Transitions: Another of Ansel's iconic trees succumbs to age

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Keith, I remember those Cotttonwoods. I have an image of them for sure somewhere in my stash. They were very majestic looking as I remember. Hope the trip back was a good one.

Jim

[Struan Gray]

I'm not a big bible quoter, but....

For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease. Though the root thereof wax old in the earth, and the stock thereof die in the ground. Yet through the scent of water it will bud, and bring forth boughs like a plant.

Job 14:7-9

Oaks have a pretty amazing ability to coppice from a residual stump, if left alone and allowed to get on with it. This one may be providing photo-opportunities for a good while yet.

[Andrew Tymon]

It's amazing what tree's can do!

[ROL]

A little late to the post, and very sad. The tree first popped out at me during an early morning drive into the Valley and I recognized it immediately as the the tree Ansel had photographed as portayed in my much read copy of "The Negative". Though extremely close to to HWY. 140, it tended to "hide" when not sidelit in the early AM. Though not generally inclined to use the tripod holes of others (even though AA himself did on more than one occasion, and the Tree and site had changed greatly in the intervening years), I decided sometime later that it was worthy (and apparently not over-photographed) of study and began a 4 season series of it in 2002 as homage to the 100 year anniversary of Ansel's birth. I completed the study and have shown "Ansel's Tree, Spring" this last fall as part of of my much larger show in Los Angeles. Winter and Spring can be seen in my video of the show.

Here are the 4 seasons of Ansel's Tree - 2002, never before shown together:

[Keith S. Walklet]

A lovely series. I especially like the first two, favoring the vertical frame the most. But, I really like the small sapling in the second. It is the raking light in the first I appreciate most. And you are right. It blended in so well there most of the time, but really shined with the morning light.

[John Bowen]

Rol,

Thanks for sharing

[Steve M Hostetter]

first two, I agree! and nice site

[Nicholas F. Jones]

A bit late, ... but today while leafing through the photographs in my copy of Yosemite and the Sierra Nevada (with selections from the works of John Muir), published in 1948, I see that Adams included a quite different shot of the tree under the title "10. Late autumn evening, Merced Canyon west of Ribbon Creek, below Yosemite Valley." The trunk is in deep shadow, almost silhouette, the creek bed appears dry (or close to it), and the subject is set off by the high values of the Fall foliage in the rear (by use of a filter I suppose, a favorite technique of his).

The famous shot, "Early Morning, Merced River, Autumn," is reproduced and so titled in Examples, published in 1983, p. 52-55, where he estimates the date as c.1950. Adams's commentary emphasizes that he had observed the scene on many occasions, but he does not explicitly acknowledge the earlier photograph (earlier, that is, if we take the expressed or implied dates to be accurate).

"The years are jumbled and I cannot remember dates. But my recall of place and experience is precise" (Yosemite and the Range of Light, p. 13).

If he did actually forget the earlier published photograph, that's only additional proof that he was giving his full attention to making a successful photograph and not to any present or future archival matters.

[Nicholas F. Jones]

Taking another look this morning, I would add....

(1) The well known image dated ca. 1950 by Adams is in fact in all probability later than the image in the 1948 book. The sapling conifer to the viewer's right appears to have grown (branches are noticeably longer) and to have dropped at least one major lower limb on the left side.

(2) The direction from which the two shots were taken is identical or nearly so, although camera height and/or any movements might have differed (sorry, I don't have a link or more accessible source for the 1948 image).

It follows that the celebrated shot of the "iconic" tree had previously been attempted and that what made/makes this image appealing to many was/is above all different or better light (" ... but the lighting conditions usually were impossible", Examples, p. 53). This will disappoint only romantics in search of a spontaneous gift of the Muse; "Early Morning, Merced River, Autumn" is not another "Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico, 1941." We speak disparagingly of looking for tripod holes when a photographer attempts to duplicate another's work, but when it's you own original composition that is being re-shot I think most of us would agree that this is simply good artistic practice.

[Stephen Willard]

How wonderful it is that time marches on and change is never ending. AA's work surely will endure, but the fallen oak tree will give way to new growth and new possibilities for us photographers to consider. What could be more precious than that?

I personally believe that a photographer's creation is a sacred experience, and it would be disrespectful to replicate someone's image. To intentionally mimic another's work is nothing more than an act of forgery. Have I replicated other photographs? Not yet, but I suspect the day will come when I will succumb to such temptation and engage in such a tragic act. And what will I learn from replicating other artist's work? Nothing except shame.