William Mortensen

[Christopher Perez]

I have lived through some pretty interesting times. I was deeply influenced by Weston and Adams. But irony of ironies, I at the time lived 10 minutes south of one of the other Great Saints of photography, and never knew it. I can't believe I didn't go visit this man before he died.

Over the weekend I found a 1941 printing of William Mortensen's Mortensen on the Negative.

I read through his materials carefully and can't for the life of me figure out what St. Ansel and Newhall found so offensive. To me, anyone who writes

<ul>

Dedicated to the real photographers of the world - to those who, with their second-hand equipment and their makeshift darkrooms, are today fighting their solitary battles with their recalcitrant medium, not for money or for glory, but because they would rather make pictures than anythying else in the world.

</ul>

can't be all that bad. This is exactly how I see it.

[paulr]

that holy war had deep historical roots. recently discussed here: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/505261.html

[Donald Brewster]

I'm sure you saw this recent thread:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/505261.html

My sense is that the debate was entirely on the Adams/Newhall side. There was a serious philosophical debate between pictorialists and the naturalists, which was mostly being made by the naturalists. I'm not a big fan of Mortensen's work, but I certainly appreciate him as a good technician and as you note was good writer/teacher. His abrasion technique might have doomed his legacy since it is so hard and time consuming.

[paulr]

"My sense is that the debate was entirely on the Adams/Newhall side"

i think mortenson was an active participant, although i haven't seen any quotes from him that are as mean spirited as those from the other side.

it's worth remembering that at the time, the majority was on mortenson's side ... most people seemed to feel that if photography was going to be art, it had to look like painting. so possibly a lot of the wrath from the straight photography guys came from being outnumbered and feeling threatened.

[Donald Brewster]

Paulr -- you are correct. Yes, Mortensen was a participant and wrote at least a few articles, but he did not have debate with the same heat brought by the other side. Bad phrasing on my part.

[Brian Ellis]

Adams wasn't the only participant in battling pictorialism, he had plenty of help from Weston, Newhall, and others. But he was the best known of the various participants on either side of the battle so it's his comments, barbs, criticisms, etc. that get the most attention. Adams et al were striving to gain acceptance of photography as a fine art, distinct and different from other art forms. The pictorialists, on the other hand, generally tried to make photographs look like anything except photographs. So there was a deep philosophical division, a "holy war" if you will, and that engaged strong emotions on both sides. Today both sides look at little over-wrought as we've adopted a more accepting attitude about the various forms that photography can take. So we look back with some bemusement and wonder what all the shouting was about, just as 100 years from now people will look back on the overwrought, emotional debates about digital vs film, Mac vs PC, etc. and wonder the same thing.

[Paul Fitzgerald]

Hi there,

As for the holy war, someone should have taught A.A. that if you harbor resentment, happiness docks elsewhere. It appears he carried this grudge to the grave, what a silly waste.

As to Mortensen, he really is worth finding and reading. His books influenced enough Jacks and Jills and G.I. Joes to open their own studios to fill a phone book. The people that had their start in these studios could fill several phone books. He covered everything photographic you could want to read, and did it well.

Let them all rest in peace.

[Steve Hamley]

I find it curious that although Weston is remembered as being firmly in the f64 camp in his later years, he preferred the famous $5 rapid rectilinear over an anastigmat in the Mexico days which IIRC, he stated in the Daybooks was "too sharp".

Certainly later on in "The Photographer" (1948?) he was shown using the ubiquitous 14" Commercial Ektar which is no slouch, but he obviously appreciated the qualities of different lens designs and the ones he liked through much of his career weren't always the sharpest ones.

Steve