The photographs of St. Ansel, a different POV

[Bill_1856]

I was surprised to read in another thread how many posters didn't really think very highly of his work, especially when compared with that of Weston.
AA's pictures might not be drop-dead gorgeous, (a matter of opinion, there), but in addition to the superb craft, there is an element in every one of his great images -- of excitement, or joy!
I know of only two other photographers whose work is so permeated with these wonderful qualities -- Lartigue and Erwitt.
It's like waking up on your 6th birthday by having your face licked by a new puppy.

[paulr]

was anyone disputing that his pictures are gorgeous? i think the debate is more about how great or how important an artist he was.

unfortunately, people can get pretty polarized over ansel ... a guy who by most accounts you'd have a hard time not liking. i suspect that those who dismiss him outright are reacting mostly against the generations who think ansel invented photography, yosemite, light and shadow, and that he personally hung the moon over hernandez, new mexico.

it probably doesn't help that he lapsed into repetition in his final decades, and that some of this less inspired work became some of his most popular. Or that he's been copied so much that some of us can get sick of looking at anything ansel-esq.

i personally think that he was not, in fact, god, that he was not in the same league of creative genius as some of his contemporaries (weston, strand, stieglitz, walker evans, etc.), but that he made some important contributions that should be recognized.

anyone interested in giving him a second look should take a look at the catalog of the big ansel retrospective that szarkowski curated several years ago. the reproductions are good (and include some lesser-known gems) and the essay is wonderful--the point about joy is not lost on szarkowski.

[Brian Ellis]

was anyone disputing that his pictures are gorgeous? i think the debate is more about how great or how important an artist he was.

unfortunately, people can get pretty polarized over ansel ... a guy who by most accounts you'd have a hard time not liking. i suspect that those who dismiss him outright are reacting mostly against the generations who think ansel invented photography, yosemite, light and shadow, and that he personally hung the moon over hernandez, new mexico.

it probably doesn't help that he lapsed into repetition in his final decades, and that some of this less inspired work became some of his most popular. Or that he's been copied so much that some of us can get sick of looking at anything ansel-esq.

i personally think that he was not, in fact, god, that he was not in the same league of creative genius as some of his contemporaries (weston, strand, stieglitz, walker evans, etc.), but that he made some important contributions that should be recognized.

anyone interested in giving him a second look should take a look at the catalog of the big ansel retrospective that szarkowski curated several years ago. the reproductions are good (and include some lesser-known gems) and the essay is wonderful--the point about joy is not lost on szarkowski.

Those are all good points. The other side of the coin is that it can be difficult to separate his many contributions to photography and his other activities from his work as an artist. He was just such a giant for so many years, he kind of loomed over all things relating to "photography as art" from roughly the 1930s to the 1960s. He was one of the original founders of Aperture magazine, he was one of the motivating forces behind the creation of the department of photography at MOMA, he originated the idea of photography workshops now so common-place today, he of course was a co-creator of the zone system, his instruction books were the most popular of the time, he gave countless lectures all around the country that inspired many great photographers to pursue photography as an art form (Harry Callahan comes immediately to mind but there were many others who cite Adams and his lectures as their original inspiration), he was one of the founders of Group f64 and one of the major forces behind the acceptance of "straight" photography rather than pictorialism as "art," he devoted countless hours and years of effort on behalf of the Sierra Club and environmental causes, he was a tireless lobbyist in Washington for environmental matters and had a huge influence there especially after he became famous. And he managed to do all that while working as a commercial photographer and supporting a family for much of his life.

I think it's also relevant to a lack of appreciation for Adams as an artist that with all of his activities and his eventual popularity and wealth, he doesn't fit our stereotypes of what an "artist" should be. Weston for example comes across much better as the sereotypical recluse who lives only for his art, hence one of the reasons IMHO why some hold him in higher regard than Adams (though if you read Adams' letters you see that they actually were very much a mutual admiration society).

While there were other photographers who may have been more "creative" than Adams (though I don't believe that), there can be no disputing his massive influence that went way way beyond his photographs alone. And it can be difficult to separate him into two parts, the creative artist on the one hand and the technician/inventor/promoter/lobbyist/writer/commercial photographer etc. on the other. I think it's fair to say that for a period of maybe twenty years no other single individual in America had the influence on the development of photography as an art form that Adams had. And of course his influence continues to this day though we take so much of it for granted that we don't necessarily realize the debt that we owe him.

[Steven Barall]

I think that it's harder to see creativity in the photography of vast landscapes as opposed to photos of people, like Walker Evans' photos. The portrait photographer makes you feel invested in the photo by the way he sort of nudges you in one direction or another as far as what you're supposed to think about the person in the photo and it is all very complex and that's the portrait photographers creativity. How do you really assess the creativity of a landscape photographer though?

The average viewer is less likely to feel invested in a landscape photo. So you have to ask what is the way into a landscape photo is, where is the door? I think it can be the technique. It's the milkiness of the clouds, the deep space telescope like view of the darkened daytime skies, the ultra sharp bristling texture of the rocks and trees. I think that's what Ansel Adams' art and creativity was, that's what he figured out. Every photo is a trick and that's what Adams knew. He knew that the photo itself was the Art and not the nature in front of the camera and that he had to make the photo, really make it, create it from nothing.

Adams' photos might be however like jokes that you hear one time too many. Maybe the illusion dissipates over time but that just might be the problem of the viewer, jaded and too sophisticated to be fooled again.

Well whatever it is, Adams did more than just merely leave behind some important contributions that should be recognized. What he helped to create is photography as Art.

[Darryl Baird]

I think that it's harder to see creativity in the photography of vast landscapes as opposed to photos of people, like Walker Evans' photos. The portrait photographer makes you feel invested in the photo by the way he sort of nudges you in one direction or another as far as what you're supposed to think about the person in the photo and it is all very complex and that's the portrait photographers creativity. How do you really assess the creativity of a landscape photographer though? ...SNIP...

A mildly brilliant insight, IMO, and would be a good or better thread to explore. A difference of "object" vs. "subject" (?) ... if we have an idea (a subject) to express and we use a landscape (an object) to communicate it, the weight is on the photographer to push that idea out of the objective into the subjective. If, on the other hand, we use an idea with a another subject (a person) there is almost always a collaboration between the two, some more willing and free than others, but still a joint project. It is really hard to use a person as an object.

While Jorge and others might pooh-pooh those rambling artist statements, they can come in pretty handy when exploring landscapes... I'm thinking about Robert Adams, Mark Klett and a few others... even Sally Mann. Their words really help me to "see" what they're after, otherwise they could be easily pigieon-holed as merely another landscape. (maybe Klett is a little more on the surface)

...back on topic, Ansel's work fails to garner contemporary appreciation due to his enormous popularity with the masses. We tend to dismiss too easily a person who appears in our everyday surrounding like Wal-Mart and the rest. "Familiarity breeds contempt." so true, so true

I still contend his best 'art' was the abstracts like the canyon wall over a frozen lake

[paulr]

if we have an idea (a subject) to express and we use a landscape (an object) to communicate it, the weight is on the photographer to push that idea out of the objective into the subjective. If, on the other hand, we use an idea with a another subject (a person) there is almost always a collaboration between the two...

also consider the idea that people like to make everything about themselves. artists make art that's about themselves in one way or another; viewers take what they're looking at to be about themselves in one way or another.

It takes a much greater sense of abstraction to relate to a landscape than it does to relate to a person.

I see this all the time with people who aren't used to looking at landscape. They'll make comments like "I wish there was a person in it!" It's usually too hard to explain that they're missing the point entirely.

A related point is that sophisticated viewers always look at the subject in terms of how the art presents it--they're aware of the relationship between the subject and the object, which is often where all the interest lies in a landscape picture. More casual viewer tend to look right through the picture to the subject--"that's mom," or "that' a hill." unless there's something especially dazzling or familiar about the hill, mom will always be more interesting to this kind of audience.

