Ansel Adams

[Patrickktown]

Got to see about 20 of his original prints today.

He was ahead of his time.

 

[limr]

Got to see about 20 of his original prints today.

He was ahead of his time.

How so? Just curious to know your thoughts about it.

 

[Derrel]

Adams was an incredible, first-rate A-hole. He set photography as an ART form back maybe 50 years, and reduced it to little more than a craft. He merits very little adulation as anything but a good technician.

William Mortensen: A Revival: The Strange Case of William Mortensen - Photo.net Education Forum

50 Watts

 

[dxqcanada]

Oddly enough, I read so many posts that make digital imaging sound like photography is reduced to little more than a craft.

 

[Josh66]

Bow down and worship at the altar of Adams.



Overrated, IMO.

 

[runnah]

lol you guys are funny and arrogant.

 

[Josh66]

How so?

 

[Derrel]

lol you guys are funny and arrogant.

You obviously are utterly ignorant of the history of photography as a form of art. Maybe you ought to go to the library and check out a few books and study up, maybe learn a bit.

 

[runnah]

You obviously are utterly ignorant of the history of photography as a form of art. Maybe you ought to go to the library and check out a few books and study up, maybe learn a bit.

Maybe I just have a differing opinion. No need to insult my intelligence.

 

[Derrel]

You obviously are utterly ignorant of the history of photography as a form of art. Maybe you ought to go to the library and check out a few books and study up, maybe learn a bit.

Maybe I just have a differing opinion. No need to insult my intelligence.

Seriously, you are here, playing the butt-hurt card, runnah? Come off it.

And there was no need for you to call me arrogant.

Obviously, you seem to be ignoring the Group f. 64's long-lasting negative influence on artistic expression in photography. Calling my well-studied position on this issue "ignorant" was uncalled for, but understandable given your age.

Here. Spend an hour and read up.

On the Edge of America

 

[JG_Coleman]

Got to see about 20 of his original prints today.

He was ahead of his time.

How so? Just curious to know your thoughts about it.

When I look at Adams work, I see a pioneering artist that bridged the Hudson River School painters and today's modern masters of landscape photography.

Prior to Adams, photographers approached landscape photography as purely a tool of documentation. They rarely sought to capture emotional moments in nature with their photography. Instead, it was more about just "producing a picture" of a given place, with little regard to producing an image that was inspiring or moving. This is, no doubt, a sweeping generalization... but one that mostly holds up across the board with only very rare exceptions.

Adams, perhaps even unintentionally, followed a similar thread to that of the Hudson River School painters. He didn't possess their same vision of man and nature in harmony, for sure. But he did bring their penchant for ethereal conditions and dramatic compositions to the world of landscape photography in a way that few others had been able to do before him. He truly was a pioneering photographer in that regard.

I think people that aren't especially moved by landscape photography in general might find it hard to really "get" Adams. It's so easy, several decades after he made his mark on the art, to look back and sneer at his work and achievements. That's only because he laid the groundwork for the direction of landscape photography that followed. He is so much infused in the modern tradition that maybe we almost feel as if we've already seen his work a thousand times over.

Ultimately though, he brought landscape photography into the realm of the emotional and dramatic. And, he did so in black and white... a medium that he truly mastered by the standards of any era. Even today, his life's work in black-and-white holds its own.

 

[runnah]

Seriously, you are here, playing the butt-hurt card, runnah? Come off it. And there was no need for you to call me arrogant. Obviously, you seem to be ignoring the Group f. 64's long-lasting negative influence on artistic expression in photography. Calling my well-studied position on this issue "ignorant" was uncalled for, but understandable given your age. Here. Spend an hour and read up. On the Edge of America

Taking a shot at my age? Again? Old hat really. We get it, you get to hold that over my head forever.

 

[Josh66]

And, he did so in black and white... a medium that he truly mastered by the standards of any era. Even today, his life's work in black-and-white holds its own.

Give me a f***in break...

As Derrel alluded to, yes, he was an outstanding technician.

I've never been "wowed" by his work. Yes, he took some very fine photos of the American West, and that is what he will be known for. Beyond that, I say, blah.

 

[limr]

I think people that aren't especially moved by landscape photography in general might find it hard to really "get" Adams. It's so easy, several decades after he made his mark on the art, to look back and sneer at his work and achievements. That's only because he laid the groundwork for the direction of landscape photography that followed. He is so much infused in the modern tradition that maybe we almost feel as if we've already seen his work a thousand times over.

If he laid the groundwork for the "ALL WATER MUST BE SMOOTH!!!" movement, then curses to him!

I kid, I kid!

A little.

:er:

 

[JG_Coleman]

There was much much more to Adams work than sharp focus and the zone system, and no amount of trying to write him off as mere "technician" is able to speak to the fact that his work did indeed make an emotional and impactful impression on America. His work is still very inspiring... it has inspired generations of landscape photographers ever since. He is far from being the only notable figure in landscape photography, but the only people that pedal that view are the ones who probably aren't sincerely engaged in landscape photography. Folks who are invested in the genre understand where Adams falls in the chronology and don't over-hype him.

You conveniently passed over almost everything I wrote... the part about why his art was pivotal in the genre of landscape photography... and you did so just to throw a cheap jab in simply because I "dared" to use the word master. I make no apologies for that. Adams is not the "greatest photographer of all time"... I never said he was. But in the realm of landscape photography, he was and remains a master. Not only for his art, but also in the sense that any chronology of landscape art would be amiss not to include him for the impact he made on the genre in his era.