Ansel Adams... Famous for a reason

[D-50]

For the most part I don't care for his work. Safe, quiet, and boring, I find it too nicely composed, tidy visual geometries that fit all too neatly inside the frame, coming across as inhibited as opposed to expressive. He had loads of talent, too bad he didn't have anything more to say outside of the fact that nature is pretty.

It's also important to make the distinction between technical proficiency and quality art.

What art school are you currently enrolled in? (not trying to be condecending at all your response just seems to be text book art student)

 

[rob91]

I dropped out of college two years ago in an undecided program not at all related to art. I've been sporadically taking community college courses since, recently a couple photo courses as well as a couple in art history. I was only introduced to Adam's work maybe six months ago, have read close to nothing about him (outside of the comments that are made around here) and those thoughts are wholly my own.

 

[The_Traveler]

Pioneer to say the least. If you haven't already be sure to see his prints up close and personal. I do not dislike his work and doubt that anyone does. I agree with rob91 safe quiet and boring.

There is a large Ansel Adams exhibit that is touring the country. I saw it at the Corcoran Gallery in Washington, DC. Out the of the 150 pictures, perhaps only ten or so were interesting, the rest were acutely boring. They were well exposed, well composed, well focussed, well printed but really really boring.

I understand and have used his zone system. I respect what he did but the art has moved beyond just the technical perfection of an image.

 

[Mike_E]

A model T isn't much of a car, is it?

That really isn't the point. Try looking at the whole picture (pun intended ).

 

[Antithesis]

Ansel would agree with me? Ha, that's exactly the opposite response I was expecting. You've put him in a bit of a new light for me, that, plus I wasn't aware of the bit with Stiglitz. Oh, and I'm not saying his work isn't art, it is, I just believe it was a distinction worth bringing up in this case.

"Pretty nature pictures"... I tend to exaggerate sometimes. I am not overly familiar with his work. I will try and check out Clearing Winter Storm. I agree that no photo, or painting or drawing for that matter, can be properly viewed on a screen. You must see a print.

I do have to agree with some other posters, including yourself, that a lot of his work is pretty boring. Technically marvelous, but boring. But he does have some images that are completely spectacular, and I think that's why he became so famous. There is a book of his personal portfolios floating around, his choicest work from his different stages of photography, and they are really, really good. His body of work is so enormous, that it's difficult to judge his value based on just a few prints. There is bound to be something that pleases just about anyone.

 

[Antithesis]

A model T isn't much of a car, is it?

That really isn't the point. Try looking at the whole picture (pun intended ).

Good analogy. We need to take into account that Adams started really working in 1927.

 

[The_Traveler]

Good analogy. We need to take into account that Adams started really working in 1927.

I don't think that is the issue.
When we look at the entire body of his work, most of it is boring yet every one is treated as if it was wonderful.
He made some great pictures, but only some.

 

[Mike_E]

The Model T wouldn't even be considered a bad car today. More likely it would be considered a toy. The fact of the matter is though, is that the Model T changed the world.

The world of photography was not the same after Ansel came along. Anyone who causes a Sea Change in something as large and omnipresent as photography, or at the very least is a major player in such a change, deserves the "Great" tag in my book.

Perhaps there weren't as many inspired photos as some would like but the content of his prints does not come close to filling his body of work. Yes you should look at him as a photographer, but you should also look at him as a writer and an innovator, as a teacher, and as a spokesman for photography when photography was looked upon as little more than a poor substitute for a painting.

We have such a wonderful view because -as they say- we are standing on the shoulders of giants. (try recreating the zone system and all of the darkroom techniques by yourself if you don't believe me. )

 

[The_Traveler]

The world of photography was not the same after Ansel came along. Anyone who causes a Sea Change in something as large and omnipresent as photography, or at the very least is a major player in such a change, deserves the "Great" tag in my book.

Perhaps there weren't as many inspired photos as some would like but the content of his prints does not come close to filling his body of work. Yes you should look at him as a photographer, but you should also look at him as a writer and an innovator, as a teacher, and as a spokesman for photography when photography was looked upon as little more than a poor substitute for a painting.

OK, my stance from now on will be that AA didn't do many great photos but that he was a superb technician and a wonderful public speaker.

There are several other photographers whose times overlap with AA whose work is more meaningful in all senses and who don't have the same adoring crowds, Steichen, Steiglitz, Strand, the Westons - just to work on the end of the alphabet.

Eliot Porter, a large format nature photographer, is essentially unknown, yet every one of his pictures that I have ever seen is glorious, imaginative and beautiful - and the issue of how he achieved these works of art never comes up.

The technology of any art should be irrelevant. You shouldn't care whether your drawing charcoal is pressed by a machine or rolled between the breasts of virgins - as long as it makes the mark you want.

It is the unfortunate fate of photography to be cursed with a virulent, infectious love of technology - and the trend to confuse adherence to rules with art.

 

[D-50]

Listen to Elvis' music, it is simple short nothing to interesting but people consider him an icon for whathe did for the music field. Much the same critism said about Ansel admas could be said about Elvis or early Beatles for that matter but I think you would be hard pressed to find strong opponents to the talent of either of those artists.

 

[The_Traveler]

OK, my stance from now on will be that AA didn't do many great photos but that he was a superb technician, a wonderful public speaker, could wiggle his hips and had an interesting haircut.

 

[rob91]

The Model T wouldn't even be considered a bad car today. More likely it would be considered a toy. The fact of the matter is though, is that the Model T changed the world.

The world of photography was not the same after Ansel came along. Anyone who causes a Sea Change in something as large and omnipresent as photography, or at the very least is a major player in such a change, deserves the "Great" tag in my book.

Perhaps there weren't as many inspired photos as some would like but the content of his prints does not come close to filling his body of work. Yes you should look at him as a photographer, but you should also look at him as a writer and an innovator, as a teacher, and as a spokesman for photography when photography was looked upon as little more than a poor substitute for a painting.

We have such a wonderful view because -as they say- we are standing on the shoulders of giants. (try recreating the zone system and all of the darkroom techniques by yourself if you don't believe me. )

You're confusing the issue. Nobody in this thread has debated or even questioned the technical brilliance or influence of Adams, which of course is immense. While those factors make him an important figure in the field of photography they do not make him a great artist.

OK, my stance from now on will be that AA didn't do many great photos but that he was a superb technician and a wonderful public speaker.

There are several other photographers whose times overlap with AA whose work is more meaningful in all senses and who don't have the same adoring crowds, Steichen, Steiglitz, Strand, the Westons - just to work on the end of the alphabet.

Eliot Porter, a large format nature photographer, is essentially unknown, yet every one of his pictures that I have ever seen is glorious, imaginative and beautiful - and the issue of how he achieved these works of art never comes up.

The technology of any art should be irrelevant. You shouldn't care whether your drawing charcoal is pressed by a machine or rolled between the breasts of virgins - as long as it makes the mark you want.

It is the unfortunate fate of photography to be cursed with a virulent, infectious love of technology - and the trend to confuse adherence to rules with art.

Damn, I can't tell you how much I agree with that.

Listen to Elvis' music, it is simple short nothing to interesting but people consider him an icon for whathe did for the music field. Much the same critism said about Ansel admas could be said about Elvis or early Beatles for that matter but I think you would be hard pressed to find strong opponents to the talent of either of those artists.

Just because you can find instances (though I would disagree with Elvis, agree with Beatles) where great art, influence, and iconography coincide doesn't mean it is always the case.

 

[Antithesis]

OK, my stance from now on will be that AA didn't do many great photos but that he was a superb technician and a wonderful public speaker.

There are several other photographers whose times overlap with AA whose work is more meaningful in all senses and who don't have the same adoring crowds, Steichen, Steiglitz, Strand, the Westons - just to work on the end of the alphabet.

Eliot Porter, a large format nature photographer, is essentially unknown, yet every one of his pictures that I have ever seen is glorious, imaginative and beautiful - and the issue of how he achieved these works of art never comes up.

The technology of any art should be irrelevant. You shouldn't care whether your drawing charcoal is pressed by a machine or rolled between the breasts of virgins - as long as it makes the mark you want.

It is the unfortunate fate of photography to be cursed with a virulent, infectious love of technology - and the trend to confuse adherence to rules with art.

I think it's a given that some people get famous, and some people don't. Personality, connections, etc. will all contribute to an individuals fame. There are certainly a number of talented individuals who are virtually unknown because they choose not to be, or they are in the wrong place at the wrong time.

And technology can be an important part of photography, but as we all know very well, it doesn't make the a good photograph.

 

[Mike_E]

I tried.

 

[christopher walrath]

Edward Weston never used the Zone System. He gained an intuition through years of exposure after exposure. Minor White encouraged his students to impose their emotions in their work where Adams believed a photograph should be what it was to each individual viewer. Ansel Adams was excited about the prospect of digital photography, anticlimatic to some film photographers (self excluded).

This just goes to show that you can approve of all photographers some of the time and of some photographers all of the time but people will sharpen their teeth on Ansel Adams timelessly.

My uncle is friends with Gerry Sharpe, Wyoming born trial lawyer and photographer, and in his book 'Gerry SPence's Wyoming' his first image is of the Grand Teons and the Snake River. The same reverse 'S' of the Snake River and the tiered slope on the river's far side. Gerry's clouds are infinitely better than Ansel's but AA nailed the snowy crests where GS's are in shadow and not an impact at all. I love aspects of both photographer's images and dislike others.