Ansel Adams photos taken by Uncle Earl?

An interesting story has been going on this week. A Fresno, CA man bought some B&W negative plates at a yard sale for $45 suspecting they could have been lost images taken by Ansel Adams. Some experts (although not the AA estate) claimed they were authentic AA and could be worth up to $200 million. However, now a Bay-area woman has come forward with images her Uncle Earl took that have such a resemblance to the "yard sale Ansel Adams" images that it just about proves Earl not Ansel is the original photographer. Read more about it in the links below.

Likely, those photographs aren't going to be appraised at $200 million anymore. Makes you question whether it is the art standing on its own merit or the name of the artist that determines the value/popularity of an image. It would probably be easy to shrug this story off as an example of the irrational exuberance or eccentric snobbery of some in the high-end fine art market but, personally, I think it should give photographers (and photography critics) in all markets and levels pause to reflect on whether we are appreciating the art and artists we truly like (even if they don't have a well-known name) or if we are just following the crowds...

LINKS:
http://www.ktvu.com/news/24432262/detail.html

http://www.aolnews.com/surge-desk/article/woman-from-oakland-calif-claims-to-have-solved-ansel-adams-mystery-once-and-for-all/19574153

http://www.petapixel.com/2010/07/29/ansel-adams-garage-sale-mystery-apparently-solved/

You said,

Makes you question whether it is the art standing on its own merit or the name of the artist that determines the value/popularity of an image

I don't think that's the case and you are oversimplying it. The dubious $200 million price estimate was based on it being Ansel Adams' work - but also probably inflated because the appraiser was looking to get his name in the papers and probably get some sort of fee based on the total value of the work if they are sold.

What you are forgetting is that the value isn't because it has Ansel Adams' name attached to it, it would have value because it would be HIS work and therefore at a higher artistic level than Uncle Earl's photo.

I've seen some of Picasso's sketches which of course are very rough and rudimentary compared to his final works - but they have value because of the thought process and artistic value behind the work. There are plenty of other artists who have emulated his work, and while they are quite similar, does not meet the emotion and artistic patterns of Picasso's work.

Hope that makes sense!

- Luke

That definitely makes sense Luke. I absolutely acknowledge that some artists deserve name recognition and success, even for their early, rudimentary works, maybe because they consistently created works that stood above their peers (for whatever reason, aesthetic or technical) or perhaps developed innovative processes that may have revolutionized their fields throughout their careers. AA most certainly could be labeled as such an artist. Although I also agree that the $200 million appraisals seemed far-fetched and a result of the media frenzy of this story (thus my statement about how the "crowd" sort of got out of hand here) rather than for an honest insight into the thought process of one of the "masters."

I hope they are Uncle Earl's. One of the claims I found most baseless among the wish-they-were-Adams folks was that the negs were simply too well-exposed to be the work of an amateur.

They make a compelling case for the negatives being Ansel's, especially the Jeffrey Pine on Sentinel Dome where all of the analysis of the weather time of year, snow on the mountains etc was done. Also some of the technicals on the glass plate size and aging on the chemicals on the negatives. This is something that will never be proven beyond a doubt, because the photographer who took the image is long gone. The trust is going to attack these images even if they believed they were Adam's work, it becomes competition. All of the other negatives are housed in archives and no further images will likely be printed from them no matter how fine they might be. On the other side if they aren't Adam's images but the work of some other very talented and technically proficient photographer from that time period it would render them virtually worthless except to a person who appreciates fine images printed from real glass negatives of that age. So it boils down to the money. I don't think Norsigian hired all of these experts expecting negative results but if we don't question their integrity he may have a point. The printing and selling of the prints seems almost sacrilegious and without Ansel's opinion argument seems pointless. However even the supposed Adams prints sold by the trust not actually printed by him aren't an Adams print at all either in the photographer's own opinion. To Adams it was the entire process the exposure of the negative was just the composition of the score, the darkroom and printing the rehearsal and the print the final performance. So only a print taken through the entire process by the master Adams is unjustifiably an original Ansel Adams, now damn me for my heresy but I think Ansel would agree.

Paul

Fascinating from a lot of perspectives! After looking at the overlays of the Jeffrey Pine photos (second link), there definitely is some kind of mystery here.

I caught a quick blurb recently on my local news that one of the experts that had originally verified the negatives provenance has now changed their mind and recanted. So what's the real story, did Norsigian not pay them all the money he owed them? Did the Trust pay them to change their mind? Did the expert have a sudden attack of conscience (least likely). The reason given for the change was that they talked further with a relative of this mysterious Uncle Earl. ( Sounds pretty weak to me). My question is if the " Uncle Earl" was such a proficient ( technically and artistically) photographer why have I never seen any of his work before ( I have numerous books with photos of Yosemite and books by other Black and White photographers) or even heard of him until these negatives appeared.One other point not mentioned is Ansel made thousands of negatives during his career some in the possession of the trust and others stored in archives. In addition to the ones in Arizona I have been told that Long Beach State university has a collection of his negatives for study. My point is in perfecting his craft , style and darkroom expertise Adams made a ton of images. So where are the rest of "Uncle Earl's" in future Fresno garage sales? This story just gets more tangled and confusing of course it's just about the money really which is sad. I personally have bought a couple of old black and white photos of Yosemite in Antique malls ( inexpensive by the way ) and they were bought for the history and to compare to my own Black and White conversions I have done of my images from there. Doesn't matter who took them to me. I'm not sure even if I had the money to buy an image either from the "lost negatives" or "The Trust" ( who by the way are only in this for the money too, including Ansel's son ) that I would.

Paul

My question is if the " Uncle Earl" was such a proficient ( technically and artistically) photographer why have I never seen any of his work before ( I have numerous books with photos of Yosemite and books by other Black and White photographers) or even heard of him until these negatives appeared.

I think you'll find in most artistic fields plenty of outstanding folks who aren't famous or recognized. Sometimes because they don't want to be, and sometimes because they are simply overlooked. Either way, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find many gifted photographers from the 20th century who no one has heard of.

David,

Ever hear of D Griffiths , Neil M Judd, JE Stimson , Edgar Lowell Steede, George Alexander Grant or Karl Birdsall. These photographers were pre Ansel by a decade or Adams contemperaries. They all had Black and White images in a book I purchased called " The Unspoiled West" by Jerome Prescott. The photographer JE Stimson worked from the 1890's until 1942 His life's work consists of 7,520 known images and glass plate negatives . First let me categorically state I'm in neither camp on the negatives in question just posting my thoughts and it just occurred to me that in order to reach the level of skill and technique to make negatives that would "fool" experts "Uncle Earle" must have a tremendous body of work, which probably puts him out of the "Hobby" category into that of a working photographer ( especially for the time period were speaking off.) . I hope someday to discover something published and credited to him or printed from a negative signed by him. I was just thinking in print and I obviously touched a nerve.

Paul

Paul - While some of the names look familiar, I'm not sure I've ever heard of anyone you mentioned. I realize that it's not likely that Earl would be so good and yet unknown, but I'm saying it's possible. No real way to prove that of course, other than to note that there are lots of artists who aren't appreciated for a long time. I'm assuming that Earl would have a large body of work, even if no one knows about it.

I guess I'm saying that just because they are excellent photos doesn't mean people have heard of the photographer - that's not any kind of proof.

David,

Interesting byplay here and discussion. I'd love to see more of "Uncle Earl's" work surface and this whole tempest in a teapot calmed down. I do agree that excellent photo's by an elusive "relative" unknown are not only possible but out there. Yet the other photographers named had their own distinctive styles that while in the same medium do not resemble Adam's images. So I chew on another thought, could Uncle Earl have been emulating Ansel? Not likely ( but possible) Ansel's fame really didn't really start to take off until the fifties and sixties after the National Parks project. So if Ansel wasn't a well known artist in the mid to late twenties it would be a convergence and epic coincidence (or Uncle Earl was an active and avid reader of some of the Photo publications of the time) that the two would separately develop a very similar and almost identical distinctive expressive imagery.

Thanks for the thoughtful replies David,

Regards Paul

...the level of skill and technique to make negatives that would "fool" experts...

Just wanted to say one more thing, Paul. Norsigian bought these things in 2000 - 10 years ago. Since then, there has been a lot of disputes and various "experts" disagreeing whether or not they could be Adams. The news story about the "200 million dollars" (a totally made up number) has come out recently because Mr. Norsigian finally found someone willing to stand up and proclaim that they are Adams'. That's shady in and of itself.

So it's not a case of all the experts agreeing, and this one woman claiming her uncle took them. It's much more disputed than that.

It's too bad that Uncle Earl and Ansel are no longer around---this whole deal could be settled pretty easily if the were!

Paul: While Ansel's broader popularity did increase markedly in the 50's, his work was already well known and his prints were available at Best's Studio (aka Ansel Adams Gallery) for many years. It is very possible that Uncle Earl, and others, attempted to replicate some of Ansel's work way back when.

In my very humble opinion, until forensic (quantitative) testing is done on the plates, we cannot ascribe the images to Ansel. Even with such testing, it may not be possible. Also, in my opinion, Norsigian et. al. are looking to make money off of this. It would be nice if there was conclusive proof one way or another, but it looks like the only folks who will profit from this whole cluster function is the lawyers.

--P

Ok, Ok I've kinda been dancing around just coming out and saying it, well typing it. IMHO opinion it doesn't matter whose negatives they are and that includes any negatives that belong to the AA trust if Adams doesn't print the negatives it isn't an original Ansel Adams image. Once Ansel no longer printed his own negatives "new" original Ansel Adam's prints ceased production, period. I believe Ansel would agree if you read enough of his writings on the subject. So that being said whether or not the Norsigian glass plates were taken by Uncle Earl or Ansel Adams makes no never mind to me. I just found the discussion fascinating and being a little of the devil's advocate especially where the trust is concerned, thought and commented on the thread . More power to Uncle Earl if he made images that were comparable to a master of 20th century photography. I would be interested in a book of all the images including the ones the relative in the bay area supposedly possesses. That would be very interesting to study. I would never buy a Norsigian print or a print that was not certified as printed by Ansel and I would probably never be able to afford one.


Paul