Picker and the New England Esthetic

[Kirk Gittings]

It strikes me after seeing the fine show at the recent VC Conference in Sprinfield that there is a "New England"LF esthetic based on the visual legacy of perhaps Fred Picker, Strand and Paul Caponogro, that is as distinct as the West Coast esthetic based on the legacy of Adams and Weston.

I noticed in particular how different the character of the exhibit was from the first VC Conference and show in Albuquerque, NM. Part of it of course is subject matter, i.e. weather, geology, light etc. but there is something else beyond subject matter which speaks to a different way of seeing, perhaps with less drama and a more contemplative approach. Just a thought..

[Louie Powell]

One of the things that struck me about the show in Springfield wa the preponderance of roots and rocks. That's a natural subject for LF photographers - roots and rocks don't move. But they also afford an interesting and dramatic study of lines and textures.

But I think the difference you are hinting at is that East Coast photography has an intimacy that is not present in West Coast work. Obviously, we don't have the dramatic landscapes to work with, but I think that another factor is that the greater congestion that exists on the East Coast forces photographers to focuse on more intimate details.

Something that I found missing from that show, however, was a photography of the industrial presence that exists in the East. Jett Lowe's HAER presentation on Sunday morning offered some examples of that genre, and of course those of us who went on the Friday morning field trip to the Amrak station with Paul Wainright got to indulge our desire for decrepitomania. But I can only recall two images (by one photographer) in the show that reflected the old architectural and industrial presence of the East.

[Alan Barton]

Kirk is on to something here. Both landscape and history are very different as one goes East to West-East has an important immigrant and industrial heritage-crowded cities, bustling ports and railroad hubs; the industrial revolution and its consequences and aftermath. Population density is high in the East affecting architecture and urban design. Our landscape is rolling and forested rather than monumental and spartan and last but not least we have all seen the huge differences in light. Not only does this impact WHAT there is to photograph (or paint etc) but how it is interpreted on film.

Being an East Coast photographer that loves to go West this dichotomy hits me on each trip-schizo-maybe!

This could/should be the subject of a critical review (MFA thesis?)

Alan

[Kirk Gittings]

" But I can only recall two images (by one photographer) in the show that reflected the old architectural and industrial presence of the East."

I think you are refering to the P/P prints of Michael Mutmansky? One of those images, of the steel beams, was taken here in Albuquerque I believe at the old SF Railyards.

[Kirk Gittings]

"This could/should be the subject of a critical review (MFA thesis?)"

I did one of those already on the history of LF landscape photography in 1983. I'd rather go make images!

[sanking]

Kirk,

I think what you say is really very true, though we could find numerous exceptions. For further study of the roots of the difference I would highly recommend the book, Landscape as Photography, by Estelle Jussim and Elizabeth Lindquist-Cock.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

but there is something else beyond subject matter which speaks to a different way of seeing, perhaps with less drama and a more contemplative approach.

Could it be that the terrain is different? If we accept ( and please lets not make this another pissing match) that our environment shapes our behavior and if we cut the nation right smack the middle we see the "left" side has the grand vistas....Yellowstone, Yosemite, the Grand Canyon, the Oregon/Washington/Cal coast line, the desserts, caves of Utah, NM, etc, etc.....The "right" side, has the industrial, farming, social epicenters. New York, Chicago, Boston...etc, etc, etc....

From personal experience I found that photographing in the East coast was far harder for me than when I did jobs in the West coast. I might get flamed for saying this but I always thought the West coast had "ready made" photographs, hell in some places all that was left out was a sign that with the legend "put your tripod in these holes"....
Not so in the East coast, I had to "hunt" for the picture and really "look," I had to work at seeing the unusual in the ordinary. IMO in the West coast if you have a handle on the basics of exposure/development there are places where there is almost down right impossible to make a bad picture. At least this was my experience. When I was transfered to CA, I visited the Page, AZ are and found the place so "boring" in the sense that most of what I saw had been done before, and done very well that I saw no reason for me to take my camera out, might as well enjoy the place without taking pictures, so I took just two pictures....one of the slot canyons (yeah had to get it out of my system) and this one from my hotel`s room balcony.

So I am really not surprised the styles are different, the environment is different.

http://www2.propichosting.com/Images/421613952/0.jpg

[Bill_1856]

I don't think that Weston should be lumped under the heading "West Coast Landscape Photographner." Most of his best work (still-lifes, portraits, nudes) were in fact studio shots, and could have been done anywhere.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Well, now that Bill opened the door, I would not have put Picker in the same sentence as Caponigro or Strand. Picker took the obvious shots, Caponigro and Strand could make a turd look beautiful.... :-)

[Mark Sawyer]

I would agree that the eastern school is more introspective and intimate in its creations and philosophies, while the western photographers work on a grander scale perhaps commensurate with the light and landscape there. In some ways, western photography seems more site-specific, whereas eastern seems more often to take the subject as metaphor.

The Ansel's show at An American Place in 1936 was, in my mind, a more eastern aesthetic than his better-known later work. Smaller, quieter, more delicate prints, few landscapes, far different than what he is known for now. I believe he thought of that exhibition as one of his best.

Incidentally, as someone who grew up on the eastern seaboard and transplanted himself to Arizona, I confess that, even after thirty years, the light, landscape, architecture, and people here have often left me feeling like the proverbial "stranger in a strange land..."

Kirk- did your thesis confront the dichotomy of the east-west approaches to the image? And is it accessible anywhere?

[Kirk Gittings]

Sandy, "I would highly recommend the book, Landscape as Photography, by Estelle Jussim and Elizabeth Lindquist-Cock". That book was has influenced my thinking dramatically as has Barbara Novak's book Nature and Culture from about the same time.

Mark, "Kirk- did your thesis confront the dichotomy of the east-west approaches to the image? And is it accessible anywhere?" My master's thesis like so many others is an unpublished academic paper. The central point in my thesis is that American landscape photography from the last century was the first uniquely American esthetic contribution to modern art as opposed to Abstract Expressionist painting which has been argued by so many post war academics. I think that Adam's and Weston and others taught the world to see in a new way.

[Kirk Gittings]

"I don't think that Weston should be lumped under the heading "West Coast Landscape Photographner." Most of his best work (still-lifes, portraits, nudes) were in fact studio shots, and could have been done anywhere."

Much of Weston's best work to my taste was landscape, particularly from Mexico and around Point Lobos, but there is more to it, at least to me......to me "natural landscape" is not the totality of "landscape" but landscape is more inclusive, say urban landscape for instance. I actually like to think of the pepper photograph as a landscape photograph-metaphorically speaking at least. Caponigro once wrote about "the landscape of the mind" a phrase that dissolves categories but to me describes something very real-a " landscape esthetic" state of mind.

To be honest I don't consider myself to be an "Architectural Photographer" even though that is what I am known for. I started out as a landscape photographer, architecture to me became simply something on the landscape that particularly interested me.

Also of course Picker is not in the same league as Strand and Caponigro, however he did do some good work and his influence was very evident in that show. he clearly has an esthetic legacy in New England. We should all hope for such a legacy.

[Steve Sherman]

I knew my zip code should start with an eight instead of a zero!

[Anthony Windsor]

It's like skiing, mountain biking, kayaking or other adventure sports. The big mountains and rivers of the West - along with abundant fair weather - make it easy. Eastern conditions are more difficult, and thus the practitioners are more dedicated and proficient.

There are more championship skiers and paddlers from the East, even though their sports are more popular in the West. Ask any ski school director who they rather hire - an Eastern or Midwestern skier who grew up skiing ice and rock on a 500 foot hill - or a Western powderpuff?

I'll argue the holds true in photography. There ain't much good work coming out of Carmel these days...

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Kirk,

I think the "East" school is really more of an influence of Minor White than Fred Picker. Minor of course had strong ties to Paul Strand, Alfred Stiegltz and Edward West (as did Adams, and lets not forget that Minor worked for Adams).

Minor used photography as a means of self exploration and thus his images are MUCH different than Adams who, in my view, wanted to use photography as a means of communicating the value of our natural world to a larger audience.

Minor didn't care if anyone saw his work as it was for himself, while Ansel wanted everyone to see his work as he was committed to protecting the environment. Both are of course great masters.

But the reason I would say Minor is a greater influence in the East is due to the fact that SO many of today's really strong photographers map their influence straight back to him. A sample is Paul Caponigro, Ron Rosenstock, George DeWolf, Jerry Uelsmann and William Clift. A pretty strong list who would say that Minor was their greatest influence.

Of course just az strong a list exists for the "West Coast" school. And lets not forget the good old mid-west where Aaron Siskind and Harry Callahan had such an important influence.

While Fred Picker was a solid photographer and a VERY solid business person, I am not sure of his influence on the the likes of Caponigro.

Jsut a few thoughts.

By the way all, it is nice to see some postings for issues other than technical for a change! The art of photography is SO SO much more.

Thanks,
Eric

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Oh by the way,

Anthony, I have been a technical rock climber of over 25 years and I am not so sure your statement about the East vs West is really very correct. :-)

Thanks,
Eric

[fred arnold]

I'll agree with Jorge in once sense: when I've visited the west, the relative aridity means that the landscape is relatively uncluttered. I've therefore found it much easier to shoot in Colorado, Utah, or California, than back in my native Pennsylvania. Frankly, we have a lot of shrubbery, undergrowth, and small scrub that looks messy and causes visual confusion, which I suspect encourages looking for smaller, more intimate, images. Of course, there are photographers like Elliot Porter who embraced the scrub, as I remember some very nice images of red-twigged dogwood in early spring along a river somewhere, which would have been a haze of lines in B&W, but resolved into subtle off-reds of the foreground and off-yellow of the rocks in the background.

So I suppose the answer is that we should stop watering New England, and let the landscape resolve itself into a less cluttered and more photogenic state.

This is, I suspect, similar to my noticing that the wide-angles come out of the bag in the west and urban environments, whereas the narrower-angles are useful in the PA/NY woods. This could, of course, also be nothing more than post-dinner philosophising, so take it for what it's worth.

[Kirk Gittings]

Eric said,

"While Fred Picker was a solid photographer and a VERY solid business person, I am not sure of his influence on the the likes of Caponigro."

You must have misread something. I can find no statement in this thread that suggests this. As a matter of record based on some of Picker's earlier writtings, I think Caponigro influenced Picker some what though. I did suggest that Picker, Caponigro and Strand have influenced subsequent generations of New England photographers. In particular if you saw the show at the VC conference, there was clear evidence in my opinion of Picker's influence.

[Bruce Watson]

Kirk,

I know exactly what you mean. I'm an east coast photographer, much of my work is what I think of as mid-scale landscape (as opposed to large-scale landscape ala St. Ansel, or small-scale flowers and table top work).

I think it's interesting how it permeates one. I seldom get to practice large-scale landscapes, so even when faced with huge beautiful vistas out west, I still tend to see mid-scale even in Yosemite Valley (http://www.achromaticarts.com/yosemite/05.html). It's pretty disconcerting. On the other hand, I see things that others walk right by because they are focused on the larger scale.

As to influences, while I credit St. Ansel for getting me into this mess called LF, and while I love the work of both Picker and White (and many others), my biggest influence has to be Eliot Porter (http://www.cartermuseum.org/collections/porter/collection.php?asn=P1990-51-4639-1&mcat=3&scat=17) - a true master of the mid-scale landscape. Yet, my main interest is B&W - go figure ;-)

[Bill_1856]

Until the 1970s, far many more west coast photographers had been influenced by Wm. Mortlison(sp) than by Weston or Adams. And where does Clyde Butcher's epic swamp images come it? (He's a transplanted Californian.)

[John Cook]

Kirk, I believe what you see in our photography has everything to do with what little we have to work with for LF subject matter here in Southern New England. You just can’t spread out with a big rig on a street corner in Boston, the way you can in Zion National Park.

At the risk of creating a firestorm or sounding like a grumpy old man, allow me to be blunt:

(1) Unlike the Great West, where I worked for many years in my youth, there are precious few magnificent vistas in Massachusetts. What with curving roads, rolling hills and heavy forestation, one is lucky to be able to see 500 feet in any direction in summer. As the tree branches meet over the city streets, it is even difficult to see the sky.

(2) During the 1960's, graft-mongers in city government went absolutely crazy with federal “Urban Redevelopment” programs. More than half of Springfield’s Victorian business district was torn down, never to be rebuilt. Innerstate Highway 91 was run right through the heart of what was left of downtown. All the retail businesses were chased out to the suburban malls. Or just put out of business.

Ultra-liberal state government set up the best and most costly welfare system in the country. All the manufacturing and associated movers and shakers fled, rather than get stuck with the bill. In their place, a lower socio-economic class swarmed in to get something for nothing, bringing along a staggering crime rate.

Downtown is no longer the thriving magical place it was in my childhood. Many truly gorgeous buildings are no more. The abandoned Union Station where you folks had your field trip is the local Hooker Heaven. It’s in the news every week. I’m afraid to go there alone. Even at mid-day. Talk about having someone swipe your camera and run!

(3) Developers and pavers have done the same damage to Cape Cod and Southern Maine that they have done to Florida and Old Los Angeles. NASA satellite maps tell the story of vanishing open land. All the pre-WWII stylish white resorts and big waterfront restaurants with canvas awnings have been torn down.

In their place is an urban sprawl of Super 8 Motels and strip malls. Facilities are no longer for the tasteful elite of old (read: photogenic). Now almost everything is cheap, tacky and bargain priced. The last time I was in Ogunquit, Maine, I visited the local Hofbrauhaus Restaurant for a nice relaxing German evening dining experience. It featured canned sauerkraut and Miller Lite. Prosit!

(4) Anything worth photographing along the coast is now owned by “strap-hangers” from NYC, who have driven the price out of the range of the natives. And they have absolutely no use for tourists. Nor photographers. The next town north of Ogunquit has a “No Parking” sign every eight feet on both sides of every main and side street. You drive in on Route 1 and drive right out the other end of town without stopping. Not even a rest area nor a store parking lot. Nothing.

Only people with a big budget like the crew from “This Old House” or a fashion magazine are welcome to negotiate for photographs in these places.

One of my favorite picture books is “Cape Light” by Joel Meyerowitz. His photographic skill, great as it is, is dwarfed by his ability to gain access to scenic places along the Cape:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0821227955/qid=1117322573/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_4/103-7095909-9647810?v=glance&s=books

Western Massachusetts has the Berkshires. Lovely hills, ice-cold rocky streams and oodles of trees. But most of it is heavily posted with private property no trespassing notices. And purposely narrow winding roads with no place to pull over and park.

Private scenic areas like Old Sturbridge Village are lovely and quintessentially colonial, but charge a $200 fee just to set up a tripod. They are scared to death that a professional might make money with a picture, without giving them their cut. Nobody but a pro ever uses a tripod, you know.

It is not impossible to photograph outside around here. But it’s nothing like the wide open empty Rockies and the Great American West. After a few decades around here, all easily accessible rocks and twigs begin to look alike to me, as do their photographs...

[Mark Sawyer]

The east-coast/west-coast aesthetics are, I think, real and identifiable, but I'd suspect that most of the current generation of large format photographers is well-read and heritage-conscious enough to pick and choose their influences from either school and hopefully many other sources, art-related and otherwise.

John- as someone with an eastern approach, I often find myself frustrated by the harsh light, lack of atmospheric perspective, and rather bleak desert landscape of Arizona. So many times I've longed to be in a lush, deciduous eastern forest, or just go for a walk on a foggy morning. Maybe we just long for what we don't have...

[Bill_1856]

There's always the possibility that the reason East Coast photographers do such bland work is because they have no one (like Adams) to imitate.

[Joe Smigiel]

"as someone with an eastern approach, I often find myself frustrated by the harsh light, lack of atmospheric perspective, and rather bleak desert landscape of Arizona. So many times I've longed to be in a lush, deciduous eastern forest, or just go for a walk on a foggy morning. Maybe we just long for what we don't have..."

I have had this thought myself. We become accustomed to what is around us so when we find a shot that interests us, it should really be of interest to those whom it is not as common place."

A few years ago I took a workshop in Michigan from Mark Klett of Rephotographic Project fame and the Arizonan desert southwest. It was very interesting to me to see what he photographed while doing a demonstration using Polaroid P/N film in the field. While most of the Michiganders were trying to get forced vistas out of the lush forest we found ourselves in, Klett was photographing close-ups of hazy light filtering through the tree leaves a foot or so away. I found them remarkable.

He was, BTW, probably the best workshop instructor out of many from whom I've taken a class. I'm far from a landscape type but thouroughly enjoyed his workshop. So, if you ever get a chance to attend one of his workshops, I'd highly recommend it.

