Opinions on AA.

[gary mulder]

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..

Regards winter sunrise and mount williamson one thing is sure, the original viewers did witnessed a very different print then the ones represented here.

[Ken Lee]

If you can readily determine that AA was the single greatest landscape photographer, then have you also determined which is his single greatest landscape photograph?

[Doremus Scudder]

I love Ansel Adams best work. I think it remains relevant and inspiring. It certainly is for me.

I realize that it is "out of fashion" to admit to liking the beautiful anymore, but, I hate fashion anyway, it tends to be "exclusive" in the worst sense of the word, while art tends to be inclusive. I think some confuse the two.

Adams was without doubt one of the most influential photographers of his time. His images and methods set the standard for many. Although I never met him, I studied his work and his techniques and am certainly not ashamed to name him as an influence on my work. His photographs remain among the most loved and viewed, and not just by the "masses" (by which I take to mean the uneducated in things artistic...). This speaks for itself.

It seems that "Ansel-bashing" is in fashion now, for whatever reason. Reactions to older artistic styles, especially negative ones, is nothing new. Bach's sons disparaged the old man for being hopelessly old fashioned, Stravinsky picked on Beethoven (but led the "Back to Bach" movement), the impressionists quibbled about the mundanity of the academie paintings, etc., etc. I think it is great that people want to avoid what has already been done and strike out in new directions, but we don't have to photograph like Adams, or compose like Bach to recognize the greatness. But, maybe the Adams images are still too close to many to cause much but a "I want to do something else" reaction.

By the way, I'm still naive enough to believe that landscape photography is a valid direction in art and a wonderfully expressive way to communicate metaphor. But, on my last trip to Yosemite, I never even unpacked my camera. Too much that had been done too often... Besides, I don't even want to say those things with landscape.... But I sure like the way Ansel Adams said those things.

I enjoy and am moved by Adams photographs the same way I am by Whistler, Beethoven, Whitman, Shakespeare, etc. It is never a question of "best." Add to that the photographers: O'Sullivan, Strand, Weston(s), Camponigro(s), Atger, Sander, Sudek, Cartier-Bresson, Model, Man Ray, Callahan, Evans(s), and countless others. Why do we have threads about Adams and not them.... Maybe precisely because of his popularity and familiarity. Somehow, I don't think that should detract from his work.

Best,

Doremus

[Sevo]

Adams was without doubt one of the most influential photographers of his time.

... in North America at least. In Europe, he did not begin to get widely published until the mid to late seventies, when he already was a phenomenon of a (arguably more glorious) past.

[Doremus Scudder]

Sevo,

Yes, maybe I'm being a little geocentric, but I think my point is still valid. Adams work has a history of admiration on other continents as well, albeit later than in North America. Certainly his techniques have been influential.

Best,

Doremus

[StevenJohn]

I have always been impressed with AA's technique...but that is partially what unsettles me when I look at his images. I see the technique so strongly. When I look at "The Tetons and the Snake River", I can almost hear him saying, "Dodge here -2"..."Burn here +4". Shouldn't I be hearing the sound of the wind or the river? I've found I like his color images and smaller format work much better. Of course he used excellent technique in those, but it doesn't seem as overt to me. This in no way takes away from my respect for what AA accomplished. Everytime I head to the darkroom, I'm thankful of his books.

[f90]

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

Quite a strong response rdental, I like it.

I very much agree about the 'Ansel Adams Filter' that you speak of. I must admit that when I was younger I would often judge a book by it's cover..such is the human condition. But when I became interested in the arts, I also became more open minded and started relying on what I thought to be 'good' rather than what others thought to be 'good'.

I have been fairly music obsessive for my entire life, though I seem to listen rather differently than my friends and family do. I cannot help doing it, but I instantly begin breaking a song down rather than just hearing it. Once I can see the song as the sum of its parts I can identify which parts please me and which parts do not; and more importantly why they please me. Our brains seem love the stimulation that is music, but for it to be a good stimulation there must be a strong initial idea combined with the correct balance as to not throw the contrast off. There is no genre filter either, good music is good music (though sadly some genres seem to be heading in the wrong direction).

This brings me your Beethoven statement. You believe that it is less effective nowadays because his work is stultified, which I agree is the case for much of society who seem brainwashed by what is popular and what others think. At 23 years old I am still quite heavily subjected to popular culture of the youth, yet when I heard the Moonlight Sonata for the first time a few months back, I instantly knew that it was special. I saw the strong initial idea, the perfect balance of its parts and the delicate contrast between the notes.

It took a while to learn since photography is newer to me and quite a complex subject, but I now see photographs as the sum of there parts. The basic underlying formula that works for good music also appears to work for good photographs. When I look at the majority of Ansels images I know that they are more correct than anything else that I have seen.

So yes, much like almost everything else on this planet, I do believe that science can be applied to photography for maximum effect. Despite the outliers within the population, there is a general consensus for things that correctly stimulate the mind. One of the simpler things I have noticed about landscape photography is that it appears our brains have preference towards images that eliminate visual dissonance. We subconsciously scan an image for inconsistencies and subconsciously judge on this factor accordingly.

A little research into the physics behind the creation of a photograph tells the truth that a camera is not transcribing a 3d into a 2d scene nearly as well as it could be. The lenses aren't efficient in this aspect nor is the surface in which the light is captured.

gtg.need a solid 8.

Please forgive my long post. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ho2dFi4vhRM

[ImSoNegative]

AA was a great photographer no doubt about that, was he the best? I dont know. like others have said there are lots of great work out there, my wife thought he was the best because of all the books of him at the bookstore hmmm. he is highly publisized, but so is thomas kinkaide, does that make him the greatest painter, many people think so. why? he has lots of publicity, i have seen more meaningful paintings than his from no-name artists, just as ive seen images here on LF forum that would rival AA anyday.

[f90]

(The highway picture, though, has been imitated a zillion times. No, make that a gazillion.)

Yes, I've seen the poor attempts at imitating this shot. Even from the same exact position. I bet they used their long lenses like ansel supposedly did and wondered why it looks different, then their wide lenses which made it look even worse. I'm not trying to be a d1ck, just trying to get my point across. I would love to see a perfectly copied version of this shot composition-wise.

[Edward (Halifax,NS)]

If you can readily determine that AA was the single greatest landscape photographer, then have you also determined which is his single greatest landscape photograph?

Clearing Winter Storm rocks my universe!!!!!!!!!!!!