Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/11/19
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Gosh...If all this energy went into taking photographs.....we'd actually learn something. - -----Original Message----- From: Marc James Small [mailto:msmall@roanoke.infi.net] Sent: Friday, November 19, 1999 2:45 PM To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: Re: [Leica] I can't believe I'm losing this argument At 02:08 PM 11/19/1999 -0800, Ted Grant wrote: >Before you subject yourself to embarrassment and mental harassment save >your breathe my friend. It's a complete non issue, as the guy is dead and >who cares as it was yesterday, last year, the past decade and beyond! No, it is NOT a "non-issue". The saga of how we got where we are today is vitally important to understanding our present position. On any issue, at any time. "Those who ignore the lessons of the past are bound to repeat the mistakes", or however it goes. I agree shooting pictures is worth-while, or I'd not do it. But, and this is a vital "but", we cannot neglect trying to fix the historic record as accurately as we might. Let us suppose Mike Johnston is correct, and Adams rarely, if ever, used any 35mm camera. Then, Adams lied in the promos he did for Leica and in his various writings and Jim Brick hallucinated. (The last is unlikely, but not, I guess, beyond the realm of possibility, Jim Brick living on the Left Coast and all <he grins broadly>) That paints Adams as being dishonest. His present reputation is that he was curt and rude and a bit nasty, on occasion; this would make him a liar in addition. Let us suppose Jim and Eric are correct, and Adams really liked the Contax RF over the Leica RF and learned to like the Leica R towards the end of his life. Then, in that event, Adams becomes someone who would sell his endorsement, as he certainly DID endorse Leica in the early 1950's. Which, ultimately, makes him no more of a prostitute than most of our modern pro atheletes, but still puts a twist on his reputation. (Imagine Dr Grace endorsing, say, Hammersley's Cricket Shoes! The very thought! Or, even worse, Malone standing up, in public, for O'Donnachaidh's Rugby Clothing, for fine gentlemen, and Purveyor to the Prince of Wales. Shock! and Horror!) (Though, the last might cause shock and horror more from the thought of "dear Bertie, as Flashy calls him, in a rugby uniform than for the sheer commercialism of it all, though Malone WAS a friend of the noted George Edward Challenger.) Then, let us suppose we are correct, and Adams did prefer the Contax RF to the Leica RF, but learned to love the Hasselblad MF SLR and the Leica R4 before his death. Then, his endorsement of the Leica RF do moulder a bit, but are explainable, as explainable as Arthur Clarke simultaneously doing an advert for Questar and writing an essay attacking the practice of manufacturers for giving away their wares in return for promos -- and both the advert and the essay were run in the same issue of HOLIDAY, back in the late '50's or early '60's.) Any of these three scenarios might be accurate. No, they do not explain much about the wonderful work of Adams, any more than does a knowledge of his oestensible rudeness. But they complete the picture of the man, make him whole and entire in our minds, so to say. And this can be important to an understanding of his ouevre. (I am no revisionist, and I am certainly no deconstructionist, to contend that "art must be judged by art itself" -- the last deconstructionist I discussed this with also claimed that "the sole purpose of art is to shock and offend, as that is the only way to produce true thought". Damn foolishness, the lot of such beliefs.) And by understanding Adams, we have to view him as the ultimate perfectionist, proud of his work but also confident in his knowledge of the gear and emulsions available to him, willing to drive six hours into the desert in a creaky car to shoot a picture at a certain time of day with only a single sheet of film, as "I only needed a single exposure to get it right". (My father commanded an anti-aircraft battery in Alaska during the War. He knew an Aleut widow who would hunt caribou with a .22 rifle and a single cartridge, as "that is all I need". She always came back with a caribou draped over her shoulders, off to feed her kids.) History is important. Ted, you have LIVED history, and you should know this, more than most of us. Marc Marc msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315 Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir!