Pictorlism

I've recently discovered the work of William Mortensen, purchased a couple of his books from the '30s on posing and lighting, and read a little bit about the controversy that surrounded him.

Two subjects that bring out controversy here at eccie are the use of photoshop and politics. This guy was essentially doing "photoshop" by hand in the 1930's, and on the political side was labeled as "The Anti-Christ" by none other than Ansel Adams, who made ruining Mortensen one of his life's goals.

There truly is an tide to the affairs of men. Long after both men are dead and Mortensen largely forgotten, buried by Adams and his followers, the digital age is making a revival of his style of "pictoralism" a permanent part of the world of photography.

Some of his photographs are very elegant, and sensual, and don't look like photographs at all.

http://www.google.com/search?q=willi...w=1680&bih=904

Did Mortensen’s depiction of nudes have anything to do with the artistic differences, since Adams is known primarily for his landscapes? Some of Mortensen’s work is eerily similar to Goya’s.

Did Mortensen’s depiction of nudes have anything to do with the artistic differences, since Adams is known primarily for his landscapes? Some of Mortensen’s work is eerily similar to Goya’s. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I think Adams also did people, at least some portraits, but not sure about nudes. Adams and his followers (known as the f64 group) were "purists", or at least presented themselves as such, discouraging manipulation of photos or using them for anything other than "realism". There are still those who claim film is the only "true" photography. A few years ago an old geezer at the bar in El Paso got all over my case for switching to digital, he bragged that Adams had allowed him to use his mobile dark room once etc.

It's interesting, in my very limited readings on art, that the "impressionist" movement started in order to try to differentiate painting from the new fangeled photography that was quickly taking over the "realist" role in imaging. They even "cropped" their paintings analogous to the way a camera crops a scene. Then you have Mortensen, trying to take it the other way by making photos more like drawings or paintings.

Adams "won" because he's probably the most widely known photographer in the world today and succeeded in convincing most publications and galleries to boycott Mortensen. But digital manipulation is now at least as common, if not more so than "pure" photography, with people doing things Mortensen could only dream about.

The simple fact is that both made great contributions, it' s too bad professional politics suppressed the Mortensen school for so long. Art, like many things in art isn't (or shouldn't be) "all or nothing".

I've enjoyed photography as a hobby for a few decades now, but I have to say I also love playing on the computer after the fact. Photoshop is Phunn!

fyi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Mortensen

he died of luekemia

The Dali in me loves this stuff.
Thank you Iaintliein.