Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,879   Posts: 1,520,389   Online: 1020
      
Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 85
  1. #11
    df cardwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Dearborn,Michigan & Cape Breton Island
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,342
    Images
    8
    There are a couple things about Ansel that have to be understood.

    First, he was an artist.

    Second, he lived and worked in his age, not ours.

    Any half-witted attempt to deconstruct his work is futile, because his work is beyond the ability of most deconstructionists. There is no point to read the code of the image, it was not codified. It was not about an idea. it was all feeling.

    Ansel was - if we can place him in any artistic category, he was a very late Romantic. His method involved the translation of the FEELING he had when he saw a scene into a negative in order to make a print that would elicit the same response from a viewer. That is why he photographed, and it was the essence of the Zone System. He called it Visualisation, in other words, making sensible the feelings he had. It has more to do with Stanislavski than BTZS.

    Adams was not a Naturalist, nor a Realist. Not a Modernist. If you don't recognize that, you miss Adams completely. His work, however, is so convincing ( and we are so tainted by Post-Modernism ) that we never consider that he didn't make representational images.


    So, Mt. Williamson is NOT a realistic, natural image of the scene. It is a grand departure from what was real, and expression of how he felt standing there. It is NOT a picture of Mt. Williamson, it is a picture of the inside of Adam's head.

    The ardent conservationist that was Adams saw the wilderness in relation to it's potential spiritual value to humanity. He was a social guy, and saw mankind fulfilled by the natural world.

    The bitterness his apparent financial success engenders among artists, and art photographers, is galling to me. He worked hard his entire life, provided for his family, and left a small estate. He never drew a steady paycheck for sitting at a desk and pretending to work. He paid his own health care. He never got the huge prices for his work that galleries demanded toward the end of his life.

    So, what do we see when we look at Adams' pictures ? Try looking past the legend, the lore, and assumptions ( of our making ) and look at the picture. Drop the idea that Photography is realistic. Look at each picture as a self portrait, not a snapshot of some old mountain.

    If all we look at is his composition and depth of field, we aren't seeing.
    "One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid,
    and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"

    -Bertrand Russell

  2. #12
    df cardwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Dearborn,Michigan & Cape Breton Island
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,342
    Images
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by David H. Bebbington
    ...Apparently Edward Weston referred to AA's work as the "Ain't nature grand!" style. ....

    Apparently not. Weston was referring to others.
    "One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid,
    and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"

    -Bertrand Russell

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wi
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    3,242
    I am unsure what Tim meant as perspectivism.. If he is asking how to remove perspective from a negative it aint gonna happen. Any camera placement for a camera lens & film plane is going to give you a certain perspective,
    Claire (Ms Anne Thrope is in the darkroom)

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    552
    Quote Originally Posted by Claire Senft
    I am unsure what Tim meant as perspectivism.. If he is asking how to remove perspective from a negative it aint gonna happen. Any camera placement for a camera lens & film plane is going to give you a certain perspective,
    Hockney has taken one approach to this - quite imaginatively and successfully

    For me - as nice a picture as this is, the perspective is quite brutal - like one of the Canalettos of St Mark's in Venice. It's one of the constitutional limitations of photography that while most other forms of art were able to move away from the perspectives that had dominated it for a good few centuries, photography is generally much more limited in doing so. Perspective is, after all, essentially theory about a certain way of seeing.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,025
    Ansels work if not realistic was a representation of how he felt as one poster put it....that sounds as good as reality to me - his 'inner space' or not, his images sre a product of his reponse to a real scene and although not literal are hardly a radical departure.

    Donald, your quote states that art is a departure from reality. I have always felt that whilst some photography is art, not all photography therefore is. I am not sure Ansel was an artist as such, but this definition in my head makes not a jot of difference to my admiration for his achievements.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,025
    DF Cardwell,

    I understand what you are saying and agree to an extent but would not go as far as you.

    You say, "So, Mt. Williamson is NOT a realistic, natural image of the scene. It is a grand departure from what was real, and expression of how he felt standing there. It is NOT a picture of Mt. Williamson, it is a picture of the inside of Adam's head."

    In what way was it a grand departure from reality? Was the mountain not there, was the light not towards the camera? Sure there has been very significant manipulation of contrast if I remember rightly (huge contraction) and perhaps to the left of the image a motorhome was parked....but I still dont get how it can be a radical departure?

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    552
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Stanworth
    Ansels work if not realistic was a representation of how he felt as one poster put it....that sounds as good as reality to me - his 'inner space' or not, his images sre a product of his reponse to a real scene and although not literal are hardly a radical departure.

    Donald, your quote states that art is a departure from reality. I have always felt that whilst some photography is art, not all photography therefore is. I am not sure Ansel was an artist as such, but this definition in my head makes not a jot of difference to my admiration for his achievements.
    Tom - Ansels work was essentially about appearances. "Appearance" and "Reality" are basically opposites

  8. #18
    David H. Bebbington's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    East Kent, United Kingdom
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,364
    Images
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by df cardwell
    Apparently not. Weston was referring to others.
    Would you care to give us the full benefit of your boundless wisdom and tell us to whom Weston WAS referring?

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wi
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    3,242
    Appearance and reality are quite different? Firstly, when a print, any print, is made in B&w it is, with the exception of a subject that has only tones of grey, a major departure from realism. Color prints would be somewhat more realistic.

    So, how are appearance and realism to different entities? Does a "realistic" print have no "appearance?
    Claire (Ms Anne Thrope is in the darkroom)

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,025
    Quote Originally Posted by tim atherton
    Tom - Ansels work was essentially about appearances. "Appearance" and "Reality" are basically opposites
    Whilst Alsels work may have been all about appearances, the remainder is not true at all. They can be opposites (certainly dont have to be), but can also be the same....the two are in no way related, I thought that was the whole point...don't judge a book by its cover etc etc?

    Appearances can be a subtle slight of hand away from reality or 'smack on'. Without this getting silly, what is reality anyway etc etc...bla bla perception...

    Ansels 'appearances...or perception' are certainly readily identifiable and this could perhaps be because they match the hue of our own internal rose tinted spectacles.

    I still do not think that all his images are radical departures from reality. I think this vastly overstates what he actually did, which was very simple in concept, but taken to extremely high levels.

Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin