain, and of course it is men who make those purchases.

I love shooting in the solitude of remote wild places with my llamas creating El Capitain like images and will continue to do so for as long as I can. However, creating Hernandez type images does NOT compromise my art. It just points me in a new direction, and I am excited about exploring what the human footprint has to offer. For some reason there are people who think if you tip the scale toward sales you have just committed artistic suicide. That is not the case. Did AA compromise his art when he photographed Hernandez? Not at all. It was executed on the same artistic level as the rest of his work.

Within the next three to four years my wife and I hope to open a gallery in a place where we think we can exploit all of the markets that I have talked about for both men, women, and even corporate art which I have not talked about much in this thread. My wife will be in charge of the gallery while I will remain a photographer. I am not a gallery person. I am a photographer. And so my main focus right now is creating a large body of work between 200 to 300 images (which is very ambitious) followed by getting better at what I do, and then finally making sales in the interim to cover my costs. I really do not need to financially recover my cost nor even run a profitable gallery, but that exercise has forced me to understand the markets I could possible sell to, and thus, is a prudent exercise prior to opening any gallery.

[Kirk Gittings]

Did AA compromise his art when he photographed Hernandez? Not at all. It was executed on the same artistic level as the rest of his work.

Stephen, But that is not the question. AA did not take that image to appeal to a particular buyer. I've never read that AA ever considered such when he was making an image other than his commercial work for commercial clients. The question is I think-does tailoring your subject matter to fit the desires of a particular buying group compromise your art? Speaking for myself, my answer is yes- that is the essential difference between my personal art work and my commercial work. I have done both side-by-side for 30 years and to me there is a difference. When a buyer determines the subject matter for me-that is commercial work whether it is an ad agency or a public arts program commission. Do I work any less hard on it or struggle to do something less creative if it is commercial work? No absolutely not, but there is an essential difference to me if I am trying to satisfy someones' aesthetic other than or in addition to my own.

[Robert Hughes]

...does tailoring your subject matter to fit the desires of a particular buying group compromise your art.
Or, a more general question: are art and business marketing compatible? We've all seen the results of years of focus groups on products in the marketplace: limited choices, all geared toward the highest population demographic. Television programming does not have to be as stupid as it is, except for the capitalist imperative to maximize revenues on the part of everybody involved. If my goal is to make as much money as I can, then of course I would tailor my subject matter and presentation to meet the market.

But, as an artist friend of mine once said, "You can either sell out your soul for commercial acceptance, and maybe succeed, or do what you like, and maybe succeed."

[Stephen Willard]

Stephen, But that is not the question. AA did not take that image to appeal to a particular buyer. I've never read that AA ever considered such when he was making an image other than his commercial work for commercial clients. The question is I think-does tailoring your subject matter to fit the desires of a particular buying group compromise your art? Speaking for myself, my answer is yes- that is the essential difference between my personal art work and my commercial work. I have done both side-by-side for 30 years and to me there is a difference. When a buyer determines the subject matter for me-that is commercial work whether it is an ad agency or a public arts program commission. Do I work any less hard on it or struggle to do something less creative if it is commercial work? No absolutely not, but there is an essential difference to me if I am trying to satisfy someones' aesthetic other than or in addition to my own.

Kirk, I do not see any difference between you and myself. I intend to continue doing what I love to do, but on occasions I will photograph something that will help generate sales. Call my Hernandez type images my commercial work, and my love for photographing wild remote places my art work. Both will be executed with equal passion.

The only difference between us is that my commercial work is not that dissimilar to my art work as much as it is with you.

[Bill_1856]

"Moonrise" is definitely an "outlier" in Adams ouevre.

[Mark Sampson]

It's worth noting that in 1941, when the photograph in question was made, there was effectively *no* art market for photographs. Adams did not make his living from the sale of his prints to collectors. He worked for a variety of clients; commercial, industrial, architectural, and governmental, taught in a college, ran Best's Studio in Yosemite, and probably did anything else that would pay the bills. The work he is best remembered for today, his personal art photographs, were labors of love, done alongside the paying work as time and access permitted. The idea of Adams tailoring his personal work to a collector's market (that would not exist for another 30 years) is absurd. Of course, Adams did a good deal to create that collector's market, not least by hiring Bill Turnage in the '70s, but I think it's also true that he worked twice as hard as any of us- at all the various aspects of his work. Fortune favors the prepared!

[Kirk Gittings]

It's worth noting that in 1941, when the photograph in question was made, there was effectively *no* art market for photographs. Adams did not make his living from the sale of his prints to collectors. He worked for a variety of clients; commercial, industrial, architectural, and governmental, taught in a college, ran Best's Studio in Yosemite, and probably did anything else that would pay the bills. The work he is best remembered for today, his personal art photographs, were labors of love, done alongside the paying work as time and access permitted. The idea of Adams tailoring his personal work to a collector's market (that would not exist for another 30 years) is absurd. Of course, Adams did a good deal to create that collector's market, not least by hiring Bill Turnage in the '70s, but I think it's also true that he worked twice as hard as any of us- at all the various aspects of his work. Fortune favors the prepared!

Excellent point.

[Stephen Willard]

Mark and Kirk, at this point I have never tailored a single photograph to make them more sellable. However, I have profiled who buys my photographs, what photographs sell more than others, and I have tried to answer why they like specific images. So as of now, I remain virtuous, pure, and without sin.

That said, money is money no matter what kind of spin you try to put on it. AA tailored a collection of photographs aimed at the advertising market to generating profit so he could pay his bills. Gettings has tailored a collection of photographs to sell to architects and architectual publications to generating profit so he could pay his bills. And now Stephen Willard is about to tailor a collections of photographs aimed at an art market to generating profit so he could pay his bills. The only difference between these individuals is they target different markets for there commercial work. All three of them have produced or continue to produce a body of work that has nothing to do with saleability and everything to do with a labor of love.

One may argue that both AA and Gettings are better artist then myself, but they cannot claim they are less soiled and more virtuous then myself. I have to pay bills to.

[Kirk Gittings]

One may argue that both AA and Gettings are better artist then myself, but they cannot claim they are less soiled and more virtuous then myself. I have to pay bills to.

You obviously either did not read what I wrote or misunderstood it. At no time did I demean you or your artistic endeavors.

[Henry Ambrose]

Stephen,

This seems to be your personal question and I'm not sure anyone else can answer this for you. If your customers have told you why they bought and you know what they bought then go make something that fits. That's as close as I can come to an answer.

[John NYC]

The question is I think-does tailoring your subject matter to fit the desires of a particular buying group compromise your art?

To take one of many examples I can think of... the liturgical music Bach was required to write as part of his post (and often in very short order) is not compromised artistically.

[Drew Wiley]

Kirk - although AA's income from collectors was secondary to his commercial work, he
was in numerous significant instances effectively commissioned to take spectacular
landscape images. Steiglitz motivated him to pursue this, as far as personal reputation
and artistic exposure were concerned, then the budding Natl Park service contracted
him. As I understand it, his "fine art" printing per se and books were not really primary income until he was over 80 or thereabouts, near the end of his working life, but it did form some real part of his income. While you seem to be personally grateful for
Moonrise in New Mexico, I am grateful for his photographic legacy in the formal
establishment of Kings Canyon Park, which is literally right up the road from where I
grew up and still have property. In my opinion, it is the epitome of what I or John
Muir would desire in a park (no roads, concessions, or other development). When one
spends a lot of time in this kind of country, one begins to recognize how sensitive AA
was to the quality of the light. Once in awhile he got a little too theatrical, but I'd
certainly like to see how many of his critics on this thread or elsewhere are willing to
put their money where their mouth is and create something equally poetic. No, he's
not my favorite photographer, and I'm not his disciple, but he still gets my respect.

[Stephen Willard]

You obviously either did not read what I wrote or misunderstood it. At no time did I demean you or your artistic endeavors.

Your are correct, I misunderstood what you said. My applogies. I quess I am little gun shy.

[Stephen Willard]

You obviously either did not read what I wrote or misunderstood it. At no time did I demean you or your artistic endeavors.

Your are correct, I misunderstood what you said. My applogies. I quess I am getting a little gun shy here.

[Merg Ross]

No, he's
not my favorite photographer, and I'm not his disciple, but he still gets my respect.
And well he should. When visiting this forum, I often wonder how many present day large format photographers, crazy enough to photograph the landscape in black and white, were influenced by the work of Ansel Adams. Those, who casually refer to their work as "fine art photography", owe a great debt to Ansel.

[Kirk Gittings]

When I teach photography at a university, I have to introduce students to the art work and diverse contributions of Ansel Adams. It is a favorite mission of mine. You would think from their lack of knowledge about him that he worked in the 19th century.

IMHO, if you look at his whole career, (as an artist, the Zone System, teaching, reproduction arts) etc., he is the most important American photographer of the 20th century. Put him together with Weston, Strand, Frank, Steiglitz, Walker Evans, Szarkowski, Edwin Land, and Beaumont Newhall, you have the foundation of modern photography in America.....just thinking.

No problem Stephen, best of luck with your endeavors.

[Ron McElroy]

Those, who casually refer to their work as "fine art photography", owe a great debt to Ansel.

I remember Harry Callahan saying in a lecture many years ago that Ansel was hard to get over.
No shame here on my part. I have 2 editions of Adams basic photography series of books, shot with his version of the zone system and can without doubt say his work has influenced mine. Now whether my work is worth someone looking at is another issue.

[sun of sand]

Safety is a big issue with women. They will not walk alone at night nor on trails in the backcountry. There is always the fear of rape and abuse. They feel safe within the intimate interiors of their homes where there are locks and light. Women need to be romanced and everything about them is beauty. They decorate themselves and the interior of their homes to be beautiful and as an expression of their love for beauty. Kinkade’s images project a feeling of being safe. His images are of domesticated landscapes that are ordered and safe.


Even if this is true
I aint saying it isn't

How sick is this world? LMAO :/

I feel scared so I better go buy something to hang on my wall?

If that is in any way true we ain't got a shot in hell of making Miss Universes dreams a reality
I can just imagine hovering over hundreds of "artists" after having read this now tripping over themselves to get to their paints and websites so they can claim something new in their "artist statements" about helping to save the world one stroke at a time

If an artist cares about beauty in any shape or form
Can an artist claim to be one if they know people are buying their work for these reasons? lol

[Stephen Willard]

I remember Harry Callahan saying in a lecture many years ago that Ansel was hard to get over.
No shame here on my part. I have 2 editions of Adams basic photography series of books, shot with his version of the zone system and can without doubt say his work has influenced mine. Now whether my work is worth someone looking at is another issue.

I have all of Adam's books, and I am avid practitioner of the Zone system. However, Adams has influenced me more on an artistic level then as photographer? I have often wondered what I would do if film disappeared from the landscape, and what is surprising to me is the answer would not be digital, but rather pigment, canvas, and brushes planted in some alpine cirque far from human activity painting until my fingers ached.

I have always felt that the higher Adams went into the mountains the better his work. This axiom of behavior is no different for myself.

[Stephen Willard]

I feel scared so I better go buy something to hang on my wall?


I think you are drawing very different conclusion here then what was meant. Women at large throughout the world must deal with issues of safety that men never have to face. In most cases they are treated like second class citizens or like property, murdered, raped, and beaten by men everyday. The issue of safety has a huge impact on how they view the world, and it can influence the type of art they buy when they decide to buy art. Being cautious about the world or the men they associate with does not cause them to buy art as you have noted, but rather, it just influences the type of art they may purchase. And nothing more.

[mikebarger]

"I have always felt that the higher Adams went into the mountains the better his work."

I've been lucky to see a lot of his work in person around the country. I'm kinda on the other end on this. His very high country prints are certainly more dramtic, but I enjoy his work at lower elevation of common items like dogwood trees, aspens, leaves, or rocks. He had such great printing skills.

Guess it goes back to your OP. While he has a print that has out sold others, it's hard to find one of his that isn't successful.

Mike

[Michael Alpert]

IMHO, if you look at his whole career, (as an artist, the Zone System, teaching, reproduction arts) etc., he is the most important American photographer of the 20th century. Put him together with Weston, Strand, Frank, Steiglitz, Walker Evans, Szarkowski, Edwin Land, and Beaumont Newhall, you have the foundation of modern photography in America.....just thinking.


Those, who casually refer to their work as "fine art photography", owe a great debt to Ansel.

Merg and Kirk,

No, Adams was a very skillful and sincere artist-photographer who made very conservative images. Many other twentieth-century photographers are more important to photography as a vehicle for artistic work. Adams, as far as I am concerned, was outside the mainstream in his affection for nineteenth-century artistic practices; in that way, his presence is somewhat akin to Andrew Wyeth's popular appeal and artistic limitations. I am not saying that Adams has no importance but that others easily overshadow him in both range of subject-matter and depth of aesthetic content.

[Kirk Gittings]

Michael, I was expecting opposition to that statement. To defend it though would require a dissertation, time I don't have right now. But let me say this.....as I said-taking Adams career as a whole "if you look at his whole career, (as an artist, the Zone System, teaching, reproduction arts) etc.", I believe he was the most important photographer of the 20th century. I did not say just as an artist or "as a vehicle for artistic work". I was talking in broader terms. In this I am heavily influenced by the classes I took from Beaumont Newhall who spent much time on Adams and even had him come to the class and introduced him to us. Newhall of course was a long time personal friend of Adams and deeply respected his many contributions. Now Newhall has been superseded by more grounded and theory based historians.

[Merg Ross]

I am not saying that Adams has no importance but that others easily overshadow him in both range of subject-matter and depth of aesthetic content.

I agree. However, that was not what I was addressing in my remark.

Those familiar with Ansel in the 1950's and later, know that he was the master at presenting and promoting photography as a "fine art" to the masses. This is not to suggest that aesthetic content played a major role.

Take a poll at your local Wal-Mart and ask if anyone has heard of Ansel Adams; and then ask if they have heard of Edward Weston.

So, it was his promotion of photography as a legitimate art forum that helped pave the way for the commercial success of some photographers today.That was my point.

[percepts]

I believe he was the most important photographer of the 20th century.

Are you thinking of his genre or American Photographer or World Wide Photographer?

[Kirk Gittings]

Are you thinking of his genre or American Photographer or World Wide Photographer?

In my original statement.


he is the most important American photographer of the 20th century

[Drew Wiley]

Folks seem to forget that Adams was championed on quite early by the same dude in
NYC who introduced Picasso and kin to this country. Stieglitz wasn't dumb. Nor was AA
mindlessly catering to the masses, although his place in American history is recognized
by a wide populace. In contrast this is the dumb and sexist remark that women like
AA and Kincade pictures because it makes them feel cozy. I can't recall Kincade being
championed by anyone but Kincade. I guess if Marge and Homer Simpson win the
Springfield lottery, Marge will want something on the wall which matches her blue hair
and the stacks of Krispy Creme donut boxes on the coffee table.

[Stephen Willard]

Michael, I was expecting opposition to that statement. To defend it though would require a dissertation, time I don't have right now. But let me say this.....as I said-taking Adams career as a whole "if you look at his whole career, (as an artist, the Zone System, teaching, reproduction arts) etc.", I believe he was the most important photographer of the 20th century. I did not say just as an artist or "as a vehicle for artistic work". I was talking in broader terms. In this I am heavily influenced by the classes I took from Beaumont Newhall who spent much time on Adams and even had him come to the class and introduced him to us. Newhall of course was a long time personal friend of Adams and deeply respected his many contributions. Now Newhall has been superseded by more grounded and theory based historians.

Correct me if I am wrong, but Adams was also one of the early champions of the environmental movement, and his work also motivated congress on several occasions to enact new land preservation acquisitions.

[Drew Wiley]

Stephen - Adams' photography was very influential not only to the Natl Park system,
but even more to the success of a national wilderness policy, along with Eliot Porter.
This makes them very much a part of American history, especially in the West. Both
were also highly involved in the politics of land preservation, Adams being a key
component of the Sierra Club at that time, which heavily relied on photography as a
means to convey its message to a broader American public, and even congress. Hence
some of these particular images became widespread and iconic. Adams wasn't just
marketing pretty scenic images, although he did some of that at Best Studios in Yos.
Along with his contribution to the recognition of 20th-Century "straight" photography
as fine art, his direct involvement with establishing a photog dept at the NY MMA,
and his long-term influence as a teacher of the craft, and one can understand Kirk's
boldness in calling him the most influential American photographer. Although among his
peers I personally like the vision of Brett and Edward Weston better, even they had
deep respect for AA as an artist. People today who think they are equal to AA just
because they can go out with a view camera and perform the Zone System seem to
forget who pioneered so much of that vision and craft in the first place and why it is
important to the legacy of us all.

[rdenney]

Correct me if I am wrong, but Adams was also one of the early champions of the environmental movement, and his work also motivated congress on several occasions to enact new land preservation acquisitions.

Yes, but he insisted he was never motivated by that movement or by anything else when he was making photos for himself. He speaks of a distinction between his commercial work ("assignments from without") and his personal work ("assignments from within"). He was also a showman and a good promoter, and spent time cultivating useful relationships in the art world. Frank Lloyd Wright has also been derided somewhat for depending as he did on his sales and presentation skills, but that doesn't undermine the effect of his work.

The notion that Kincade (and I've heard it implied with respect to Adams, too) is somehow too unsophisticated to appeal to anyone beyond Marge and Homer Simpson seems to me rather elitist. Yes, we respond to our assignments from within, but if those who sell things show disdain for their market, they will receive disdain in return, except from those who thrive on disdain ("No soup for you!"). As one who does not sell his work, it's easy for me to say I would prefer to sell stuff to people who love it rather than selling it to people who are trying to make a statement of how hip they are to their hip friends. And I believe that I have to love it before I can expect them to.

Once again, I come at this with some musical experiences. Orchestral musicians spend their lives playing basically the same 50 or 75 works over and over again. I once had a gig (at the other--lower--end of the professional musician ladder) playing polka music at a theme park in San Antonio. We played the same basic show about 600 times that season. I thought that the music would get terribly boring after a while, but I learned something useful with that experience. What was motivating about performance was not the music, but rather it was the audience's reaction to the music. We always had a fresh audience, even if they were regulars, and their reactions kept it fresh for us. I find that it's usually college kids and other young'uns who fear the rut of the familiar.

On that note, I saw a documentary on the life of Alice Neel a few weeks ago. She had said that she was always concerned that her images reflect the times in which she painted them, so that a portrait made in the 70's would look like it was made in the 70's. I can pick out the decade in her portraits, so she was skilled enough to execute this desire effectively. But the essence of her style is still consistent throughout her decades of work. There is nothing traditionalist about it, but it is still timeless, it seems to me.

Adams's photographs are not really traditionalist, either, in most cases. I don't think he was ever driven to produce images that reflected an earlier time or technique--though many artists (and many on this forum) do just that. But they are timeless.

Speaking of traditionalistic performance, one final anecdote. Roger Norrington, the conductor, recorded a Beethoven series about 20 years ago, with an orchestra that used period instruments. Those recordings are as fresh and sparkling as any that I've heard, despite being "historically informed". He explained why: The reason for using old instruments was to make the music sound new again--to present it with all the surprise it had when it was premiered. The notion that tradition is bad can lead one into an even worse rut than they perceive tradition to impose.

When I look at Half Dome, which hangs on the wall (in poster form) and which I have looked at thousands of times, and when I give myself the time to really look at it afresh, I still feel a cold thrill run through my thought. The reaction is visceral. The image is not particularly realistic, and it certainly is not traditional. What makes it hackneyed in some peoples minds is not what Adams did, but what everyone else has done trying to copy Adams. Even so, the reason they copy him is because of that reaction. There are people who react that way to Kincade. I'm not one of them, but God bless those who do, and I hope somebody thumps me if I ever look down on them.

Rick "usually thrilled with his own work if he discovers it is all in focus" Denney

[Michael Alpert]

Michael, I was expecting opposition to that statement. To defend it though would require a dissertation, time I don't have right now. But let me say this.....as I said-taking Adams career as a whole "if you look at his whole career, (as an artist, the Zone System, teaching, reproduction arts) etc.", I believe he was the most important photographer of the 20th century. I did not say just as an artist or "as a vehicle for artistic work". I was talking in broader terms. In this I am heavily influenced by the classes I took from Beaumont Newhall who spent much time on Adams and even had him come to the class and introduced him to us. Newhall of course was a long time personal friend of Adams and deeply respected his many contributions. Now Newhall has been superseded by more grounded and theory based historians.

Kirk,

The term "most important" is slippery. Photojournalists would argue that the photographs taken during the U.S. involvement in Vietnam were tremendously important in changing public opinion about that bloodbath. Atget's influence on Walker Evans and everyone else is not to be denied. Robert Frank has whole generations of imitators. And Adams has importance for his teaching, research, and National Park work, in addition to his very handsome photographs. So it's apples and oranges. Perhaps we should think about (and respect) "important" without the comparative "most."

[Drew Wiley]

Michael - the angle I would take is how many people, both photographers and viewers,
have been influenced by a particular body of work. To someone like me, Atget was at
times sheer genius, but nobody followed in his footsteps. A few people have tried.
Philip Trager made some architectual shots reminiscent of his, and people have aped
some of his subject matter. Waker Evans' own pictures don't mirror the special compositional strategies of Atget. The general public has never heard of him. There is no "School" of Atget, like there was of Clarence White, Ansel Adams, and Eliot Porter.
Long before Adams, Carleton Watkins made images of Yosemite which are probably more graphically sophisticated than anything Adams' did, or are even being done today.
But nobody directly followed in his footsteps either, although in a general way he
has inspired many photographers. So yes, you are right in the sense that it all depends on how we define the terms, and what matters to ourselves or our chosen
genre in particular.

