Kim Weston on Edward

[iamjanco]

An enjoyable, albeit brief look at Edward Weston's life in the eyes of Kim:

Kim Weston on Edward (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/03/29/travel/20090329-weston.html)

[Donald Miller]

Great, thank you for posting this. The photographer that I admire the most.

Donald Miller

[Ken Lee]

Wonderful - Thanks !

[Daniel Grenier]

Interesting indeed. Having had the pleasure of visiting Point Lobos a few years ago, I can attest that (at least in my case) Weston's "presence" was palpable. Awesome artist he was. (but I think his son Brett was better - gasp!).

[Darin Boville]

I don't recognize a few of those images. Have they all been published? If so, where?

Nice link, thanks.

--Darin

[Merg Ross]

I don't recognize a few of those images. Have they all been published? If so, where?

Nice link, thanks.

--Darin
Darin, which images do you not recognize? There is only one that I have not seen published, however it is in the UC Santa Cruz collection (from the Print Project).

Yes, thanks for the link.

[Darin Boville]

Hey Merg,

The nude and the reading on the house shot, especially. Maybe I need to get out my Weston books again--or buy a few new ones! (But which ones?)

--Darin

[Frank Petronio]

His best stuff was at the end, he anticipated the New Topographics and Emmit Gowin and Sally Mann 40-50 years ahead of time. Those six shots are great, late stuff. You can even tell that Charis was dumping him in some of the other later photos.

[Merg Ross]

Hey Merg,

The nude and the reading on the house shot, especially. Maybe I need to get out my Weston books again--or buy a few new ones! (But which ones?)

--Darin

The nude photograph (Winter Idyll, 1945) is reproduced in "The Flame of Recognition" which is an Aperture monograph. Charis reading on the roof of Bodie house is in "The Cats of Wildcat Hill" book.

[Darin Boville]

The nude photograph (Winter Idyll, 1945) is reproduced in "The Flame of Recognition" which is an Aperture monograph. Charis reading on the roof of Bodie house is in "The Cats of Wildcat Hill" book.

Thanks. Somehow I don't own the Aperture book (but used to look at it in the library, years ago). Don't have and have never seen the "Cats" book.

Time to go shopping...

--Darin

[Darin Boville]

Hmmmm. "Cats of Wildcat Hill" is a bit spendy.....$200 and up!

--Darin

[Jon Shiu]

That photo is also in "Edward Weston, The Last Years in Carmel"

Jon

[Darin Boville]

That photo is also in "Edward Weston, The Last Years in Carmel"

Jon

Ahhh, thank you. Just ordered it.

--Darin

[Merg Ross]

Ahhh, thank you. Just ordered it.

--Darin

Good choice. I have the "Cats" book, and it is not really representative of Edward's finest work. Perhaps these days the book is more of interest to a collector (which I am not).

By the way, the photograph of Charis on the roof also appears in her book, "Through Another Lens" which recounts her years with Edward.

[Brian Ellis]

Good choice. I have the "Cats" book, and it is not really representative of Edward's finest work. Perhaps these days the book is more of interest to a collector (which I am not).

By the way, the photograph of Charis on the roof also appears in her book, "Through Another Lens" which recounts her years with Edward.

Ah, thanks Merg. That explains why the photograph was familiar to me even though I've never seen the Cats book. I do have Charis' book (also her video, which took a long time to arrive but was worth the wait).

[wfwhitaker]

"...And Edward said you should be able to point the camera down at the ground and see a photograph. And what he was saying is you should be able to have control over your equipment and your eye to be able to photograph at random anywhere and come up with something that is pleasing."

Wow! Now that's a paradigm shift! And to think that I've always thought that finding good subjects involved seeking a magic location - a Yosemite, a Pemaquid, a redwood forest. But instead the magic is all around me... Almost like a Blakeian grain of sand.

Go Edward!

[iamjanco]

"...And Edward said you should be able to point the camera down at the ground and see a photograph. And what he was saying is you should be able to have control over your equipment and your eye to be able to photograph at random anywhere and come up with something that is pleasing."

Wow! Now that's a paradigm shift! And to think that I've always thought that finding good subjects involved seeking a magic location - a Yosemite, a Pemaquid, a redwood forest. But instead the magic is all around me... Almost like a Blakeian grain of sand.

Go Edward!

That almost sounds like it could be a neat assignment for forum members:

Point the camera down at the ground and see and take a photograph of something that is pleasing. Don't go out of your way to take this picture; rather, complete the assignment in your immediate vicinity.


It'd be interesting to see what folks come up with.

[Darin Boville]

That a "traditional" assignment that some teachers give to photo students--mark out some small area in a ho-hum place--maybe a ten foot radius circle--and have the person take ten interesting photos.

I sort of followed that way of thinking a bit (not intentionally) and it led me to my own work. Kind of odd when I think of it in these terms.

--Darin

[Michael A. Smith]

I have often said, and Paula and I demonstrate this in our Vision and Technique workshops, that a photographer ought to be able to make a significant photographer wherever they happen to be standing (or sitting) and in whatever direction they happen to be looking.

Michael A. Smith

[Duane Polcou]

I have often said, and Paula and I demonstrate this in our Vision and Technique workshops, that a photographer ought to be able to make a significant photographer wherever they happen to be standing (or sitting) and in whatever direction they happen to be looking.

Michael A. Smith

What is your definition of a significant photograph? Part of what makes a given photographer's body of work great is their interest or even passion for a given subject which inspires them to work harder both physically and visually to create images which have significance to them, and hopefully to others.

Ansel Adams related in "Examples:The Making of Forty Photographs" how he found it difficult to "see" in Hawaii and could not wait to get back to the Sierra. Maybe if Ansel took a couple workshops he might have made something of himself.

[Bill_1856]

His best stuff was at the end.

I disagree. Charis was the kiss of death for any originality of his work. It became finely composed schlock without Tina or Sonya to stimulate and challange him.

[Michael A. Smith]

Let me change the word "significant" to "visually coherent."

There needs to be an emotional response to something to cause one to set up large and cumbersome view cameras, but at that point, as I see it, the photographer has one task: to make the best picture he or she can, whether or not it is of what caught their eye in the first place.

At the risk of bringing down a veritable firestorm of criticism, accusations of arrogance, etc.: Yes, if Ansel Adams had been so fortunate as to have taken our workshops, he might have continued to photograph at the high level he had once achieved.

Mary Alinder in her biography of Adams states that his last significant photograph was made in 1951--when he was only 49 years old! Now to digress for a moment: Mary was Ansel's last business assistant. She helped him write his autobiography, but felt the need to write a biography herself. Jim Alinder was the Director of the Friends of Photography when it was at its apex--the best Director the Friends ever had. The Alinders, Mary and Jim, have hundreds of Adam's photographs that they sold in their gallery in Gualala, California. I do not know if they still have their gallery. So the Alinders had no motivation to knock Ansel Adams--quite the reverse.

Now, artists are supposed to get better with age. With age, supposedly comes wisdom, depth, and greater understanding. Late Cezanne, late Titian, late Stieglitz, etc., are fine examples here.

Now, what was the problem with Adams? Why could he not continue to photograph at his once-achieved high level? Keep in mind that John Szarkowski, in his fine book, "Looking at Photographs" stated that "The genuinely creative period of most photographers has rarely exceeded ten or fifteen years." And this is indeed true—with few exceptions, and obviously Ansel Adams is not one of the exceptions. Szarkowski wrote that he thought this was due to the fact that technologically the medium changed so quickly. But I do not believe that is the reason at all.

The reason Szarkowski's statement is true is this: As photographers we walk around until we see something that makes us say, "Wow! That is incredible (or beautiful, or whatever)." And then we stop and make a photograph of it. And that gets repeated over and over, during the course of many years.

Now, we can only respond to something that on some level we already know. When photography is new for us, it is exciting to see what we know, and what we responded to, translated or transformed into a photograph. But over time we end up just confirming what we already know, and no growth takes place.

To keep our genuinely creative period alive, and to keep ourselves growing, what we have to do is photograph what we don't know. But how can we photograph what we don't know, when we can only respond to what we already know? That's the paradox. In our Vision and Technique Workshop we resolve that paradox through one-on-one demonstrations. Explaining it here would not do it justice and in any casew it is much better demonstrated than explained. One photographer in one of our workshops a few years ago, after having a career that was going nowhere and had totally dead ended, exclaimed, after that part of the workshop where we demonstrate this, "Damn it, why didn't someone show me this fifteen years ago." Recently, one of his photographs was on the cover of a major magazine.

Ansel Adams did as much or more for photography than any other photographer in the twentieth century. The list of his accomplishments and contributions to the world of photography is unsurpassed, but he did not keep growing as a photographer. If he would he have been open to learning a whole new approach to making photographs, which is extremely doubtful, then by taking our workshop (clearly impossible), his genuinely creative period would have been extended and his last significant photograph would not have been made when he was only 49 years old.

Michael A. Smith

[Michael A. Smith]

And oh yes, to get back on topic. Kim's discussion of Edward's photographs is wonderful indeed.

Michael A. Smith

[mandoman7]

If you look at the work of most artists (yes, there is a world of creativity outside of photography ;) ), their best work is often confined to a 10 yr period or less. Its like a romance, the fire burns brightly then things happen...

[Bill_1856]

I remember reading someone's observation that great mathematicians, photographers, and lyric poets burned out after a relatively brief period of white-hot inspiration, producing competent but uninspiring work the rest of their lives. A well-know example would be Einstein in 1905, and not even Paul Strand in his long and productive career produced anything to compare with the images from 1915.
I can only think of a single photographer who created seminal images early in his career, W. Eugene Smith, whose late work, "Minamata," is every bit as iconic as "Country Doctor," Spanish Village," etc. But at what a price!

[Michael A. Smith]

I remember reading someone's observation that great mathematicians, photographers, and lyric poets burned out after a relatively brief period of white-hot inspiration, producing competent but uninspiring work the rest of their lives. A well-know example would be Einstein in 1905, and not even Paul Strand in his long and productive career produced anything to compare with the images from 1915.
I can only think of a single photographer who created seminal images early in his career, W. Eugene Smith, whose late work, "Minamata," is every bit as iconic as "Country Doctor," Spanish Village," etc. But at what a price!

[Doug Howk]

I would think Brett Weston would qualify as someone whose creative years extended far beyond a mere 10-15 years.
And Ed's may have exceeded 15 despite the War years and onslaught of Parkinsons. Btw, Ed Weston as precursor of New Topographics? Wow, now that's one I've never heard before.

[John Bowen]

Michael Smith didn't mention this, so I will.....The Lodima Press book - Edward Weston: Life's Work is an outstandind book. It should be a part of every photographer's library. I purchased my copy last year and I revisit it often.

[Michael A. Smith]

My response never made it. Weird. I will try again.

In 1970 at the major Paul Strand retrospective at the Philadelphia Museum of Art (the exhibition that came with the two-volume monograph, published by Aperture), I mentioned to the Curator of Photography at the National Gallery of Canada that it would have been better if Strand had stopped photographing after 1955, when he photographed in Italy for the book Un Paese, as everything after that was just repetitive. The curator replied, "I think it would have been better if he stopped photographing in 1921." !!!

I think that Edward Weston, Stieglitz, Kertesz, and Callahan, continued to grow throughout their careers. Offhand, I cannot think of others, although undoubtedly there are others. And of course, everyone will have their own list.

Michael A. Smith

[Michael A. Smith]

Thanks, John, for the plug about our book. It contains the finest, most accurate faithful reproductions of Edward Weston's work ever. Where he printed on soft paper, we printed on soft paper--and matched the color of every print. When Edward switched to glossy paper, we switched to glossy paper. Reproductions are in 600-line screen five color and 600-line screen quadtone.

Some of the photographs reproduced in the book have never been reproduced before. Others are known by all photographers. We happen to know the collector who has Edward Weston's own copy of Pepper #30. Edward considered it the finest print he had ever made of Pepper #30. Edward gave the print to Brett. brett gave it to a friend. Many years later, but still way too soon (1974), the friend sold it to the collector we know.

When we showed the collector the book, he brought Pepper #30 down and we placed it next to the reproduction. There were no differences immediately apparent, but on very close scrutiny for about three minutes, by myself, Paula, the collector and his wife, minute differences could be seen. Whereupon the collector's wife, after looking at the photograph and the reproduction for another minute or so said, "I think I like the reproduction better."

Michael A. Smith

[Duane Polcou]

Mary Alinder in her biography of Adams states that his last significant photograph was made in 1951

Michael A. Smith

One of Ansel's best selling images in both fine print and poster form is
"Moon and Half Dome, Yosemite National Park, 1960"

But hey, what do I know.

[Michael A. Smith]

Well, Duane, it seems you know quite a bit. I stand corrected on the date. I am on the road right now (one reason I have time for this), and I do not have Mary Alinder's book at hand so I cannot check what date she wrote, but Moon and Half Dome was the photograph she was referring to.

So, okay, he was 58. And he lived another 24 years--without making another significant photograph. My point still stands. Adams's great period was late 1930s and early 1940s, when he was spending a lot of time with Edward Weston. Adams was in his mature period then, but it simply did not last very long.

Michael A. Smith

[Darin Boville]

>>My point still stands. Adams's great period was late 1930s and early 1940s<<

I think you'll find that he did many of his iconic images up into the *late* 1940's. I'm not simply nitpicking--the "cut off" date is important if we are exploring reasons for the few iconic images after that point.

For example, consider: Yosemite, of course, was Adams' main subject. Consider also that the number of visitors to Yosemite was low during WWII and rose dramatically after--pretty much in step with the "cut off" that we talk about regarding Adams' Yosemite work.

It is easy to imagine--working in the Park with few visitors. Then they swarm in. You tough it out a few more years. And then it gets harder and harder to make photos.

Consider this chart that shows visitors to Yosemite over the last century and image you are Adams', working in the park:

http://www.boville.net/Yosemite.jpg

Don't forget that the park was changing, too.

--Darin

[Henry Suryo]

Historical precedents aside, it's a bit of a depressing outlook if you really believed that you only get 10-15 years to produce significant work. Significance is quite a subjective concept in art and the true significance is in the mind of the creator. Critiques and audience notwithstanding, perhaps a more positive approach is to believe that you've yet taken your best photograph and never will have. Wouldn't this be good incentive to keep trying, to keep searching, to keep learning and wanting to improve? Looking at a retrospective, I am usually equally fond of an artist's formative years as well as the later years or vice versa. Perhaps not for the quality from a technical standpoint, but rather for the insight into their life and their experiences at various points in their life. It convinces me that the world is indeed a vast place and the opportunities to photograph it are endless and always refreshing.

[Michael A. Smith]

John Szarkowski wrote: "The genuinely creative period of most photographers has rarely exceeded ten or fifteen years."

He did not say that no significant photographs were made after ten or fifteen years, but that the truly creative days--the days of expanding personal growth--were basically over.

For oneself (and for oneself only) the photographs one makes are a marker of ones personal growth. And really for the maker, that is all that matters--one's personal growth. Artists are not interested in things made, they are interested in making. (No one exemplifies this better than Brett Weston, who cared very little for photographs he had already made, unless they were very recent. Too many times for me to comprehend, he would sell the last print of a photograph. He did not keep one of everything that he finished.)

Others do not care about an artist's personal growth at all. (Unless one is an art historian or critic.) But while the audience for photographs is usually interested in looking at photographs that they like, if we are so inclined we may look to a photographer's body of work to see how they progressed over the course of their careers, and whether the work became essentially repetitive.

Michael a. Smith

[Bill_1856]

I just thought of another -- Avedon's "Natasha Kinski and the Serpent" was taken when he was nearly 60. Over 2 million posters sold, and Gawd knows how much a signed print would cost.
Incidentally, although Ansel Adams is closely associated with Yosemite, most of his best work (Moonrise, Mt. Williamson, Aspens, Lone Pine, etc) was taken elsewhere.

[Ed O'Grady]

From what I have read and studied of Ansel, he became more concerned about making ends meet toward the end of his creative period.
He had many irons in the fire. Sierra Club, Workshops, book publishing, printing, book signings, presidential awards, exhibits & openings, television appearences, radio interviews the list goes on and on.
He just had to much on his plate to continue to produce new meaningful photography.
He must have felt that the other venues would provide a more significant end to his career and legacy. Just my opinion.