Zone system is...?

[Darin Boville]

I've always wondered whether Adams thought that people's obsession with the Zone System was a little over the top. As Adams has said, it is just a straight forward processes derived directly from basic principles.

I'm not sure it is so much an invention or discovery as an organized way of thinking about exposure and development as a single process.

I sometimes see mention of the Zone System as a major part of the foundation of Adams' achievement (such as one of the web entries on the current San Diego exhibit). I think he achieved far more than that.

--Darin

[Helcio J Tagliolatto]

When I put a tuba in my lap and check my pitch against an electronic tuner, I'm not conducting science. I'm also not conducting science when I repeatedly practice a difficult bit of music using an electronic metronome. I'm making sure that my technical performance will not limit my artistic objectives. (It doesn't work, but that's another story.)

If my guess exposure, however well-founded in experience, leaves half the scene outside the sensitivity range of the film, then no amount of purposeful art will be served by the result. The result may be acceptable, and even beautiful, but it won't necessarily be what I visualized. Getting an acceptable result without visualization is to me a faith-based process. Working through a process to predictably achieve what I visualize does not make that visualization any more or less artistic.

The Zone System is an approach by which the desired result can be attained through analysis rather than only through experience.

But there is nothing about the Zone System or any other method that invalidates results achieved without it. The results speak (or not) for themselves.

Rick "noting many examples of scientific methods used in pursuit of art" Denney

Rick,

I agree. Photography is science, craft and art. If you do the "scientific part" well, the process will be much more predictable.

But visual art is a process of surprising the viewer, and the most of the images from the Master (and creator) of the ZS do little this way. (It's not a matter of taste, since I deep appreciate Adams' work).
I think the deliberate use of ZS does little or nothing to the final impact of a picture.

Helcio

[Merg Ross]

Any mention of the Zone System brings to mind the wonderful historical writings of Ira Latour. He writes on many photographic subjects, including the Zone System, with factual documentation.

I have known Ira for over fifty years, and have joined him in his efforts to separate fact from fiction. As he approaches 90, he has lived a lot of the history. I will link his website.

http://www.iralatour.com/writings.cfm?action=show&id=8

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Merg, thanks for the link. This is what I would call cutting to the chase!

Jim

[Robert Budding]

Rick,

I agree. Photography is science, craft and art. If you do the "scientific part" well, the process will be much more predictable.

But visual art is a process of surprising the viewer, and the most of the images from the Master (and creator) of the ZS do little this way. (It's not a matter of taste, since I deep appreciate Adams' work).
I think the deliberate use of ZS does little or nothing to the final impact of a picture.

Helcio

It's more likely that the artist will surprise himself if he lacks control his medium.

[rdenney]

But visual art is a process of surprising the viewer, and the most of the images from the Master (and creator) of the ZS do little this way. (It's not a matter of taste, since I deep appreciate Adams' work).
I think the deliberate use of ZS does little or nothing to the final impact of a picture.

Two points come to mind. One is that impact is an effect on the viewer, not an effect of the art. It says as much about the viewer as it does about the art, if not more. While Adams's work may not surprise you, it astonishes me. I am all the more astonished by how difficult I have found it to reproduce what he did, even when putting my tripod in his holes and attempting exactly the same images.

I could say the same about, say, Rembrandt. There is little about Michelangelo that surprises me, but I'm still astonished by the power of his work.

The Zone System is not an art producer. It's a technique. I once asked my tuba teacher which was more important, technique or musicality. His response: "Yes." Great technique cannot make music, but lack of technique can certainly undermine it.

The second point is that any surprise in Adams's photographs must be measured against the experience of people in the time he made them. He did not attempt to use photography as a means of recording social status or current events, which was the common application of photography then as now. He did not attempt to imitate other non-photographic styles as was common in the day. His subject was the natural scene--the same subject loved and portrayed by countless artists throughout the ages. But he portrayed the natural scene in a uniquely photographic way, staying true to purely photographic rendering. It is not surprising today, but it certainly was in the 1930's, particularly considering his subjects, which were places rarely or never seen in any representation by a large number of viewers.

We may think of his photos as cliche now, but we might as well think of Beethoven's music as cliche, as if Beethoven is to be blamed for the fact that we hear it too often and it loses its fresh power for us. When we allow that, we forget that Beethoven rocked the musical world--people stopped their ears when they first heard the Eroica Symphony. As Beethoven defined Romantic music, Adams established a new school of photography, and as much as any American established photography as a bona fide art form. Surprise was not necessary, but people were still surprised.

This strikes at a dichotomy that I see (from my layman's perspective) throughout art. Adams saw in his mind's eye what he wanted his final print to look like. That goes against the modern-art grain, where artists eschew such determinism. Pollack certainly didn't know how shaking leaky paint cans over a canvas would turn out, and not only did he not visualize the result, but he specifically opposed the value of such visualizations as being a contrivance. His stochastic faith opposed determinism. When Cage sat in front of a piano for four and a half minutes (plus three seconds), he was leaving the audience with their own internal music. Not only did he have no control over the musical result, he had no knowledge of it. That loss of control was his objective--he was a musical anarchist. Once might respect that opinion and even agree with it (which I happen not to) without insisting that it define all art or undermine the value of any particular technique just because it's traditional.

I can listen to Bach, about whose music we probably know 99.999% of all that we will ever know, and still be transported. It is not surprising--I have the score in front of me and know every note. But it astonishes me nevertheless how such familiar forms (at least familiar to us in hindsight) can still be so compelling.

Rick "it's not just a matter of taste" Denney

[sun of sand]

"Pollack certainly didn't know how shaking leaky paint cans over a canvas would turn out"
If pollock didn't have a vision of how a something was going to turn out than anyone could produce those paintings of his
That's certainly false
He had to have a sense of how the paints were or were not working together
Whether his visualization was 10 hours before paint or immediately before -as in while- painting/tossing
doesn't matter
Are you saying he was a monkey? Why would he even look at the canvas? He could have worked blindfolded or behind his back. Actually, he probably could have.
If because he did something gesturally, quickly
without any noticable planning means he did not visualize a result
would be like saying each and every time we sign our names it's a matter of luck we have inked anything legible at all
Look at your hand when you autograph something and tell me it's different from how pollock appeared to toss skeins of paint "uncontrollably"

Prove it to me




I believe photography is an art
It's not science or anything else
It's art
It doesn't matter if your highlights are blown. That's all nonsense.

Athletics are not dependent on systems.
Neither is art
You can shoot a ball with one hand, two hands and even granny style
Put in in the hoop and that's all that matters.
Tiger Woods wouldn't be a hacker if he didn't have video feedback
It's about putting club on ball
Numerous ways to do it and all can work just as well

Zone System is just one way suited to one "aesthetic"

[rdenney]

Are you saying he was a monkey?

No. But his purpose was not to achieve any particular "look". His purpose was to achieve NO particular look. He apparently believed in the concept of randomness.

He didn't actually shake the cans himself, by the way. He hung them on ropes from frames, and then shook the frames, often with dozens of cans hanging from them. In some cases, he attached those frames to machines. He was doing exactly the same thing John Cage was doing with music with 4:33--he was expecting the viewer to bring the art out of their own consciousness by presenting them with art devoid of form.

This was all rooted in a philosophy of random chance rather than in a philosophy of deterministic order. Imposing order was the exact opposite of what he was trying to do. He was not interested in whether the paints "came together".

Yes, it was gestural, but not the sort of gesture that I learned when studying art. Our gestures were supposed to spontaneous, yes, but also purposeful and directed. His were intentionally devoid of direction.

Even so, he was still concerned with technique. He didn't "blow his highlights". Though the visual effect was random and without intentional form, the fact that it was random and without form was intentional, and he explored techniques to achieve greater randomness and formlessness.

I get your point about just putting the club on the ball, though I think the analogy inapt. The point is to further the motive force driving the work, and any worry about mere technique that inhibits that detracts from that force. Fine. But for most artists, that force is not incompatible with technique. In fact, some beautiful art is made as an expression of technique. Why did Rembrandt paint his canvasses with a wash of a complementary color? Because it was an expression of technique that would support the look he wanted--the glow which defines his work--by giving the final color depth that white gesso would not provide. Why did Beethoven arrange his symphonies in the Sonata form? Why did Bach alternate between suspension and resolution? These are all questions of technique, but in each case that technique supported the artistic agenda.

In the case of Pollack and Cage, the agenda was to have no agenda, and the technique was one of having no technique. At least that's how it seems to me when I view or listen to it. What they intend is meaningless--what they express is their statement on the matter.

Yes, the Zone System, like all techniques, is oriented to a particular aesthetic. A hammer is a tool used to drive a nail. You don't need a hammer if you oppose the use of nails. But if you do use nails, driving them with a screwdriver is likely to undermine the result.

Rick "for whom anarchy is not the answer" Denney

[sun of sand]

No. But his purpose was not to achieve any particular "look". His purpose was to achieve NO particular look. He apparently believed in the concept of randomness.

How do you know this? If he wasn't going for any particular look aren't you saying he was going for ANY look
Apparently? How can you know one thing but not the other
You know the purpose of his art but not his beliefs which would create the art
I'm not sure I'd characterize his art as random paint



He didn't actually shake the cans himself, by the way. He hung them on ropes from frames, and then shook the frames, often with dozens of cans hanging from them. In some cases, he attached those frames to machines. He was doing exactly the same thing John Cage was doing with music with 4:33--he was expecting the viewer to bring the art out of their own consciousness by presenting them with art devoid of form.

He didn't only shake cans of paint. I'm no Pollock expert but he seems to have used pretty much anything that would give varying suitable to his tastes lines blobs and flows

This was all rooted in a philosophy of random chance rather than in a philosophy of deterministic order. Imposing order was the exact opposite of what he was trying to do. He was not interested in whether the paints "came together".

Prove this. Now you do know his philosophy?
Random chance is monkeys on typewriters again. Are you saying he simply put paint on canvas with no care as to where?
Came together as in lines and forms coming together in accord with how he was seeing or visualizing the artwork as it being created
instead of a preconceived visual he had a continual editing which amounts to continual visualization .. a final balancing of original concepts ..or however you could say it
Many masterpieces were edited during creation to achieve the right "look"
No different
Many golf swings are edited during the swing to give the right "feel" that is known to produce the desired end shot


Yes, it was gestural, but not the sort of gesture that I learned when studying art. Our gestures were supposed to spontaneous, yes, but also purposeful and directed. His were intentionally devoid of direction.

What does it matter his method not being the one you're used to? Different language same meaning. This is monkeys again.
His paint was NOT directed in any way? That's absurd. If it wasn't directed it would be a bucket of paint tossed over the head blindfolded from 25 yards where only one bucket landed on canvas for every 10 thrown
That's nondirectional and random


Even so, he was still concerned with technique. He didn't "blow his highlights". Though the visual effect was random and without intentional form, the fact that it was random and without form was intentional, and he explored techniques to achieve greater randomness and formlessness.

Don't believe it. He painted thousands and picked a few he thought were outstanding?
monkeys on typewriters. This sounds like you're doing all you can to avoid giving him credit for being able to control AT ALL where that paint landed
I've exampled how one can achieve the greatest randomness ..why would he mess around with such contraptions?

I get your point about just putting the club on the ball, though I think the analogy inapt. The point is to further the motive force driving the work, and any worry about mere technique that inhibits that detracts from that force. Fine. But for most artists, that force is not incompatible with technique. In fact, some beautiful art is made as an expression of technique. Why did Rembrandt paint his canvasses with a wash of a complementary color? Because it was an expression of technique that would support the look he wanted--the glow which defines his work--by giving the final color depth that white gesso would not provide. Why did Beethoven arrange his symphonies in the Sonata form? Why did Bach alternate between suspension and resolution? These are all questions of technique, but in each case that technique supported the artistic agenda.


Isn't technique art -not distinct from it
That technique of overwash was in the beginning just art...doodled experiment that became technique because it worked. The look wanted overrides techique which produces it because the desired look creates the techique.
There are some awful golf swings that in the end work. They work because they've been worked to the point they get what they want out of it
There are horrible exposures of film that in the end work because they work the print till they get what they need out of it
Sometimes a golfer gives up distance another with a better swing wouldn't but if the bad swing golfer picks up something on the better swing golfer it all works out
Sometimes in poker a guy may win because he's a good bluffer or very aggressive
Sometimes though the patient player will lure the bluffer into a bad raise and make up for all the "bad" folds he's committed

In fact, some beautiful art is made as an expression of technique.
Please, show me an example. I personally don't think art works that way. I've heard this before and just don't believe it
To me -coming from an athletic background that's akin to saying a center fielder can make up for his bobbled catch by his dazzling sprint to the ball ... having a chance at making a play no other could
For me, you gotta catch the ball.


In the case of Pollack and Cage, the agenda was to have no agenda, and the technique was one of having no technique. At least that's how it seems to me when I view or listen to it. What they intend is meaningless--what they express is their statement on the matter.

"To me" "to me" "to most"
isn't this opinion? "Is" ? You have a mix of opinion and fact that is confusing me
You're saying not only was pollock a monkey but he was a monkey bent on mocking art?
Matter=art? Meaningless=their statement on art?



Yes, the Zone System, like all techniques, is oriented to a particular aesthetic. A hammer is a tool used to drive a nail. You don't need a hammer if you oppose the use of nails. But if you do use nails, driving them with a screwdriver is likely to undermine the result.

Likely? What is that? A hammer is a perfected through time tool. That's like saying the rock on the end of the arm cupped in hand was crap ..but how could it be crap if it led to the perfection of a tool now known as a hammer
I'd say patience with any tool will do as good a job as the perfected for task hammer
Or you could work quickly and accept a less than stellar rate of success
Either way the shelter will be built and I'd bet it would last just as long
I don't believe egyptians were anarchists. Are you saying the egyptian would be an one today if decided to use his methods for building to the exclusion of our distinctly modern ways?
A parking garage just collapsed
I havent heard of a pyramid collapsing in a while


Rick "for whom anarchy is not the answer" Denney

[Helcio J Tagliolatto]

Any mention of the Zone System brings to mind the wonderful historical writings of Ira Latour. He writes on many photographic subjects, including the Zone System, with factual documentation.

I have known Ira for over fifty years, and have joined him in his efforts to separate fact from fiction. As he approaches 90, he has lived a lot of the history. I will link his website.

http://www.iralatour.com/writings.cfm?action=show&id=8

Excellent. Thank you very much.