[Bill_1856]

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/ansel.shtml

[Mike1234]

Because it's haunting.

[Richard M. Coda]

Because it's haunting.

That's to the point! (and true)

[Paul Kierstead]

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/ansel.shtml

His sequoia shot is, IMO, one of the best I've seen for those.

To clarify, Neill's shot in the article.

[sun of sand]

I think you are drawing very different conclusion here then what was meant. Women at large throughout the world must deal with issues of safety that men never have to face. In most cases they are treated like second class citizens or like property, murdered, raped, and beaten by men everyday. The issue of safety has a huge impact on how they view the world, and it can influence the type of art they buy when they decide to buy art. Being cautious about the world or the men they associate with does not cause them to buy art as you have noted, but rather, it just influences the type of art they may purchase. And nothing more.


I don't know about that
it seems you're scoring points for me

People have said that remembrances of meaningful personal experiences are what is purchased


If you feel women like the idea of safety? so they buy kincadian things
what about men? I don't think you can say men don't care about safety as much as any woman
UNLESS
a woman cares more about THE HOPE/DREAM/PROMISE OF safety -because- they have grown to know they are at risk from men

I don't see the difference between cause and influence
"ISSUE of safety IMPACTS how women view the world
-UNSAFE-
and it can influence the type of art they buy"
-They buy for the hope of comfort-

How else could that be interpreted?



If women felt completely safe would they still buy these objects?
If women were made to feel beautiful just as they are -as secure as a man in terms of attractiveness/lovableness- would women buy and wear makeup?
"Being cautious about"
If the world were safe would they need to be cautious?

To me these are roles
Not necessarily natural
Created through need


I just don't see it

Do women appreciate beauty more than men?
Do women like being not murdered more than men?

The only thing keeping me out of prison IS the fear of rape lol
If I were sentenced to a stint I'm not sure whether I'd paint my cell in flowers and rainbows or scenes of gruesome death
Which would give me the most hope? Why?
Flowers and rainbows might make me look all sweet and ripe and sh.. or it may make me look like a child keeping me relatively safe
while scenes of horrifying crap may make me appear nutso striking fear into the entire population

Maybe a chick wants to look like a chick so buys makeup and pretty things because as a society -woman coalition- is trying to stem violence towards them
Which means you better behave as one -clearly separating yourself by being pretty/beautiful/fragile/delicate etc


nature nurture

[rdenney]

If you feel women like the idea of safety? so they buy kincadian things
what about men? I don't think you can say men don't care about safety as much as any woman
UNLESS
a woman cares more about THE HOPE/DREAM/PROMISE OF safety -because- they have grown to know they are at risk from men

I keep hearing this, but I think it's overstated. The vast majority of women likely to be in the market for art don't fear physical abuse from their men, and in terms of psychological abuse, they are, by my observation of those in our circle, like to give better than they get.

But I think it's true that most women are moved by the idea of romance to a greater extent than most men. And Kincade's paintings are certainly romantic. To some, romance may equal safety, I suppose. I think that romance often means sentimentality, and that affliction is probably more likely in women than men (though certainly not universally, of course).

That's why I don't think Moonrise is an example of this effect. I look at that image, and I don't get any sense of romance at all. It's still a grand landscape with dramatic lighting and timing, almost forbiddingly so. ("Haunting" is a good word and consistent with my description.)

I can't think of a single one of Adams's images that convey romance to me, and that's one reason I like them.

Rick "noting many female artists who are ruthless unromantic, however" Denney

[Drew Wiley]

Kincade romantic? Neurotic would be a better term. Sombody sure handed him a
strange assortment of Crayolas when he was a kid preparing for the asylum.

[bobwysiwyg]

Kincade romantic? Neurotic would be a better term. Sombody sure handed him a
strange assortment of Crayolas when he was a kid preparing for the asylum.

I was never a Kincade fan either. Some like him, I'm just not among them.

[Drew Wiley]

Well, there's a reason Kincade had his entire house/museum in Pacific Grove painted
sold Pepto-Bismol pink - he's trying to give you a hint what kind of medication to bring
along if you walk inside! How in heaven's name did someone like that get into a
comparison with "Moonrise"?

[Kirk Gittings]

If Kincade had been a photographer he would have been a heavy HDR user. Notice that quality in his work?

Drew, I asked that same question about a month ago in this thread.

[rdenney]

I'm certainly no fan of Kincade, either--I do not like sentimentality in art at all. But obviously many are, and thinking they are beneath us because of it is probably dangerous. My sister, for example, is a serious fan of Kincade, but then she has one of my paintings on her wall (of a light house, gawd-help-me), so she obviously has no taste. I think the Kincade evokes a romantic fantasy of places, which act as an antidote for the gritty reality that many people see in their daily lives. I don't notice any photos of rotting industrial buildings in his ouvre. It is certainly a sentimental attraction to a better life, and I think that's the main reason it doesn't move me at all. I would rather be transported to a spectacular, but real place than a fantasy condition. But that says much more about me than about Kincade.

There is also a nostalgic bent to his work, a nostalgia for a time most of his customers have experienced only in fantasy. I see works of his with cars in them, but none of those cars are modern Chevy Malibus or or rusted old Buicks sitting in front of rotting tenements. But I find that rusted old Buicks in front of rotting tenements is more likely to be cliche than Kincade's idealized country churches and woodsy cottages, especially if you put a person of color on the steps of the stoop of one of those tenements, looking dignified in the face of poverty.

The use of bright lights shining from within cozy cottages on wintry days is perhaps the cliche of which he is most guilty, but the color-straight-from-the-tube might also be a cliche. The bright lights might be the thing that brought him to mind vis a vis Moonrise, but I sure hope not. I think he came up because this thread seemed to confuse what is cliche with what is lowbrow. Pandering to lowbrow clients isn't cliche even if it is, in some minds, an artistic sellout--pandering to the same gimmick that is a current fad among highbrows might be.

Rick "whose sister has one of his lighthouse photos on her wall, too" Denney

[Drew Wiley]

Well, Rick - my sister's wall's are covered by great big Cibachromes by guess who,
as well as by a huge Hurrell b&w print of Jane Russell. Strange mix. But back to Moonrise - I think a lot of AA's work is iconic because it does contain a nostalgaic
element for the America past, at least to Baby Boomers like me. Yet I wonder if the
reason I fail to react emotionally to Moonrise itself is if I just haven't spent enough
time adapting to the landscape of New Mexico, or cultivating its light myself. I've merely driven through a few times on my way somewhere else, have visited Chaco,
purchased some Zuni jewelery for my wife. Most of my time in the Southwest has been
spent backpacking the canyon country of Utah, which I have developed a strong
attachment for. After I retire maybe I can get into New Mexico in the summer when
thunderstorms are allegedly active. Summers are busy for me, and when I get a break
I'm always headed for the high country in this part of the world. NM seems to me to be a state like Nevada, which doesn't really draw you in from the level of an interstate hwy - you need time and have to explore around a bit. (And I certainly have no interest in visiting Santa Faux or the usual places).

[rdenney]

(And I certainly have no interest in visiting Santa Faux or the usual places).

Garrison Keillor aptly described Santa Fe as an adobe theme park.

I've spent quite a bit of time in New Mexico--one of my oldest friends grew up in Albuquerque and as adults he and I have used it as a jumping off point for back-country vacations on the Colorado Plateau. I've skied there, hiked the Sandia Crest, photographed along the high road from Santa Fe to Taos, crawled around Pueblo Bonito (which reminds me, I need to buy Kirk's book as a gift for my friend--note to self), and eaten at places like Mexican Carryout Kitchen (RIP), Sadies (fortunately still with us, though not still in the bowling alley), and Blake's Lotaburger (in unglamorous places like Window Rock and Farmington).

Upshot is: The light in New Mexico is different. Adams captured it perfectly in Moonrise, but also in his many other photos in New Mexico.

Nevada isn't the same, and I don't know why. I designed a traffic signal system for Las Vegas about 15 years ago and spent a lot of time there. Even away from that silly town, Nevada was just not the same as New Mexico.

I wonder if the nostalgic element of Adams's work is fostered by the fact that when we go to places where Adams photographed, they are now crawling with European and Chinese tourists who come in by the bus-load, blocking the view and filling up the parking lot. He managed to make those places look so empty and unsullied. That makes me nostalgic for the back-country explorer that I never was.

Rick "wondering if many state employees still have to live in Albuquerque because they can't afford Santa Fe" Denney

[Paul Kierstead]

The use of bright lights shining from within cozy cottages on wintry days is perhaps the cliche of which he is most guilty, but the color-straight-from-the-tube might also be a cliche.

Nono, that is the other thread....

[rdenney]

Nono, that is the other thread....

Dang it, you're right. Sheesh.

Rick "this thread: wimmin; that thread: cliches; got it" Denney

[Robert Hughes]

Dang it, you're right. Sheesh.

Rick "this thread: wimmin; that thread: cliches; got it" Denney
Now, wimmin, straight from the tube, that has possibilities... :p

[Brian Schall]

Rick "wondering if many state employees still have to live in Albuquerque because they can't afford Santa Fe" Denney

Rick

Yup, most state employees that work in Santa Fe can't afford to live in SF. I made the 120 mile round trip from ABQ to SF everyday for 3 years, than twice a week for 2 years and then finally talked them into letting me work in the ABQ office full time. No need to drive if I can just telecommute.

Brian

I always said you have to be a little crazy to live in Santa Fe, and if you got too crazy, you moved to Taos.

[Wallace_Billingham]

This has been a very interesting thread to read. I have worked in sales of one form or another for a very long time. One thing I have done over the many years I have been in sales is go to many, many sales seminars or workshops, and from that background I have a few insights (at the risk of sounding sexist)

1.)Women are almost always the buyers no matter what you are selling. With anything for the home this is even more true.

2.)Women take great pride and comfort in making a comfortable and safe home for their family. Any marketing that promotes that will work very well. That is why Kincade sells well.

3.)People want to buy what they think is the "best". (and by people I mean tha average joe) An example is a lot of people don't like Counrty music but have a Garth Brooks CD because they view him as the best in Country. No matter who wins the Super Bowl each year a lot of people will buy Jerseys and T-Shirts from that team because they are the best. So when people think they want B&W Photography to hang up in their house they go buy an Ansel Adams poster or print because that is who they think of as the best.

A few years back at the gallery in Washington DC that I can never spell or pronounce but that starts with a C, they did an Ansel Adams show. Most of the prints were 8x10s with a just a few in the 11x14-16x20 range. There were only two really big prints. "Moonrise" and "Clearing Winter Storm". Both of those prints took your breath away and I saw several people tear up when they saw them.

What I walked away wondering was are these his two most famous works just because they are? Kind of like saying Paris Hilton is only famous because she is famous? I have thought about that a lot. In his lifetime if work he made many amazing photographs some of which I like better. My personal guess is that those were his two personal favorite shots or at least the ones he was most proud of. As such he did a better job of marketing them and made them into very big prints.

If you read the stories he tells about them in the Examples books he explains how both of them were a struggle to make for various reasons. With Moonrise it was the whole only had a minute, did not have a meter, guessed, and had trouble printing it story. With "Clearing Winter Storm" he tells the tale of going to that spot many, many times and never making a good photograph. I think both of these stories add to the myth of Saint Ansel

[Scott Davis]

Wallace- you're thinking of the Corcoran Gallery. That was a good show, I especially liked it because it showed a different side of Ansel than most people are used to. It had his early contact-printed silver and non-silver prints, some of his commercial work, and even a smattering of his very late color stuff. It made him more approachable to me. I'd love to see someone publish a monograph of his early work that wasn't all f64-ish. His work with the native American pueblos and such. But then that would be breaking the myth of the monolithic St. Ansel the ultra-large high-contrast silver gelatin printer and godfather of the Zone system.

[Drew Wiley]

Scott - earlier in this thread I related how I stood around listening to people's comments about Moonrise at a particularly excellent AA retrospective around here.
What I failed to state is that I did the same thing in the section of the museum where
many examples of his early work hung, such as his 6-1/2X 81/2 "Parmelian Prints" and
pre-f/64 soft work. What I found fascinating was that the local crowd seemed more in tune with this early work than with his canonized Moonrise. And for me, the print
I found most compelling was a shot he made in his 60's of El Cap which I've never
seen published - much more dark and brooding than his classic "Gates of the Valley".
Little did I realize that just a few years later I'd be sharing another sizable retrospective with him, or how differently we each composed the same geographic
subject matter!

[Stephen Willard]

This has been a very interesting thread to read. I have worked in sales of one form or another for a very long time. One thing I have done over the many years I have been in sales is go to many, many sales seminars or workshops, and from that background I have a few insights (at the risk of sounding sexist)

1.)Women are almost always the buyers no matter what you are selling. With anything for the home this is even more true.

All of my sales were to women this year. As far as I know no piece was sold to any men.



2.)Women take great pride and comfort in making a comfortable and safe home for their family. Any marketing that promotes that will work very well. That is why Kincade sells well.

Safety is big deal for women and their children. As far as fear of men, just ask any women if she would walk alone at night on a neighborhood street or in a park. When I leave the house in the evening for a trip, my wife and daughter always lock the doors and windows of the house. Young girls on college campus never walk alone for fear of rape, and colleges are still underreporting abuse and rape of women on their campuses. One out every four women in this country has been raped. As a man, I think nothing about walking alone, being alone, and locking doors and windows does does not even enter my thoughts, but this is not the case for women. You guys who do not think your women are always thinking about safety when they go out the door alone, think again.

Beauty is a big deal for women. They attract their mates by being beautiful, and they spends lost of money decorating themselves and their homes to make them beautiful.

Both beauty and safety are attributes that have a significant influence on how women view the world and what they buy.



3.)People want to buy what they think is the "best". (and by people I mean tha average joe) An example is a lot of people don't like Counrty music but have a Garth Brooks CD because they view him as the best in Country. No matter who wins the Super Bowl each year a lot of people will buy Jerseys and T-Shirts from that team because they are the best. So when people think they want B&W Photography to hang up in their house they go buy an Ansel Adams poster or print because that is who they think of as the best.

This is why automakers want one of their cars to be selected as the "most popular car of the year" by some auto publication whose name escapes me.



"Moonrise" and "Clearing Winter Storm"... My personal guess is that those were his two personal favorite shots or at least the ones he was most proud of. As such he did a better job of marketing them and made them into very big prints.

In his autobiography, Adams stated that one of his strongest pieces of work was Mount Williamson (page 210). I suspect the reason he did a better job at marketing both those prints was not because they where his best, but rather of a more cynical and commercial motive, they sold better than the others and generated more profit. I suspect I am going to be roasted for even suggesting that statement.:)

I also still standing by the assertion that Hernandez and Kincade share many similar emotional vales. However, they differ in execution; Hernandez was executed as an expressive art form while Kincade is nothing more than pure commercial sugar coating.

[Drew Wiley]

Speaking of roastings, Bruce Barnbaum once roasted me for pointing out that AA's
famous Mt Williamson shot taken from Manzanar is not Mt Williamson at all! The real
Mt Williamson is 7 miles north and 2000 ft higher than the pointy peak in AA's image,
which is actually just a termination of a projecting ridge well below the crest, therefore
as depicted nearly 4000 lower than the summit of Williamson itself. And this mountain doesn't even have a name on the map! So I guess that makes me a heretic. But to
those of us who want to know where we actually are, the USGS takes precedence to art historians, who frequently seem to have a convoluted vocabulary of their own!

[QT Luong]

> All of my sales were to women this year. As far as I know no piece was sold to any men.

That's curious. I looked at my record of 100+ sales for 2009, and I'd say it's about 50-50, although the largest orders were placed by women (not for themselves as they are art consultants).

> One out every four women in this country has been raped.

source ?

> Beauty is a big deal for women.

OT, but this is an interesting project related to the beauty industry: http://www.zednelson.com/loveme/index.php

[Stephen Willard]

> All of my sales were to women this year. As far as I know no piece was sold to any men.

That's curious. I looked at my record of 100+ sales for 2009, and I'd say it's about 50-50, although the largest orders were placed by women (not for themselves as they are art consultants).

> One out every four women in this country has been raped.

source ?

> Beauty is a big deal for women.

OT, but this is an interesting project related to the beauty industry: http://www.zednelson.com/loveme/index.php

I can only talk for those people that purchase directly through my studio. I have know idea who purchased my work through other outlets. Photography in the Denver region where I live is a hard sell. In general, photography is not considered art along the front range of Colorado. I suspect that your market in CA is very different and could be why you have a 50/50 purchase rate between men and women.

The statistic for rape that I sited is a statistic that my wife always reference when we talk about women's issues. Here is a website that says 1 in 3 women are raped in there life time, and 1 in 4 college students are raped. The US has the highest reported rapes statistics in the world. The statistics vary all over the map and that is because most women do not report rape. It is a hard statistic to nail down, but is a real statistic that women, and not men, must live with everyday.http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~ad361896/anne/cease/rapestatisticspage.html

Beauty is a big industry for sure and can manifest itself in many ways, good and bad.

[John NYC]

I live in New York so this viewpoint is skewed in that way. I know many, many artists here (painters, sculptors, photographers, musicians, composers). The painters in particular do not argue that photography is not an art. On the contrary, a very talented painter I know that teaches at a very respected institution here in the city is influenced primarily by photography by admission.

[QT Luong]

In general, photography is not considered art along the front range of Colorado. I suspect that your market in CA is very different and could be why you have a 50/50 purchase rate between men and women.

I don't have a market in CA. I sell globally.

[vinny]

"All of my sales were to women this year. As far as I know no piece was sold to any men."
I've been wondering about this since I realized it's also the case for my prints. The majority of interest in my work is from women. They're really into my work and I don't know why.

[Stephen Willard]

In review of all things that surrounded our discussion of saleability and commercialism, I would like to way in with a few of Adams thoughts on the subject quoted from his autobiography.


Page 160: My confidence unshaken, I began to do portraits and weddings. For one wedding I again used flash powder....


Page 162: The professional photographer takes assignments from "without," injects what imagination he can apply, and does the best he can with the problems presented. The creative photographer, on the other hand, takes assignments from "within" and, if truly dedicated may find that the client is tough and uncompromising! The conflict of the assignments from "without" verses those from "within" often perplexes the serious photographer.

and finally,

Page 176: I have little use for students and artists who, from their particular plastic towers, scorn commercial photography as a form of prostitution. I grant that it is not difficult to do so, but I learned greatly from commercial photography and no way resent the time and effort devoted to it.

[Stephen Willard]

I live in New York so this viewpoint is skewed in that way. I know many, many artists here (painters, sculptors, photographers, musicians, composers). The painters in particular do not argue that photography is not an art. On the contrary, a very talented painter I know that teaches at a very respected institution here in the city is influenced primarily by photography by admission.

I have heard that both east and west costal lines have good markets for photography, and considered photography a viable art form. Of course, these are generalizations and there are exceptions for the interior of our country such as Santa Fe, New Mexico. I am sure there are others.

[sun of sand]

I wanted to respond but it'll have to wait
WE GOT SNOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

lucky me my body is killing me and we already had like 2 feet out here to trudge through so I'm gonna most likely be dead before I CAN post
gotta take advantage of it, though

[sun of sand]

[QUOTE=rdenney;545694]I keep hearing this, but I think it's overstated. The vast majority of women likely to be in the market for art don't fear physical abuse from their men, and in terms of psychological abuse, they are, by my observation of those in our circle, like to give better than they get.

From THEIR men seems to be an important distinction
The man that you've so carefully selected for being one of the better/safest men out there?
Of course not

Still doesn't mean they arent buying artwork because of the roles they've been essentially forced into

But I think it's true that most women are moved by the idea of romance to a greater extent than most men.
I don't think so. I think that's yet again just gender roles.

To some, romance may equal safety, I suppose.
When I dream of romance I hardly ever think of a picnic within a battle zone
SAFE is what is natural. Safety is integral to romance
No time for kissing when dodging bullets or falling rock I always say



That's why I don't think Moonrise is an example of this effect. I look at that image, and I don't get any sense of romance at all. It's still a grand landscape with dramatic lighting and timing, almost forbiddingly so. ("Haunting" is a good word and consistent with my description.)

See I think you do see romance in it
Only the gender role youve been forced into won't completely allow you to "see" romance for what it is ..or let you say the word romance openly

a love affair=grand landscape
are you saying grande simply/merely as in BIG/vast? I kinda doubt it. Lots of things fit with the words big and great but I doubt you'd be spellbound by them all

fascination or enthusiasm for something

spirit or feeling of adventure, excitement, the potential for heroic achievement, and the exotic





I can't think of a single one of Adams's images that convey romance to me, and that's one reason I like them.

I don't buy this either, sorry
lol

"I can't think of a single one that conveys romance and that's why I like them"

COME ON!
haha
I'm a boy I don't like girls! I'm a MAN ..I don't have feeeeeeelings!
this is EXACTLY what you're saying there

corporate feminists are just as romantic as the housewife mother
Burly men love just as much as the metrosexual

If there is any "distinction" its the role they've taken on
The frigid corporate bitc has just taken on that persona because they fight another fight

Romance/love for/of things is natural




"noting many female artists who are ruthless unromantic

This is proof perhaps that the womans coalition fighting against violence towards women has worked
It has worked so well that NOW some of the stronger women feel free to put down the silly makeup and frillies and fragile personas -the feminists- and command not just equal respect as their girly counterparts but MORE
TRUE EQUALITY!
Not "equality" so long as I do this and that and the other
equality whether I follow the gender role or not

[rdenney]

I think that's yet again just gender roles.

To all you folks who eschew gender roles, maybe the important thing to recognize is that many folks, of both sexes, believe them to be relevant and true. And you may be surprised to discover that many actually prefer those roles to the alternatives. Perhaps the market comprises people who are comfortable in those roles, and if so, discussing the market is a matter of discussing what it is rather than what some would like it to be.

All models are false, but some are useful. A generalization is just a model, subject to the flaws that all models exhibit relative to reality. That does not mean they are not useful.

Whether we should tailor our work, to put it charitably, or sell out as some would have it, to the realities of the market is a separate decision.

The original question (after explanation by the OP) was whether a photo like Moonrise was more popular than other Adams photos because it appealed more to women, who are over-represented in the OP's clientele. And if so, what did that recommend to those who actually need the income from selling photos?

I know many people. Dozens--even hundreds. I know very few women who have been the victims of rape and very few men who would force themselves on a women, even back when the definition of rape was a bit different than it is today. I know very few women who live in perpetual fear of being attacked by men, and most women I know use the public trails around here (though cautiously in some places--but then I'm cautious, too) or who are unwilling to go to their car in the parking lot. In fact, I know none who are known to have been victims or perpetrators of rape, but I have to assume that maybe a few have been. Is there a demographic character to rape victims? I think there very likely is. Is that demographic large enough to overwhelm the sample of people I know sufficiently to bring the overall statistic to 1 in 4? That seems truly unlikely. Also, I think it's entirely reasonable that the demographics most associated with rape are less associated with art-buying.

The notion that we cannot discuss what differences there are without having to apologize for why it might be the case, or that we can't generalize without having to disclaim all the possible exceptions, can really hamper straightforward discussion, it seems to me.

Rick "not a fan of perpetual victimhood" Denney

[Drew Wiley]

This thread has drifted so far off base that I think the only way anyone is going to
settle these arguments is to exhume the bodies in the Hernandez cemetery and see
what risks killed them off.

[Greg Blank]

Maybe he proudly told the story of his picture taking prowess at many gallery openings and people in the sheep like way that they tend to be, sucked it up and felt compelled to buy the whole thing so to speak. Maybe they were just to timid to buy the good stuff "other less Anselish or less Ansel endorsed stuff" and felt safe buying what they percieved Adams "liked".

It would be a story I would tell if it was mine. Having a story helps !

I think I would have liked knowing E Weston and Ansel and would have enjoyed talking with them both. Maybe at the same time....never the less P Strand is my Hero :) Like his luminous platinum work :)




There’s also AA’s thrilling story about taking “Moonrise” (he couldn't find his meter; see The Negative, Chapter 6), and I’m curious if that may have added to its “sales appeal” – did a promotional effort ever make use of this story?

Or maybe this is a case where sales are, simply, due to a magnificent photo w/ broad appeal.

That is, it may have “sold itself.”

[Drew Wiley]

Back to the image itself. I think it encapsulates some of the mystique of the American West in the golden age of the motorist. Here drives someone around a
corner, and suddenly they encounter an icon of rural SW Americana in fairly-tale light (at least, that is the way the picture has been printed). Plus you have the
story to go with it, which was a sudden encounter with fleeting magic. And now
it is gone - the light and the simple innocency of the town - and we're left with a
relict memory of something we wish we had seen. It's not simply nostalgia, but the
symbol of an ideal, just like AA's majestic scenes of Yosemite Valley which so
precisely eliminate all the splattered ice-cream cones on the roads, the mangey
coyotes digging through garbage cans, and all the summer campers choking on
each other's hotdog toasting campfire smoke. Instead, he gives you an ideal, the
Yosemite Valley the whole natural park concept tries to evoke. I don't know how
many lonely ethnically-rich little spots like this still exist in New Mexico, probably
a number of them - but I'm certainly glad this one was recorded for posterity!

[JR Steel]

This is an interesting thread. I have only seen the later version of the print in person. My personal response related to the fragility of my insignificant existence in the universal scheme of things. I think the power of "Moonrise" is the ability to evoke a response, maybe not Adams response, but yet an emotional movement in most people.

[sun of sand]

[QUOTE=rdenney;546934]many folks, of both sexes, believe them to be relevant and true. And you may be surprised to discover that many actually prefer those roles to the alternatives.

Leno made a joke/referenced I don't remember exactly tonight about how when people risk penalty for complaining
they usually won't
they'll just accept it as the consequence is seen as worse than what they had

Most people probably believe bicycle helmets are a very very very good thing, too
They don't take into consideration that many accidents capable of causing severe head trauma will do so whether you're dome is encased in 2inches of foam or not
the accidents people truly worry over are the ones where the helmet has "little" benefit
It may literally save your life one day but the chances of it doing so are are about the same chances I'd give you of ...choking on applesauce
The cases where it saves you from 10 stiches are great and all but perhaps you'd be better off -learning how to actually ride a bike so you don't need to spend $30 ..for one example of things you can do

People believe in god
because there is an alternative they're scared of even more than the "believing" in whatever that has to be believed in


If people in general have created the roles we have it makes sense people in general will like those roles they've created
If man makes woman _____ whenever man says so
Man will like role of woman
Woman will accept role cause man says if woman doesn't woman get head clubbed
I dunno lol

We'd have to honestly study the "alternatives" we've created that enforce the desired behavior


Perhaps the market comprises people who are comfortable in those roles, and if so, discussing the market is a matter of discussing what it is rather than what some would like it to be.

Sure ..if you're a short sighted easy road quitter. ha
If you're discussing the market I don't see how you can close the discussion to discussion of what makes the market the market
If people know markets change -that a market IS a fluctuating thing just as it IS whatever it seems to be at that moment for whatever reasons
How can one tell what it exactly IS at the time they're discussing it ..that it hasn't already changed in some significant way that wont be appreciated for years

I see the door as wide open to possibilities
Others may want it shut

This thread veered into tailoring of ones work
Which is fine if you're saying perhaps ansel tailored his work
If the tailoring of work isn't prohibited within the thread I don't think you can deny my right to question and meader through tailoring itself
in order to tailor you have to have an audience and if markets change unknowingly and sometimes meaningfully maybe the most important thing to know when considering tailoring your work is not which market is seemingly buying NOW but why "markets" buy the way they do in the first place

if there are reasons why people buy -why they LIKE- maybe the reasons are all interconnected and if figured out to any small degree would mean your could tailor your work not to just one market but them all ..all in the same work


A generalization is just a model, subject to the flaws that all models exhibit relative to reality. That does not mean they are not useful

if something so certainly flawed is not only not a waste of space but could be seen as useful than my own wo/anderings on the certainly flawed subject cant be labeled as junk or off topic


Whether we should tailor our work, to put it charitably, or sell out as some would have it, to the realities of the market is a separate decision.

true
but just because everyone can have an opinion doesn't mean others cant have opinions on theirs



I know many people. Dozens--even hundreds. I know very few women who have been the victims of rape and very few men who would force themselves on a women, even back when the definition of rape was a bit different than it is today. I know very few women who live in perpetual fear of being attacked by men, and most women I know use the public trails around here (though cautiously in some places--but then I'm cautious, too) or who are unwilling to go to their car in the parking lot. In fact, I know none who are known to have been victims or perpetrators of rape, but I have to assume that maybe a few have been. Is there a demographic character to rape victims? I think there very likely is. Is that demographic large enough to overwhelm the sample of people I know sufficiently to bring the overall statistic to 1 in 4? That seems truly unlikely. Also, I think it's entirely reasonable that the demographics most associated with rape are less associated with art-buying.

