> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Paul Stenquist > > I find the essayist's snoopy metaphor silly and demeaning. And while he > admits to an Adams renaissance, t's clear that he doesn't understand > the artistry of Adams' work and how he was able to bend light in the > darkroom to idealize a scene. He seems dismissive of the zone system, a > a way of working that redefined photographic excellence. The writer > continues to demonstrate his lack of photographic knowledge in > asserting that an f64 aperture results in both optimum depth of field > and clarity. Depth of field, yes. Clarity, no. > > Art takes many forms, and the elitists of every generation are always > anxious to dismiss the heroes of a previous era. But Adams, like his > literary siblings, Whitman and Thoreau, will still be revered when > some of the pretentious crap that now passes for artful photography has > long been forgotten. >
I think you're misreading the article. I think Bruce is right about it being a fashion thing, but I think his characterisation of the critics of AA is a strawman, not what they actually claim. I read the article as pointing out the mainstream thinking among the chattering classes about Adams, then going on to give a different perspective by placing him squarely in the American tradition of sublime landscape painting and writing. As for Darren's comment in a different reply about critics, this is exactly their function - to explain the works, suggest where they belong in whatever tradition, and then perhaps to give a personal comment about the work, one that's informed by a broad knowledge about the subject. Seemed like a fairly reasonable article to me, given that it was just a review for a newspaper. The thing about f/64 isn't important - it's not a technical article for photographers. B > Paul > On Sep 19, 2011, at 8:42 PM, Bruce Walker wrote: > > > Talk about Ansel Adams (see "A door to nowhere" thread) had me > searching for something about a repeated criticism of Ansel Adams that > I've run across: that he's the Normal Rockwell of photogs; that his > output is kitsch rather than art; that his belief in beauty above all > rather then social relevance, left him on the bottom rung of fine arts. > > > > So I located this excellent essay: > > http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/ansel-adams-but-is- > it-art-749574.html > > > > Criticism of AA seems to boil down to a fashion thing. It seems to be > safe to like Adams again. :) > > > > -bmw > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > [email protected] > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above > and follow the directions. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
