Ansel Adams exhibition at Cleveland Institute of Arts

I saw it in Detroit. It was ok. Well, not really. I didn't care for it that much. But one should see an Ansel exhibit at least once in one's life.
 
I think the reason one have ot see it is to get the idea about what the art of printing is. At least Ansel's contribution to methodology of BW printing can't be questioned, can it?
As far as I see, from rather big distance both in time and geographically, his contribution to American landscape photography is huge.
Personally, I found this exhibition wery powerfull aestetically although I can't say it's my kind of photography. It is "objectively" good. A must see if you're around.
By the way, soon in Cleveland Museum of Art will be opened another interesting exhibition called "Icons of American Photography": http://www.artknowledgenews.com/Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_CMA.html
 
I agree that everyone should see an Ansel exhibit at least once in their lives. There is no doubt that the man's work is classic, ground-breaking, and set the tone for decades to come after. Much of what is done as fine art photography now is done according to rules he developed and laid down.

But I find many (not all) of his photographs to be boring and banal. I dislike what he did to the photo-secessionists or pictorialists once he decided that straight photography was the way to go. His systematic destruction of William Mortensen's work and legacy leave me with a bitter feeling towards him as a person.

I say this not to take away from what he contributed to photography, which was huge. Like I said, everyone should see an Ansel exhibit at least once.
 
bmattock said:
I agree that everyone should see an Ansel exhibit at least once in their lives. There is no doubt that the man's work is classic, ground-breaking, and set the tone for decades to come after. Much of what is done as fine art photography now is done according to rules he developed and laid down.

But I find many (not all) of his photographs to be boring and banal. I dislike what he did to the photo-secessionists or pictorialists once he decided that straight photography was the way to go. His systematic destruction of William Mortensen's work and legacy leave me with a bitter feeling towards him as a person.

I say this not to take away from what he contributed to photography, which was huge. Like I said, everyone should see an Ansel exhibit at least once.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, sounds surprising to me. Well, maybe it's because all I know about his life I read in his books :) Can you provide some reference to the facts you're referring to (someone's work destruction)?
 
sattva said:
Hmmm, sounds surprising to me. Well, maybe it's because all I know about his life I read in his books :) Can you provide some reference to the facts you're referring to (someone's work destruction)?
Click to expand...

Certainly. Adams was best friends with the Newhalls, who wrote a great many books on photography and curated museums, etc. It has only been in recent years that some fairly bitter truths have come out - Newhall and Adams intentionally did their level best to exclude certain photographers from being collected, even from being discussed. Mortensen was an especially aggregious case.

I have just finished reading a scholarly work by three noted authors who collaborated on a book about Mortensen's life and work, and I will review it in due course on my website (under book reviews), but there are numerous references to this on the web as well:

http://www.robertjonesphoto.com/anseladams.html

Consider the strange case of pictorialist William Mortensen: For the f/64 Group, spearheaded by Adams and Museum of Modern Art curators Beaumont and Nancy Newhall, it was not enough merely to disagree philosophically with Mortensen. Granted, the pictorialist school had pretty much run its course, and purists in the mold of Adams and Edward Weston did indeed usher in an exciting new era in photography.

Had they respectfully disagreed, it would have been unlikely that Mortensen would have been forgotten and ignored so during his own lifetime and after his death, for he was something more than just another painterly salon photographer: Mortensen’s compositions were steeped in Gothic and Romantic traditions, his subject matter often whimsical, often bizarre, his style a strange combination of Lorenzo de Bernini, Edgar Allan Poe, Man Ray, Salvador Dali and Maxfield Parrish.

In his essay, “Beyond Recall,” photographer A.D. Coleman -- who is quite sympathetic to the Adams aesthetic -- presents a scathing indictment of Adams and the Newhalls, and their active campaign to completely shut out Mortensen from the elite artistic inner circles. Adams in particular launched a smear campaign to destroy Mortensen’s reputation. He couldn’t even bring himself to call him by his rightful name; in conversation, Adams called Mortensen “the Anti-Christ.” Mortensen died a broken man.

Even after Mortensen's death, Adams tried to prevent Mortensen's work from being archived at the Center for Creative Photography at the University of Arizona. Fortunately for posterity, curator James Enyeart (who, though a friend of Adams) remained objective, and was instrumental in finding a permanent home for Mortensen's artistic legacy.
Click to expand...

It is difficult for me to have a great deal of respect for Adams, the man; although I certainly acknowledge his incredible contributions to photography. I wanted to see his show when it came to Detroit, and I did. I wasn't expected to be disappointed, I really thought I'd be bowled over. There were certainly some 'wow' photographs, but overall, I was left somewhat depressed by the entire thing. Perhaps my emotions about Adams now color my perceptions too much - in which case, please, feel free to disregard my statements and by all means, go see the show regardless. I would not want to be the reason anyone deprived themselves of the experience of seeing an Adams exhibition.
 
Now that is the interesting reading. Second thought is one can't expect, from artist, however big he is, to live up to his artistic level and impressions we, the spectators, have from their work. Most of them were incredible je*ks in private life. The bigger the artist - the worst bastart he is, that is. I think the things are just like this, must be human nature or something.

Thanks a lot for sharing this information.
 
I am surprised how few people know that Adams and Beaumont Newhall - who by the way, wrote an extremely biased history of photography, tried desparately to destroy the reputation and work of William Mortensen. What Bill has noted above is absolutely true. Mortensen's body of work is fantastic and though may not be to everyone's aesthetic, is extremely important within the history of the medium and deserves to be seen.

There is no doubt of Adams' stature as a craftsman, but I find too few of his works move me to any level of emotionalism.
 
Last edited:
To me, two of the most tragic figures in photography: William Mortensen and Hippolyte Bayard. No one knows who they were now, and that's why it is a tragedy.
 
bmattock said:
Much of what is done as fine art photography now is done according to rules he developed and laid down.
Click to expand...

Apart from what you wrote about Mortensen I think this is the worst thing he caused (even tough it was not his fault). Really boring and sad to see that still today there are people who go out with "the largest view camera they can carry around" and try to shoot the same boring (well, that my opinion at least) pictures he shooted...

GLF
 
bmattock said:
To me, two of the most tragic figures in photography: William Mortensen and Hippolyte Bayard. No one knows who they were now, and that's why it is a tragedy.
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree. If it wasn't for a friend of Daugerre, Hippolyte would be the rightful inventor of photography.

As for Mortensen, what Adams, Newhall, and Szarkowski said about him and the medium, are thoroughly responsible for how photography is perceived today. For whatever reasons they perceived, Mortensen was the ultimate thorn in their side. I'd love to know why his work was so threatening.

Time and historical reference will bear Mortensen out, as he was a lot more influential to many more photographers then given credit for.

Some examples of Mortensen's work -

http://www.thescreamonline.com/photo/photo06-01/mortensen/mortensen_images.html

Attached image is Hippolyte Bayard.
 
History of any art is full of similar stories (Mozart & Salieri style), every case has its own blood curdling details, every case is a tragedy.
Thanks for interesting discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom