Ansel Adams

[runnah]

This is the ugly side of art. People make it their mission to undercut those that have come before them or those that they envy or dislike. I don't love or hate Adams but I respect his body of work.

 

[JG_Coleman]

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:

Is that a real movement?

 

[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:

Is that a real movement?

I have no idea, but I know it seems to be everywhere I look when I see landscapes involving water of some sort. It's pretty and all, but I'm kinda over it.

 

[JG_Coleman]

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

I kid, I kid!

A little.

:er:

Is that a real movement?

I have no idea, but I know it seems to be everywhere I look when I see landscapes involving water of some sort. It's pretty and all, but I'm kinda over it.

Well, water can really only be rendered in three basic ways: smooth, frozen or "half-frozen" (only a tad bit of motion blur). Landscape exposures oftentimes utilize lower-light scenarios, employ darkening filters and utilize small apertures.... the longer shutter speeds that result tend to smooth the water unless extra measures are taken to freeze motion (i.e. very high ISO perhaps).

I don't think its a movement, though. Is this related to Adams?

 

[JG_Coleman]

This is the ugly side of art. People make it their mission to undercut those that have come before them or those that they envy or dislike. I don't love or hate Adams but I respect his body of work.

Indeed. It was exactly for this reason that I hesitated before responding to this thread to begin with. I had a feeling that I'd be advocating for Adams amidst folks that are hungry to cut him down merely because he is renowned. Maybe they feel like they are reaping payback for poor Mortensen? I don't know.

You know, any random group of people could examine the works of the most celebrated artists in history and off-handedly denounce their work as nonsense if they so desired. It's very easy to take the position that a given artist "is bad" or "is ho-hum". It's nearly impossible to defend an artists worth in the midst of such people, because art appreciation is subjective. You can't prove to them that so-and-so was a master. If they insist he sucked... well, the best you can do is agree to disagree, I guess. But Adams legacy speaks for itself, regardless of what a couple TPF critics insist.

I mostly replied because the OP was happy to have seen some original Adams prints and all he got from this forum was arrogant replies by folks who are clearly chomping at the bit for any opportunity to "spread the unheard word" about how the world was so wrong and how Adams was nothing special. There had to be some voices for the generations of photographers he's inspired and the impact he made on the genre of landscape art.

 

[manaheim]

Can we all just settle down a little bit?

I don't see any reason for the hostile tempers or personal insults.

Adams. You think he's good, you think he's not. Either way, someone else's opinion on a dead dude with a camera hardly seems worth getting steamed over.

 

[Josh66]

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.

And I'm doing it again. (Not sure if you were even talking about me, but for now I'm going to assume that you were.) I DID read it all though. Landscapes just aren't "my thing", I guess.

I don't mean to discount what you wrote, but rather - I guess I just don't find Adams to be all that special.

I'd consider myself 'well versed' on "art" in general... You're free to disagree, lol. Adams just never did much for me - his works says nothing to me. It has no voice.

 

[limr]

Is that a real movement?

I have no idea, but I know it seems to be everywhere I look when I see landscapes involving water of some sort. It's pretty and all, but I'm kinda over it.

Well, water can really only be rendered in three basic ways: smooth, frozen or "half-frozen" (only a tad bit of motion blur). Landscape exposures oftentimes utilize lower-light scenarios, employ darkening filters and utilize small apertures.... the longer shutter speeds that result tend to smooth the water unless extra measures are taken to freeze motion (i.e. very high ISO perhaps).

I don't think its a movement, though. Is this related to Adams?

Relax. It was a joke. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, proving or disproving, relating or not relating anything. Things were getting far too heated around here and I was making a stupid joke, a diversionary tactic to see if folks would just cool their jets.

And for the record, I know how water is photographed. My being weary of smooth water shots is not based on ignorance of photographic techniques.

 

[JG_Coleman]

*** rescinded ***

I think you guys are making a big deal out of nothing...

Maybe so. I feel like this thread has been stamped "heated", but I experienced it more as polarized. I dunno... I thought it was aggressive but generally not over the top.

 

[Josh66]

I think you guys are making a big deal out of nothing...

 

[Steve5D]

When I look at his work, I see photographs that I enjoy viewing, and that's all that matters.

I honestly don't care if he was an ******* and, frankly, those who judge him by that barometer aren't worthy of much consideration regardless of how "well-studied" their position is...

 

[JG_Coleman]

When I look at his work, I see photographs that I enjoy viewing, and that's all that matters.

I honestly don't care if he was an ******* and, frankly, those who judge him by that barometer aren't worthy of much consideration regardless of how "well-studied" their position is...

I actually did thoroughly read the earlier essay about Mortensen being ostracized by Adams (referenced after the ******* remark). It was an interesting read, really. But I, too, wasn't really sure what that had to do with Adams' art. In that post, I think it was basically insinuated that Adams "silenced" the "real artist" while promoting his own work, which was apparently "not art". So, yeah... he was being painted as a "non-artist" that killed "art"... he's like the boogeyman of photography, I guess. For the record, the actual essay didn't actually paint Adams in nearly so bad a light as he was painted early-on in this thread.

I've realized now that this is really boiling down to the fact that folks who aren't very enthused by landscape photography just don't really see what the big deal is about any given landscape photographer... at all. I'm sort of guessing -though going out on a limb admittedly- that they see landscape photography as a generally boring and non-artistic photographic pursuit. Given that viewpoint on the entire genre, it follows that they obviously don't see why Adams is so highly celebrated.

I sort of still don't entirely buy it, though. I entirely understand and respect that some folks may not find much in Adams' photography. We all have our tastes. We all can think of a few renowned artists whose works we don't really "get", but who lots of people seem to like. But working from a "well-studied" viewpoint, even people that aren't head-over-heels about landscape photography would be able to nonetheless acknowledge Adams enormous influence upon the genre of not only landscape photography, but also landscape art in general, and upon the environmental movement. That's not subjective... it's really just the facts... even if some of us personally don't get much out of Adams' works.

 

[minicoop1985]

Well then. This seems to be a bit of a polarizer (HAHA! GET IT? I MADE A... Oh fine you're right it wasn't funny). Anyway, I've always been a fan of Adams' work, but never really known much about the man himself. If he was a jerk, well, so be it, but I'll always be a fan of good landscapes.

 

[Rick58]

My two cents, which I am entitled to. Adams was a master. I personally don't give two flying forward flips what he may or may not have done to "Art". Photography wasn't born as an "Art" form. It was born as a means to record images. Period. When photography was invented "art" was done with a paint brush or hammer, chisel and stone. Adams took that basic intention of photography to the next level. He took it from the casual snapshot to a technically near perfect record of what he saw and felt.
Personally I could look at his images all day and not give an eyes blink to a pile of broken colored glass that was carefully placed across the frame of a photo.
Some how, some way, photography has lost it's basic purpose and if a person decides to practice tradition photography, they are shunned as second rate. BTW, if we want to throw age into the mix...I'm 56

 

[manaheim]

There are a lot of people in history who have accomplished great things that have forwarded mankind in one way or another... who also happen to have been *******s, bigots, Nazi sympathizers and more. In fact, in my experience, most of the people I know who have accomplished truly amazing things, are generally the folks who are going to piss off somebody or another at a cocktail party. While what they do outside of the space they were innovators in may make us question their person, it doesn't mean we must also depreciate their contribution.