Ansel Adams - Whats so great?

[Hertz van Rental]

Mr. Van Rental argues that because in a landscape or nature shot, as opposed to the studio, you cannot control the elements and thus it takes less skill. I feel that is simply not true. The ability to take what you have and make it into a stunning shot via composition is and art all in of itself.

I actually only posited this as something to think about.
If you take 'what is there' and you have no ability to move things other than the camera then you are seriously limited with what you can do, certainly in terms of composition. You can't move a mountain a mile to the left.
You can do it in a painting but not in a photograph - unless you use PS.
I was merely voicing doubts which have concerned me over the years.

Further more who really has the authority to say, because an artist didnt create it, its not art.

You don't need 'authority'. By definition Art requires an 'Artist'.
You are using the 19thC argument that 'as God created it then it had a Creator so it is Art because God is an Artist'. Without getting bogged down in Philosophy, that only works as an argument if you're not an atheist - which I am.
You are making the common mistake of confusing Art with Beauty. They are not the same thing at all. Nature is beautiful but it is not Art.

 

[panzershreck]

Without getting bogged down in huge matters of opinion, in relatively simple terms: "Art is about life, and the producing, doing, or act of Art is a deep expression of an individual’s response to Life, contained within a form of some sort."

good perspective, imo, art is the supernatural, not the literal divine, which i don't think exists, but taking nature and manipulating it beyond what it is into an expression, meaning a shed isn't necessarily art, but a building designed by a post-modern architect is... we manipulate nature everyday - colors, shapes, lines, the tools and the way we use those tools

to me, any photo can be art in one simple basic way: it freezes time, you cannot undo a photo, you can't make it go forward or backward in time, it records for 1/60th of a second and that's it, to me that is such a huge manipulation of nature... but *can* is emphasized, just because you record something doesn't mean it is art, well, let me take that back, it isn't considered GOOD art, Ansel's photos are still art, even if they suck ass and smell like a turd, they're still art

similarly videography does not freeze time, it records a scenario not unlike words, but unlike words, it also records the manipulation and perspective of the artist, and through cinematic technique, can convey all the expressions you desire, videography also tends to be more of an art in practice, because so much of it is done in-studio unlike photography where most of it is done in the field

it is art, but does the amount of control determine what is good art, and lazy art? (adams)

(also, what about words? are words art? i don't think so, but at the same time, if i paint a picture of a sign where the words are the most prominent things, suddenly they are art, because they're bigger? because they're expressing something they become art? visual art with words is really blurring the lines, imo, more than photography)

 

[Torus34]

Is there a confusion of concepts here?

First, are we discussing photography as science [technical competence] or art [composition, message]? Science has been defined as an attempt to describe outer reality, while art treats of inner reality. Photography, by its very nature, views outer reality, though it maps a three-dimensional matrix onto one of two dimensions [OK, you Stereo Realist types have a point!]

To continue . . .

To the extent that the photographer tweaks this admittedly mechanical process, he adds his own 'take' on reality. 'Tweak' includes choice of subject [Adams vs. Arbus, to illustrate the point.] This, and this alone, relates photography to art.

Now go ahead and shoot while I duck!

 

[mysteryscribe]

Im not a big fan but...
he packed a view camera into a wilderness for most of his famous stuff. That in itself is noteworthy. You have to have sense of time to do them justice.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

First, are we discussing photography as science [technical competence] or art [composition, message]? Science has been defined as an attempt to describe outer reality, while art treats of inner reality. Photography, by its very nature, views outer reality, though it maps a three-dimensional matrix onto one of two dimensions [OK, you Stereo Realist types have a point!]

Technical Competence and Science are not at all the same thing.
Composition is a technical aspect of Art.
And if Science only deals with the 'real' explain Pure Mathematics (not to mention Psychology).
I think the 'confusion of concepts' only happens when you try to separate Art and Science - the two are inextricably linked. Photography is a perfect example. Without Science it doesn't work. Without Art it's just an interesting chemical reaction

 

[Torus34]

Well said, good Sir!

What I was trying to winkle out of the on-going discussion was a distinction between mastery of the photographic process irrespective of the actual subject photographed and the choice and manipulation of the image. Of course there are overlaps: eg, the technique of burning-in does not exist without a choice of where and how to apply it.

Thank you for helping me to clarify my post.

 

[kemplefan]

some people would take extream offense at you remark, i saw i bunch of his prints in palm springs california
he is amazing, he was in amazing places at great times, also think he was doing all of this in the 1920s, ask letca to decribe the cameras of that period and you wil understand

 

[Geronimo]

First, I agree with most here about Adams. I really don't find his photography in and of itself grand.

Secondly and a bit off topic. As someone who takes mainly landscapes I realize I will have a bias. And since Hertz, you are the only one to state they are a still-life photography, I assume you have a bias towards that as well. I only bring that up so to not take this discussion down any personal paths, but I must disagree with your

As for 'great composition' - how much control does a photographer have over Nature? You can only photograph what's there, and that limits your ability to compose severely.
It would be closer to the truth to say 'he was good at finding a great view'.
To see what he was like without a mountain in front of him, just go back and look at his still life. Great composition, huh?

Shooting just what is presented is not Art, it is a snapshot. Working with what is in front of the lens is what makes the shot. Knowing your equipment, settings, how the light will play out is what makes photos art. The most important thing for me is the story it tells. Feeling what the photographer was feeling or trying to express, for me is Art. From what I have read from the previous responses to this thread; that is gist for what most are saying. I say that because it applies to all styles of photographary; macro, portiat, still-life, landscape etc..

Portiat photographers work with what the model is giving them. If a model does not provide the photographer with what they are looking for, then they can get a different model or change the concept of the session to pull out that thing that will make photo great. Just like a landscape photographer has the ability to change scenery or elicit something from the scene. Again, does it emote, tell a story within the frame or just show you what was in front of the lens. Does one just see a person, flower, close-up of bug or a beautiful scenery or does one see a story, get a feel for a model, or a feel for what the photographer was feeling on that day.

Maybe for another debate, but what about street photography? Don't the same agruements for and against landscape photography apply to street photography? They are capturing what is placed in front of them, are they not? Seems even though the two styles are similiar in a lot of regards they are 'valued' differently.

Forgive any typos or misspellings, been a long day.

 

[ksmattfish]

This is working on the basis that there is something there to understand

If there is a life, there are many things to be learned.

------------------------

Possibly a better question about Ansel Adams than "Why so great?", would be "Why so popular?".

His photographs were used by the Sierra Club, and other interests to bring the beauty and majesty of the still undeveloped American west to people who had never been there, and they were instrumental in getting many areas declared national parks. Most of his fame came near the end of his life, and although there isn't really a photographer's equivalent to "Poet Laureate" in the US, that's sort of what he became. He often visited Presidents to encourage them to value the wilderness we still have left.

It's easy for me to understand why some photogs may dismiss Adams, particularly if you are only viewing bad internet copies and cheap published photos. These days his photos may seem boring and common to those trying to work on the edge, but in his day he was one of the only people taking photos of those areas and getting some publicity. His style, or whoever came up with it, is still popular among successful landscape photographers today. Whether you are in California, Maine, or Colorado, pick up any landscape photography calendar, and you'll see Adam's influence. You can poo-poo those photographers if you like, but consider that they would probably poo-poo your work too.

About.com has a couple of short, but informative articles about Ansel Adams. Scroll down past the ads...

http://search.about.com/fullsearch.htm?terms=ansel adams

 

[Hertz van Rental]

pick up any landscape photography calendar, and you'll see Adam's influence.

And by the same token you can pick up any Ansel Adams photograph and see the influence of Edward Weston, C E Watkins, Eadweard Muybridge, T H O'Sullivan...
As it happens Muybridge photographed El Capitan at Yosemite in the 1870's.
Adams didn't do anything new but merely took an existing tradition with a particular approach and took it to it's ultimate conclusion.
My point has only ever been that Adams' place in Photography, and worth as a photographer, has been distorted out of all proportion by Political and Economic factors. I just think it is time to re-evaluate him and see him in perspective.

 

[ksmattfish]

Distorted by who? Who are the people that need their perspective changed?

I don't recall ever discussing Adams' photographs in four years of photography classes. His photos don't sell for huge amounts of money compared to many of his contemporaries' work. None of my peers ever bring him up, except to mention his books on BW darkroom techniques. Occasionally I hear someone talk about some cadre of old guys who worship Adams, but I've yet to actually meet any of these Adams cultists. There are really only three places Ansel Adams name comes up with any sort of regularity:

1) Joe Non-photographer walks up to Joe Photographer, and says "Hey Ansel...". Ansel Adams is a household name. Possibly the only famous photographer many non-photographers have ever bothered to commit to memory. You are right that this has mostly to do with political and economic factors, but what well known celebrity/artist/athelete/entertainer... with a household name couldn't you say that about? Ansel seems popular with the masses, but most of them couldn't pick an Adams photo out of a line-up.

2) Someone asks about what books would be good to learn about the BW darkroom or the zone system, and Adam's books The Camera, The Negative, and The Print are mentioned.

3) Someone who is starting to look into the history of photography confuses Ansel Adams' renoun amongst non-photographers as credit among photographers, and posts a thread like this one.

The only people who are putting him up on a pedestal are the ignorant masses, the occasional fan, and those who want to knock him off.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

You missed out the fourth type of person who puts Adams on a pedestal: the ones who pretend they don't but then get all hot and defensive when it is suggested that maybe we should re-evaluate his contribution to Photography.
These people usually misunderstand what is being said.
'Re-evaluate' doesn't automatically mean an attempt to 'demote' or 'denigrate'. A re-evaluation can quite often confirm people in their stature.

And I didn't say people need their perspectives changing - I said 'see him [Adams] in perspective' which is something entirely different.

 

[Jeff Canes]

Dear Mr. Hertz

You have made it clear over the past year plus that you believe that landscape photography is nothing but snapshots and likely the lowest form of any photography. Seem to me that you are not open-minded enough or lack the experience in landscape need to comments on Adams and landscape photography in general.

Jeffrey E Jarboe

 

[Hertz van Rental]

Dear Mr. Hertz
You have made it clear over the past year plus that you believe that landscape photography is nothing but snapshots and likely the lowest form of any photography. Seem to me that you are not open-minded enough or lack the experience in landscape need to comments on Adams and landscape photography in general.

And that comment makes it quite clear to me that you have misunderstood everything I have written in this thread.
All I have done is pose some very pertinent questions and asked people to try thinking.
What makes Ansel Adams so great as a Photographer?
Does he deserve the stature that he enjoys?
If the look of the landscape is under the total control of the weather and geology, what is the role of the Photographer?
If daring to ask questions that threaten to upset peoples' nice and safe apple-carts is a sign of a closed mind, then I suppose that being happy with things as they are and not daring to question anything is a sign of an open and intelligent one.

 

[markc]

If the look of the landscape is under the total control of the weather and geology, what is the role of the Photographer?

I do think it's good to question. Unfortunately that question assumes that the look of the landscape is under the total control of the weather and geology, which I don't believe it is. The photographer's choices play a large role in how the landscape is presented in the image. The question might apply to a camera dropped with a parachute, but even then, the choice in lens and film plays a role.