[tim atherton]

"There's always the possibility that the reason East Coast photographers do such bland work is because they have no one (like Adams) to imitate."

you mean like Walker Evans...?

[Kirk Gittings]

Bill said "Until the 1970s, far many more west coast photographers had been influenced by Wm. Mortlison(sp) than by Weston or Adams. "

I was an aspiring landscape photographer in the western US prior to the 1970's (1968) and trust me Adams and Weston were gods then as now. For the life of me I have no idea who Wm. Mortlison(sp) is or was. Am I to assume that Wm. is you Bill and you are pulling my leg?

[Merg Ross]

Kirk,

I believe Bill's reference is to the famous pictorialist, William Mortensen. Weston, Adams and other f:64 members had little regard for Mortensen's work and considered him the enemy of straight photography. I believe, however, that Mortensen's influence on West Coast photography was minimal after the 1940's. When I started photographing in the 1950's he had been replaced by Weston, Adams, Cunningham and Lange. His earlier influence on photography should not be overlooked.

[John Cook]

William Mortensen was, indeed, quite a guy. I am fortunate to have some of his books. His work is heavily influenced by early Hollywood taste - sort of "Lon Chaney (man of a thousand faces) meets Ansel Adams". Or perhaps "Photoshop with a Charcoal Stump and Red Opaque". Having worked in Hollyweird nearly a half century ago when all those spooky old masters were still alive, his overly-theatrical LF photographs send me into my reverie and put a lump in my throat.

Born in Southern New England, I have an Eastern sensibility, as well. Much of Colorado and Southern California in the heat of summer looks to me like one big kitty litter box. Wonderful view, but what happened to all the vegetation?

My personal problem is how little of Olde New England is left to photograph. I am beginning to feel like an elderly Henry Fonda in that movie with Myrna Loy, chased off the dunes by some whippersnapper P.C. park ranger twit.

My family first summered at Cape Cod during WWII. There was no Mass Pike, and gasoline was rationed to 2 gallons per week. We had the place to ourselves. Except for the other guest at the inn, a man in a white suit and driving a huge black Packard. His daughters all wore white lace gloves, big sun-hats and carried wicker handbags. He was a dead-ringer for Clifton Webb.

These days, it seems that a nautical early-morning fog picture is limited to the large parking lot in front of the Golden Arches in Chatham. Next-door to the chain store that specializes in red plastic lobster earrings imported from China.

[Anthony Windsor]

East Coast Biggie Smalls want to put a cap in da West Coast Hoodlums, ya know what I'm sayin? Straight up, axe away, East Coast RULES!

[Louie Powell]

My wife and I spent a week at the Cape in late April. Every time we go, I find new things to photograph. For many years, I have been inspired by the work of Jon Vaughan, who owns Yankee Ingenuity in Chatham, and I've made a point of visiting his shop to look through the bins of photographs he has made on the Cape. This year, I found that he has published a book of photographs that I added to my collection.

Jon's work is in color, and was done using MF equipment. The two other books that I considered equal in vision and quality are by Joel Meyerowitz. Meyerowitz' first book, "Cape Light" is similar to Vaughan's in that it mainly concentrates on intimate detail. His second book, "Bay/Sky", is a collection of color large format seascapes done on the bay side of the Cape, and while it's interesting, it doesn't hold my attention.

Two points from these observations. First, the succsssful images (according to my taste) are those that focus on details. Kirk suggested that this is a heritage that has come down from Fred Picker. That may be -I agree that Fred's detail work was much more interesting than his grand landscapes. But I would have to wonder about the influence of others, especially including Caponigro, Evans, Siskind, and even Steiglitz.

Second, while things are different today in the East, the West has gone though change and development as well. For sure some of the landscape, cityscape, and seascapes have changed, there are still opportunities to make dramatic and inspiring images. We saw a show in Springfield last weekend that illustrated that notion very dramatically.

We live in an evolving world. We make photographs now using the subject matter that is available to us now - not what was available a hundred years ago. Several ago, after probably twenty years of failed attempts, I made an image of Nauset Light on Cape Cod that I think is a classic. But no one can ever duplicate that image because six months after I made my exposure they moved the lighthouse. Great - that presents a new challenge to make an equally classic image of the lighthouse in its new location. I give myself about 20 years to meet that challenge.

What that says to me is that the thing that we need to be concentrating on is developing the vision to see photographs. Modern development and commercialism certainly change the nature of the subject matter we have to work with. But the way I like to think about this is that I have a finite amount of emotional energy to work with, and Ihave to choose how to use that energy. I can either apply that energy positively to seeking out images wherever they may be, or I can apply it negatively by becoming emotionally wrapped up in bemoaning the loss of the "good old days".

[Bill_1856]

ROBERT Adams.

[paulr]

Ok, I just have to stop for a minute and bang my head against the wall when I see the phrase "the visual legacy of perhaps Fred Picker, Strand and Paul Caponogro."

Fred Picker does NOT have a visual legacy. He is one of thousands of photoraphers who made a bunch of derivative pictures in the style of artists one or two generations before him. Strand has a visual legacy. You could make a good argument that Caponigro built on this legacy. But Picker? Bless his soul, he sold some pretty cool darkroom widgets, and published some entertaining newsletters and catalogs. But these are the only reasons anyone here even knows who he is.

I have a big soft spot in my heart for Mr. Picker. I love his cantankerous, old new england horse sense (even when it was wrong, which was often), I love his pompous righteousness, I love his gadgets, and I love that he bought his own hype. But that's not good enough reason for us to buy it. And it sure isn't enough to make his pictures less dreadful, or to elevate him to the level of the people he copied badly.

[paulr]

"Anthony, I have been a technical rock climber of over 25 years and I am not so sure your statement about the East vs West is really very correct."

Amen to that. I live in New York, and climb in the east out of convenience, but when I get the chance, I head west where the real mountains are ;)

Not that this is remotely the same phenomenon, but I think the idea that it's easier to photograph in the west is also ridiculous. It may be easier to make pictures in the west that look the way we've been trained to expect pictures to look (canned Ansel Adems pics, etc.). But what does this have to do with good photography? I don't think you'll see a greater percentage of landscape photographers doing genuinely good work on either coast. Good, authentic, personal work is equally hard to do no matter where you are. If you're doing it, it's probably because you have some kind of real, personal connection to the place that your photographing--not because there's something "easy" about photographing there.

This disagreement may well be about what constitutes good work. In my book, work that's an esthetic equivalent of work that was revolutionary fifty years ago is not good work. It's stale, inauthentic, unimaginative work. Weston wasn't copying anyone old enough to be his great grandfather. Why should we?

A more specific comment on the original post: have you seen the work in the book Weston's Westons: California and the West? I think a lot of what's in there breaks down the dichotomy of grandiose west vs. subtle east. Same for a lot of Strand's western (and mexican) work.

[Kirk Gittings]

paulr,

"Ok, I just have to stop for a minute and bang my head against the wall when I see the phrase "the visual legacy of perhaps Fred Picker, Strand and Paul Caponogro. Fred Picker does NOT have a visual legacy."

I assume that you did not see the exhibit. If you had seen the exhibit you would know what I am talking about with Picker. You might not have liked this work either but the relationship was there and commented on by people other than myself.

And Merg, "I believe Bill's reference is to the famous pictorialist, William Mortensen." That makes sense now except for Bill's date of most influential till 1970. If he had said 1940 or 50 I might buy the arguement. But 1970? no way. I was around then. Weston and Adams were rock stars (bad pun for landscape photographers) by 60 at least.

[paulr]

Kirk, I'm not doubting a relationship. I'm saying the relationship is about one photographer copying the esthetic of a past generation and not contributing anything important. My work would have a clear relationship with Strand's also, if I flew to the Hebrides and photographed the same subjects with same esthetic. But it's not a relationship I'd be proud of. And the work wouldn't be an example of MY photographic legacy.

But you're right, I haven't seen the show--and if it includes work that's fundamentally different from the work that he self-published in his books and catalogs, then I might stand corrected. Although it's hard to imagine why he'd withold the good stuff until after he's dead.

[Bill_1856]

Okay, Kirk. I'll go 1950-60 on Mortensen. And Tim, I think that you're right about Walker Evans. I never think of him as a landscape photographer, but on reflection, IMO he was the greatest of all urban landscape specialists.

[Kirk Gittings]

Paul,

You are defining legacy with a value judgement. I am not. I had my "historian hat" on at the time. I saw a relationship which I was simply describing. I was not offering a critique.

Besides..... putting down people who work in other peoples style has no value for me. The first question should never be "is it new?" but whether "is it any good?" What I worry about with my own work is whether it is any good or not. I let the other people worry about its originality. I battle with my fellow professors at the Art Institute all the time over this, who think that the only important question is whether it is original even when it is crap. There was much good work in this show that was "in the tradition of". So what alot of it was very good. My favourite though were a couple of panoramic p/p industrial details by Michael Mutmansky. One of which from a site I know well and he saw something that escaped me. I respect that.

My father was an amatuer photographer and imitator of what he thought were great photographers. In interviews people ask ask me what kind of photographs my father did. I often times answer that he worked in the tradition of Arizona Highways photographers, Joseph Muench (David's father) in particular who he admired immensely. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. My father was not a very good photographer but he hugely enjoyed what he did. I am very fortunate that he did because as a child we had a darkroom in our house and I was introduced to photography at an early age. My first camera was his hand me down Leica IIIc! How sweet was that? He would be amazed and pleased to know that I now am priviledged to be a friend of and present at conferences with David Muech. It is profoundly amazing and surprizing to me too.

[Bruce Barlow]

Great thread!

There is a difference here in New England, and Kirk nailed it, I thought. One needs to find more intimacy, and a more contemplative subject than the glorious mountains and desert of the west. That said, I vote for smaller prints, too, of that New England Roots and Rocks stuff. The bigger ones don't seem to hold the intimacy the same way big prints of Yosemite can.

By the way, the world has never seen Picker's best stuff. I have. While it's not Strand or Caponigro, some of it is pretty powerful.

It's also nice, in my personal case, to have a lifetime of photographs to be made within walking distance of my back door (carrying my 8x10!). I, for one, will never tire of roots and rocks. There's always a way to say it better than I ever have before.

The weather being what it is, we learn to take what we are given and work with it. With no grand vistas, that becomes easier.

By the way, slightly to the east of Roots and Rocks is Schoodic Point, just east of Acadia in Maine. I spent five full days there a while back and didn't even touch its potential.

All-in-all, it's harder to get a good picture in the East than in the West. It is equally hard to get a great picture in either place.

[paulr]

"Besides..... putting down people who work in other peoples style has no value for me. The first question should never be "is it new?" but whether "is it any good?" What I worry about with my own work is whether it is any good or not. I let the other people worry about its originality. I battle with my fellow professors at the Art Institute all the time over this, who think that the only important question is whether it is original even when it is crap."

I don't mean argue against working in a tradition, nor do i like using the word "originality," since it is so often used to mean "novelty," which is of little value to me. As far as what an artist should worry about, I fear that the question "is it good" can be as big a trap as "is it new." I think a better question is, "is it you?" In other words, to what degree are you responding to your life experience and to what's in front of you, and to what degree are responding to other people's ideas about what a picture should look like? If you take care of that, then Good and New will have a fighting chance of taking care of themselves.

With work like Picker's, I don't see Picer. Just warmed over mimicry of Strand and other American modernists. What made me cringe was that phrase " ... esthetic based on the visual legacy of perhaps Fred Picker, Strand and Paul Caponogro ...". I can't fathom this legacy as belonging in any way to Picker, because he didn't define it, evolve it, or contribute to it. He just copied it, at a time when the real heirs to that legacy were busy evloving it with their own genuine visions.

It would be as if someone spoke of the Romantic musical legacy of Beethoven, Wagner, and (star wars composer) John Williams. There may be a relationship, but one of these names just doesn't belong ...

[Mark Sawyer]

"I'm saying the relationship is about one photographer copying the esthetic of a past generation and not contributing anything important..."

This touches on one of the more important an less discussed natures of "art" photography. Which do you value more, creating something that goes beyond what was done before, breaking new ground in the artworld, being the avante garde pioneer? Or doing work speaks to you and of you, and of the values you hold regardless of the politicics, business, and recognition of the art/gallery/publishing world? (Certainly it's not an either/or proposition, but those things which exist in muddy waters exist nonetheless...)

In the wider "Art World," there are so many people trying to break new ground or be part of the next movement today that it comes to feel forced. Large format photography seems more comfortable with its roots, and I think we see longer threads of work building on and evolving from earlier aesthetics, (which we have so many to choose from).

Today's MFA programs have changed the art world, in art photography as much as any medium. Is it coincidence that so few MFA programs have much large format content?

[Mark Sawyer]

Sorry, guys, I'm typing slow and lagging behind the thread...

[Kirk Gittings]

"I don't mean argue against working in a tradition, nor do I like using the word "originality," since it is so often used to mean "novelty," which is of little value to me. As far as what an artist should worry about, I fear that the question "is it good" can be as big a trap as "is it new." I think a better question is, "is it you?"

The "is it you" argument in particular is old. No one can answer that except the person themselves.

"With work like Picker's, I don't see Picker". And herin lies the complete fallacy of this argument. Did you know Picker well? Did you know Picker at all? I knew him slightly and to me his images were very much about what was important to him.

What would I know about you if I could find some of your images on the web (which I can't)?

All you would know about me from my images really is what is important enough to me to spend my time photographing. My work is not autobiographical. It is about the spirit of place. Not unlike Picker's.

[Kirk Gittings]

"Today's MFA programs have changed the art world, in art photography as much as any medium. Is it coincidence that so few MFA programs have much large format content?"

To put it simply NO. I have taught in two of them and I am an oddball (in many ways).

[paulr]

""With work like Picker's, I don't see Picker". And herin lies the complete fallacy of this argument. Did you know Picker well? Did you know Picker at all? I knew him slightly and to me his images were very much about what was important to him."

Well, I can know a few things. I can know that he was neither Paul Strand nor Edward Weston nor anyone esle. I can know that he was not doing this work in the 1920s and 1930s.

I can know that he sought out parts of the country and the world that look the same now that they did in the 20s and 30s--in other words, views that were characteristic 80 years ago but that were exceptions when he did the work. And I can surmise that this is most likely because these views resemble photographs that he admired, not because of his first hand experience with them.

And the final result is that I don't see him at all. You're right that I don't know Picker. He might have been a fascinating person with a unique vision and a sensitive, fresh way of seeing certain things. But I don't know that, because what he presented is work that hides behind the vision of other people. So I see work that lacks the excitement of discovery, the risk of personal vulnerability. It comes off as stale, as an academic exercise in craft and esthetic envy.

I like your comment on work being about the spirit of a place. I think Weston and Strand conveyed that beautifully. They didn't do it by handing us some spirit; they did it by showing us a personal response to where they were (Weston's early essays about quintessences notwithstanding--no one has ever shown quite the same quintessences as him). They showed us a place the way they saw it, which was unique. It was this direct response, I'd wager, that lets that sense of spirit come through. At any rate, they were not making pictures of the same places, using the same esthetics, as their predecessors.

"What would I know about you if I could find some of your images on the web (which I can't)?"
this thread isn't about me, but if you're interested i'll send you some links. at the very least i think you'd see my immediate surroundings from the last 10 years, and maybe you'd even get some idea of how i felt about them.

Mark wrote: "In the wider "Art World," there are so many people trying to break new ground or be part of the next movement today that it comes to feel forced. "

I think when artists make it their goal to break new ground, the result is typically novelty ... which feels forced, as you said. Work that feels truly new and relevent tends to come from a different place. I see it coming from artists who feel there's something that must be said--and that no one yet has said it well, or completely, or at all.

If you read Robert Adams' Beauty in Photography, you'll see a very lucid illustration of this--the deeply held feelings and ideas that made him believe his work MUST be expressed. It didn't come from a place of ego ... of wanting to be the next big thing.

[paulr]

""Today's MFA programs have changed the art world, in art photography as much as any medium. Is it coincidence that so few MFA programs have much large format content?"
To put it simply NO. I have taught in two of them and I am an oddball (in many ways)."

Maybe an oddball (who here isn't?) but you're not quite alone. Off the top of my head I can think of Stephen Shore, Frank Gohlke, Nick Nixon, Abe Morell, Linda Connor, Ed Ranney, Mike Smith, and Andrew Borowiec, who all have taught (and continue to teach, as far as I know) in MFA programs, and who all seem to like lugging a big camera around.

I think the move away from anything resembling modernism, more than the penchant for one size film or another, is a more defining quality of most MFA programs today.

[Ken Lee]

"...there is something else beyond subject matter which speaks to a different way of seeing, perhaps with less drama and a more contemplative approach"



Fred studied with Ansel in Yoesmite (and kept up a correspondence by mail). During the same stage of his life, he was a friend and admirer of Paul Caponigro - and had two wonderful Caponigro images hanging in his living room.



Paul Strand, in addition to his work for "Time in New England", made great images "Out West" in Mexico and New Mexico - not to mention Egypt, Ghana, Italy, Romania, Scotland, USA, etc. Hard to know which school to which he belongs.



What are we to make of Edward Weston's work in Tennessee or New York City ? Would that be "East Coast" or "West Coast" ? And how about Fred's work from Easter Island ?



I confess: All their work seems contemplative to me.

[Kirk Gittings]

"If you read Robert Adams' Beauty in Photography, you'll see a very lucid illustration of this--the deeply held feelings and ideas that made him believe his work MUST be expressed. It didn't come from a place of ego ... of wanting to be the next big thing."

One of my favourite books. a well worn copy is on my desk. He is a man of esthetic principles. In 1980 I was writting my master's thesis and corresponding with him (and visited him a few times in Longmont). I have some fascinating handwrittten corrrespondence from him on related topics. He was very civil but he cut me no slack on my "romantic artist" ideas. One of the smartest people I ever met, I could not keep up with him intellectually. He was a very bright light in the late seventies and early eighties.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Kirk,

You are right, I did not state your argument correctly by saying that Picker influenced Caponigro - my apologies.

However, I still believe that if there is truely an "east" asthetic it is the result of Minor White more than anyone. In truth however, it may be more an issue of the topography as anything else.

What a great group of postings however! I have to say I learned a lot from everyone, thanks all!

[Merg Ross]

Let us not forget that Minor White was a disciple of the West Coast school and a teacher at the California School of Fine Arts (now San Francisco Art institute) from1946 until his departure to Eastman House in 1954.

I participated in an exhibition at the San Francisco Museum of Art in 1954 with, among others, Adams, Weston, White and Lange. In his review of of that exhibit Minor cited the influences from which the group drew inspiration. From Edward Weston and Ansel Adams "the classic techniques of sharpness from nose to horizon, exquisite tonal faithfulness to the substance of objects". From Dorthea Lange "the emphasis on human truths". From the California School of Fine Arts "the importance of personal expression".

I do not believe that Minor's move to the other coast had a great impact on his vision or philosophy.

[Kirk Gittings]

Eric,

You are probably right about Minor White whose impact is overlooked these days by many including me I guess. I used to love the old APERTURE, when the work of White and Caponigro and others of that aesthetic dominated the pages. It lost its focus and its strength later when it became more inclusive.

[Ole Tjugen]

What I wonder about is this: Who inspired the "originals"? Has Adams seen Muybridge's pictures? Had either of them seen Knudsen's Norwegian landscapes?

[Brian Ellis]

I've taught in the photography department of a university that offered an MFA degree though I wasn't a student or teacher in the program. My impression is that the things large format offers - detail, precision, "sharpness" from front to back, etc - aren't things valued highly in MFA programs so there's little reason for the students to use a large format camera. This isn't passing a value judgement on etither large format or MFA programs, just stating what I believe to be a fact.

This is a very interesting thread. My own belief is there is no "school" based on geographical location, that differences between east coast and west coast are mostly a matter of what's available and interesting to photograph. I live in the east (Florida, not New England). I enjoy photographing landscapes in the west because finding acceptable subject matter is so easy. On the other hand I find it difficult to do anything I consider unique or exceptionally creative with western landscapes. In Florida on the other hand you can find interesting landscapes but you have to really work to find them and then when you do you have to be willing to put up with alligators, snakes, lightning, and mosquitoes. On the other hand, when I make a good photograph in Florida (seldom landscape) I take more satisfaction from it than I do from most of the things I've done in the west.

[Ken Lee]

"I can know that he sought out parts of the country and the world that look the same now that they did in the 20s and 30s--in other words, views that were characteristic 80 years ago but that were exceptions when he did the work. And I can surmise that this is most likely because these views resemble photographs that he admired, not because of his first hand experience with them.



...You're right that I don't know Picker. "



I knew Fred in the early 1970's and went shooting with him on day trips many times. Yes, his favorite subject matter was similar to that of Weston, Adams, and Strand - but frankly, it looked the same as it did in the 1820s and 30s. Fred admired the beauty of nature, and the wonderful aging process that affects buildings made of wood and stone. His home at that time abutted a large section of woods, not easy to find in White Plains, NY. Later, he moved to Vermont. There, he was not alone in his love of Nature either.



Pastoral art is by no means limited to Weston, Adams, and Strand. By the time they came around, it was old news.

<image src="http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/personal/sage.jpg">

[tim atherton]

"What I wonder about is this: Who inspired the "originals"? Has Adams seen Muybridge's pictures? Had either of them seen Knudsen's Norwegian landscapes?"

There's certainly no doubt of the former, especially as Muybridges and Watkins and Weed and others photographs of Yosemite were instrumental in popularising the area and Lincoln setting it asided and its eventually beign declared a park.

The same would go for Birestadt (and Moran and Covington and Ayers et al) and the particular school of landscape painting that such photography came out of and ran alongside for a while. Adams wasn't really that much of an original in this sense at all. Very much a follower of the wagon wheel ruts of those earlier artists (and sometimes using almost the exact tripod holes).

[neil poulsen]

For someone who did "not have a visual legacy," we're focusing a lot of attention on Fred Picker in this thread. I don't wish to compare the validity of his photographs with those of other photographers. I will say that I purchased his book, "The Fine Print," and I enjoyed and learned from reading that book. I remember several images from the book.

Fred Picker was into the process of photography in a way that could be formative for new large format photographers. He spoke about what to look for in a photograph and about the why of large format photography. He also spoke well to many of the technical aspects of photography, testing, coming up with film speeds, calibrations, etc.

He popularized the idea of, and innovated, compensating timers, which are outstanding tools for consistency. The enlarging timers helped to give us the full benefit of cold light diffusion enlarging. I think his "5x7" enlarger made breakthroughs for B&W photo making. Documented several times with data, his modified meter was a breakthrough in accurate exposure evaluation.

I think there are multiple dimensions to a visual legacy. I was angry at Fred Picker for a long time, because I purchased his first "5x7" enlarger thinking that I could enlarge 5x7 negatives! But I also called Fred Picker on occasion when I had questions, and he always tried to help me out. I think he was a hard worker who wanted to contribute in a meaningful way, and I think the photographic world is better for it.

[gene LaFord]

This is a wonderful thread. I am quite pleased that the exhibit that Bruce Barlow and I presented at the Valley Photo Center has generated such a great conversation.

I have thought much about this very subject on many occassions. Being a life long New Englander (save for a 3 year period of riding a one-speed bicycle around Tempe, AZ), I realize that much of my work is of the "Intimate" landscape style mention above. And I agree with many of the reasons stated for that.

But, the question that crops up when I think of this difference between East Coast and Western styles is this: Would I succumb to the allure of the grand vista if presented with the opportunity; or would I keep the same aesthetic that I now apply to my photography?

I enjoyed the camping trips with friends when I lived in Arizona ('76 - '79), and was enthralled by the grand vista. But I feel that my personality type and my training in the arts (MFA in sculpture) would help me stay true to that intimate East Coast style. My sculpture (and painting) was of a human scale, not succumbing to the Modernist theory of "Bigger is Better!" And I feel that my sculptural trainingg helps me look for that human scale in what I point my camera at, the large (to East Coast standards) rocks that appear when the water level at the Quabbin Reservoir is at a low level.

How do other East Coasters feel about this?

Finally, I would like to thank all who have responded so wonderfully to the exhibit.

gene

[Mark Sawyer]

My guess is that Adams' influences were somewhat scattered- I'd say the western painters Bierstadt, Moran, and probably Church, photographically, certainly Carlton Watkins and Timothy O'Sullivan of the 19th century, and Stieglitz and Strand as contemporaries in his early career. (I'd love to have seen a freshly-printed Watkins image; today we can only guess what the original mammoth albumen prints were like...)

East-west comparisons fairly similar to the ones made here could also be drawn between the Hudson River School and early 19th century western landscape painters...

[Kirk Gittings]

"My guess is that Adams' influences were somewhat scattered- I'd say the western painters Bierstadt, Moran, and probably Church, photographically, certainly Carlton Watkins and Timothy O'Sullivan of the 19th century, and Stieglitz and Strand."

and William Henry Jackson too.

"My own belief is there is no "school" based on geographical location, that differences between east coast and west coast are mostly a matter of what's available and interesting to photograph."

I don't believe that. Interestingly when Caponigro was in New Mexico, the only time I had any contact with him, he did not succum to the granduer of the west but kept his intimate vision. His photographs from locations that I am familiar with are quit and studied.

No one is obligated by geography to photograph like Adams in the west. If you have a personal vision it will apply anywhere anytime.

[Mark Sawyer]

Well-said, Kirk, and your observation on Caponigro applies in my eyes to Strand's southwestern work as well.

[paulr]

Adams' influence from the Romantic painters seems like the most visible one to me. I remember hearing that he became aware of the 19th Century survey photogrphers that you guys mentioned, but I'm not sure at what point. Does anyone know? It would be interesting to see if that corresponds with any change in what he was doing.

[Jim Hunter]

Kirk Gittings wrote:
"I don't believe that. Interestingly when Caponigro was in New Mexico, the only time I had any contact with him, he did not succum to the granduer of the west but kept his intimate vision. His photographs from locations that I am familiar with are quit and studied."

I very much agree with you here Kirk and I think the same can be said about Eliot Porter. It didn't matter whether he was photographing in the east, the west, Mexico or Egypt. Nor did it matter whether he was photographing in b&w or color, his personal vision never changed.

[Struan Gray]

I recently bought a book called "American Photography" by Miles Orwell in the OUP History of Art series. I cannot really recommend it (very dull text, seasoned with a few unimaginative buzwords), but it does have some interesting stuff on early photography in the USA. Thomas Moran's brother, John, took contemplative small-scale landscapes around Philadelphia, and there were a wealth of private and professional pictorialists doing similar work up to and after WWI. What strikes me most strongly is not the East-West divide, but rather how both schools are derivative of established popular and academic painting styles.

[Bill_1856]

One area that has not been mentioned is Adam's incredible darkroom technique -- his "previsualization" must have been significantly influenced by it. None of the other "greats" mentioned here (and possibly no one else in the history of photgography) could touch his ability to transfer a negative into a print, including Strand, Capopnigro or even the Westons. George Tice might come closest.

[Mark Sawyer]

"Adams' influence from the Romantic painters seems like the most visible one to me. I remember hearing that he became aware of the 19th Century survey photogrphers that you guys mentioned, but I'm not sure at what point. Does anyone know?"

I can't recall the specific references right now, but I remember reading that when Adams made his 1942 image of the White House in Canyon de Chelly, he was very aware of and excited by the similarity between his own photograph and Timothy O'Sullivan's made in 1873. Adams wrote of the excitement of being in the exact place as O'Sullivan, and the history involved in both the place and the photography of the place. The images are eerily similar, and are a touchstone in many photo-history courses, drawing arguable parallels between the survey/western landscape photographers and the later "straight" (f/64, et al) photographers.

Some years later, however, Adams professed to being not very aware of O'Sullivan's work while photographing at de Chelly.

Incidentally, I have another excedingly similar view of the White House by George Grant, made in 1940, which fits quite neatly between the two and is my admittedly biased favorite among the three.

[Kirk Gittings]

" None of the other "greats" mentioned here (and possibly no one else in the history of photgography) could touch his ability to transfer a negative into a print,"

Ah the growing mythology....Ansel is one of my heros but he was not a god without flaws or peers.

Was there ever a better print made than the best prints of Weston's pepper? Have you ever seen an original set of Strand's "Time in New England" or the mexican portfolio?

If you saw the "Ansel Adams at 100" exhibit, the difinitive Ansel retospective show. I think you would have made a more qualified statement. In his later years he was an extraordinary printer but not in his early years. The strength of that exhibit is that it compares the early and later prints. I have a friend with an early and a late "Moonrise" and the later is a much better print. His techniques and innovations were taught though to a whole army of successors who in some cases have far exceeded the master (the blasphemy!) . Some of whom have been commissioned to print Ansel's negatives by Ansel himself. Also, there are contemporaries who are extraordinary printers like Caponigro. There is no more exhausting printer than Caponigro. Go to the Weston Gallery in Carmel and see how many great printers there are.

[e]

For those interested in Minor Whites philosophy you have to go further east than New England. I first ran across Minors influence before I got into photography in the early 80's when I was involved in the Gurdjieff work in New Hampshire. Minor it was said was for years the Head of the Gurdjieff school in Boston. I found this fasinating as I thought this was an interesting proposition that a world famous photographer would essentially be the head of a somewhat "secret" philosophical and esoteric school of this nature. I found Minor Whites merging of intense self awareness and the photographic experience to be quite the ticket to where I needed to be going. I'm still exploring this road and am grateful to Minors influence on the way.

[Bill_1856]

Kirk, I have to disagree with you about Strand or The Weston's being great printers. They were great photographers, but basically did straight contact prints from their Pyro developed negatives. Richard Benson's(?) comments about Strand's printing ability are quite illuminating, and somewhat deprecating. That's not to say that their prints are not gorjesus (they are), but I do not believe that they could have photographed a dreary snowstorm and converted it into "clearing winter storm." Adams printing changed over the years, but it was in response to his changing vision, not to an inproving printing technique. My prints of "Moonrise" are probably separated by 30 years and yet both are superb (although I prefer the later, darker one).

[Steve Sherman]

"My own belief is there is no "school" based on geographical location, that differences between east coast and west coast are mostly a matter of what's available and interesting to photograph."

Great Thread! I do believe that Kirk has hit upon the core reason for the East vs West myth. I believe it boils down to interest. Someone once told me "don't get invovled in a conversation you have no interest in" for "you will be embarassed by your lackluster comments."

I believe those of us who were raised here in the East take as common place the landscape around us. Where as the West is vastly different and therefore more interesting, mysterious and unknown. Easier to photograph because of ones interest level fueled by the unknown. The same could be said for those reared in the West.

I believe you could easily make a case that the reason the Masters rise to a status unto themselves is they recognize that which is around them and choose to champion that theme such as Adams did in the West, Caponigro here in the East and Tice in his Urban America.

This reasoning has always made it easier for me to buy plane tickets going West.

[Kirk Gittings]

"but it was in response to his changing vision, not to an inproving printing technique." This is part of the mythology. He was not born a great printer. he evolved and was printing better later in life than he was earlier. He said the same thing-each new print was a new performance and the performances were getting better with practice.

You can't separate the two, evolving vision and technique.. You don't think his technique improved over the years? You either get better or worse. Was he born that way? You can't really believe that with years of printing experience that he didn't improve. The early moonrise that my friend has is not even in the same class as the later one and both were bought personally from Ansel. One is pre-intensification and one was post. He was not satisfied with the early ones and that is why he intensified the foreground. He himself liked the later ones that was why he changed his technique. he thought the later ones were better prints.

[Bill_1856]

"You can't really believe that with years of printing experience that he didn't improve."

Changed -- yes. Improved -- not necessarily. In his final years, he was well over 70 and making massive quantities of prints, unlike earlier years when he ran off a few prints at a time as they were ordered. An examination of those late prints may show marked differences from print to print. (George Tice said that no two prints never come out the same.) My position is that even in old age, and churning out prints by the truckload, he was still the ultimate B&W printer. I forget what we were arguing about.

[paulr]

"Kirk, I have to disagree with you about Strand or The Weston's being great printers."

Boy, I'm with Kirk on this one. I had a chance to look at many prints from many vintages from all of these photographers, and I would put Ansel way, way, way at the bottom of the list. I will say that I've seen more terrible examples of both Weston and Strand prints, but in these cases it's been hard to tell if it was a case of sloppiness or a case of a work print never intended for public consumption ending up in a collection. Looking just at the best prints from all three, Weston and Strand were repeatedly able to produce prints of much greater subtlety, nuance, and what I see as a deeper reading of what the image is about.

The only prints of Ansels that have even been in the same league as Weston's and Strand's came from a ten year or so period, from the mid thirties to the late forties. I doubt it's coincidental tht during this period he did work that came closest to approaching the depth of weston's and strand's, also. Later, as his work got more bombastic (that "ain't nature grand" stuff, as Weston used to crack) his prints got bombastic too. I don't care for his prints from the later period. the brilliant ones witht he cold tones and the paper-base white highlights. At this point his printing became formulaic, coarse, lacking in all subtledty, with every negative interpreted the same way. Compared to his earlier work, the later work seems very sad to me.

Incidentally, the other photographer whose prints have consistently looked as great to me as Weston's and Strand's is Stieglitz.

[paulr]

getting back to the original topic, of whether there's an east coast and a west coast esthetic ...

some of us have said that the fundamental nature of the work is a response to the nature of the landscape, others have said that it's a product of the photographer's vision.

it seems to me there are aspects of both in most people's work. Of all the things that influence a photograph, the most important would seem to fit in one of two categories: the photographer's vision (which includes all of his or her ideas, esthetic preferences, prejudices, habits, etc.), and the nature of the subject (broadly or narrowly interpreted ... whaterver's around the photographer, or right in front of the lens).

The degree to which these two types of influence make a difference could come down to the much overused analogy of mirrors and windows. The view out your window is going to change dramtically depending on what part of the world you're in; the view in the mirror much less so. Photographers like strand seem to fit well in the Windows category, and so there are significant stylistic differences between the work he did in New Mexico and the work he did in New England. Caponigro's more introspective work does not change so much.

The nature of the specific subject matter can make a difference in its own right. Someone photographing roots and rocks is likely to find only minor differences in their formal and metaphorical possibilites from one region to another. Someone photographing broad vistas or cultural landscapes will obviously find bigger differences.

[Mark Sawyer]

(Yes, I have a bookshelf near my computer...) From the 1982 catalog accompanying that year's reconstitution of "Ansel Adams, An American Place, 1936," quoting curator Andrea Gray:

"As Adams' assistant from 1974 to 1980, I often heard him refer to the (1936) exhibit as the finest he ever had. In organizing the correspondence in his archive, I was struck by the frequent superlative references to the show."

The prints from the show were small (I don't think any were as large as a full 8x10"), lower keyed and more intimate in approach; many of the images in that show would fall into the "eastern aesthetic." Not surprising, as at that time he was travelling to the east to meet with Stieglitz, Strand, etc. The entire show is well-reproduced in the catalog, which is very different from other works on Adams, and very much worth repeated perusings. I saw the 1982 reprisal, and remember it as quietly spectacular.

Adams evolved considerably in his approach over the next two or three decades. I doubt he would be as well remembered today had he stayed with the older, quieter style. But whether it was an artistic improvement or just more popular is arguable both ways. I appreciate both approaches, and others.

[Kirk Gittings]

Bill,

Ultimately I would take a "Moonrise" from any period. If you have two, I envy you.

"He said the same thing-each new print was a new performance and the performances were getting better with practice." This is a paraphrase of something he told me in a phone conversation after I complimented him on a recent portfolio of his at the Santa Fe Museum. I don't remmeber what year it was maybe 1982.

I don't mean to pick on you. I guess I find the mythogising of AA unsettling and the use of his work as the watershed for all for all LF aesthetic questions too narrow as a point of reference. Now understand, I have every book he ever did, he was the center focus of my masters thesis, went out of my way to meet him a couple of times and I corresponded with him for a few years later in his life and really treasure those memories. He has had a monumental impact on photography and me personally, but he should not be the standard by which everything is measured. If he were, LF photography would be a moribund art form. He at best represents one very large branch of seeing and technique which is epitomized in the F64 West Coast aesthetic.

[Mark Sawyer]

I dunno, Kirk... I think that old Adams boy was a watershed, not for large format but for all of photography as an art form as perceived by the majority of people. Ask most people, "who is the best photographer ever," or "who is your favorite," and most will say Ansel Adams. For many, he's the only photographer they can name. So in the great democratic scheme of things, he is the standard.

Adams isn't my favorite photographer, or my biggest influence. But he's right up there. And he's great. And I think it's great that there are a great many other great photographers who are as great as he was, but in other great ways. And isn't it great that once in a great while, with a great deal of luck, we can make a great image too?

What a great thread...

[Struan Gray]

Paul, I think you have lumped too much into 'vision'. A lot of photographers never explicitly question their motives for taking particular types of photograph, and I think seperate credit has to be given to their pictorial and aesthetic environment. A lot of the amatuers who took quiet, intimate landscapes in the East were following the painters of the Hudson School and writers like Thoreau. The mammoth camera users in the West were competing for a share of the existing market for painted panoramas and wild west shows.

I remember a thread at The Other Place where people were asked what their favourite subjects were. Overwhelmingly they voted for the usual list of old wooden buildings, streams through woodland, sandstone windsculpts, decayed steel mill, abandoned hospitals, wrinkly old men, and pretty young girls. Nobody admitted looking for new housing developments, wafer fabs, UPS depots, wasteground feral plants, soccer moms or regular Joes. True vision is about seeing the world anew, or at least recognising that it has changed from the way we hold it in our sentimental hearts. That to me is the true strength of Adams, Strand, Weston and the others. Most of today's photographers are still living in the world of late C19th academic painting, which is fine for their personal expression, but doesn't really deserve the 'v' word.

So I think another difference between the East and West coasts are that they have different herd instincts to follow; i.e. there's a societal factor as well as a personal one.

[paulr]

Struan, you definitely have a point about vision being influenced by your surroundings. And perhaps by local heroes, herds, etc.. I suppose the test of this idea is to see if people raised in one region continue to make pictures with that region's esthetic when they go somewhere else.

I'm curious to see examples. Most of the photographers I can think who of who moved around would fall into a gray area ... their work stayed the same in some ways, not in others.

You're definitely beating one of my favorite battle drums when you point out that the old masters were doing something new ... much unlike what we're doing when we copy them.

[paulr]

"Ask most people, "who is the best photographer ever," or "who is your favorite," and most will say Ansel Adams. For many, he's the only photographer they can name. So in the great democratic scheme of things, he is the standard."

This may be true. Just keep in mind that the same line of inquiry might lead you to judge Britney Spears as the greatest musician of all time. The great democratic scheme of things might have some shortcomings when it comes to high art.

In the eyes of the curators and educated photographers that I've known, and the critics I've read, Ansel is not typically at the top of the pantheon, if he's even a member. He was many things--a powerful voice for conservation, a great educator, an ambassador to the world for landscape photographers, and practically a mascot to the national parks system. But as a visual visionary, his contribution was not in the same class as people like Strand and Weston. One person who was quick to point this out was Adams himself. He knew he was in the company of true genius when Weston was in the room, and he made it known that he and his work were humbled.

It's actually been fashionable among critics and photo educators lately (last couple of decades, really) to belittle Ansel's contribution and to not take him seriously. I think these people are going too far. He did some wonderful work, even if his most popular work was several notches below his best. I like to appreciate him for all the things he contributed, without confusing him with the great landscape visionaries.

[Struan Gray]

The only photographer I know intimately is myself. I take very different photographs at home and when travelling. At home I have the luxury of time and repeated exposure. I am better able to see unexpected significance and I have lots of opportunities to discover all those things hidden in plain view. My home photos are not of things that other people take photos of; they are very local and very personal. When travelling I tend to be seduced by the obvious, even when on holiday in an area like N.W.Scotland where I have been going all my life. Reviewing my photographs after the fact, I often find I was looking for photographs that looked like photographs are supposed to look. They often please other people, but not me.

I love Strand's pictures of America. His photos of the Hebridies strike me as banal and obvious. I think this is a similar thing at work.

On the other hand, someone like Micheal Kenna seems to be able to take his own aesthetic with him wherever he goes.

Adams not being in the pantheon is probably a swing of the pendulum thing. I also think he suffers from being easily liked, in the same way that Mozart and Monet are easily liked. I find in his photos the same aesthetic kick I get when sitting on an alpine summit at dawn, and I don't find that kick in many other photographers images. His emotional range is limited, but what he does feels true to me, even after many viewings. Today's America values emotion over thought and sincerity over truth, Ansel Adams lived in more serious times.

[Kirk Gittings]

"It's actually been fashionable among critics and photo educators lately (last couple of decades, really) to belittle Ansel's contribution and to not take him seriously. I think these people are going too far. "

This is an understatement. When "Ansel at 100" was at the Art Institute of Chicago I was teaching there at the school and you would have thought that nothing of great interest was happening in the same building!!!! Anything that is "popular" can't be taken seriously even if historically it was of monumental importance.

