What I found most interesting about Nancy Newhall’s essay about Ansel Adams’ was that she went into great detail about who Adams was as a person, and how his personality and interests informed his work, instead of simply focusing on the work itself. Learning of Adams’ background in classical piano and the way he thinks of “the negative [as] the score; the print [as] the performance,” gives me a new and different perspective of the photographic process. Especially during a time in history when photography was not fully accepted as more than a recording device, this comparison seems important for bringing the two art forms closer together.
Adams states that his work should speak for itself, saying “[a] true photograph need not be explained, nor can be contained in words,” and I feel that Newhall was successful in describing Adams’ thought processes and inspiration without taking away from or spoon feeding the viewer the intentions of his photographs. Although I appreciate her approach, I can definitely understand why some people feel her writings could benefit from a more critical analysis of Adam’s work. In knowing that Newhall worked so closely with Adams, it seems that her evaluation is a tad bias, although this may have been exactly what photography needed at the time. Her outright enthusiasm for Adams’ photographic process, technique and skill strongly emphasized the work that goes into taking a beautiful photograph, something that often goes unappreciated.
1 comment:
Learning about Adams' history and background in music was really interesting to hear for the first time. I think it's great how he integrates the musical background that he has into his entire process of making and creating his photos. I didn't realize though that Newhall was so close with Adams' and I can understand the biased aspect of the reflection. But I do agree that the description of his works was worded well and gave a great glimpse at Adams' and the way he worked.
Post a Comment