"An eye for the truly strange" in the LA Times covers new books about and a new appreciation for William Mortensen along with some of his excellent images.
While Mortensen lost his interpretive photography battle during his lifetime to Ansel Adams and the rest of the F64 crowd, he may have won it for posterity as explained in a new book "American Grotesque - The Life and Art of William Mortensen" edited by Larry Lytle and Michael Monyihan. "The Command to Look" by Mortensen is also enjoying a new reprint - you can find them and even vintage Mortensen books at Amazon.
Interesting tidbits include the claims that Cecil B. DeMille employed Mortensen as the first still photographer on a Hollywood movie set and that Mortensen was the first photog to become a "name brand" during the 1930's. I guess the editors never heard of Louis Daguerre or Mathew Brady, among others. Many of Mortensen's works were more than bizarre and today are now (for better or worse) being newly appreciated. Ironically Mortensen's archive is housed at the Center for Creative Photography, whose founders included Ansel Adams.
Photography like art and fashion goes through waves of acceptance, inevitably bringing back the old as the new. I rue the day when a photography historian far in the future rediscovers the wonderful lost smart phone art of instagram and selfies. Nonetheless, I am eagerly awaiting the arrival of my newly ordered "American Grotesque."
Stephen
While Mortensen lost his interpretive photography battle during his lifetime to Ansel Adams and the rest of the F64 crowd, he may have won it for posterity as explained in a new book "American Grotesque - The Life and Art of William Mortensen" edited by Larry Lytle and Michael Monyihan. "The Command to Look" by Mortensen is also enjoying a new reprint - you can find them and even vintage Mortensen books at Amazon.
Interesting tidbits include the claims that Cecil B. DeMille employed Mortensen as the first still photographer on a Hollywood movie set and that Mortensen was the first photog to become a "name brand" during the 1930's. I guess the editors never heard of Louis Daguerre or Mathew Brady, among others. Many of Mortensen's works were more than bizarre and today are now (for better or worse) being newly appreciated. Ironically Mortensen's archive is housed at the Center for Creative Photography, whose founders included Ansel Adams.
Photography like art and fashion goes through waves of acceptance, inevitably bringing back the old as the new. I rue the day when a photography historian far in the future rediscovers the wonderful lost smart phone art of instagram and selfies. Nonetheless, I am eagerly awaiting the arrival of my newly ordered "American Grotesque."
Stephen
charjohncarter
Veteran
He also wrote books which are still read today, at least by me. One is a great one on lighting. I was a little disappointed in Ansel Adams with his statements about WM. He (AA) seemed to me to be childish, and petty.
Anyway, here is an online copy of one of his books.
https://archive.org/details/newprojectioncon000727mbp
Anyway, here is an online copy of one of his books.
https://archive.org/details/newprojectioncon000727mbp
Yes, Mortensen rubbed the f/64 crowd the wrong way... I think my photography prof at college didn't appreciate him either, as he (the prof) did not agree with my appreciative term paper on Mortensen... Ah well, the research was interesting! I'll look for the new book...
Roger Hicks
Veteran
TWO new books -- The Command to Look ain't just a reprint, but includes new material as well. Barring mishap there'll be a 5-page piece on Mortensen in Amateur Photographer magazine in January: I've admired his work (with reservations!) for decades and Frances is even more of a fan. A few years ago she found a new, old stock copy of the 1967 edition of Monsters and Madonnas.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
Marco Milazzo
Member
Just an observation: Mortensen operated a school where he taught his techniques and presumably his aesthetic, but as far as I know, none of his students became well-known.
kbg32
neo-romanticist
So glad he is getting his due and AA is being exposed for the pettiness.
Having lost the PR battle at the time, perhaps being Mortensen's student did not look so well on the resume.
Stephen
lukitas
second hand noob
Calling Ansel silly, after having seen Mortensens' work, is ironic.
Much as I can appreciate the pictorial style, fantastic compositions and over the top retouching, it belongs to painting more than photography. What is good about Mortensen is that his work is trite, sentimental, kitsch, quatsch, an impudent showing of the artists' subconscious in dirty underwear. A pleasure akin to watching funny british seaside postcards of the sixties, with well-fed ladies and gross innuendo.
However much Mortensen may have been right in saying that 'the pure straight photograph has never existed', Ansel was right in considering the camera as an instrument eminently suited to the representation of 'reality'. The Camera is a modern instrument. In the middle ages painters drew what they saw, what they thought they saw, what they remembered having seen, or just plain imagined. The renaissance, with the camera obscura and the perspective that came with it made a first step towards anchoring representation into reality. The photographic camera is the logical result of this evolution : the drawing process wholly taken over by the lens and film.
Of course, the discovery of realism, and its consequent drive towards 'scientific precision' seems to leave a gaping hole : Where is the imagination, the invention, fantasy? But that hole has been filled, and is being filled. Paul Strand, Irving Penn, Avedon...
modern photography is so much more than a nice print of a picture-postcard landscape.
Mortensen is all right for a giggle, but 'real' photography has much more to offer. Ansel was right, Mortensen was not the future, but a throwback.
Cheers
Much as I can appreciate the pictorial style, fantastic compositions and over the top retouching, it belongs to painting more than photography. What is good about Mortensen is that his work is trite, sentimental, kitsch, quatsch, an impudent showing of the artists' subconscious in dirty underwear. A pleasure akin to watching funny british seaside postcards of the sixties, with well-fed ladies and gross innuendo.
However much Mortensen may have been right in saying that 'the pure straight photograph has never existed', Ansel was right in considering the camera as an instrument eminently suited to the representation of 'reality'. The Camera is a modern instrument. In the middle ages painters drew what they saw, what they thought they saw, what they remembered having seen, or just plain imagined. The renaissance, with the camera obscura and the perspective that came with it made a first step towards anchoring representation into reality. The photographic camera is the logical result of this evolution : the drawing process wholly taken over by the lens and film.
Of course, the discovery of realism, and its consequent drive towards 'scientific precision' seems to leave a gaping hole : Where is the imagination, the invention, fantasy? But that hole has been filled, and is being filled. Paul Strand, Irving Penn, Avedon...
modern photography is so much more than a nice print of a picture-postcard landscape.
Mortensen is all right for a giggle, but 'real' photography has much more to offer. Ansel was right, Mortensen was not the future, but a throwback.
Cheers