elitist = someone smarter and/or richer than the person making the statement (in what appears to be it's pejorative sense)
Can a person buy smarts?
It reminds me of something my late wife said, "John, if you're so rich, why ain't you smart?" (and I wasn't rich, either!)
Frank, those who have loved a dog "get it" and those who don't won't, so (since you're probably in the latter camp) I won't try to convince you otherwise.
But I gave Adams' "dog book" to my wife and she absolutely loves it.
I like my dawgs like I like my women. I have a Golden Retriever.
(did you hear the clunk from the frying pan in NM yet?)
Mark: Has Robert Adams written politically, or made overtly activist statements in his images? My thoughts are that he has observed the reality of the west's current plight, but leaves it to the viewer to draw whatever judgement that reality might merit.
Paulr: I'm willing to bet you haven't read any of Adams' books lately. They're worth a second look. I promise that you won't hold these same opinions of where he's coming from.
Not hardly. You might try (re)reading the essays "In the Nineteenth Century West" and "In the Twentieth Century West" in Why People Photograph.
"... but being more or less an ad guy, I think Ansel's advertising imagery wins."
well, the i imagine the perspective of an ad guy would choose ansel over robert any day. for an ad to work, it has to have a clear message and to give it up immediately. i've spent the last ten years freelancing for ad agencies ... if i had a dollar for every time i heard "make it pop!" ...
robert adams was no ad guy. his images come from a place of caring deeply, but unlike ads they are not rhetoric. they are subtle, observant, and layered, and often slyly introspective. they demand patience from a viewer ... they're only going to appeal to someone who cares enough to look carefully.
everyone has different preferences, but personally i tend to react against anything that resembles an ad image. i don't like things that are obvious, and i don't like being told what to feel.
which isn't to suggest that i think ansel was an adverising photographer or a simple rhetoritician. i like whole bodies of his work very much, and i admire him as a person and as a teacher. i do not think, on the whole, he created work with the level of depth and resonance that robert adams did, but i also understand why he was much more popular.
"Not hardly. You might try (re)reading the essays "In the Nineteenth Century West" and "In the Twentieth Century West" in Why People Photograph."
i'll reread them tonight and check in tomorrow!
Paulr - great, will look forward to hearing your thoughts. If you're short on time, "20th" is where most of the action is...
I like my dawgs like I like my women.
Frank, you gotta feeding us such tempting straight lines.
I know, but the artists are either too slow or too serious to bite.
The reason I asked that was because as a photography major at an art school, there is a lot of robert adamsy stuff held in high regard and ansel adams stuff is kind of snickered at...which is beginning to bug me as Im starting to see things like New Topographics being at best interesting projects that do no measurable good to the cause theyre about, and at worst just some complaining in the form of a photograph. Art is starting to bug me...what to do...what to do...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks