Robert Adams Wins Deutsche Borse Prize

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!

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?

"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.

" 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.

"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.

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.

You usually do need lubrication when you don't communicate well.