In defense of Pictorialism

To the Editors:

I am troubled by a few sentences in Sandra Phillips's otherwise insightful and well-researched essay on the relationship between Ansel Adams and Alfred Stieglitz [A.i.A., Jan. '05]. She describes Adams's work in the mid-1920s as employing "the conventions of Pictorialism: evocative or transcendent use of subject, loosely arranged rather than strictly constructed composition, and atmospheric nuance." In the next sentence she defines Pictorialism as "an anti-technological photographic conceit, in which the pictures were designed to resemble works of graphic art from the late 19th century rather than actual photographs."

This definition is tee limited and more applicable to an earlier phase of Pictorialism. Many California Pictorialists who worked during the mid-1920s and 1930s (the primary period covered by the essay) were not anti-technology, they did not produce imitations of 19th-century art, nor did their work emphasize atmospheric nuance. As examples, I offer the 1920s abstractions of Fred Archer, the montages of Will Connell (both Camera Pictorialist members) and the modernist works of the Japanese Camera Pictorialists of California (who worked in Los Angeles).

After Adams abandoned Pictorialist methods, he was very public (and not alone) in his campaign against Pictorialism. This contributed, in part, to the wholesale dismissal of Pictorialism by many historians. From today's perspective I believe it is possible to admire Adams's photographic accomplishments while also accepting other approaches, including those of Pictorialists. Defining Pictorialism too narrowly perpetuates an historical cliche and does a disservice to the variety of work done by Pictorialists.

Dennis Reed

Glendale, Calif.

COPYRIGHT 2005 Brant Publications, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2005 Gale Group