Quote Originally Posted by Darkroom317 View Post
Actually, Adams work is much more in the vain of 19th century landscape painting. It could very easily fit into the aesthetic of the sublime resembling the dramatic works of JMW Turner and Caspar David Friedrich. There is great difference between these artists (including Adams), and Thomas Kinkade. Even his nickname "the painter of light" was attributed to Turner long before Kinkade came along.

i'm not talking about the style of photography, but the actual part of making it ...
it doesn't matter to me what school of painting you claim he is able to become part of because of his "sublime landscapes".
some of the greatest copyists were great artists, even the people that fill in the dots in a lichtenstien painting or those who do coloring of
animation cells ... all artists ... but can they fit into a "style" ? ... style means nothing ...

kinkade created on a canvas with brushes and paints,
adams manipulated through technical means film and paper ...

i wouldn't say that kinkade wasn't an artist or that it is a crime to compare one to the other ... kinkade created things from a blank canvas,
adams interpreted his negative ... to me there is a big difference.

its obvious that you don't like kinkade for whatever reasons you have ...
but adams is pretty much the photographic version of kinkade as far as i am concerned ...
commercialized to the core, and even now, almost 30years after his death people are buying
posters of his landsacapes the same way people buy posters of kinkade's paintings ...
it wouldn't surprise me if the same people that buy kinkade's paintings also have posters of ansel adams on a wall in a different room.