Robert Adams Wins Deutsche Borse Prize [Archive] - Large Format Photography Forum

Jeff Moore

30-Mar-2006, 22:43

A couple of years ago I attended an exhibit of Robert Adams' prints. I have thumbed through books of his photographs in the library and in bookstores. I just viewed the 96 images on the Fraenkel Gallery website. And my reaction is the same every time--So what?

I just do not get the appeal of his work. I suspect that if this body of work were not done by a "name" or "collectable" photographer, the average patron of this website wouldn't give the work a second thought. I also suspect that if I pitched this work under my name to a dozen galleries, none of them would give me the time of day.

But of course, art is subjective, and Adams' work just doesn't appeal to me. Those who are fans of his, please enlighten me; tell me what I'm missing.

adrian tyler

30-Mar-2006, 23:20

good as it maybe for photography (though i can't really see why) and social/political activism (he is donating the 30,000 to human rights watch), i can't help think that this type of prize always goes to some very well known, established, represented photographer. now to my mind what would be really "good for photography" would be that these bigshot prizes go to people who's work is up to bigshot standard but who are unknown, of course that would mean that the judges would have to know something and work very hard, which may be a problem, but the prize would certainly come in useful an unestablished photographer, just like me infact!

paulr

30-Mar-2006, 23:42

"I just do not get the appeal of his work."

i don't get the appeal of Tibetan throat singing, kim chee, soft-boiled eggs, Leonard Cohen's lyrics, or bread pudding.

i also don't get the appeal of re-living discussions that have been repeated so manny times they now play like well-rehearsed rituals. some previous rounds can be found at

http://largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/505095.html#590833 and http://largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/504223.html#580151

and

http://largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/504223.html#580151

who wants to get together for a staged reading? it can become an annual pageant. we can do robert adams somewhere out west and then film vs. digital on the east coast.

paulr

30-Mar-2006, 23:55

"what would be really "good for photography" would be that these bigshot prizes go to people who's work is up to bigshot standard but who are unknown, of course that would mean that the judges would have to know something and work very hard, which may be a problem, but the prize would certainly come in useful an unestablished photographer, just like me infact!"

i can't comment on this particular prize ... i have no idea how it's awarded or by whom. i also can't comment on adams' work that prize was awarded for ... the article says it's for recent stuff, 1999 to 2003. haven't seen it. but i'm sure glad it went to mr. adams, rather than to many other more trendy big shots who come to mind, and whose work strikes me as minor in comparison.

regarding the question, why aren't the deep pockets giving the money to you ... how many grants or fellowships did you apply for in the last year? and the year before that? and before that? not that applying guarantees anything, but if you're not famous, you at least gotta ask!

Jeff Moore

31-Mar-2006, 00:02

Oh my god, paulr, I am so sorry for expressing an opinion here . . . in a photography forum too, of all places. Can you ever forgive me?

Allen Quinn

31-Mar-2006, 05:41

Jeffrey,
I don't get it either. What I really don't get are the defensive replies when someone asks what is the appeal of this work?

Walt Calahan

31-Mar-2006, 06:31

I love bread pudding! Annie's on Kent Island, Maryland, serves some of the best.

Now I won't buy a Robert Adams print, but I do recognize his importance to photography. He changed the vocabulary of the art. Think of Robert Frank's influence on social observation. In my not too well educated opinion that's what Robert Adams did to the landscape. Robert Adams forced us to look away from the idealized grandeur of nature as found in Ansel Adams, and said "Hey folks, look at the real world." The real world ain't so pretty.

Now as far as big shots verses small shots, the prize giver has a political reason to associate with big shots. It's not a one way street. Think of all the politician's who love to hang with Bono of U2 even when they never listen to his music. The Germans are using Robert Adams persona to say "Pay attention to us."

Now I really don't know what the "average person" would like about anything on any web site, let alone what they'd like of my work. That's not the point of art. An artist is never driven by what the average person thinks. The drive comes from within, and doesn't give a rat's hindquarters what anyone else thinks.

Now let's all try to make the perfect soft-boiled egg. I understand it helps heal raspy thoat singers who plagiarise Korean Leonard Cohen impersonators. Grin.

Me, I'm signing up for the Robert Adam's digital workshop on Cape Cod next summer! HA.

Thanks Paul.

jon fritsch

31-Mar-2006, 06:35

My friend was thumbing through one of my photo rags the other day and ran across some of Robert's photographs. Without me prompting her, she asked why they even put such medoicre work in what is supposed to be a high end photo publication. I told her to look at the author, which she did. I confirmed that it was Ansel's son and that pretty much explained it.

Tom Westbrook

31-Mar-2006, 06:48

I told her to look at the author, which she did. I confirmed that it was Ansel's son

Robert Adams and Ansel Adams are not related.

Frank Petronio

31-Mar-2006, 06:55

Didn't Ansel diddle his assistant in 1936? That would be just about right... ;-)

jon fritsch

31-Mar-2006, 07:05

>Robert Adams and Ansel Adams are not related.

Oooops, my bad. A quite embarassing one, too. Thanks for the correction.

I guess that's not the reason the particular magazine published the work.

adrian tyler

31-Mar-2006, 07:17

"regarding the question, why aren't the deep pockets giving the money to you ... how many grants or fellowships did you apply for in the last year? and the year before that? and before that? not that applying guarantees anything, but if you're not famous, you at least gotta ask!"

i do think that it is politics as walter points out.

but as far as you question goes, i understand your point, and i'm workin' on it...

Kirk Gittings

31-Mar-2006, 08:28

Though Robert Adams is not the saint's son biologically, an arguement could be made that RA is the successor in the LF B&W landscape tradition. Not as an imitator but as a reaction against the romanticism of his aesthetic fore fathers. His legacy in the genre is second only probably to AA and Weston. See this if you are unaware of what happened in the 70's with landscape photography.

www.presentationhousegall.com/altered_landscape.html (http://www.presentationhousegall.com/altered_landscape.html)

paulr

31-Mar-2006, 08:34

"What I really don't get are the defensive replies when someone asks what is the appeal of this work?"

no one asked about it. it was a statement, as if in indignation, "I just do not get the appeal of his work."
so what? if Jeffrey was genuinely curious, i suspect he would have asked, and probably gotten some intelligent answers. instead, it was the kind of commentary that we see all the time on this board: someone not getting something, and seeming annoyed that other people like it.

i don't know why it's so hard to accept that there are all different kinds of work being done, some of which you'll get from where you are now, and some of which you won't. and that it's not some kind of insult if someone else likes something that you don't understand. we're all simultaneously on all sides of this inequity. i promise you that some of the work you love most is perplexing to somebody somewhere.

Walter sez: "I love bread pudding! Annie's on Kent Island, Maryland, serves some of the best."

exactly my point. why on earth would my disdain for bread pudding be interesting to anyone else, especially someone who loves it? if i had some criticism of some particular bread pudding, that at least opens up a conversation. but for me to say "i don't get why anyone would like that stuff!" is just annoying. i might as well show up at the table and make puking noises.

paulr

31-Mar-2006, 08:47

Adrian sez ... "i do think that it is politics as walter points out."

with these big national prizes, that wouldn't be surprising. and i think there's another phenomenon ... not sure if it counts as politics or not ...

when big organizations give a major award, there's a certain amount of pr in it for the organization. they want to be noticed, and they want to have the suppor of the public for their own good. so it's a safer bet to award a familiar name than an unknown. and a name that's familiar in an uncontroversial way. an artist famous for models posed with bull whips inserted in their backsides, or for crucifixes immersed in urine, will tend to have a harder time in these arenas.

robert adams has a bit of controversy in the states (people who only like romantic views of the west don't like him, and people who think deforestation and stripmall development are cool certainly don't like him). but the germans are greener than we are, and their art viewing public seems more progressive than ours. a lot of people in this country look at 1970s-style american landscape photography as if it were from outer space. in europe, people are more likely to see it as comfortably traditional. in my experience anyhow.

John Brownlow

31-Mar-2006, 10:10

this is one of the dumbest threads I've read in a while

"if Robert Adams wasn't famous no-one would look at his work twice"

how exactly do you think he got to be famous?

there are not many photographers I would say this about but here goes:

anyone who doesn't get Robert Adams' work either hasn't looked, or hasn't thought about it, hard enough

flame on

Ansel's son my ass

paulr

31-Mar-2006, 10:20

"this is one of the dumbest threads I've read in a while."

john, you've been reading them for how long? ;-)

John Sarsgard

31-Mar-2006, 10:39

This post will probably be boring, because no steam is coming from my ears! At the risk of posting after lots has been said, I'm doing it anyway. First, I think Ansel, Edward Weston, Harry Callahan, Nan Goldin, Mary Ellen Mark, Richard Avedon, Diane Arbus, and Robert Adams all are/were (RIP) perfectly great photographers. I like all their work, for different reasons. There are other famous photographers I don't like much, and also some not famous photographers I like and don't like.

