Ansel Adams: Do you see a worm in this apple?

[dazedgonebye]

…And now I’ve had a chance to look a little longer – Wow.

Below are four different ways to see some of the FIREWORKS I mentioned in my impassioned opening post.

Take care, shield your eyes.

I like the triangles best – because they help illustrate the human dynamics I think are there, spoken and silent. (But perhaps I was most surprised by the tree’s diagonals.)

It’s important to say I don’t think I’ve “added” any lines; I’ve only highlighted lines already there. One might have identified different ones.

Plus, this is merely a quick study of lines. The examples don’t really address other critical issues – such as lighting, space, silver palette, perspective, etc., etc.

But perhaps they’ll hint at the pleasing & masterful unity I’ve sensed in this photo – this too-long-neglected photo. (Heck, I’ll say “masterpiece” again.)

It’s much more than just another dreary afternoon in the school library.

Wow, just...wow.

[cowanw]

For a somewhat more validated line maker you might try
http://photoinf.com/Golden_Mean/Euge...enSection.html
Regards
Bill

[monkeymon]

All those triangles and pyramids, Ansel was a black belt Freemason? Probably trying to communicate with his aliens lords.

[Michael Alpert]

Heroique,

I can see that your affection for this photograph and photographer will not be clouded by reasonable dissent. You were looking for a hero, and you have found one. AA is probably the safest hero in the history of photography, but that is perfectly okay. Sometimes life is stranger than strange. In aesthetic matters, tangential points of view are acceptable. In other arenas, I find the whole mindset that searches for heroes and "masterpieces" to be troubling. It is the immature absolutist mindset that made much of the twentieth-century so violently contentious. Still, the subject under consideration allows for difference; and we each contribute to the richness of photography through our various standards, interpretations, and biases.

[mandoman7]

Heroique,

I can see that your affection for this photograph and photographer will not be clouded by reasonable dissent. You were looking for a hero, and you have found one. AA is probably the safest hero in the history of photography, but that is perfectly okay. Sometimes life is stranger than strange. In aesthetic matters, tangential points of view are acceptable. In other arenas, I find the whole mindset that searches for heroes and "masterpieces" to be troubling. It is the immature absolutist mindset that made much of the twentieth-century so violently contentious. Still, the subject under consideration allows for difference; and we each contribute to the richness of photography through our various standards, interpretations, and biases.

You've got to get past the heroes to find your own voice, if that's going to happen. Appreciation is a very good beginning for the journey, but mimicking the tools and vision of a creative artist does not make you a creative artist. A lot of people have difficulty moving beyond hero worship to finding their own thing. I've found myself going into the field with someone else's idea in my mind many times. We can't all be Van Gogh's, I guess.

[Paul Kierstead]

The composition, I think, clearly implies certain assumptions – perhaps without Ansel’s conscious awareness – about the dominant role men, and submissive role of women. If this is true, one is certainly free to link such assumptions with the scene’s era (which I think is the 1950’s – does anyone know the year of the photo?). Others might say that if this assumption is there, it’s unacceptable in any time or place. Still others might argue that no such assumption exists – or even if it did, you wouldn’t be able to prove it.

I'm not really sure what you are getting at. First off, a single picture is not representative of all people, and there most certainly isn't evidence that it was intended to be (unless the caption "people of earth" was just outside of this reproduction). Some men are dominant, and some women are submissive. And, of course, the reverse. However, since when should a photograph represent all possibilities, or even the way we think things should be? It is what it is; either a found or constructed scene presented as (hopefully) the photographer envisioned it. I don't see why it should reflect a social ideal, or even reality in the main.

[sun of sand]

It's obvious Ansel stole from Mondrian

[CP Goerz]

This was a 'commercial' shoot, more than likely there was an art director/storyboard to follow and Ansel was merely the tool for putting that 'image' on film. I highly doubt that Ansel walked around the campus and came up with the ideas for the shots himself but am more than willing to be corrected.