Ansel Adams... Famous for a reason

droyz2000 · Apr 22, 2008

It is hard for me to comment on this because I sometimes lack the words to say. I think was is important to remember is that even if people are not drawn to Adams' work, they must respect it for the fact that it is art and that Adams did so much for photography in the early years. So many times, because this is a Photography Forum, we only focus on photography, but we must put what Adams did in to perspective as to what else was happening in the art world. Expressionism was in around that time. I guess the question we could be asking ourselves is, is what Adams doing realism or expressionism? Just something to consider.

Judge Sharpe · Apr 23, 2008

Up front, I will say that I admire Adams' work. Some find landscape boring. I have made maybe a thousand boring slides of pretty landscapes. I consider any that are "art" pure luck. I did not plan them, I happened to like what I saw at the time and shot it. It is sort of like when you tie a brush to a donkey's tail and if out of a hundred tries it produces one that someone likes, calling it art.
Adams planed each shot. He had a good idea of what he wanted to come out with before he pulled the trigger. He used the best equipment he could find, understood what it would do, how to modify the photograph through the use of filters, exposure, printing, paper choice, burn and dodge and development. He "photoshopped" his work before there was a photoshop. He was also a great teacher. He kept meticulous notes on each shot, through printing. He was a professional in the he worked at his avocation. He was an artist because he was able to produce or create his vision. To me his work is not boring, I think because I think I understand his context. To me abstract art is boring, but that is me. To try to appreciate any artist from a brief exposure short changes the artist and the student.
Bill Clinton asked, "What is the definition of is?" I ask, how do you define art?
Judge Sharpe

The_Traveler · Apr 23, 2008

I guess I don't understand 'devotion.' I don't see any difference between this kind of idolizing and being a fanatic fan of some sports figure or arguing about which camera system is better or even vociferously professing some religion.

Perhaps people want to believe in order to belong to some some group, to share in the glory or the reputation? I have no idea what drives people.

I have long since given up the idea that idolizing anyone or anything would impact me or what I do in any way.

I look at this kind of discussion much the way I respond when someone rings my doorbell and wants to talk about religion or politics. If I'm not busy, whoopee, some fun. But it sure doesn't mean anything.

However, I do think it's funny when people act as if they are the possessor of 'received wisdom' because they 'understand.'
I feel the same kind of amusement when I turn on the TV and see people who have painted themselves with their team's color and are standing out in the cold, cheering for athletes who are unaware of their existence.

Mike_E · Apr 23, 2008

Sorry T, I don't get where you are standing. No one in this thread to my reading is Idol worshiping, just giving the man his due for all of his accomplishments the same as you would respect a copyright. No one has claimed that he was another Monet, just an Ansel Adams.

christopher walrath · Apr 23, 2008

No worshipping here. Nothing could be further from the truth. I would call it admiration. Admiration of work put in, research done, images made, etc., etc., et al, ad nauseum. Ansel was a pioneer in photography. I am my own photographer because I take pictures of rusted metal with peeling paint and shadows and contrast and stuff. But I am chasing my vision. And I am able through my knowledge of photography and facility with my gear to chase after that vision with unhindered enthusiasm and creativity. This is what Ansel Adams has done for me. Given me an example, not an idol. Given me a goal, not a role. Given me inspiration, not duplication. His story and photographs have caused me to want to be the best photographer I can be and that is my/our gift from Ansel Adams.

petey · Apr 23, 2008

I don't like Ansel Adams. I don't like his pictures. I don't like how people idolize him. I don't like how everything in the world of photography is measured on his work and noone elses. I don't like the stories about his life and how he did this and how he did that and how it all has to mean something to me because I started shooting pictures and liking it. I don't like giant, black and white pictures of halfdome. I don't like seeing his name on everything. If he is that good there'd be no need to publish his name under it all. Take a good look. There is nothing good about it for crying out loud. Anyone could have taken pictures like that if they were right there with a camera. I don't like his books. They are highly technical jibber jabber clearly not written for modern photographers. What audience is he writing to? He is not funny or entertaining. He writes dry and boring like an old man. So he walked miles uphill to take pictures of things noone else did yet. BFD. Why does everyone have to accept the man as some kind of God just because he was in a particular place in time? I read once that he missed the birth of two of his children to take pictures. The author of the article made it sound like it was some kind of daring feat to miss the birth of your children. Some hero, eh?

*whew*

Senor Hound · Apr 23, 2008

I like the grittiness of his photos. I don't even bother commenting on technical attributes cause at a level such as his, that's pretty much given (especially the old-school).

Personal characteristics set aside (just because someone misses their child being born, doesn't mean they can't take an awesome photo), I LOVE his style, and he makes me like a certain style of photography I otherwise wouldn't.

And its true anyone can go out and copy his style, but the originality of it is what makes it so great. Anyone can get a plywood, some automotive paint and a coffee can with a hole in it, and make a drip painting. But when Jackson Pollock did it, it was ORIGINAL and creative, and that's why he's whole collection would probably be worth a billion dollars... Any musician can compose a piece of music to sound like Robert Johnson, but Robert Johnson will be forever remembered because he was the FIRST to put love and hate and pain and sorrow into his music in that special way we call the blues...

To get artists of the past, its imperative to put yourself in their time. Otherwise, you'll never get it.

Iron Flatline · Apr 24, 2008

One of the (many) things to give AA props for his diligence in location scouting. He would return to a location for years, while considering light angles and all that, to make sure he got a good spot. No hiking up the mountain and hoping to land a good one... it took real work. And he also did a lot of good dark room work... including inserting a better sky if the one that day was no good. I'm not a huge AA fan, not really the kind of images I like to look at, but I respect really hard work when I see it.

The_Traveler · Apr 24, 2008

Mike_E said:
Sorry T, I don't get where you are standing. No one in this thread to my reading is Idol worshiping, just giving the man his due for all of his accomplishments the same as you would respect a copyright. No one has claimed that he was another Monet, just an Ansel Adams.

Oh yes, I remember all the threads entitled:

"Steiglitz, famous for a reason."
"Weston, famous for a reason."
"Strand, famous for a reason."
"Penn, famous for a reason."
"Muybridge, famous for a reason"
"Brady, famous for a reason."
"Atget, famous for a reason."
"Niepce, famous for a reason."
"Eakins, famous for a reason."

Adams is the choice for popular adulation because he produced a clear 'way' of doing things, in English, step-by-step that people could sign on to and seem to emulate - whatever their own actual results.

His fame is based on his method and not his artistic ability, which has been surpassed by many people before and since.

Look at 95% of his output and you can see what he is thinking. "OK, I basically have to reproduce the content in a reasonable composition but the most important thing is to control the tonal range from total black to total white.

William Shakespeare," Let's see. I want this place to be about a young couple who are frustrated in their love. I need to make certain that the scenes are played in every time of the day so we can change the lighting and the voices need to go from very soft to very loud." The underlying techniques are irrelevant to the artistic output and should be almost 'invisible.'

In most of Adams' work, the technique is the only important issue. (I believe that I have seen as much or more of it in person and reproduction as anyone on this site.) His enormous popularity is because anyone can work in the Ansel Adams tradition, it is approachable by anyone, requires only some technical attention and the ability to do multiplication. It can be done without talent because it is the method that seems to count and not the final product.

Its like signing up for a triathlon, you can wear the t-shirt even if you drop out after the first 100 yards - and no one will ever know.

abraxas · Apr 24, 2008

I've learned a lot from Adam's work, and my photography is better for it. I see no sense in ragging on a dead guy.

Jon0807 · Apr 25, 2008

Art is subjective. What's beautiful and artistic to one person won't always be that to another

-GDconcepts- · Apr 25, 2008

Ansel Adam's style of shooting was very premature. He was before his time. His outlook is a little "safe" but his composition is amazing, imo. I've always found his work and his quotes great.