Ansel was the culmination of the romantic movement in landscape photography. His technical mastery allowed for the first time for the full expression of the emotional romantic landscape instinct in "straight" photography. That is his great contribution and it is important and should not ne negated.

[Bill Hahn]

Wow, I've been reading various photographic fora for about seven years and this is the best thread
I've ever encountered. Thanks everyone for your insights and history.

Just a few quick references: If you want to learn more about William Mortensen, there is a chapter
about him in A. D. Coleman's book "Depth of Field". He is described a bit in the late Fay Wray's
memoir - "On The Other Hand" - he acted as Fay Wray's guardian when she went out to the
West Coast. (Yes, the Fay Wray that was in the movie "King Kong".)

And am I correct in thinking that Edward Weston felt particularly uninspired when photographing
in New England? I can only recall one closeup of the engravings on an old tombstone....

...now I'll return to lurking and learning...

Cheers, all.

[Jim Hunter]

Bill,

I certainly have to agree with you. I've been a member of 20 or so discussions forums (mostly related to the business end of photography) for a number of years and this has been one of the most interesting, informative and educational threads I have ever seen.

Thanks Kirk for getting this one started.

[Mark Sawyer]

"Just keep in mind that the same line of inquiry might lead you to judge Britney Spears as the greatest musician of all time."

I think we're safe there, Paul. As a high school teacher, I can say with authority her fan base was down at the middle school level. I think the closest photography has to a popular equivalent (sorry, Alfred) would be Anne Geddes, who we can hopefully all agree to despise.

"When "Ansel at 100" was at the Art Institute of Chicago I was teaching there at the school and you would have thought that nothing of great interest was happening in the same building!!!!"

That doesn't surprise me, Kirk. But I'd guess "popular" attendance was strong, and that audience was well-educated, if not well-art-educated. I think that familiarity has bred indifference and a touch of contempt in art-photography circles. And it's rather elitist of us to value recognition only in the scholarly world.

It does strike me that Adams influenced so many that followed so deeply that, more than any other photographer I can think of, you could see an almost unlimited number of prints done by others in his style, and understand his approach and concerns very well without ever seeing an Adams image. Whether that's good or bad can be argued...

[paulr]

"Anything that is "popular" can't be taken seriously even if historically it was of monumental importance. "

Well, I know this is seems to be the case, but I suspect it's because popular things are rarely of much monumental importance. history has actually given us a few artists who were both accessible and important, who have been loved by the critics and the hordes alike. Some examples are Beethoven, the Beatles, Picasso, and Radiohead.

I think Ansel's current dismal Nielsen ratings have more to do with him being out of fashion. Consider that the people who seem to hate him the most--young photographers and photography students--are a group that's always been most easily swayed by fashion.

This is different from the more sober, but still lukewarm appraisal of Ansel given by serious critics and curators. This has been the case for many decades, and doesn't seem to be a case of fashion. Even Szarkowsky, who was a fan of Ansel, seemed to appreciate his work more in terms of its influence in and out of the photographic community, and its expression of a certain ethos from a certain time. He considered it important work, and good work, but not necessarily great work, in the way considered Weston's to be great. I think there are hints of this in the introductory essay to Ansel at 100.

[Kirk Gittings]

"This is different from the more sober, but still lukewarm appraisal of Ansel given by serious critics and curators."

Isn't it the nature of these professions to be qualified, dispassionate and sober? Beaumont Newhall however in his history of 20th century photography classes at UNM. (which I took a lifetime ago), was emotive about Ansel. It was in his class that I met Ansel the first time. Real living history. Newhall's classes were amazing in that way. In that same semester we met Bret Weston and Imogene Cunningham also.

[paulr]

That's great that you got to study under Newhall. He sounds like an amazing guy. Unfortunately, he isn't held in very high regard as a historian anymore. His History of Photography (my college textbook, lovingly dog-eared) has been pretty widely discredited as unscholarly, unprofessional, poorly researched, and narrow.

Newhall was also very close friends with Ansel, wasn't he? This doesn't exactly foster critical distance. In fact I've read some serious allegations of old-boy club maneuverings and big somes of money changing hands in connection with Ansel's big retrospective at Moma. I have no idea what really took place, but when confonted with specifics from A.D. Coleman, Ansel reportedly did not write back.

[paulr]

Actually, now that I think of it, Ansel's big donation to the museum and his big show may well have come after Newhall's tenure there, so he may not have had anything to do with it. But he and Ansel were certainly cronies. Who wouldn't have wanted to be a crony with Ansel or Beaumont? But your cronies aren't usually your most dispassionate critics.

[Kirk Gittings]

"His History of Photography (my college textbook, lovingly dog-eared) has been pretty widely discredited as unscholarly, unprofessional, poorly researched, and narrow."

Who cares what mainstream academics think of Newhall? He was the first historian to even give a s___ about photography and deserves great credit for paying attention to it at all. Historians are in my experience the most petty and jealouse of academics. I have worked with many of them and as a profession they are exceptionally emotionally immature.

Frankly, most of my favourite historians are outside the mainstream-for good reason. Howard Zinn for example. Beaumont's history was anecdotal, because much of it came from his direct experience. It was real. He was real. Some of the best classes I ever took.

"I've read some serious allegations of old-boy club maneuverings and big somes of money changing hands in connection with Ansel's big retrospective at Moma." That is the way the art world works. I get museum shows sometimes because I know people and can bring in grant money. So what? No museum is going to hang a crappy show just because of that. It is no ivory tower, but what do you get out of this silly rumour mongering about Ansel?

I see no point in furthering completely unsubstatiated rumours about Ansel. Ansel probably did not think that the charges deserved a response.

[paulr]

Well, it's a case where the mainstream historians have a point. And their point isn't one of character assasination; I think everyone acknowledges their debt to Beaumont for his role in putting photography on the map, and for almost singlehandedly inventing the field of photo history. But this doesn't change anyone's objective appraisal of his particular work of history, when looked at by contemporary art-historical standards.

A fair analogy would be an early map, made by hand by a mapmaker who surveyed uncharted territory in the West on horseback. Looking back, we would be greatly impressed by his efforts, and it would be easy for us to imagine how much debt early settlers owed this person's maps. However, no one in their right mind today would trust their lives or their real estate deals to those maps. In terms of accuracy and detail, they would not be up to the standards of modern maps based on satelite and aerial photographs.

Not to suggest that all things, or even all histories, are improved upon. But Beaumont's history, as visionary as it was at the time, was so narrow in its perspective that today it seems silly to call it a History of Photography. It's really a history of American and European photography, with an extreme emphasis on what Mr. Newhall really likes.

As far as the whole Moma thing, you're right that I shouldn't open that can of worms here. It's a tangent, and not a helpful one. But not my rumormongering. A.D. Coleman was serious about his allegations, and had a lot to back them up. I'll send you references if you're interested. At any rate, my point isn't a jab at Ansel ... just another look at the degree of cronyism that existed at the time. maybe an aspect of the west coast school? ;)

[Mark Sawyer]

History, especially art history, is at its best as something to theorize, philosophize, and argue about. I agree with those who have said this is one of the better threads.

Newhall was the first major photo-historian. I suppose in the light of today's more microscopic studies of each little niche and the weaving of myriad intricate webs connecting them, Newhall's basic taxonomy of photographic styles and trends was a bit simplistic. But as a starting point for understanding photo-history, it still holds its own, I think.

[paulr]

I still have my copy, and there's a lot to be learned from it.
Its shortcomings, though, are hard to ignore. It's not that its examinations of different niches are too broad ... it's that they don't exist.

It's a pretty fair history (as far as i can tell) of 19th century photo, but in the 20th century, it acknowledges only mainstream european and american modernism. My edition (from 1984, with a new preface by the author) includes about 10 examples of color photography, and spends 20 pages total covering the years 1946 through 1984.

If this was your textbook (as it was mine) you might end up with some ideas like:
--there have only been one or two female photographers ever
--all photographers have been european, russian, or american
--with a couple of odd exceptions (like Edward Curtis, who might be in there) all photographers were white
--color photography is quirky sidenote
--nothing that happened after world war II makes much sense, so it can just be glossed over.

You're right that it was a great starting point, at least when it first came out.
But at this point, it's really more of a history of the history of photography than anything else.