Do the work you need to do, without worrying about who may have influenced it.
Do the work you need to do, without worrying about who may have influenced it.
AA's contribution to photography is a method of making photographs with predictable results based on how a photographer views an individual scene. It's not as the Great Yellow Father once advertised:"You push the button and we do the rest". The photographer is in control of each step in the process. AA's methods are one way to control the steps in producing a photograph in a predictable, repeatable way. A person could read and follow AA's three books and make some good looking photographs which might look an awful lot like AA's photos. As a person develops proficiency, the view will become more personal and the methods may change. There are certainly other ways to think of the photographic process besides AA's but his way works for a lot of people and seems to be a good place to begin.
Ansel Adams, among other attributes, was an educator. For me, most of his education was towards providing a methodology consistent with basic principles of black and white film for photographers to pursue their own visual imagery.
o Techniques of working with large or medium format equipment. While L or MF lends itself towards landscape, it can be applied to other forms of imagery.
o I don't think there's any better resource on processing negatives or prints. (This is not about how best to create landscapes, but how to create any kind of black and white imagery.)
o We're faced with certain kinds of constraints, when working with black and white film. Within those constraints, the zone system provides a methodology to realize a previsualized image, whether it be a landscape, a portrait, or a totally created means of self expression.
A.A. does discuss how best to visualize landscape images. But I'm pleased that he does; this was an area of strength for him. But, his teachings certainly don't lock us into landscapes.
As to your comments above, absolutely, shoot, print, and exhibit your own way. (That's the best advise I ever received.)Originally Posted by Heroique
What's the point of waiting for cultural norms to change? I'm thinking that, the more "congenial" our own work is to existing cultural norms, the less chance our work has of really offering a contribution. It just kind of becomes more of the same.
Some great replies so far, and just to add a slight twist to the theme of influence...
I often find myself trying to capture in my landscapes what I often feel by viewing some of AA's best known images – namely (at risk of using a hackneyed phrase) the sense of the sublime in nature.
And I mean "sublime" as the 19th-Century Romanticists discuss it in their treatises and try to express it their works – literary, musical, visual. The sense, that is, of something above and beyond the merely "beautiful."
So in one sense, AA's influence is working on me. But in another, it's like AA and I are pursuing a common (if elusive) sublimity which is, in some mysterious way, integral to the land forms before our cameras – that is, we are co-participating in a pursuit with a long history, and co-motivated perhaps by an aesthetic impulse common to all people.
This!
"What's the point of waiting for cultural norms to change? I'm thinking that, the more "congenial" our own work is to existing cultural norms, the less chance our work has of really offering a contribution. It just kind of becomes more of the same."
Tin Can
I think I can say unequivocally that AA is not an influence of mine.. at least not aesthetically. I do use the zone system all the time, so he certainly contributed to me technologically, but he wasn't the first to say "expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights..." As a landscape photographer, I am not that interested in his approach.
EigerStudios
Museum Quality Drum Scanning and Printing
Fight, embrace, ignore, despise, adore, react to, react against, and on and on. Different reactions at different times in my life.
I did a whole photo project on just this sort of question last year. You can see it here: http://www.darinboville.com/portfoli...e-red-circles/
--Darin
+1 and always get up.
Tin Can
I believe, it is hard or unable, not to be influenced by artists like Adams.
Even if I would say "no, I don't want to make it in Adams way" - it is an influence of Adams.
"Unfortunately", I have regarded a lot of photographers.
So, I do understand my photography as a result of a lot of influence and some own parts.
Developing an own Style needs some days, and I am not sure, if it is free of influence then.
For me, Adams gave me great ideas, a nice technical base, and of course a lot of influence.
And I am wondering that my pictures doesn't look like his pictures :-)
Cheers,
Ritchie
Stale in what way? His works still fetch high prices at auction, so they are not "stale" with collectors, who obviously like the way he visualized the landscape. Nor is his work stale with historians; Adams has a respected place in the history of photography that few would dispute. Stale as an influence, either to emulate or reject? Not that either given the amount of discussion dedicated to exactly this topic (e.g., this thread). How Adams influences the work of contemporary photographers (and my own work) is various; everything from "kill it dead" to copycat work... but that doesn't make it stale. Adams' influence is only stale if we do nothing with it or are simply unaware of it (same with our other models/influences on us). And, why protest if you can do something...
I happen to believe that landscape photography is a valid avenue of artistic expression. I'm sure not expressing what Adams was trying to, but I don't mind referring to his work in mine, nor having an educated viewer notice the allusion. It's kind of like quoting a theme from another composer in your work... a tip of the hat and an acknowledgement of respect, but certainly not blind adherence to any particular "school." I refer to our common visual history a lot in my work; painters, photographers, sculptors, architects, etc. That doesn't mean I'm not doing my own work.
While we'd all like to sell lots more prints, I think that we really cannot escape ourselves in the way that you suggest. We have no choice but to "shoot, print, and exhibit in our own way." If you're a genius, then you just can't help it, nor can many escape being mediocre... We tend to think we have a lot more control over our direction and abilities than is often true. I find accepting that liberating. I like influences from myriad sources; they make me what and who I am. Then, I can just go out and do what I think is meaningful without worrying about "competing" on some aesthetic level... That doesn't mean I'm not aware of "the footsteps of giants behind me," rather that I willingly participate in the footrace and I don't always stay on the track.
I can't do anything about cultural norms except to influence them to the small extent I can. After that, I don't care.
In the world of music, learning the works, styles and techniques of the giants is the cornerstone of a good education. No musician worth his or her salt composes or performs without an underlying knowledge and understanding of what has gone before. They forms the vocabulary and framework on which new works are woven. This is as true of rock as it is of jazz and classical and is true the visual arts as well.
Trying to deny our influences is ultimately stifling; incorporating them into our world-view, in whatever capacity (positive, negative or "I could do that better/differently," or "I like this but want to use it for that..." etc.) is the key to synthesizing something personal, fresh and relevant.
Best,
Doremus
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks