Thoughts on composition, learning from Ansel Adams

[Vaughn]

And it still matters enough to you to keep commenting on it!

[Daniel Casper Lohenstein]

Hello,

sorry for answering too late, but I was lost in the south of France (Roussillon) with a Fujica GL690 and 40 rolls of FP4+ ...

As far as I remember, Stieglitz lived for a certain lifespan in Berlin.

There was a strong tradition of non-pictorialist photography in Austria and Germany, called the "Neue Sachlichkeit". There was an earlier objectivism, too, the photographs of Karl Blossfeld, who took photographs of little vegetabile objects to reveal their aesthetics. He took these photographs to teach pupils on an art and crafts school. Today, they are artworks, themselves.

Then, in the second wave of Sachlichkeit, the Bauhaus, e.g. Moholy-Nagy, then August Sander, and later the swiss Hans Finsler school developed objectivism to preach rationalization and economization of production.

I find it interesting that in Germany objectivism concerns itself not only with naturalism but also with realism, what means that there was a social dimension in photography. It was the time when improvement of social problems meant finding technical solutions in subsidized housing, bulding new satellite towns, organizing masses etc. Illustrations in engaged journals and magazines were very narrative, not only showing the ugly truths of Weegee in a tradition of french romanticism (e.g. David, Gericault), but also telling stories following idealistc aims - like the idealistic realism of the soviet union (Ideenrealismus, Hegel).

Composition in the naturalistic scenes of the objectivistic photography of Ansel Adams lacks these aims. They are formulated verbally, in descriptions of his photographs, later, e.g. by using them to propagandize environmental concerns. It is not indifference, altough the canon of paradigmatic prints of Adams lacks social concern. Its like a escape, I wouldn't say a detour, perhaps to preserve artistic licence, when others were occupied with "straighter", viz. more "idealistic" Farm Security aims and the propagandation of the New Deal.

[Alan Klein]

Hello,

sorry for answering too late, but I was lost in the south of France (Roussillon) with a Fujica GL690 and 40 rolls of FP4+ ...

As far as I remember, Stieglitz lived for a certain lifespan in Berlin.

There was a strong tradition of non-pictorialist photography in Austria and Germany, called the "Neue Sachlichkeit". There was an earlier objectivism, too, the photographs of Karl Blossfeld, who took photographs of little vegetabile objects to reveal their aesthetics. He took these photographs to teach pupils on an art and crafts school. Today, they are artworks, themselves.

Then, in the second wave of Sachlichkeit, the Bauhaus, e.g. Moholy-Nagy, then August Sander, and later the swiss Hans Finsler school developed objectivism to preach rationalization and economization of production.

I find it interesting that in Germany objectivism concerns itself not only with naturalism but also with realism, what means that there was a social dimension in photography. It was the time when improvement of social problems meant finding technical solutions in subsidized housing, bulding new satellite towns, organizing masses etc. Illustrations in engaged journals and magazines were very narrative, not only showing the ugly truths of Weegee in a tradition of french romanticism (e.g. David, Gericault), but also telling stories following idealistc aims - like the idealistic realism of the soviet union (Ideenrealismus, Hegel).

Composition in the naturalistic scenes of the objectivistic photography of Ansel Adams lacks these aims. They are formulated verbally, in descriptions of his photographs, later, e.g. by using them to propagandize environmental concerns. It is not indifference, altough the canon of paradigmatic prints of Adams lacks social concern. Its like a escape, I wouldn't say a detour, perhaps to preserve artistic licence, when others were occupied with "straighter", viz. more "idealistic" Farm Security aims and the propagandation of the New Deal.

Thanks Daniel for an interesting perspective of some past photographic styles. I think Adams photos of beautiful landscapes dovetailed people's desire to appreciate the beauty of the American outdoors with their wishes to maintain that beauty. Hence the photos were used to encourage Americans to pass legislation to protect the environment. So for that purpose alone, they were very socially purposeful. They may be more appreciated today than they were when first published.

[Drew Wiley]

Adams did take a lot of heat for taking shots of "rocks and trees" right at the time when social issue photography had its greatest impetus - during the Great Depression. Yet he not only articulated a good defense for himself, but did indeed do some of this kind of photography at times too; Manzanar, for instance. His landscape images did play into the National Parks and Wilderness movements, just as Eliot Porter's color images did. But it's ridiculous to think that was the primary motive of either of them with respect to subject matter. If it was, they would have never have gone to such pains to precisely render their intense impressions of beauty. I personally do not think photographs need any ulterior excuse, and frankly find a lot of self-conscious strain in the manner many photographers attempt to make their images socially relevant. Take what you feel, whatever the content, not what you think will bag you the next politically correct exhibit. I'm sick of that stuff. There is no
such thing as "realism". The moment you aim a camera one direction rather than another, you are interjecting your personal
bias.

[Pere Casals]

There is no such thing as "realism". The moment you aim a camera one direction rather than another, you are interjecting your personal bias.

Drew, perhaps there is no absolute realism, but we have shades of it. We can debate days long about pictorialism influence...

[Drew Wiley]

Hi Pere. The context was a previous post insinuating that "realism" includes some kind of manmade or suburban footprint, or some social message, etc. But what that might mean is inherently biased by cultural or personal outlook. Somebody thinks that excludes a certain kind of subject matter that AA allegedly preferred. But where I came from, we called Yosemite Valley "the City" because it was so imprinted by man, and so crowded, though far less than current summers. The world I grew up in had zero suburbanization. It had ranches, old mining trails, and thousand of square miles of uninhabited rugged terrain. It wasn't some Thoreauvian mandate to photograph it, in my case, but my actual daily experience. I could literally walk out the front door, cross the road, and enter rugged canyons that didn't see six visitors per century. And it has nothing to do with a given genre like Pictorialism, which can hypothetically be applied to any kind of subject matter. The fact is, all photographs are two-dimensional abstractions of one kind or an another, even if they somehow simulate or hint at three-dimensionality. Everything gets reinterpreted, even its it's just by means of an idiot selfie stick and a dumb grin blocking the view.

[Mark Sawyer]

Everything gets reinterpreted, even its it's just by means of an idiot selfie stick and a dumb grin blocking the view.

But is it Art?

[Pere Casals]

But is it Art?

I like this definition:

"Art is a diverse range of human activities in creating visual, auditory or performing artifacts (artworks), expressing the author's imaginative, conceptual idea, or technical skill, intended to be appreciated for their beauty or emotional power."

Wikipedia has that sound explanation. I remark "intended" because to me it's a key factor.

What is Art is clear, IMHO the problem comes when we try to say that an Art is better or worse than another one, or when we make interpretations about it.

Hi Pere. The context was a previous post insinuating that "realism" includes some kind of manmade or suburban footprint, or some social message, etc. But what that might mean is inherently biased by cultural or personal outlook. Somebody thinks that excludes a certain kind of subject matter that AA allegedly preferred. But where I came from, we called Yosemite Valley "the City" because it was so imprinted by man, and so crowded, though far less than current summers. The world I grew up in had zero suburbanization. It had ranches, old mining trails, and thousand of square miles of uninhabited rugged terrain. It wasn't some Thoreauvian mandate to photograph it, in my case, but my actual daily experience. I could literally walk out the front door, cross the road, and enter rugged canyons that didn't see six visitors per century. And it has nothing to do with a given genre like Pictorialism, which can hypothetically be applied to any kind of subject matter. The fact is, all photographs are two-dimensional abstractions of one kind or an another, even if they somehow simulate or hint at three-dimensionality. Everything gets reinterpreted, even its it's just by means of an idiot selfie stick and a dumb grin blocking the view.

Yes...

[John Layton]

I think of Edward Weston's photo...I think it was titled "Civil Defense," of a reclining nude figure wearing a gas mask - and his commentary about this...that while it might have been received as a political statement, he actually felt that his photographs from the natural world were perhaps even more "political" (and radical), in that he felt they departed so completely from societal expectations of what photographs (yes, even back then) "should be" (about us).

And these days, I am, finally, seeing some signs...that the 99.999 percent of our world that is not "about us" is, once again, beginning to resonate very deeply - taking folks by surprise actually, at least when they are given the chance to see a few "rocks and trees" (and water) photographs in the manner in which they were truly meant to be seen...as in well and thoughtfully executed, well and respectfully presented prints. Very refreshing...and I hope this resonance continues to evolve - because we all need this!

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I abhore rules, but they have their uses.