What do the people on my imperfect list have in common? I could recognize a photo by any of them immediately, and never confuse it with anyone else's, possibly with the exception of Ansel. They all developed a style, vision, and way of working that was their own. They figured out who they were as photographers and went out and worked very hard doing it. Nobody anointed them before they paid their dues and did the work, and took the risk of being themselves...rather than trying to figure out what would sell.

I happen to like Robert Adams's work, but there may be lots of intelligent, nice people who don't. Whether one likes his work or not, he gave up a comfortable college teaching career, developed a point of view, worked hard to refine it, took risks, and succeeded. People now may give him credit for all kinds of political, artistic, or other reasons, but it did not come before he paid his dues.

Now I feel better, and still no steam from my ears!

John Brownlow

31-Mar-2006, 11:03

I should make it clear you can 'get' someone's work and still not like it

I think (hope) I 'get' Cindy Sherman's work, but it does pretty much nothing for me (except irritate).

So I'm not saying anyone should like his work, but not 'getting' it and rejecting it for that reason seems intellectually a bit off. I think he's demonstrated by his writing and commitment to the medium that he's thought and cares deeply about both photography itself, and the things he photographs. So I feel that one owes it to him to engage with the work seriously. It's not as if it's particularly hard to 'get'.

There seems to be this odd preconception that because Robert Adam's photos don't jump of the page to a photographic non-combatant, that must be a sign that he's not a good photographer. But I'm sure that RA, if he wanted to, could take photographs of Yosemite which would take your retinas out. The point is that he chooses not to. That should make what he does choose to photograph, and how he chooses to photograph it, doubly interesting, no?

paulr

31-Mar-2006, 11:10

"I think (hope) I 'get' Cindy Sherman's work, but it does pretty much nothing for me (except irritate)."

i feel precisely the same way. i also acknowledge that my distaste for her work has absolutely nothing to do with its cultural or art-historical significance.

furthermore, if i didn't get it, this wouldn't be something for me to trumpet about with indignation ... it would be an invitation to look closer and to try to get it.

Brian Ellis

31-Mar-2006, 11:41

" In my not too well educated opinion that's what Robert Adams did to the landscape. Robert Adams forced us to look away from the idealized grandeur of nature as found in Ansel Adams, and said "Hey folks, look at the real world." The real world ain't so pretty. "

There were lots of people doing this before and contemporaneously with Adams. See, e.g., Louis Balz, Frank Gohlke, Roger Mertin, and Stephen Shore for names that come immediately to mind. Adams reputation as a photographer has been greatly benefited by his excellent writing. In a sense the photography has been lifted up by the bootstraps of the writing. If he didn't write well and prolifically I think he would be known about as well as say Frank Gohlke (who was a fine photographer but who isn't nearly as well known as Adams).

"anyone who doesn't get Robert Adams' work either hasn't looked, or hasn't thought about it, hard enough "

I "get" the appeal of "American Idol." That doesn't mean I have to think it's good.

paulr

31-Mar-2006, 12:01

"There were lots of people doing this before and contemporaneously with Adams."

you could include the 19th century survey photographers, too.

but adams wasn't doing exactly the same thing as everyone else. he brought to the task a degree of depth and a particular, intensely personal vision that sets him apart from anyone else (not to disparage guys like shore and gohlke, whose work i love ... but i do think it's different in important ways from adams' work).

adams also found a way to explore similar subjects and themes over the course of several decades, while his relationship to them constantly evolved. i'm talking about a personal evolution, not just a stylistic one ... through living and photographing, he was able to gradually move from bitterness to acceptance and eventually to affection--but a more guarded, sad affection for the land than the pure affection he had growing up. i think this process is something any photographer can learn from, whether or not you happen to like his work.

John Brownlow

31-Mar-2006, 12:15

In a sense the photography has been lifted up by the bootstraps of the writing.

I think that is partly true for the later work. It certainly makes you look much deeper into the photographs. However I think the earlier What We Bought work didn't need any lubrication.