Opinions on AA.

[Brian C. Miller]

I learned from Adams' instructional books, and I have a book of his photographs.

I really don't know about the appellation, "greatest landscape photographer to date." He was pretty modest and honest about what he did and how he photographed. He was in the right place at the right time, and at least once nabbed the scene just in the nick of time.

He's done a lot for photography, and for the wilderness. He was even in a car commercial.

Another photographer you might want to read about is William Mortensen. He was a Hollywood portrait photographer, and I think he's been ignored. He created his own color printing process, and prints from it have lasted well for decades.

[Vaughn]

He was in the right place at the right time and did the right things. Thus he became one of the most reconized names in photography to the general public. Not the best, just the best known to the general public.

I find the concept of some artist being the "best" to be a fallacy.

His legacy goes beyond the images he has made. His dedication to the art of photography and to teaching (thru books, workshops, the Friends of Photography, etc) has inspired many to further themselves in photography -- many of whom have been able to go beyond the teacher...and many more who have not, but that is normal and to be expected (hence all the "AA look-a-likes").

Sounds like you need to see more original work if you have not seen photographs that have matched, and exceeded, AA's use of composition and tonality.

Vaughn

[BrianShaw]

I think he was very talented and very intelligent and very focused and very well connected and very dedicated, but he was also a master of self-promotion. He remains a master at self-promotion to this very day.

[rdenney]

Adams was a prolific writer and speaker, and he was good at both. As a result, he wrote good grant applications and became well-connected with lots of influential people. That made it possible for his work to attain a wider audience than is usually the case.

He also had an idea, not really his, but he used his writing and speaking abilities to promote it. The idea was that photographs ought to avoid trying to imitate other visual media, such as painting, and should establish what is "true" about photography. For him and his colleagues, this meant sharp images. As I said, he wasn't the first, but he was able to popularize the concept.

He also portrayed scenes largely unknown to people outside those areas, and those scenes had a magnificence that astonished people. This was during the transitional time when a grand landscape became "magnificent" instead of "forbidding", and he rode that wave.

And, finally, he codified a technique, which had not been done before, for achieving a predictable outcome in terms of tonality. The guy who comes up with a way to teach something will be quoted by every subsequent teacher. He deserves fame for that alone.

But all that was not enough to feed him consistently until his books broke out. Before that time, he did lots of plain commercial work to put food on the table.

There are many photographers who have started with Adams's technique and gone beyond it. They have benefitted from better equipment and materials, but they benifitted even more from knowing his work before they started, so that they would take additional steps rather than just retreading his steps. But many of us are still going down the path he went down 75 years ago.

Today, the notion of the grand landscape has undergone an additional transition. It was forbidding during the Victorian era, and became magnificent, and now it has become passe. There are so many images of grand landscapes that it has become difficult to find new things to say about it. That has led many photographers to look for different vocabularies to portray the same scenes, or for different scenes altogether. But many of us are still rooted in the era of magnificence, and for us Adams is an icon. Being an icon is not at all the same thing as being the best, of course.

Art does not keep score, even if the art establishment sometimes does.

Rick "who struggles with the truth that his landscape photographs are passe" Denney

[cyrus]

(This is pretty much a summary of RDenney's post above)

I think his promotion of photography (along with himself) is something quite positive, as is his popularization of the "scientific" approach to things (the Zone system.)

The negative aspect of AA is how everyone with an LF camera seems to think that they have to ape him and go off to Yosemite and copy his style & content. But that's not really his fault.

[BrianShaw]

... But that's not really his fault.

I've always found it interesting when he elevated to sainthood and mimicked but only in the most literal of ways based on a limited viewpoint of his life and works. His work has sufficient breadth that isn't just landscapes. Perhaps that is what he marketed the most, or enjoyed the most, or even what critics feel are his best works... but it isn't really the summation of his lifes work.

Whats more is that I get the impression (I never met him so this is just an impression) that he was a lot more open-minded than most people give him credit for. He was an avid tester, if not an early-adopter, of new gear too.

A friend of mine knocked on his door unannounced on day way back when and told me that he was a nice guy and invited her in for an brief visit. His review of her portfolio netted positive comments and not one negative about her exclusive use of 35mm. Maybe he was a tad senile at that time and was being very polite to her... IDK.

I also find it interesting to re-think is AAs dichotomy between art and paying work. Seems to me that he transformed his art into a fairly lucrative business. I can't see too much of a difference between the two in his case... except that some of the "paying work" is fairly mundane. I have great respect for AA but also tend to view at him as being the Thonmas Kinkade of photography.

None of this is his fault. He seems to have done what he thought was right, and was very successful at it. He remains successful to this day!

[Peter Gomena]

And it's hard to argue with success.

AA's influence is profound and widespread. I put his books on my shelf next to Weston and Carleton Watkins in the "classics" section. I visit all of them once in a while for inspiration.

Peter Gomena

[Kirk Gittings]

I have great respect for AA but also tend to view at him as being the Thonmas Kinkade of photography.

Not a fair comparison IMO. Ansel was a revelation in his medium with a well earned and significant place in the history of photography-irrespective of his financial success. Can the same be said of Kincade? Laughable.

[Jim Jones]

I think he was very talented and very intelligent and very focused and very well connected and very dedicated, but he was also a master of self-promotion. He remains a master at self-promotion to this very day.

Very true. However, unlike countless lesser photographers, he had something to promote, including significant social issues. The prolific Adams not only captured many fine subjects, but made them available to us mere mortals. He was also generous in sharing his knowledge, like many on this site.

I downloaded the large file and printed the iconic Timothy O'Sullivan photo of Canyon de Chelle (taken 30 years before AA was born) from the Library of Congress site. A similar Adams photo is fine, but pleases me less. He may not always have been the best, but he was very good.

[BrianShaw]

Why not, Kirk? Some would say Kinkade has done everything you just credited
Adams with. In fact, it seems like many would say that based on his sales. I don't personally like Kinkade's work... despite having one of the over my lviing room couch... but there seems a real parallel.