Mortensen, the Antichrist...

[Mark Sawyer]

For anyone interested in William Mortensen, he's being re-re-re-rediscovered...

http://hyperallergic.com/157037/william-mortensen/

[Drew Wiley]

Not really that unusual for the era, esp if you consider the precedent of Surrealist painters, who were vastly more nuanced. This kind of thing is otherwise hybridized with the "pre-Raphaelite" style of composition so popular with Pictorialists. Outerbridge was doing analogous stuff in color carbro. And what was
deliberately racy back then tends to come across as just plain corny today. Still, some of these guys were incredibly skilled printmakers. But I'm sure this kind of
theme is pretty tightly picked to be edgy, and does not represent the full spectrum of Mortensen's work.

[Peter De Smidt]

Thanks for the post. I have most of Mortensen's books, but I hadn't seen some of the images in the article. The Model and The Command to Look are worth checking out, whether you like his grotesques or not.

[Peter Lewin]

I'ld sure like to see some of Mortensen's witches fly by for Halloween... But on a slightly more serious note, thanks for the post. I was well aware of Mortensen in terms of pictorialism, but completely unaware of his more, let's say, unusual subject matter. I will have to see if I can make it into Brooklyn to visit the gallery. His efforts with various "effects" make me think that he was born too soon, given Photoshop and today's freer moral climate, it would have been interesting to see what he could have created.

[Vaughn]

Photoshop should have a "Mortensen" button -- it would automatically remove pubic hair.

He would have been great at photographically removing tats.

[Mark Sawyer]

I think the mainstream and popular photo media showed more his cheesecake Hollywood portraits, for pretty obvious reasons, (more commercial, and easier to digest), and that's what he's largely
known for today. His "darker work" was so theatrical and usually based on literature, folklore, and distant history that it doesn't seem threatening especially today, but it still has a lot of impact, visually and viscerally, at least for me. The first big original Mortensen print I ever saw was his image based on Poe's The Pit and the Pendulum. It was impressive.

Wish I could see this show...

[Tin Can]

I would love to see this show and just told my erstwhile 'son' to go see it.

[Drew Wiley]

Even ES Curtis fooled around with these kinds of shots when he took up a career in Hollywood later in life, though prints from that era aren't worth much at all
compared to his Indian work. The 20's were pretty wild in their own way.

[John Kasaian]

There is something disturbing underlying the blatantly 1920's corn ball genre stuff that speaks about a darker kind of egoism. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. If that was what Mortensen was actually trying to achieve I these tableaus, the next question has to be "Why?"
It reminds me of poorly written horror genre fiction

[Mark Sawyer]

I wouldn't call it corn ball so much as very overtly theatrical. I can understand not liking the genre, but if you see the originals, they're well-crafted and composed. More of a high-production-value 1920's art-horror genre.

[Drew Wiley]

Sorry, but the gold standard is the original Nosferatu silent film, which rings spooky to this day, and there shadows told the whole story. Some somebody got it right. Even certain still frames from that movie would probably hit the mark.

[Peter De Smidt]

It looks like The Command to Look is back in print, ISBN-13 9781627310017.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Command-Look-Photographer%C2%92s-Controlling/dp/1627310010/ref=pd_sim_sbs_b_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=05ERZ670BNW2H2S44RHS

[Tin Can]

I ordered it and 'American Grotesque'.

Cheaper on Amazon that the publisher.

Then I put a link on Facebook and certain relatives are taking Antichrist very seriously. They said AA was right in condemning Mortensen...

[Peter De Smidt]

Beaumont Newhall expressed regret near the end of his life on how he had contributed to Mortensen's ostracization. I like a number of Mortensen's images, although others aren't my cup of tea, but that can be said about all photographers. I mean I don't even like all of my own photographs, let alone anyone else's. Mortensen and Dunham wrote some pretty good books. They're much more fun to read than any of Adams' books.

[Jim Jones]

Thanks for the post. I have most of Mortensen's books, but I hadn't seen some of the images in the article. The Model and The Command to Look are worth checking out, whether you like his grotesques or not.

I only have a few of his books and downloads, but even that ought to keep the dust off of the bookcase when intersperced through the Ansel Adams library.

[jcoldslabs]

Jim, if you're keeping your Adams and Mortensen books on the same shelf, be careful. That might be cause for spontaneous combustion! :)

Jonathan

[jp]

Grotesque has always been an art theme. Mortensen seemed to be innovative at it, but from our perspective, it's tacky. Our perspective doesn't really matter all that much. Whether we like those theatrical subjects or not, I think his reputation is greatly redeemed or buoyed by his portrait lighting and teaching skills presented in Pictorial Lighting and the The Model books.

I've seen a couple prints of his, the craftsmanship is excellent and is reason alone to go see the work if it's not too much trouble. The polarizing sensationalism of witches and occult are probably to draw in the hipsters' older siblings who only wear black.

[John Kasaian]

It isn't his craftsmanship have a issue with, but rather his vision. Horror for horror's sake. Or maybe Mortensen's sake.

[Tim Meisburger]

Interestingly, he was probably the premier photography educator of his generation. and the Zone system owes much (perhaps all?) to his pioneering methods and insights articulated decades before lesser lights repackaged them for academia.

[djdister]

I've got Mortensen's first book, Projection Control, and I think he came up with some pretty interesting hacks to standard photographic printing techniques. I would describe his work as photo-illustration and theatrical in nature, as has been pointed out. And what's wrong with that? It gets pretty boring if everyone's work looks the same...

[SergeiR]

I ordered it and 'American Grotesque'.

Cheaper on Amazon that the publisher.

Then I put a link on Facebook and certain relatives are taking Antichrist very seriously. They said AA was right in condemning Mortensen...

That publisher is.. odd.. They added whole bunch of stuff in The Command to Look about satanists movement and application of Mortensen's theories there.. But hey.. Its a better reproduction than one i had in PDF, so i got it

[Tin Can]

That publisher is.. odd.. They added whole bunch of stuff in The Command to Look about satanists movement and application of Mortensen's theories there.. But hey.. Its a better reproduction than one i had in PDF, so i got it

I agree the publisher is very odd and playing right into the fears expressed here and on my FB.

[Jim Noel]

I have first printings of all of Mortensen's books. It is not unusual for me to pull one out for refresher information concerning lighting or image design. His information about exposure and development can also be valuable in unusual situations. The reprints I have seen have bastardized his work by the use of poor image printing techniques and adding text which he did not include. He was an artist first, and a photographer second. His subject matter has to be considered based on the time in which he lived. Witchcraft and sorcery were topics of discussion in books and magazines considerably more than is true today. Even children's books often followed these themes.
His explanation of the basics of the ZOne System are accurate and easy to understand. He didn't call it the ZOne System but that is what it is.
I wish I could get to this exhibition, but know that is impossible.

[Tin Can]

SergeiR recommended Mortensen to me some time ago, I find THe Model and other Mortensen books the best available from any era.

Only last week I was rereading The Model backwards. (Obviously seeking Satanic Secrets) But no, I often read books backwards and I was very glad I read Appendix A 'The Rights of the Model'. Appendix B and C also must reads. Including, "Butchery by Light'.

[analoguey]

This thread makes me wanna go grab the first book of his that's available(whichever one). Ill try to see if any of the galleries might have a print here or if not try the libraries for his books.
Quite interested to see how he explains the zone system (and the bit on models).

[Lee Rust]

Those are some pretty powerful images. Shock value, horror, gore, sex and violence are the coin of the realm these days. Mortensen would fit right in.

[Peter De Smidt]

Get The Model first. After that, if you're interested in lighting, then get Pictorial Lighting. If you're more interested in film exposure and development, then get Mortensen on the Negative. I agree with Jim that earlier editions are generally better.

[Tin Can]

Those are some pretty powerful images. Shock value, horror, gore, sex and violence are the coin of the realm these days. Mortensen would fit right in.

Nothing is new, study ancient art and the themes are there also. In fact some museums hide ancient erotic art as unsuitable for viewing.

[analoguey]

Thanks Peter, I shall do that.

[Peter De Smidt]

There are a couple online versions:

https://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Mortensen%2C+William%22

[analoguey]

That's a great link! I just now figured how to borrow the books too!

[redrockcoulee]

Sorry, but the gold standard is the original Nosferatu silent film, which rings spooky to this day, and there shadows told the whole story. Some somebody got it right. Even certain still frames from that movie would probably hit the mark.

Noseratu is certainly a masterpiece. At university I had a part time job running a projector for a film studies class and that was one of the films I had to show, the second and third times for me to see them. Students were very quiet through the screening.

[Mark Sawyer]

Speaking of spooky, I just started another little thread on the Diableries, just in case anyone hasn't heard of them...

After all, it's almost Halloween! :)

[John Kasaian]

Nosferatu is a classic! Max Schreck--what an appropriate name!
I like Fritz Lang's circa 1921 Destiny
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDO3r192kwo

[Jody_S]

Brilliant. Wish I could see prints in person.

[cowanw]

I like to play "Nosferatu" and "Shadow of the Vampire" side by side on two TV's, Pausing and viewing, on and off, to compare the two.

[John Kasaian]

OK I've been mulling the Mortensen pix over, wondering exactly why I find them so objectionable compared to, say the stereo views.
It is the perceived treatment of women by Mortensen which I find objectionable. Must the macabre be exclusive of the female form? No, that's not what I am saying. Take for example The Rape of The Sabine Women---certainly not a "fun" image but it illustrates a historical episode and it portrays the indignity with artistic legitimacy
Mortensen OTOH illustrates his own nightmarish fantasies with real models, projecting a sadistic pall which the viewer has to deal with.
Maybe it is the medium of photography which emphasizes that supposed reality? I didn't find those stereo views of Life in Hell objectionable.

[Tin Can]

OK I've been mulling the Mortensen pix over, wondering exactly why I find them so objectionable compared to, say the stereo views.
It is the perceived treatment of women by Mortensen which I find objectionable. Must the macabre be exclusive of the female form? No, that's not what I am saying. Take for example The Rape of The Sabine Women---certainly not a "fun" image but it illustrates a historical episode and it portrays the indignity with artistic legitimacy
Mortensen OTOH illustrates his own nightmarish fantasies with real models, projecting a sadistic pall which the viewer has to deal with.
Maybe it is the medium of photography which emphasizes that supposed reality? I didn't find those stereo views of Life in Hell objectionable.

I already posted that I read 'The Model' backwards and in the back Mortensen shows the highest regard for women, children, their rights and parents rights. He has specific advice concerning studio behavior and even decor to avoid exploitation lawsuits. He includes model release forms and payment considerations.

[Tin Can]

Received the reprint of 'The Command to Look' today from Amazon. Evidently from reading the forward, the book cover picture has been changed from baby to someone much older. Baby was better.

I like how Mortensen's preserved content is very simply delivered, as he originally intended with picture and comment.

I don't like that a satanic appendix is 36 pages of propaganda was added. However, one could just remove those pages almost en masse, except they sprinkled a few good Mortensen plates amongst the BS. The appendix is a heavy handed attempt to use Mortensen's influence to give satanism credence. Not silly, but stupid and irritating.

The book's original content is there and complete as far as I can tell.

[cyrus]

Those are some pretty powerful images. Shock value, horror, gore, sex and violence are the coin of the realm these days. Mortensen would fit right in.

Alas now days it would be ho hum.

Interesting that no one mentions the racism of images like the Barbary pirate. "White" women being forcibly taken by "Middle Eastern" types is a consistent theme that has continued to this day. The Orientalist fascination with harems and sheikhs ... Rudoplh Valentino made a career out of it, but in his movies it was "OK" for his character to be the subject of female lust despite being an "Arab" since the plot lines made it clear that he was actually a Euripean who had grown up in the East. But even today you can find an entire genre of bodice rippers on Amazon dedicated to that genre.

[cowanw]

Sarcasm alert!

Yah, and then there is the perpetual irony of Christians despoiling Egyptian women.
The death of Hypatia
http://payload.cargocollective.com/1/2/88505/1172524/14William-Mortensen--Death-of-Hypatia.jpg

[John Kasaian]

I already posted that I read 'The Model' backwards and in the back Mortensen shows the highest regard for women, children, their rights and parents rights. He has specific advice concerning studio behavior and even decor to avoid exploitation lawsuits. He includes model release forms and payment considerations.
But these prinst weren't exclusively made for his readership, were they? It is what the image speaks that I find so disturbing.

[Tim Meisburger]

The Command to Look is available as a PDF here: http://www.shishigami.com/srfa/TheCommandToLook.pdf

[Tim Meisburger]

An interesting essay here on A Pictorial Compendium of Witchcraft: http://www.shishigami.com/srfa/MORT_Jan_10.pdf

And here another crappy PDF of Monsters and Madonnas: http://www.shishigami.com/MandM.pdf

[Tin Can]

I think many cannot distinguish fantasy and fact. Fiction and nonfiction. Books, movies and stills describe horrific things, well beyond any meaning one ascribes to Mortensen images.

These images are archetypical Jungian material.

Where do your nightmares come from?

[John Kasaian]

I think many cannot distinguish fantasy and fact. Fiction and nonfiction. Books, movies and stills describe horrific things, well beyond any meaning one ascribes to Mortensen images.

These images are archetypical Jungian material.

Where do your nightmares come from?
Illustrations debasing tortured women are Jungian?
I had no idea!

"I think many cannot distinguish fantasy and fact. Fiction and nonfiction."
Like Ariel Castro, perhaps?

[Tin Can]

Illustrations debasing tortured women are Jungian?
I had no idea!

"I think many cannot distinguish fantasy and fact. Fiction and nonfiction."
Like Ariel Castro, perhaps?

OK John you win. You may redact all Mortensen writings, images and memory.

We can start right here and now.

Goodbye.

[Jody_S]

That's perilously close to a full Godwin. I really wish my images could provoke a reaction like that.

[Tim Meisburger]

Ya John, you're a little harsh. What he was doing was certainly meant to be erotic rather than satanic or sadistic, and taps into the whole "Beauty and the Beast" mythos. Beautiful helpless women and horrible beast. Why that is erotic is a bit beyond me (something Jungian perhaps?), but that it is considered such by many people is evidenced by its ubiquity in popular culture. For example "Twilight" or almost any of the Dracula movies, or the weird torture porn shown nightly on network "crime" shows.

[Domingo A. Siliceo]

BTW, talking about Mortensen.

He sometimes printed through a «Texture Matrix» to achieve those wonderful pictorial effects — do you know what is this «Texture Matrix»?

[Tim Meisburger]

I'm guessing it is what later came to be called a "texture screen", which is I think a screen which you put below your enlarger lens to create the illusion of texture in the print. I've never used one, but it might be fun to play with.

[jp]

Helpless woman + horrible beast is to me just a concise hollywood story. (Sort of like a guy fell in the mud is a concise dirty joke). My contemporary understanding of the story would be that it's an opportunity for a male hero to save the day, then a potential for romance. James Bond of a simpler era.

[cowanw]

I'm guessing it is what later came to be called a "texture screen", which is I think a screen which you put below your enlarger lens to create the illusion of texture in the print. I've never used one, but it might be fun to play with.
I was recently corresponding with Robert Balcomb, a student of Mortensen. He has a complete original set of the screens which are now deteriorating. He is of the opinion that the copies that are reproduced are inferior and don't come up to the detail of the originals. I have one of the reproductions but have not tried it yet. I am not sure if it is a negative of the original screens or a proper positive copy. Apparently the parchment style was from a photograph of the blank page of the Gutenberg Bible that is in the US if you can get access to that.

[Tin Can]

I was recently corresponding with Robert Balcomb, a student of Mortensen. He has a complete original set of the screens which are now deteriorating. He is of the opinion that the copies that are reproduced are inferior and don't come up to the detail of the originals. I have one of the reproductions but have not tried it yet. I am not sure if it is a negative of the original screens or a proper positive copy. Apparently the parchment style was from a photograph of the blank page of the Gutenberg Bible that is in the US if you can get access to that.

There are image posters here using DIY Mortensen influenced texture screens.

[John Kasaian]

OK John you win. You may redact all Mortensen writings, images and memory.

We can start right here and now.

Goodbye.
Please don't take this personally Randy.
Mortensen is an accomplished photographer, writer, and photography pioneer, OK?
My criticism of the images that were posted are that they are powerful on a very base level even within the sensational "Hollywood" vintage context, but what they purport
---the infliction of pain on the helpless---has no positive footing, as say a documentary photograph with a positive purpose, an illustration calling attention to a condition with the [I]hope[I] for some action.
If Mortensen's purpose was purely academic inquiry into light and shadow and texture and nuance, he succeeded after a fashion, but ultimately what did he leave us?
As a viewer, I am confronted with two ways of looking at these photos. The first is simply that they are illustrative of a genre yet have no real point, the second is that they represent Mortensen's nightmarish
fantasies which, in light of what's been going on in the news, feeds the sadistic world of those unfortunates who reside there.
If a picture is worth a thousand words, what do these overtly sadistic pictures speak?
Photography can be a powerful medium (as Mortensen well knew.)With power comes responsibility.
My own personal view is that Mortensen failed in this exercise, but that is debatable.
In fact, that's what I'm doing now. Debating. :)

