Ansel Adams at 100, Szarkowski and Brower

[Vaughn]

Maybe because, as clearly argued in the Brower article, AA liked big prints, even if not "bed sheet size" ?

I disagree that "AA like big prints" (over 'normal' sized prints). He printed big because that is where the money is...and because he could...and it was probably fun. I do not remember seeing any huge prints in his house.

But I am just second-guessing, so could be totally wrong.

[SUNdog]

The link posted in the starting post is not for the exhibition under discussion, but for Ansel Adams and the West in 1979.

I suspect Szarkowski's response wasn't more in depth because Brower's arguments feed into and reinforce the critical stance Szarkowski took for the AA at 100 exhibition.

JP

[DHodson]

Disappointed? Yes, Surprised? No

Electing to explore Mr. Adams in miniature, while maybe of interest to some, is a bit like defining Usain Bolt based on his speed for the 10km. The one consolation is that we'll be remembering Mr. Adams long after others have passed.

[Drew Wiley]

The mural prints were printed VERY different from smaller versions of the same images - softer, warmer, and less glossy. He even recommended this approach in his manuals. Those old negs just didn't hold up at high contrast in big scale.

[Jim Noel]

I disagree that "AA like big prints" (over 'normal' sized prints). He printed big because that is where the money is...and because he could...and it was probably fun. I do not remember seeing any huge prints in his house.

But I am just second-guessing, so could be totally wrong.

I agree with AA's reason for the big prints. I think it is probably the reason most workers print them. There was one immense print in Ansel's home of EL Capitan. I remember it as reaching basically from floor to ceiling.

[Jim Galli]

Does anyone think we're undergoing a natural analog reaction to the trendy giant prints that people are enamored with these days and the cheapening of how much trouble it was to make excellent large prints before epson?

[bob carnie]

I saw some 30 x 40 AA prints a few years back that were magnificent, I am not sure if he printed themselves or one of his assistants, but they were very nice..

[bob carnie]

Photographers that compete for gallery space with painters will continue to print 30x40 or larger. That trend won't change for a very long time.

Good Point

[Drew Wiley]

I think the size issue is overrated. Some compositions work best small, some large, and some in multiple sizes. I love to see small and large images intermixed, and have exhibited that way myself. Once I had a series of my 20x24 Cibas set between ten foot tall paintings by a famous abstract expressionist, on the one side, and tiny impressionist paintings by Winston Churchill on the other side. Might sound odd, but the seemingly eclectic mix worked. At a deeper level, the different genre all had something in common - an emphasis on surface light (my own interest back then was on very subtle two-dimensional rendition of the picture plane, something well matched by the glossy surface of Cibachrome).

[QT Luong]

So far the discussion has been only about size - not an unimportant consideration. What do you think of the fact that Szarkowski chose to omit Monolith from the exhibit, in favor of many obscure images? Both Ansel Adams autobiography and biography (by Alinder) had an entire chapter titled after the photograph, Adams considered it to be his epiphany, and Alinder his most significant photograph.