Following the "Venus and Vulcan" articles published in Camera Craft written by William Mortensen that examined various approaches to photography, Group F 64 appears to have taken great offense. Two letters were published that same year, 1934.
My experience of the history of photography in California is that Group F 64 "won" the war of "purism" and "realism" over "pictorialism". Ed Weston, Ansel Adams, Imogen Cunningham went on to lead successful careers. William Mortensen was resigned to be backwaters of photography history.
Yet, in so many ways, it was William Mortensen who helped democratize photography and made it accessible to Americans. He taught and wrote about skills and techniques used in photography years before St. Ansel published his now famous series (including The Negative, The Print, etc). Specifically, William Mortensen described a system of exposure and film development that led directly to the Zone System. This was much to the horror of St. Ansel, who felt he'd made something entirely new, had written books on the subject, only to learn later though a professor he'd taught with about who had actually given rise to the concept.
Before St. Ansel was crowned King of West Coast Photography my family belonged to a little camera club in San Juan Capistrano. It was run by a photographer who'd been injured by an Indy car that'd lanced into the track-side photographers area where he was photographing an Indy 500. We learned about Weston, Adams, and other members of the original Group F 64. A few of the photographers in the club would go north to Yosemite Valley during the summer to take classes from Adams and his assistants. They'd come back and tell stories about how much fun they'd had, how their photography was vastly improved, and such and that. Those of us who couldn't afford to take classes were impressed.
Much closer to home, I grew up not far from Laguna Beach. This is where the Last Great Pictorialist, William Mortensen, lived and worked. The appellation I just give Mortensen is, of course, not strictly true. There are, even today, perfectly capable Pictorialist practioners. But I put things this way because of my own history of the place and time. I knew nothing of man even though he was situated very close to were I, too, lived. It feels all to much like a "missed opportunity."
It's interesting to me to read these raw first person histories. They're not always kind, these materials. What is striking is there's so much passion for the subject, even as I've just recently learned through a friend this passion was deliberately fueled as to stoke the fires of commercialism. Create controversy. Sell more books. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
I don't mean this to minimize William Mortensen's words. Instead, I feel what he wrote nearly 100 years ago stands true and clear in spite of any underlying commercial motivation. He roundly angered Group F 64 in the process, that's for certain. How did members of Group F 64 respond to the following?
"... The whole program of the purists inclines to overlook the basic truth that the final concern of art is not with facts, but with ideas and emotions..." ~ William Mortensen, Camera Craft, 1934
Let's have a look, shall we?
--------------------------------
Correspondence April 1934 ~
Dear Sir:
The article by William Mortensen in the February issue of Camera Craft interests me very much indeed. In a very engaging manner he has presented a point of view which paves an excellent path for discussion. As a member of GroupF64 I feel obliged to answer certain points of opinion which M. Morensen holds about us. I say "about us" - I really mean about the contemporary tendency which I feel we reflect rather than motivate. It is true that Group F64 has strenuously held to its program and ideals and has, in its short existence, produced a good deal of work. But the work of the Group is no self-assertive of Perfetion and the Ultimate. We are experimenters who are investigation, as it were, the possibilities of the pure photographic medium. We have no base our work on the photographic precedents alone; we are attempting to define photography as a fine art, and we embrace the motives and accomplishments of all contemporary art in relation to the thought (and thought-processes) of the times. We are not imitating the superficial aspects of the other art-forms; we are concerned with the essential logic of art. All art is really the expression of the same thing, and we are attempting to define the particular manner and mode of the pure photographic expression. The "Pictorialist" has acknowledged the other arts only in the imitative sense (superficially) and has neglected to remember photography in his production.
All the members of the Group F.64 are independent - and all are quite different in their essential work. The Group membership is open to anyone who comes forward with original work well done and true to the medium in the opinion of all the the Group. Regarding the name of the Group - F.64: let me offer a short history of it. For several years I had entertained the idea of forming a small group of workers in the modern idiom; finally, with the enthusiastic aid of Willard Van Dyke, the Group was organized. It was very difficult to find a suitable name - many suggestions were made but rejected on account of inadequacy, duplication, etc. They Willard Van Dyke suffered a stroke of genius and thought of "F 64." The Group immediately accepted the name. Not only have we not disowned it - we chose it enthusiastically. The name suggests precision and accuracy, and it does not men that we use only F64!
Mr. Mortensen's term "Meta-realism" is a very good term, but I do not think he has clearly defined what he means. I think that the work of the Germans of which he speaks is developed along the same general direction of the work of Paul Strand, Group F 64, etc., except that it is very unimpressive in technic and is often shallow throughout.
Also, I would like a precise definition of Mr. Mortensen's conception of Taste.
Ansel Adams
--------------------------------
A Purist's Reply to Mr. Mortensen ~ June 8, 1934
Dear Mr. Young:
It is impossible for me to take issue with Mr. Mortensen on the subject of photography, for our definitions of the medium are woo widely divergent to permit a common ground of discussion. I believe that an artist must express his time and place withing the limitations of his medium; that every medium has its limitations; and that both in his work and in his writing, Mr. Mortensen has disregarded the exigencies of photography. However his article in your last issue is convincingly written, too convincingly, to let pass certain misconceptions Mr. Mortensen seems to have in regard to the purist, which might be misleading to someone who reads one side of the story only.
Mr. Mortensen says that the work of the purist lacks subjective interest. Either he must be unobservant, or he is unfamiliar with the work. Photography is an
objective medium, true enough, but the most objective photograph is capable of
profound subjective reaction arousing a in the mind of the In the in-
spectator. In the infancy of any medium, there are produced examples which may be considered experimental, and important only as indications of a maturity of expression to come. Doubtless many of us are guilty of presenting photographs of this type. However, certain recent tendencies are away from mere pattern making toward photographs rendered in a straight manner, the interpretation of which may be considered definitely subjective. Furthermore this interpretation would be in the light of our time and our conditions, not in an escape from them into a nebulous past. Mr. Mortensen has photographed a contemporary American disguised as Cesare Borgia (who after all lived in Renaissance Italy). Does this have any meaning for a twentieth-century American, or is it merely Mr. Mortensen's attempt to escape the problems with surround him?
Unfortunately, when the question of "staticism" in portraiture is consider, Mr. Mortensen takes Ansel Adams' remarks to represent the attitude of all the workers in the pure manner. Weston definitely disagrees with this point of view, and I am sure that John Paul Edwards and Imogen Cunningham also do not agree.
As to the subject of equipment: Ansel Adams is engaged in a variety of commercial jobs with necessitate the use of several cameras and lenses. The fact that he has mastered them is to his credit. Weston, on the other hand, uses one camera for portraiture and a view camera for all other work. Most of the men I know who work in pure photography use but one camera. It is far more usual to find "gadget hounds" among the users of miniature cameras. So much for the statement that we pay "lip-homage" only, to the doctrine of simplicity.
Mr. Mortensen objects to our complete rendering of detail, and says that our records of actuality are not artistic truth, because art "is things as they are experienced, not things as they are." The art of the purist is experienced. The experiencing of an emotional reaction to the subject is the impetus which causes him to make his photograph. The subject is "seen" however, within the confines of his objective medium, and he proceeds therefore, to make a photograph in a manner which best will convey to the spectator, th truth of the subject which has caused his emotional reaction. For after all the spectator has nothing from which to react but the photographic print.
The purist is selective, although Mr. Mortensen says that this is not true. He may select subject material, point of view, film, filter, lens, and printing paper. Selectivity differentiates the photograph of artistic intent from that of mere fact transcription. I don not mean to disregard the importance of subject material, for there is no doubt in my mind that the period of technical tours de force is over, and that now, by associative connotations in the mind of the person who sees the print, subject matter must also play its part in the composition.
Yours truly, Willard Van Dyke
No comments:
Post a Comment