I Don’t Want to be Ansel Adams
Hall of Spirits
Ansel Adams is one of my greatest inspirations. And, though it may amount to sacrilege, I must confess: it is not because of his photographs. Having come to creative photography in my own way and with little reference to other photographers’ work along the path, I was exposed to the color work of modern photographers before ever seeing Adams’ images. By the time I have, they struck me as romantic and interesting, but I was still more enamored with the likes of Galen Rowell and the exotic locales featured in National Geographic Magazine.
It wasn’t until I moved to the American West and developed a consuming love affair with the land, and came to see my own photography as creative and artistic, that I discovered the “real” Adams: the relentless activist, prolific writer, passionate technical expert, thinker, environmentalist, and visionary. In an era where more people are realizing the subjectivity of the finished image, Adams emerges as one of the most moral photographers, and humans, to ever live; his intentions and methods clearly stated and eloquently documented. His images entwined with his life’s mission, inseparate from the mind that conceived them. In a word: art! These realizations came to me not through his images, but through his writings. It is with this understanding that I revisited his photographic work and, now knowing more about the man and the landscape behind them, realized their true genius.
These days, it seems, Ansel Adams’ name is invoked all too frequently and without regard to his legacy. Any one of you had likely encountered some article in recent publication proclaiming to teach you how to “shoot like Ansel Adams,” “use a tilt/shift lens like Ansel Adams,” or even “tweak like Ansel Adams”. Forgive my bluntness, but not only do these completely miss the point of Adams’ work and teachings, they are downright disrespectful to the man whose shoulders we all stand on and to the values he spent his life promoting and defending.
In order to photograph “like Ansel Adams,” one would need to BE Ansel Adams. Over-simplified glossy articles may offer a small glimpse into his techniques, or proclaim to guess what his techniques might have been had he lived to use today’s technology, yet these are but a single dimension to his work, and not even the most important one. In fact, one could possess every last bit of technical knowledge Adams ever had, and still not come close to producing work of similar importance. That’s the way it should be!
Technique is technique. Your work, if it is indeed to be considered YOUR work, should be your own and not “like Ansel Adams” or anyone else’s.
So, enough of this nonsense. There is certainly value in teaching technique for what it is but spare me the lesson on how to read a histogram like Ansel Adams. A good teacher should show you how to photograph like YOU!
Category: Photographers, Rants and Raves, Thoughts and Musings
“A good teacher should show you how to photograph like YOU!” Well said and especially important in the era of instant feedback and mimicry that takes place in the online world of photography forums. I sometimes wonder if we’ll start to see tripod manufacturers offer taller and taller models to compensate for the deeper and deeper tripod holes present at all the icons of the west.
Very well put Guy. We can not be Adams, or Rowell or anybody else regardless of how much we study them. Nor should we try. In fact, today I can not even be the same photographer that I was yesterday. I can not even revisit a spot I photographed yesterday and get the same image. Not only have the conditions changed, but so have I!
Patrick
Great post, Guy! I couldn’t agree more. Art is not technique; technique, and the study/mastery of it, is what enables artistic expression. That’s true whether you’re talking about sculpture, painting, music, photography or anything else.
I hope I’ll still be “studying” right up until about five minutes before they put me six feet under, but not because I want to be like someone else. And yes, I too am inspired by Adams.
That’s a very good point.
Unfortunately, using “Ansel Adams” in an article heading or on a magazine cover, as Outdoor Photographer does so easily and frequently, is a simple marketing trick that supposedly sells more magazines, and so it goes.
I couldn’t agree more Guy. Not only is this a misrepresentation of teachings but in my opinion leads to photographers attempting to imatate Ansel and others when the truth and power of photography can only come from within. No aritcle, no imatations, no doing it this way because someone else did. People who buy into this are missing the whole point of photography to begin with.
Thanks for the thoughts.
Well written article, Guy. I am an Ansel Adams admirer myself, and I couldn’t agree more with what you wrote. Ansel Adams developed an intricate way of creating his own form of photography and visions of art. I admire his images for the fact they are so inspiring and beautiful – it enables myself to become more creative with the skills I know now, and yet I continue to learn more each day…week…month. I know my level of photography will continue to get better over time, and that is the best part! Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
So well stated. As an instructior, my goal is always to bring out each person’s unique talents — not to turn them into “mini-me’s” or mini-anyone’s. Imitation is not the sincerest form of flattery, inspiration is.
Very well stated, Guy. Not only did Ansel Adams advocate for the environment, he advocated a great deal for photography and that is one reason all photographers stand on his shoulders, not merely artistically, which has been and will be debated. I am probably as guilty as Outdoor Photographer of mentioning Ansel’s name a lot. In a sense it is marketing, but it is also to provide the roots to the story of all landscape photography. In service to his own resume, my father rarely mentioned his having been a student, friend and teacher with Ansel, as I just did. However, dad also suffered from much more obscurity than he deserved. Nancy Newhall once said that Dad lived in Ansel’s shadow. It could be argued that if Dad had marketed himself more and found a wealthy patron of the arts to advocate his work, he might have been able to continue to stand on his own today and not have ever needed to talk about Ansel, except in private conversations of gratitude. However, it can also be shown that fine art landscape photography is a fraternity. To get into the big national museums and top galleries, it helps to be related to Ansel in some way. Heck, we all know that Ansel’s is the only name the general public knows. Also, major collectors like to be able to look up my blog and read about the connections Dad had to many of the brothers and sisters at the top of the landscape photography pantheon. In some ways it is unfortunate, but it is what it is. Perhaps people like you speaking out will help instigate change.
Very well said, Guy. Oddly enough, I never much cared for Ansel Adams work until I was well into developing my own photography style. Only fairly recently could I really begin to understand and start to appreciate his work. I simply wasn’t able to grasp it until I had aquired an understanding of the medium to some degree. The more I learn, the more I understand, the more I appreciate. Seeing others try to market his style is especially irksome. I may study his images (and others), but the idea is to look for ways to improve my own work, not copy.
Interesting post, especially since I just re-read Adam’s ‘Letters 1916-1984′ for about the hundredth time. As much as I love and admire his photographs, I find the letters to be much more inspiring.
I find that to be true of many of the masters throughout the history of photography. Reading the thoughts and ideas and struggles and life behind the work is often far more revealing and inspirational than the actual work itself.
Great post Guy. I too find it offensive when people use any excuse to name drop Ansel Adams. Without Ansel Adams, none of us would be doing what we do so for that reason alone it is impossible to “shoot like Ansel” or “be the next Ansel Adams”. It is this type of marketing that drives me nuts.
Great post. People also need to realize that the bulk of Ansel’s paid work (the work that financed his artwork) was earned from the oil conglomerates, as in EXXON, Shell, and others. So in light of that and the destruction an oil based world has caused earth his ‘environmentalism’ possibly should be viewed with caution. As for mentioning his name a lot, it is not hard to do. The advertising media has fueled that considerably, and many of his books talk about the other photographers that he work with or admired. But, the media has not found them as marketable as Ansel’s. Some of those old codgers are just a gold mine for some that came after them.
Seems I have seen a few of the very articles you refer to here, the approach sounds all too familiar. “Shoot like the pros”, “Shoot like the masters” blah blah blah. Seems you have some good starters for a fine article here Guy – perhaps you should pitch it to OP.
[...] Guy Tal has I Don’t Want to be Ansel Adams [...]
At the risk of making it worse, I will say that “Ansel Adams” is a good keyword for my dad and his work. My dad was not what you would call “close” to Ansel but they were friends, and had a great deal of mutual admiration. Ansel helped Dad’s career get started, besides another guy named David Brower. The disadvantage that I have is that I am coming on the scene after everyone, including Ansel’s own marketing people, have overused his name for 30-40 years. I am sharing real relationships and perhaps it rings hollow because everyone else has overworked the Ansel “angle.” For me it is not an “angle” just a part of dad’s life. I grew up hearing my mother call through the house to my dad, “Philip, Ansel is on the phone.” I suppose it will turn a few people off here and there but I feel sort of proprietary about being able to use Ansel’s name. Besides, Richard Wong said he didn’t think I overdo it at all, at least not until he reads this. By the way, the oil conglomerates and some of the other major industrial giants were early donors of the Sierra Club and other anti-growth, anti-development organizations like the National Audubon Society and many others. Maybe it was guilt money, often their executives were Sierra Club members. That kind of thing is still going on today, maybe more so. GE, Dupont even big tobacco companies support environmental organizations to make themselves look like they care about the environment. Dad never worked for big industrialists but my grandfather Leland Hyde, the painter, worked for Bechtel, the largest construction company in the West for years and builder of Glen Canyon Dam.
[...] did. A huge eye-roller, but instead of blogging about it, I’ll just point you over to Guy Tal’s thoughts on the subject. Sometimes I feel like I am beating my head against a brick wall when I try and get [...]
Interesting post Guy, equally interesting responses. I’ve never been a big fan of Adams’ work although I recognize it’s importance and quality. Having seen some of it in person, I found I liked some of it very much, but mostly it doesn’t speak to me. However, I find the man and his approach fascinating, inspiring, and respect him highly. The more I learn about and from him, the more I appreciate him as an artist.