Usually when it comes up, OP is a troll. Clearly not the case here.
Originally Posted by cliveh
Cliveh, is it this particular image? Or the body of work that escapes your grasp?
In general, whereas HCB captures the essence of a place in a moment in time, AA captures the essence of a place without time.
When you attempt to capture a place, I think it helps to use a tripod and LF... Because then a print can bring a dimension of illusory reality. The closer you look, the more you see. It satisfies the eagle-eye.
Nor do I. Clearing Winter Storm doesn't exactly drop my jaw to the floor either. Some things by Adams nearly bring tears to my eyes, but not his calendar art.
Originally Posted by Sirius Glass
Bill, please don't take my OP out of context, as I have no problem with the MO of landscape work, or AA in general. It is just this picture and one or two others that I have a problem with. But as has been said it is probably because I haven't seen the original.
Originally Posted by Bill Burk
I doubt that any single picture exists in the world that would be universally liked.
Why should this one be any different?
And why is it worthy of a thread, or even of comments?
Moonrise isn't a particularly enthralling image and would, by modern standards of aesthetics, attract criticism for the vast black swathe of nothingness and a ordinarily inconsequential (albeit detailed) moon. I don't think Adams had it visually in terms of visual-spatial symmetry, though there is no question about his technique and depth of processing execution. Of very few, one image stands out and resonates with me: Aspens, Mexico on p218. Horses for courses, there will be still others who do not like this image.
Quite an interesting little video showing AA's mastery of the print, specific to Moonrise.
Ansel Adams was raised with 19th-century transcendentalists' core beliefs, the inherent goodness of both man and nature.
His work as a photographer is much deeper than the imagination of the average person..... especially in 2012,
hence You often see threads of the kind "I don't get Ansel Adams".
Actually, I just think AA became really good at his craft; business.
Originally Posted by georg16nik
He worked very hard to develop a salable high quality product (pretty obviously based on something he enjoyed) and market it well with a great story. He refined that product over time and he was also a good teacher of process.
To me though, most of his work seems to be simply variations and refinements on his original ideas. This is not a bad thing, it is typical of most businesses and crafts; the big leaps of imagination come early while getting things started, followed by many years of formulaic production, maintenance, and refinement.
This could have a lot to do with its wider appeal. Wider because church symbolism means a lot to people, and those who appreciate it don't necessarily have the same strong feelings for nature symbolism.
Originally Posted by Diapositivo
Church for me, as I was influenced by a Boy Scout upbringing, means rocks and lakes, rivers and trees. For my wife, influenced by a Mission San Carlos Borromeo upbringing, crosses and saints, Jesus and Mary mean more.
In my own home I have only a few prints on display. Two nature shots, two shots of my kids, and five shots taken in and around missions.
I don't even "get it" in my own work, why shots that include religious symbolism are more popular with my chosen audience. I much prefer the nature shots I have taken, they move me directly and personally.