It seems that the Mortensen's vs Adams' philosophies beat, debate and argument goes on - even after all of these years. In my view there is room for both views in our vast, wide world of photography for, after all, their negatives are now housed in the same resting place! There are many Mortensen images that I love. Others leave me cold. The same with A.A.'s images. Neither one of these guys was right and neither one was wrong, IMHO. It's a matter of personal taste. I lean more towards Mortensen's approach, but so what? Others feel differently!
I bought a copy several years ago. Apparently the 'tog/astronomer selling the tape acquired the rights from the Mortensen estate. This film on Mortensen is narrated by Vincent Price. Spooky, but I guess Price was somewhat of a collector and art critic back in the '50s. I got a chuckle because the web page lists the title as:
William Mortensen Videotape
"Monsters and Madonnas"
Staring Vincent Price
He doesn't actually stare too much in the video.
I thought the tape was interesting and worth the Price (sic) at the time. It runs 35 minutes and portrays WM as somewhat of a martyr persecuted by the (unnamed) modernist adversaries. It also includes a segment by one of his models (Jeanne Crain).
"As a free bonus I am including a 16 minute video on the same tape entitled: "Creatures and Creativity". This video shows the work of a modern day pictorialist who was inspired by Mortensen's work and faithfully carries on in his tradition" in the words of the author and distributor of this tape. This is a very tacky promotional piece, tacked on to the Mortensen film. The images in this "tribute" to WM show just what a genius WM was by comparison. Compare the work of Mortensen to the parroted pieces.
I have almost the entire Mortensen book catalog and highly recommend "The Model" as others have. It is a photography book unlike any other. (Reserve a copy of your remake for me Emil.) "The Negative" and "Pictorial Lighting" by WM are also worthwhile, especially if you wish to see how his technique came together.
Mortensen was conceptual and interested in executing the idea to form a "picture" as related in the video. Adams and his cronies were seemingly interested in a much narrower vision, transcribing reality as sharply as the photographic instruments would allow. Mortensen, however kitschy some of his work may be, created some overlooked masterpieces. He was every bit an excellent technician irrespective of his contemporaries' opinions.
I don't care about their styles, techniques or philosophies, what I absolutely detest is how Mortensen was rat packed into oblivion. WM was 'disappeared' in the same fashion as Alfred Cheney Johnston on the east coast by a pack of arrogant, small minded, jealous and greedy little twits. There is no other way to view this stupidity.
Thanks to the Internet they have been resurrected and the books are available. To the suggestions here I would add 'The New Projection Control' and 'Print Finishing' so you can see what started the firestorm. Mortensen was actually teaching people exactly how to open and run a photo studio.
"What interests me though is the idea of AA being an ultra-pictorialist. Was AA a pictorialist? "
Most definitely, he would use any and every manipulation to fit the photograph to fit a pre-conceived print.
The attachments are scans from:
The Encyclopedia of Photography
The Complete Photographer
National Education Alliance
copyright 1942, 1943, 1949
Ansel Adams published a nice article on 'Mountain Photography', his article, his selections, his descriptions.
Strange way to put it but I will let others decide.
Scans same source as above.
Now where was it that I heard 'develop to gamma infinity' before? 6 stops under-exposed is pretty trick too.
1942, 1943, 1949 are after the zone system was conceived, aren't they. AA would do anything to manipulate the photo to his pre-conceived vision, Yes, he was a pictorialist.
You might go to the primary sources and see if Bill and Ansel agree with the pigeonholes you have prepared for them.
You might be able to drag ANYBODY that made PICTURES into a Post Modern / Deconstructed camp of Pictorialism, but THEY might have a different viewpoint.
They both talk freely about their views on Photography and art. Look at their OWN words, then decide.
Linear Mode