The notion that we cannot discuss what differences there are without having to apologize for why it might be the case, or that we can't generalize without having to disclaim all the possible exceptions, can really hamper straightforward discussion, it seems to me.


But how important is the fact "1/4 of woman are.." or "Most rapists are" or the tip "walk with your keys prepared for use as a weapon" in a straightforward discussion on rape?
facts are not important at all
UNLESS
you use them trying to treat rape
The straightforward discussion on rape wouldnt be on its facts and figures
How many, who and where occured is not important
it would be on why IS rape ..an understanding of why the crime of rape exists
Whats more important-not quite right wording perhaps..
that your wife got raped or that someone is raping?

If Im reading this correectly it seems youre saying the police/military/courts/law are the straightforward entities in the discussion on rape while the crisis counselors and workers within/victims even/professors/advocates etc are pie in the sky daydreamers

What is a "straightforward discussion"


Is there a rape demographic? I think there very likely is.

Is the occurance/frequency within that demographic overwhelming enough to bring the overall statistic to 1 in 4? That seems truly unlikely.


I agree that rape is pretty equal opportunity but perhaps a major/dominant exists
I can't just end there, though

i cant get around straightforward


Is the war on terror/congressional meetings on the decision for declaration of war on terror a straightforward discussion on terrorism?
Is trying to understand the reasons for a terrorist wanting to blow himself up killling hundreds of others in the process a straightforward discussion?
It seems not with the expansive war
but that is what people wanted to do to try and end it
Now that it isnt clearly working to defeat terror nobody wants it
What is left? A straightforward discussion on why the straightforward act of war didn't work as well as planned ..not why it didn't work as much as why it didn't work as planned

Since most people BELIEVE the war hasn't worked
you'd think people would be doing something else

I don't even see ribbons on cars anymore

[Robert Hughes]

That's a veritable blizzard of words. Could you distill that down to a paragraph for us mere mortals?

[D. Bryant]

[QUOTE=rdenney;546934]

I don't even see ribbons on cars anymore

I think it's time for a moderator to move this one to the Lounge.

Don Bryant

[rdenney]

I think it's time for a moderator to move this one to the Lounge.

I didn't say what is apparently attributed to me in your post, though I see two open and only one close-quote tag.

Rick "who was responding to the OP's points" Denney

[Hector.Navarro]

for me "Moonrise..." has a small lesson I tend to forget, and that is to look not only at the sunsets but at the sides as well...

[Lynn Jones]

Hi Folks,

I have a couple of points of view on this subject. I've been a working photographer for over 60 years and a genuine expert in b/w photo quality control. I first met Ansel in 1957 or 58 through my teacher/mentor Boris "Papa" Dobro (Brooks instructor) and was acquainted with Ansel until his death. Also, Calumet (my long time employer) sponsored his book on "Large format" photography and I worked with him often on that publication. Needless to say I really love Ansel's b/w photography, not only landscapes, but people photography and architecturals which are less well known.

For me, visually, "Moonrise" has a haunting quality and for a photographer, especially a landscape photographer, one look tells me how darned hard this was to shoot and to print. The negative was developed by inspection and really significant manipulation was done to it while is was still wet.

If I had a couple of hours to prepare for that shot, I would have given several sheets with Zone 2 pre-exposure, made 3 or 4 bracketed exposures, and would have processed one sheet at a time in order to get exactly what I wanted to print. However, Ansel saw this with only a very vew minutes to shoot, had only 2 sheets of film, and was aware that his SEI photometer had a dead battery. Ansel could only guess an adequate exposure based on the known brightness of the moon and quickly calculate an exposure.

He was very, very good at his craft and was and extremely nice man.

Lynn

[ashlee52]

It's funny to me how little discussion there has been about the "message" in Moonrise.

What is says to me is extremely positive and compelling. It says that man can be a positive part of the the natural envirnment... that we can add beauty when we live in harmony with our surroundings.

Moonrise is quite unique in Adam's reportoire because it glorifies both the hand of man and the pristine beauty of nature. Most of his famous images are unpeopled.

So this one picture says the world is OK with us in it. The many of the rest say the world would be a nicer place without us.

This difference in meaning suggests to me why the print is so popular.

Moreover one could argue that this is Adam's most forward looking image. It foreshadows the new topography movement ( Mark Klett, Joel Sternfeld, Laura McPhee, Steven Shore and others) which shows that man is indeed a part of the "landscape".) Another AA photo which does this for me is his shot of Silverton Colorado.

Of course it doesn't hurt that this photo also has a gleaming cross, a solid church, and a great sense of peace in its creamy stilness. Beyond the meaning above I think it says "sleep comforted tonight, you are in good hands. Do not worry about the night."

Oh yeah, and all that stuff about his light meter, too.

[Drew Wiley]

AA took a great number of pictures with manmade elements in view. One of my favorites is of the oil rigs of Long Beach looming behind a cemetery statue. But I don't see anything at all in common between Moonrise and Stephen Shore or Joel Sternfeld, whose own interesting work probably wouldn't have come into being unless Pop Art had come first. The ironic humor of Sternfeld actually reminds me of Larson's "Far Side" cartoons.

[anthony marsh]

As far as I'm concerned Thomas Kinkade's"art" is pure commercial TRASH!!!

[Greg Blank]

Even more interesting no one has noted that; in Lenswork last issue 84, Rabbi Sinclair states in his interview that One: David Spivak who posts on this forum helped him with producing his book "Seasons of the Moon" And Two that the Rabbi illuminates in the Lenwork article the story that Adams forgot the exact date Moonrise was shot, so Adams had dated it differently in several places. Ansel and a Friend had it dated using a computer to calculate the exact date relative to the moon's position. The date settled on was Oct 31,1941 the date the third Reich decided no more jews could leave Germany.

Kind of make your hair stand on end, doesn't it.


It's funny to me how little discussion there has been about the "message" in Moonrise.

Oh yeah, and all that stuff about his light meter, too.

[Jeff Conrad]

I wouldn't read too much into the October 31 date, which was incorrect; the actual date was November 1, as Dennis di Cicco described in the November 1991 issue of of Sky & Telescope.

The light meter stuff makes for a good story, but it's quite an embellishment of Adams's original account. And in any event, basing exposure for a landscape photograph on the assumed luminance of the Moon is nuts; the luminance of the Moon has little relation to that of the sky and foreground. I know folks who claim to have determined exposure using the technique Adams describes, but their success has been more luck than anything else.

The image was taken about 20 minutes before sunset, so the exposure would not have been all that tricky. And Adams's original account indicated that he used his Weston exposure meter.

As the contact print shows, the unmanipulated image is unremarkable (at least to me). What Adams saw was far more profound than what nature provided.