The overt destruction of Mortensen by adams is well documented. Seems odd, doesen't it that he would be so hard on the person that did the ground work for his (?) zone system? Read up on what adams did when he found out that Mortensen had a show in the same building. Go dig him up. Even dead I bet he still pissed himself over the recent show. Adams is Mortensens' bitch, is how the current young set would term it. (speaking from geezer-land of course)
I would challenge a few of the generalisation made in earlier posts:
- George Dunham actually wrote all Mortensen's work?
- Mortensen's writing is more flowery than Adams?
No doubt George and Bill were close collaborators but evidence of his writing before the two met showed Mortensen had a deft touch of phrase and expressed himself with the confidence, clarity and humour which comes through in his books. The view that Bill was a bit of a literary dunce and George was the brains behind the organisation is I think a gross simplification.
I would not characterise the Mortensen/Dunham writing as flowery. I find the books to be much more readable, lucid and funny than Adams' writing. I think they are the most entertaining and informative books on photography that I have read.
There is a readily available book call William Mortensen A Revival which covers a lot of the Mortensen vs Dunham territory and also assays the archive which in reality is quite bare. No negatives or proof sheets and very few original prints or manuscripts. The only drawback of this book is 40 pages of heavy going "queer theory" deconstruction of the Mortensen/Dunham relationship which could be summarised in two short sentences. Were Mortensen and Dunham gay lovers? We don't know!
Adams is Mortensens' bitch, is how the current young set would term it. (speaking from geezer-land of course)
I could be wrong (being a semi geezer myself) but isn't that backwards?
Seriously, I wasn't saying that Adams did not write bad things about Mortensen, I was just pointing out that Mortensen responded in kind. I have read both.
I guess what I find so intriguing is that this controversy that happened so long ago is still such a hot button issue to many photographers today.
__________________ David Brown In Nomine Papierus, Filmio, et Spiritu Argentine, AMEN
I would not characterise the Mortensen/Dunham writing as flowery. I find the books to be much more readable, lucid and funny than Adams' writing. I think they are the most entertaining and informative books on photography that I have read.
I whole-heartedly agree. Come on, everyone, buy The Model and see if you don't agree.
Without prolonging the debate over who cast the first stone...Adams' letters to Weston -- when they were both up-and-comers -- referred to the established Mortensen in unflattering terms. BUT Mortensen was hardly their only target, as their private correspondence shows.
I'm concerned we're now into a pointless tug of war with staunch defendents and detractors on both ends. Mortensen was hardly the epitome of the movement Adams was countering, just one in a very long line. No matter what techniques Mortensen originated or championed or how much his writing helped people understand the basics of photography (and this was before Adams' writing), there is no doubt that Adams eclipsed everyone on the merit of the photography alone and became the most-discussed and influential fine art photographer ever. Took him a long time, but his imagery is guaranteed to last forever. But look, we're not Democrats and Republicans here. Ansel Adams and William Mortensen were both bright stars in a very large galaxy, and some stars burn out sooner than others. Who cares if they hated each other?
In a positive way, instead of the either/or that seems to divide us here, I see photography as an ever-widening sphere. And each time a Steichen or a Weston or an Avedon or a whomever comes along with a different approach, the sphere grows in size.
That makes more room on the sphere for us, and you just know it's never going to stop growing.
I know that for a short time Mortensen was a teacher in Salt Lake City. At the time he was fairly highly thought of but was found to be photographing his students in the nearby wooded canyons as his typical subjects. One can only think of how thin the rail was he was given to be ridden out of town in the earliest 20's in a conservative Mormon community. It was then he decided to move to LA to seek his fortune or perhaps simply further employment.
Here is a brief bio I found while looking about...
Linear Mode