[Tin Can]

Please don't take this personally Randy.
Mortensen is an accomplished photographer, writer, and photography pioneer, OK?
My criticism of the images that were posted are that they are powerful on a very base level even within the sensational "Hollywood" vintage context, but what they purport
---the infliction of pain on the helpless---has no positive footing, as say a documentary photograph with a positive purpose, an illustration calling attention to a condition with the [I]hope[I] for some action.
If Mortensen's purpose was purely academic inquiry into light and shadow and texture and nuance, he succeeded after a fashion, but ultimately what did he leave us?
As a viewer, I am confronted with two ways of looking at these photos. The first is simply that they are illustrative of a genre yet have no real point, the second is that they represent Mortensen's nightmarish
fantasies which, in light of what's been going on in the news, feeds the sadistic world of those unfortunates who reside there.
If a picture is worth a thousand words, what do these overtly sadistic pictures speak?
Photography can be a powerful medium (as Mortensen well knew.)With power comes responsibility.
My own personal view is that Mortensen failed in this exercise, but that is debatable.
In fact, that's what I'm doing now. Debating. :)

Now you are debating, your inflammatory snipes were not debating.

I do take your insinuations and insults personally.

No debate from me, you lost my respect.

Have a great day!

[Peter De Smidt]

Part of the point might have been to make the viewer uncomfortable.

[jp]

Maybe, it's "here's a photo subject that's tacky or a little disgusting; it's not about the subject; it's so you see my lighting and craftmanship".
Or maybe everyone in or near Hollywood is/was tacky in many ways.

[MDR]

Mortensen was clearly influenced by paintings and sculptural work of the medieval, renaissance and baroque art. Plenty of examples of similar themes in art from those periods the whole saints, martyrhood paintings. People having their entrails removed etc... Jesus on a cross for example one the most gruesome and torturous forms of death yet some people wear a gold depiction on their hairy breast. So I guess there is nothing positive or worthwile about historic paintings of christian martyrs as well. Mortensen created Illustrations he wasn't a documentary photographers he liked art and he liked showing off so what at least he was more honest than the f64 and the whole straight photography who clearly manipulate the image but are denying doing it

[Mark Sawyer]

I've seen a few of Mortensen's big (20x24-ish) originals printed through texture screens, and they're remarkable. Even an educated eye could swear they were etchings unrelated to photography.

Personally, the cheesecake prettiness of the models and the commercial, melodramatic air to Mortensen's work keeps me from taking them seriously enough to be offended by them. (I'll save that for Witkin...) I truly enjoy Mortensen's work, but on a level of craft, photo-history, and entertainment.

[djdister]

I think there is an underlying jealousy of some of the more succesful photographers for any variety of reasons: sell outs, disturbing subject matter, tedious subject matter, whatever. All Mortensen did was tap into a particular vein of subject matter that some people don't like and some people do, but he was also successful in the craft of photography, published a bunch of books and saw more success than most of us ever will. I'd much rather look at a Mortensen print than a work by Thomas Kinkade.

[Kirk Gittings]

Personally, the cheesecake prettiness of the models and the commercial, melodramatic air to Mortensen's work keeps me from taking them seriously enough to be offended by them. (

Which (minus the underlined phrase) in a nut shell was Beaumont Newhall's view and mine as well.

[cowanw]

Though I love the creativity of Mortensen's images, I stopped reading this thread at this post. When you question why more women don't participate here, just think back to here.

Beyond ignoring it, which was the case here, how do we modify behavior?
Sadly I don't see the way forward.

[cowanw]

Which (minus the underlined phrase) in a nut shell was Beaumont Newhall's view and mine as well.

Well and good and appropriate for you to think that, but for Newhall, in his position as a historian and curator and librarian, to make disappear a then influential and popular segment of photographic practice, because he didn't take it seriously is disingenuous.
Beaumont Newhall defended his decision to leave Mortensen out of his History of Photography because it was HIS book and he could “disinvite” anyone he cared to. True, but the more, in his position, you take that position, the more your scholarship suffers.

[John Kasaian]

Mortensen was clearly influenced by paintings and sculptural work of the medieval, renaissance and baroque art. Plenty of examples of similar themes in art from those periods the whole saints, martyrhood paintings. People having their entrails removed etc... Jesus on a cross for example one the most gruesome and torturous forms of death yet some people wear a gold depiction on their hairy breast. So I guess there is nothing positive or worthwile about historic paintings of christian martyrs as well. Mortensen created Illustrations he wasn't a documentary photographers he liked art and he liked showing off so what at least he was more honest than the f64 and the whole straight photography who clearly manipulate the image but are denying doing it
No.
The imagery in old churches told historic and cultural stories for the people, much like a modern museum or library. Very few peasants were literate and imagery was in effect, one of the ways how faith and History were passed down.
While depictions of grisly murders, crucifixion, war and rapes are part of the history told, I don't recollect seeing any medieval art that could be construed as sadomasochistic as those Mortensen prints. Representations of martyrs skinned alive or shot full of arrows are about dying for a cause. If there are similar stories Mortensen's prints illustrate, please tell us. for what cause are these women being represented as being tortured/objectified? What cause are they presumed to be dying (or being tortured) for?

Just sayin'

[Peter De Smidt]

Well and good and appropriate for you to think that, but for Newhall, in his position as a historian and curator and librarian, to make disappear a then influential and popular segment of photographic practice, because he didn't take it seriously is disingenuous.
Beaumont Newhall defended his decision to leave Mortensen out of his History of Photography because it was HIS book and he could “disinvite” anyone he cared to. True, but the more, in his position, you take that position, the more your scholarship suffers.

Newhall expressed regret about this in one of his later books.

[Peter De Smidt]

http://therumpus.net/2013/06/famous-rapes-1-old-master-paintings/

[cowanw]

Saint Teresa by Bernini Usually described as having an orgasm while being stabbed by an arrow.
The Nightmare by Henry Fuseli
And Mortensen's depiction of "Death of Hypatia " is classic history.

[Peter De Smidt]

Or how about: http://dariaendresen.com/gallery/

[rdenney]

Beyond ignoring it, which was the case here, how do we modify behavior?
Sadly I don't see the way forward.

When it's rude and unprofessional, it's a violation of forum guidelines, so you can report it.

Rick "who missed this thread until it was reported just now" Denney

[Mark Sawyer]

Which (minus the underlined phrase) in a nut shell was Beaumont Newhall's view and mine as well.

Well, I don't take Ansel Adams' work seriously enough to be offended by it either... :rolleyes:

[Kirk Gittings]

Well and good and appropriate for you to think that, but for Newhall, in his position as a historian and curator and librarian, to make disappear a then influential and popular segment of photographic practice, because he didn't take it seriously is disingenuous.
Beaumont Newhall defended his decision to leave Mortensen out of his History of Photography because it was HIS book and he could “disinvite” anyone he cared to. True, but the more, in his position, you take that position, the more your scholarship suffers.

Objectivity is a goal that no one ever truly achieves-no historian, no journalist etc. It is admirable to strive for it but no human will achieve it. Newhall's history is hardly exhaustive. It was the first, and broke new ground, but hardly exhaustive in scope. Now it seems like it is an overview at best. Legions of subsequent scholars have criticized his methodology including many he who studied with him in the UNM program where he finished his career. Was his history flawed? A silly question really-all histories are flawed or biased to a lesser or greater extent. History is built generation upon generation correcting earlier mistakes and making new ones.

IMHO The best thing that happened to Mortensen in the long run was being ignored in the short run. Now he is being resurrected as some victim of history like some evil plot has been exposed. His standard is being raised like he was some martyr who died, sword in hand, battling rebel photographers.

I took two classes with Newhall and talked with him a lot in the early seventies at UNM. He was without doubt one of the most interesting and knowledgeable people I have ever known. Much of the history he taught was anecdotal-based on him personally knowing and having personal experience with so many important photographers. He was a treasure and ignoring Mortensen seems like a very minor footnote in a very distinguished career.

[Merg Ross]

The best thing that happened to Mortensen in the long run was being ignored in the short run.

However, Mortensen was not ignored, and became the impetus behind the formation of Group f:64, members of which Beaumont championed. An unbiased history of photography should acknowledge the prominent role of Mortensen, especially when alluding to Group f:64. The last time that I met with Beaumont he was working on the fourth revision of his history of photography; perhaps he later mentioned Mortensen.

[Peter De Smidt]

Here's some biographical material about Mortensen that I hadn't seen before: http://www.amphoraeditions.com/RBch2.html
It's by one of his students.

[russyoung]

Here's some biographical material about Mortensen that I hadn't seen before: http://www.amphoraeditions.com/RBch2.html
It's by one of his students.

Thanks, that contains some really valuable information.

Russ Young

[cowanw]

Here's some biographical material about Mortensen that I hadn't seen before: http://www.amphoraeditions.com/RBch2.html
It's by one of his students.

That is from Robert Balcomb's book, which I strongly recommend for those interested in the portraiture aspect of Mortensen's work.

[clay harmon]

It is interesting to me that artists such as Jeff Wall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Wall), Cindy Sherman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cindy_Sherman), and Gregory Crewdson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Crewdson) are all heirs to Mortensen's photographic sensibility in a way, but are far more accepted. Probably because their work is just simply not as tacky.

[Kirk Gittings]

However, Mortensen was not ignored, and became the impetus behind the formation of Group f:64, members of which Beaumont championed. An unbiased history of photography should acknowledge the prominent role of Mortensen, especially when alluding to Group f:64. The last time that I met with Beaumont he was working on the fourth revision of his history of photography; perhaps he later mentioned Mortensen.

As I have said else where, Newhall did not ignore Mortensen in his classes I took. That was in 71 0r 72. I don't know how that fits in with the timings of the book revisions. Regardless all historicism is a process of sifting with a coarser or finer screen. Given the same historical landscape you and I would not include the same people to write about I suspect.

[Jim Noel]

I wonder how many of those respondng to this topic have taken the time to read and learn from these books. the sub-title of "Monsters and Madonnas" is "A book of Methods". It is very instructional. How many realize most of his images were made with a Leica or a medium format single lens reflex camera. (Medium format in those times were 120 roll film or up to 4x5 sheet film.) How did he develop his film? Do most people learn this important fact? Or what type of film did he use? How many can answer these questions without going back and reading the text instead of just leering at the nude figures?
I could go on and on, but I have probably upset enough people with facts.

[Merg Ross]

Regardless all historicism is a process of sifting with a coarser or finer screen. Given the same historical landscape you and I would not include the same people to write about I suspect.

I suspect so. It seems unlikely that one could write a truly unbiased history of photography, something Beaumont freely admitted.

As for the man himself, I have always had the highest regard. Those, such as yourself, who had the experience of his teaching and friendship are indeed fortunate. Beaumont was instrumental in the formation of a Department of Photography at NYMOMA, a fact sometimes overlooked. But that is another story.

[Kirk Gittings]

I suspect so. It seems unlikely that one could write a truly unbiased history of photography, something Beaumont freely admitted.

As for the man himself, I have always had the highest regard. Those, such as yourself, who had the experience of his teaching and friendship are indeed fortunate. Beaumont was instrumental in the formation of a Department of Photography at NYMOMA, a fact sometimes overlooked. But that is another story.

Yes I feel EXTREMELY lucky to have wandered into the photo program at UNM in 69-70 to simply find a fun class to fill an elective requirement and ended up studying with the likes of Beaumont Newhall et al. Having been an amateur snap shooter, I had absolutely no clue who any of these people were or the significance of what was happening in the photo world.

[Kirk Gittings]

I wonder how many of those respondng to this topic have taken the time to read and learn from these books. the sub-title of "Monsters and Madonnas" is "A book of Methods". It is very instructional. How many realize most of his images were made with a Leica or a medium format single lens reflex camera. (Medium format in those times were 120 roll film or up to 4x5 sheet film.) How did he develop his film? Do most people learn this important fact? Or what type of film did he use? How many can answer these questions without going back and reading the text instead of just leering at the nude figures?
I could go on and on, but I have probably upset enough people with facts.

Isn't it actually about just the pictures in the final analysis??? I don't oftentimes find myself caring about the technique if the images haven't grabbed me somehow.

