Mortensen, the Antichrist...

[Mark Sawyer]

Which (minus the underlined phrase) in a nut shell was Beaumont Newhall's view and mine as well.

Well, I don't take Ansel Adams' work seriously enough to be offended by it either...

[Kirk Gittings]

Well and good and appropriate for you to think that, but for Newhall, in his position as a historian and curator and librarian, to make disappear a then influential and popular segment of photographic practice, because he didn't take it seriously is disingenuous.
Beaumont Newhall defended his decision to leave Mortensen out of his History of Photography because it was HIS book and he could “disinvite” anyone he cared to. True, but the more, in his position, you take that position, the more your scholarship suffers.

Objectivity is a goal that no one ever truly achieves-no historian, no journalist etc. It is admirable to strive for it but no human will achieve it. Newhall's history is hardly exhaustive. It was the first, and broke new ground, but hardly exhaustive in scope. Now it seems like it is an overview at best. Legions of subsequent scholars have criticized his methodology including many he who studied with him in the UNM program where he finished his career. Was his history flawed? A silly question really-all histories are flawed or biased to a lesser or greater extent. History is built generation upon generation correcting earlier mistakes and making new ones.

IMHO The best thing that happened to Mortensen in the long run was being ignored in the short run. Now he is being resurrected as some victim of history like some evil plot has been exposed. His standard is being raised like he was some martyr who died, sword in hand, battling rebel photographers.

I took two classes with Newhall and talked with him a lot in the early seventies at UNM. He was without doubt one of the most interesting and knowledgeable people I have ever known. Much of the history he taught was anecdotal-based on him personally knowing and having personal experience with so many important photographers. He was a treasure and ignoring Mortensen seems like a very minor footnote in a very distinguished career.

[Merg Ross]

The best thing that happened to Mortensen in the long run was being ignored in the short run.

However, Mortensen was not ignored, and became the impetus behind the formation of Group f:64, members of which Beaumont championed. An unbiased history of photography should acknowledge the prominent role of Mortensen, especially when alluding to Group f:64. The last time that I met with Beaumont he was working on the fourth revision of his history of photography; perhaps he later mentioned Mortensen.

[Peter De Smidt]

Here's some biographical material about Mortensen that I hadn't seen before: http://www.amphoraeditions.com/RBch2.html
It's by one of his students.

[russyoung]

Here's some biographical material about Mortensen that I hadn't seen before: http://www.amphoraeditions.com/RBch2.html
It's by one of his students.

Thanks, that contains some really valuable information.

Russ Young

[cowanw]

Here's some biographical material about Mortensen that I hadn't seen before: http://www.amphoraeditions.com/RBch2.html
It's by one of his students.

That is from Robert Balcomb's book, which I strongly recommend for those interested in the portraiture aspect of Mortensen's work.

[clay harmon]

It is interesting to me that artists such as Jeff Wall, Cindy Sherman, and Gregory Crewdson are all heirs to Mortensen's photographic sensibility in a way, but are far more accepted. Probably because their work is just simply not as tacky.

[Kirk Gittings]

However, Mortensen was not ignored, and became the impetus behind the formation of Group f:64, members of which Beaumont championed. An unbiased history of photography should acknowledge the prominent role of Mortensen, especially when alluding to Group f:64. The last time that I met with Beaumont he was working on the fourth revision of his history of photography; perhaps he later mentioned Mortensen.

As I have said else where, Newhall did not ignore Mortensen in his classes I took. That was in 71 0r 72. I don't know how that fits in with the timings of the book revisions. Regardless all historicism is a process of sifting with a coarser or finer screen. Given the same historical landscape you and I would not include the same people to write about I suspect.

[Jim Noel]

I wonder how many of those respondng to this topic have taken the time to read and learn from these books. the sub-title of "Monsters and Madonnas" is "A book of Methods". It is very instructional. How many realize most of his images were made with a Leica or a medium format single lens reflex camera. (Medium format in those times were 120 roll film or up to 4x5 sheet film.) How did he develop his film? Do most people learn this important fact? Or what type of film did he use? How many can answer these questions without going back and reading the text instead of just leering at the nude figures?
I could go on and on, but I have probably upset enough people with facts.

[Merg Ross]

Regardless all historicism is a process of sifting with a coarser or finer screen. Given the same historical landscape you and I would not include the same people to write about I suspect.

I suspect so. It seems unlikely that one could write a truly unbiased history of photography, something Beaumont freely admitted.

As for the man himself, I have always had the highest regard. Those, such as yourself, who had the experience of his teaching and friendship are indeed fortunate. Beaumont was instrumental in the formation of a Department of Photography at NYMOMA, a fact sometimes overlooked. But that is another story.