Opinions on AA.

[rdenney]

I like Caponigro's Running White Deer more than any print I've seen of AA's, so who's better at landscapes?

Hmmm. Here's the question: In 1967, what would Paul Caponigro have chosen to photograph, and how might he have chosen to photograph it, were it not for Ansel Adams? Adams was 30 years older than Caponigro, and was already famous and old when Running White Deer was photographed.

There is a question that pops up from time to time on a tuba player forum: Would Arnold Jacobs (the celebrated Chicago Symphony tuba player and renowned pedagog--sound familiar?) be able to win an orchestra audition today? Folks listen to his recordings with the CSO from the 1950's, and claim, "I could do that well." But they are playing an instrument that is a replica of the instrument Jacobs made famous, they probably learned to play it using teaching techniques he developed (probably delivered by his students), and they define what they consider to be good sound and orchestral technique based on the standard he set. Had they been old enough to be in their prime in the 40's, when Jacobs won his CSO gig and redefined orchestral tuba playing in the U.S., they would not have been playing that instrument using that approach, and they would not have the benefit of that world-renowned pegagogy.

You cannot even compare skills across time--standards of skill change, equipment improves, and training has the benefit of prior progress. You never could compare art across time. You are looking at Caponigro's art from the perspective utterly foreign to and ignorant of the impact that Adams had in his day. For one thing, Caponigro had seen Adams's work in addition to dozens of other of Adams's contemporaries, while Adams had seen Strand's work and the very few of his contemporaries (including Weston, Stieglitz, etc.).

The comparison is meaningless.

Adams's work has been so imitated that the approach he took no longer seems relevant. But it was absolutely relevant and novel when he first took that approach, even if he wasn't the only one doing it. But as it has been said, what makes Adams's work passe now is not what Adams did or did not do, but rather the eyes through which we view his work in 2012. Of course, many people with a discerning eye don't think Adams's work is passe at all. I'm one of them. But I like the music and literature of 75 years ago, too.

Rick "who likes Caponigro's work, too" Denney

[Vaughn]

Nice post, Rick...well stated.

[Heroique]

Of course, many people with a discerning eye don’t think Adams’s work is passe at all. I’m one of them.

Many “discerning eyes” must be reading this thread.

I’d love to hear from them what might make AA’s work become passé in the future.

Or, will particular qualities of his work always protect it from that fate?

[rdenney]

Or, will particular qualities of his work always protect it from that fate?

Who knows?

Maybe it's that he never let his style rule his aesthetics--rather, his aesthetics defined his style.

But it's certainly true that I look at photos of that general approach--sharply realistic landscapes of magnificent subjects--and pass them by with a ho-hum. (Many of those photos are mine.) But others remain compelling to me (not necessarily to others).

Why do they compel? Probably one of two reasons: 1.) The photographer felt something powerfully, and his craft was up to the task of laying that power on me, or 2.) the subject affects me powerfully, and the photographer managed to stay out of the way. With Adams, it's a little of both, perhaps, depending on the photo. With Denney, it's more the second.

Rick "describing something he doesn't understand" Denney

[Thebes]

You are looking at Caponigro's art from the perspective utterly foreign to and ignorant of the impact that Adams had in his day.

Its actually kind of difficult for you to know how I am looking at things, since I didn't say. When have I said AA wasn't very influential? I would say he was almost as influential to the art as Stieglitz.

I was saying that some people might not view him as being "the best landscape photographer to date", as stated by the O.P. Culture does not exist in a vacuum, but importance is different from personal aesthetic perceptions, and actually that is part of the point I was trying to make with the sentence you quoted.

Anyway, thanks for reading in so much more into that than I ever said.... maybe you can go join into the pointless semantic bickering about incident vs reflected readings now... Sigh... why do I even bother? Do you just have cabin fever, or is participating in this forum's discussions always like bashing one's head into a wall?

[rdenney]

Its actually kind of difficult for you to know how I am looking at things, since I didn't say. When have I said AA wasn't very influential? I would say he was almost as influential to the art as Stieglitz.

I was saying that some people might not view him as being "the best landscape photographer to date", as stated by the O.P. Culture does not exist in a vacuum, but importance is different from personal aesthetic perceptions, and actually that is part of the point I was trying to make with the sentence you quoted.

Anyway, thanks for reading in so much more into that than I ever said.... maybe you can go join into the pointless semantic bickering about incident vs reflected readings now... Sigh... why do I even bother? Do you just have cabin fever, or is participating in this forum's discussions always like bashing one's head into a wall?

You're right, culture does not exist in a vacuum. That's why, unless you are 100 years old, the way in which people viewed Adams's photos in the 1930's or 40's would be foreign to you. (As it would be foreign to me.) None of us can view those grand landscapes in the way their original viewers did, because they were novel to them and are familiar to us. Also, his approach was novel then and familiar now. That does not require mind-reading on my part. You could have interpreted my remarks as agreeing with the point you were trying to make, had you chosen to do so.

Please do not resort to insulting me, especially when I said nothing to insult you. When I quote someone, I don't think I'm obligate to agree or disagree with them. I may do both, viewing what I quoted from different directions. And I also don't feel obligated to restrict my post to just what is referenced in the quote. I may use that as a jumping-off point to make a tangential observation. I do not mean that as an insult to you.

I was not involved in the semantic discussion about the difference between reflected and incident light. I offered an observation in that thread that had nothing to do with that semantic discussion, and which was persuasively refuted, and I did not respond further. Please don't blame me for your annoyance with others.

Rick "respectfully submitted" Denney

[Peter Gomena]

Ansel Adams' pictures never made me gag. Kincades always do.

Peter Gomena

[f90]

None of us can view those grand landscapes in the way their original viewers did, because they were novel to them and are familiar to us.

Are these "familiar" landscape images?







I dunno about you but I am yet to see images more unique than these. And these are just a few..

[rdenney]

I've seen many landscape photographs as unique as these, and some moreso. That does not diminish these in any way, of course. (The highway picture, though, has been imitated a zillion times. No, make that a gazillion.)

But there is no way I can look at these without looking at them through my Ansel Adams filter. Now, show me a photo of his that is not iconic, maybe even one that I have not seen, and I might be able to objectively compare it to work by someone less familiar. In any cases, it would be really difficult for most of us to evaluate these pictures without that evaluation being affected by the knowledge that Adams made them. And that effect might be either positive or negative depending on the point of view of the evaluator.

Even that does not capture my point, however. When an east-coast art viewer in 1945 or whenever first looked at that photo of what Adams thought was Mt. Williamson, or that photo of Lone Pine, he had never seen either of those two places, and had never seen anyone portray them with such stark realism even if he'd seen a portrayal at all. But now, many of us have been to those places, often in part because these photographs were made there, or have seen pictures of them or places very llike them thousands of times.

Photographers that came after Adams would know these places, and they would know how Adams portrayed them. That would have to affect their own portrayal and the choices they make, even without any fundamental shift in aesthetics. But I think there has been a fundamental shift in objectives. PaulR said not too long ago that maybe these sorts of portrayals are no longer enough. What would have shocked that 1945 viewer would be part of a vast stream of similar stuff today, even if these are superlative examples of that stream.

I'm resisting the comparison you are making. I do not think there is a valid way to compare seminal work from two generations ago with derivative work today. And if that's impossible, then it's even more unlikely to find a valid comparison between seminal work of two generations ago and seminal work of today that might reflect an utterly different aesthetic sensibility. You might as well try to compare Beethoven to Philip Glass. In the early 1800's, Beethoven was "out there", but now he exemplifies what many refer to as the stultifying music of dead white Europeans. How could any of us listen to Beethoven as if he were new?

You have stated that you think such art can be created and classed as "greatest to date" on the basis of scientific formula which you wonder if Adams was the first to apply to photography. I would like to hear more on that, since that seems to be your motive for starting this thread.

Rick "debating, along with most others, the notion of 'best'" Denney

[Thebes]

Please do not resort to insulting me, especially when I said nothing to insult you. When I quote someone, I don't think I'm obligate to agree or disagree with them. I may do both, viewing what I quoted from different directions. And I also don't feel obligated to restrict my post to just what is referenced in the quote. I may use that as a jumping-off point to make a tangential observation. I do not mean that as an insult to you.

I was not involved in the semantic discussion about the difference between reflected and incident light. I offered an observation in that thread that had nothing to do with that semantic discussion, and which was persuasively refuted, and I did not respond further. Please don't blame me for your annoyance with others.

Rick "respectfully submitted" Denney

My reference to that other discussion is because this is twice in a week of rather occasional posts where I felt someone had "jumped down my throat", so to speak. Perhaps, like I said, some people just have "cabin fever". I don't know about you, but many people, if told their "perspective" was ignorant, would find it insulting. Kinda discourages participation.

Of course you have no obligation to agree with my opinions on anything. It would be a mighty boring world if we all agreed on everything.

Considering the matter, a number of people have seemed abrasive to one another in recent threads as well. I suppose many of us are eager for Spring. I'll take your response to as a good indication that no offence was meant.

FWIW, I feel that discussion about who is "best" as an artist is a problematic concept at best, and for many of the reasons that you mentioned.