[Jim Noel]

If you have been following this thread you obviously have an interest in W. Mortensen. If you have not yet purchased the book, "Me and Mortensen" by Robert Balcomb you need to do so now. It is full of previously unpublished information about Mortensen his thinking processes, equipment, and methods. The large gallery of portraits by the author who worked for 40+ years in the Mortensen mode is nothing short of astounding. The text is extremely well written and easy reading.
I believe this is the first book I have ever recommended on the web. It is truly a keeper.
It can be ordered through the web page of the author Robert Dawson.

[Jim Noel]

Yes,it is about the pictures in the final analysis. My point is that too many people put Mortensen and his work down because of his often displayed subject matter, while he had a terrific amount of knowledge to pass on to other photographers to assist them in making better images.

[Tin Can]

Next month I buy that book. Today 'American Grotesque: The Life and Art of William Mortensen' is due for delivery. Last week, I got 'The Command to Look.'

I actually try not to buy paper books anymore as they take up too much room, but picture books are the exception, and even just my Art books, tech books and shop manuals are taking up a lot of space. I have also been buying old photography sales catalogs, got a couple real nice ones 2 weeks ago, The Montgomery Wards and Sears photography catalogs are very informative. Calumet professional is also great, as it contained all that backroom Dip and Dunk commercial equipment. I also got the newest McKeown's 'Cameras', 2006. Hope they publish again soon.

I think I am in college...

[cowanw]

.
It can be ordered through the web page of the author Robert Dawson.

I think you are horseing with us.:) You mean Robert Balcomb.
http://robertbalcombphotography.com/
And I agree, Terrific book.

[Tin Can]

I lied.

I just ordered the Balcomb book. Shipping was a little high at $9.xx slow boat, or $16.xx for Priority.

Since I bit, I got the more expensive shipping.

[Jim Noel]

Next month I buy that book. Today 'American Grotesque: The Life and Art of William Mortensen' is due for delivery. Last week, I got 'The Command to Look.'

I actually try not to buy paper books anymore as they take up too much room, but picture books are the exception, and even just my Art books, tech books and shop manuals are taking up a lot of space. I have also been buying old photography sales catalogs, got a couple real nice ones 2 weeks ago, The Montgomery Wards and Sears photography catalogs are very informative. Calumet professional is also great, as it contained all that backroom Dip and Dunk commercial equipment. I also got the newest McKeown's 'Cameras', 2006. Hope they publish again soon.

I think I am in college...
I hope you were able to find an original printing of "The Command to Look". The reprint made too many changes for my taste.

[Tin Can]

I hope you were able to find an original printing of "The Command to Look". The reprint made too many changes for my taste.

I bought the reprint. I also modified it by removing the last 34 pages of Satanic BS. First book burning I ever did!

The main content is there.

[Emil Schildt]

on a side note: a friend of mine was teacher in photography here in Denmark - he loved Mortensens books but had trouble getting his students to take the texts seriously, due to the drawings and so on...

So he made a huge book: He has made a modern updated version on all Mortensens books in one - compiled with new photographs and ideas and theories...

A fellow photographer did this huge job to re photograph all the instructive images from the books - a student of mine was model for them... I have images in the book too...

Only BIG mistake from his side: he only made it in Danish... Good for us, but.....

[Tin Can]

Today, I got Robert Balcomb's, 'Me and Mortensen:Photography with the Master'.

Looks good, now I need to find time to read it.

I never knew retirement was so busy...

[Peter De Smidt]

Let us know what you think, Randy. I don't have that one.

[SergeiR]

Today, I got Robert Balcomb's, 'Me and Mortensen:Photography with the Master'.

Looks good, now I need to find time to read it.

I never knew retirement was so busy...

it is very decent book

[Peter De Smidt]

Thanks, Sergei. I'll pick it up.

[Tin Can]

Well, I am reading "Me and Mortenson" and now starting Chapter V, which is a transition point in the book. Very enjoyable and nicely printed on great paper. Worth owning.

I have already found the first 1/3 of the book to be valuable. Good advice, abounds with examples. History is taught and I find I agree with Mortenson, that playing a vinyl record and recording it is the last time a record is any good. He gave away his records after recording, saying they were no good after. For decades I have bought NOS classical records and enjoyed the first play of them infinity more than any subsequent play.

His advice on photography is equally resonant to my ears.

I will not sleep until I close this book.