[Darryl Baird]

also consider the idea that people like to make everything about themselves. artists make art that's about themselves in one way or another; viewers take what they're looking at to be about themselves in one way or another.

It takes a much greater sense of abstraction to relate to a landscape than it does to relate to a person.

I see this all the time with people who aren't used to looking at landscape. They'll make comments like "I wish there was a person in it!" It's usually too hard to explain that they're missing the point entirely.

A related point is that sophisticated viewers always look at the subject in terms of how the art presents it--they're aware of the relationship between the subject and the object, which is often where all the interest lies in a landscape picture. More casual viewer tend to look right through the picture to the subject--"that's mom," or "that' a hill." unless there's something especially dazzling or familiar about the hill, mom will always be more interesting to this kind of audience.

It seems this is a nice summary of the classification system John Szarkowski put forth as "Windows and Mirrors"

[Brian K]

also consider the idea that people like to make everything about themselves. artists make art that's about themselves in one way or another; viewers take what they're looking at to be about themselves in one way or another.

It takes a much greater sense of abstraction to relate to a landscape than it does to relate to a person.

I see this all the time with people who aren't used to looking at landscape. They'll make comments like "I wish there was a person in it!" It's usually too hard to explain that they're missing the point entirely.

A related point is that sophisticated viewers always look at the subject in terms of how the art presents it--they're aware of the relationship between the subject and the object, which is often where all the interest lies in a landscape picture. More casual viewer tend to look right through the picture to the subject--"that's mom," or "that' a hill." unless there's something especially dazzling or familiar about the hill, mom will always be more interesting to this kind of audience.

You're right on target with this post. I think that people require greater sensitivity to appreciate landscape photography than to appreciate photographs of people.

People have been designed to have great empathy for others, and I don't mean empathy in the more altruistic sense, but in the sense of being able to comprehend the situations of others and to be able to determine the emotional state of others just on facial expression. We are very aware of the message that the facial expressions and body language of others communicate. That makes it far easier to understand the intent of the photograph, understand the emotional state or to at least feel a connection when the subject of the photograph, or a main element, is a person. The subject is laughing, it's a funny photo, the subject is smiling it's a happy photo, the subject is crying, it's sad photo, and so on.

Landscape does not have those obvious clues and it is far easier with landscape for the audience to interpret it in a way that relates to them, or to simply not relate to it at all. The audience of a landscape photograph can project themselves more into the photograph and read less of what the photographer might be doing. Also for some people there is little emotional response from landscape photography and even live landscape. Some people seem to only have an emotional response to other people and not to inanimate objects or places.

I think it's far more of a challenge to elicit an emotional reaction to a landscape or still life than it is with a portrait.

[j.e.simmons]

I still contend his best 'art' was the abstracts like the canyon wall over a frozen lake

I agree. In the other thread, I wrote about seeing a private collection of Adams' vintage prints. One of the prints was from this negative. However, the print I saw was so different from the linked print as to be a completely different photograph. The vintage print was small - not even 8x10. The dramatic contrast of the linked print was not there - it was a subtle jewel that glowed. (And yes, I have seen an actual print of this negative done in Adams' later interpretation.)

I don't think this is an example of Adam's eyesight changing over the years and his beginning to print with more contrast, although we know that did happen. I think that somewhere along the way, in the 40s perhaps, Adams had a change of artistic vision.

I don't believe you can understand Adams without seeing early prints of his negatives. Later prints of early negatives are simply not the same. If you get a chance to see early prints, be sure to take advantage of it.
juan

[paulr]

well, ansel had a lot of contemporaries and predecessors who were landscape photographers. some of them arguably approached the landscape with greater depth and a more sophisticated vision than he did.

i think his most important contributions had to do with his particular relationship to the subject ... the idea that there are places that should remain sacred and (relatively) untouched. these ideas are old news now, but the use of landscape art as popular, pro-conservation documents was a major contribution of his.

i think the whole idea that technique or illusion is the source of greatness in his work is really misplaced. it's something that the ansel clones all latch onto, and is a major reason most of their work is so insipid ... sharp, stunning prints of nothing.