The 1983 Ansel Adams Playboy interview

Retro-Grouch said:
That "golden era" for Playboy was also an era of intense feminist activism, of which Adams and the literary giants mentioned by Judge Holden were doubtless aware. I would have had far more respect for the cultural notables who refused to engage with Playboy, and called it out for the sexist and misogynist institution it was.
Click to expand...
I'm surprised that you focus on this aspect, instead of Adam's proclaimed love for 'electronic' or digital photography. As a dedicated wet darkroom photographer, I'd expected you'd focus on this aspect of the interview. Or are you in a dark corner mourning a master analog photographer gone bad? Cheers, OtL
 
Last edited:
Judge Holden said:
Indeed. After Hefner's passing and when #metoo was in full swing, I remember reading an article on the misogyny of Playboy. There was a feminist journalist interviewed in the piece (I unfortunately forget both her name and where this article appeared, otherwise I'd link it), who had been commissioned to write an article surveying the feminist movement at the time, and she recounted how the editors spiked not only a lot of the more radical content, but a lot of the content that discussed positive feminist possibilities for men's involvement in feminism. Instead, what was focused on was a portrayal of feminists as ugly, loathsome man-haters. This is obviously one small example of Playboy's history of sexism, but your comment about the contemporary feminist movement brought it to mind.

Certainly, I did not intend to gloss over the sexism of Playboy in my comment, but in my attempt to defend one of the merits of the magazine, I understand how it could be taken as uncritical praise or admiration, a belief I do not hold, nor wish to convey. Thank you for not letting that slide in the discussion.
Click to expand...
Sorry if my post was taken as a criticism of you, personally. Certainly not my intent; that would have been a case of shooting the messenger!
 
Out to Lunch said:
I'm surprised that you focus on this aspect, instead of Adam's proclaimed love for 'electronic' or digital photography. As a dedicated wet darkroom photographer, I'd expected you'd focus on this aspect of the interview. Or are you in a dark corner mourning a master analog photographer gone bad? Cheers, OtL
Click to expand...
I have no argument with anyone's choice of tools, whether analog or digital, and I don't recall ever having taken an anti-digital stance in this forum; good work is good work, and it would have been interesting to see what Ansel would have done in the digital age had he lived longer. His positive take on the potential for electronic photography has been published elsewhere, often. What's in question here is not the content of the interview, but his decision to lend his artistic and intellectual status to an offensively misogynist institution that was seeking to bolster its credibility by encouraging recognized cultural figures to contribute to its publication. I doubt that Ansel needed the money by that point in his career, and find his decision to contribute to Playboy regrettable. We all have our lapses of judgement; his work stands on its own, and it's a very slippery slope when we start judging an artist's work by the conduct of their personal life. Probably very few artists could withstand that scrutiny. In short, I am not "mourning" Ansel from a dark corner. I just think he made a mistake in his personal conduct.
 
Retro-Grouch said:
What's in question here is not the content of the interview, but his decision to lend his artistic and intellectual status to an offensively misogynist institution that was seeking to bolster its credibility by encouraging recognized cultural figures to contribute to its publication.
Click to expand...
Hmm... This is a limited point of view, in my opinion, when you consider that Playboy is considered one of the early actors in the sexual revolution, breaking the imposed barriers of good taste and morals imposed by a variety of religious institutions. With regard to Adam's motivation, he stated that he wanted to reach a wider audience. Keep in mind that he was preceded by many of his contemporaries: Saul Bellow, John Updike, Doris Lessing, Irwin Shaw, Arthur Koestler, John Irving, Nadine Gordimer, and Kurt Vonnegut, to name a few. When I was a kid, all the books in the public library were color coded so I had to bribe my older sisters to get the interesting stuff. We don't want to go back to that time. I recommend David Halberstam's The Fifties in which he describes the early days of Playboy. Cheers, OtL
 
I got a subscription to Playboy while I was in high school. Of course I was interested in the naked ladies (I was a typical high school boy) but I also aspired to become a writer some day. Playboy had the reputation of being the highest paying publication in America for fiction and it often had short stories by many of the best writers of the day. There was excellent fiction there--something hard to find today.

Alas, my dreams of becoming a new Hemingway faded in time. (But I still liked the pictures.) Today I look back and think a lot of the "Playboy Philosophy" articles were sorta childish and egomaniacal. But I cannot jump on the bandwagon to condemn a cultural phenomenon like Playboy. Like the guy says, it's easy to be a Monday morning quarterback--to look back and find faults. I'm okay with past faults. They can't be changed today and they're easy to find. We just need to learn from them and move on.
 
I'm an old "stick in the mud" and one thing I thoroughly despise is a YouTube video of someone talking and opining about a written piece of work.

For anyone else who might feel this way, and still interested in what Ansel Adams had to say, you might want to read the interview for yourself here:

Ansel Adams Playboy Interview

Best,
-Tim
 
Timmyjoe said:
one thing I thoroughly despise is a YouTube video of someone talking and opining about a written piece of work.

For anyone else who might feel this way, and still interested in what Ansel Adams had to say, you might want to read the interview for yourself here:
Click to expand...
That link was posted a while back but thanks for letting us know what you despise. Cheers, OtL
 
Out to Lunch said:
That link was posted a while back but thanks for letting us know what you despise. Cheers, OtL
Click to expand...
You're welcome Out to Lunch, but you really should go back and re-title this thread to make it more accurate. Something along the lines of "YouTuber self promotes while opining on 1983 Playboy interview with Ansel Adams" Otherwise, folks like myself, who click on this thread in hopes of reading the actual Playboy Inteview, will be disappointed.

And I know you don't want to disappoint old "stick in the muds" like myself. 😜😜😜

Best,
-Tim

PS: And I'm sorry, maybe it's my aging eyes, but I just went back thru the thread and still don't see the link to the actual Playboy interview. aside from the one I posted.
 
Out to Lunch said:
Hmm... This is a limited point of view, in my opinion, when you consider that Playboy is considered one of the early actors in the sexual revolution, breaking the imposed barriers of good taste and morals imposed by a variety of religious institutions. With regard to Adam's motivation, he stated that he wanted to reach a wider audience. Keep in mind that he was preceded by many of his contemporaries: Saul Bellow, John Updike, Doris Lessing, Irwin Shaw, Arthur Koestler, John Irving, Nadine Gordimer, and Kurt Vonnegut, to name a few. When I was a kid, all the books in the public library were color coded so I had to bribe my older sisters to get the interesting stuff. We don't want to go back to that time. I recommend David Halberstam's The Fifties in which he describes the early days of Playboy. Cheers, OtL
Click to expand...
I think it's crucial to make a clear distinction between the "sexual revolution" as promoted by Playboy and others, and the true revolution in consciousness and human relations that was (and is) the goal of Feminism. Not that there isn't some overlap; anything that sought to break the tyranny of church and state over women's minds and bodies is a good thing. But Playboy wasn't really fighting for women's economic and social equality, nor for their bodily autonomy. It promoted an amoral world view in which women's sexual freedom was really the freedom to be the playthings of men, sexually willing and available. Think of the "Playboy Bunnies", hardly the stuff of a revolution in consciousness, but certainly the stuff of too many men's fantasies.
 
I noticed @Merg Ross just posted a link in the LFPF forums:

Ansel Adams Interview/ 1983

This is a good interview covering the life, times and philosophy of Ansel. Even includes his recipe for a Dry Martini. He died the following year. https://www.davidsheff.com/ansel-adams
www.largeformatphotography.info

Is this the same interview as @Out to Lunch alluded to in Post #1?

Ansel Adams — DAVID SHEFF

www.davidsheff.com www.davidsheff.com
I think it is the most expressive and opinionated I have seen of Adams. Wasn't expecting some of that.
 
Last edited:
Retro-Grouch said:
That "golden era" for Playboy was also an era of intense feminist activism, of which Adams and the literary giants mentioned by Judge Holden were doubtless aware. I would have had far more respect for the cultural notables who refused to engage with Playboy, and called it out for the sexist and misogynist institution it was.
Click to expand...
Retro-Grouch said:
I think it's crucial to make a clear distinction between the "sexual revolution" as promoted by Playboy and others, and the true revolution in consciousness and human relations that was (and is) the goal of Feminism. Not that there isn't some overlap; anything that sought to break the tyranny of church and state over women's minds and bodies is a good thing. But Playboy wasn't really fighting for women's economic and social equality, nor for their bodily autonomy. It promoted an amoral world view in which women's sexual freedom was really the freedom to be the playthings of men, sexually willing and available. Think of the "Playboy Bunnies", hardly the stuff of a revolution in consciousness, but certainly the stuff of too many men's fantasies.
Click to expand...

It's worth noting that Germaine Greer, one of the foremost feminists of the era, did an interview with Playboy herself - Germaine Greer: Playboy Interview (1972) - in which she's similarly critical of Playboy. She got some flak for doing that interview, but I think it makes for a good read, and I applaud Playboy for running it. It has some absolutely cracking responses from Greer in it:

GREER: I’m simply against showing girls as if they were pork chops. Why should women’s bodies be this sort of physical fetish? Why can’t their bodies just be an extension of their personalities, the way a man supposes his body is? No, I’m not against nudity, and I will pay dues to Playboy when it runs a man in the gatefold. You can even keep the Playmate.
Click to expand...

As for the line "but Playboy wasn't really fighting for women's economic and social equality, nor for their bodily autonomy"... this podcast is worth a listen: Episode 246: The Kit (12.1.2023)

I'm a big fan of Criminal, even though I can't stomach most of the True Crime fetishism that seems to be all the rage right now; it deals with a lot of hard topics in a very gentle, balanced, and kind way. But this one is particularly interesting, as it talks about how the "rape kit" came to be. And, oddly enough, it's Playboy that really enabled its creation. The analysis of this (and the response to it) from the kit's inventor is interesting; nothing is ever really black and white in this world.

Don't take this as me arguing for Playboy, merely arguing against a modern-day demolition of something by divorcing it from a larger context. I don't think Hefner should be lauded as some paragon of liberation, but he (and Playboy) are both a long way from the Great Misogynist Evil they can be made out to be.
 
Regardless of whatever level of misogyny Playboy created (or fed off of) I doubt it moved one degree this way or that on account of Ansel Adams doing an interview with them. Are we supposed to believe Adams giving an interview somehow stoked misogyny, and that him not giving an interview would've solved it? It seems a bit silly.

In any event, it's really neither here nor there. Ansel has some interesting ideas, and unlike our video reviewer I don't think he is necessarily being inconsistent with his values and their application. Ansel's comments reminded me that a few years ago we had a thread on this forum about art and artists, and I'm sure he'd think a number of our forum members to be shallow and stupid if he had to read some of the comments that were made in it. His distinction between snapshots (or simple images) and art is relevant, and perhaps his opinions on automation and the lack of thought it encourages are all the more salient today with thoughtless AI-generated slop now polluting the internet, and the AI sloppers pretending to be artists.

His comments on nuclear power are somewhat funny, he didn't live long enough to see Chernobyl.
 
Mos6502 said:
Regardless of whatever level of misogyny Playboy created (or fed off of) I doubt it moved one degree this way or that on account of Ansel Adams doing an interview with them. Are we supposed to believe Adams giving an interview somehow stoked misogyny, and that him not giving an interview would've solved it? It seems a bit silly.
Click to expand...
Integrity and ethics are never silly, even when their pursuit proves ineffectual. Sometimes one should just do the right thing, regardless. Adams neither stoked nor solved the problem of misogyny in his interview, but the presence of that interview with him as a respected public figure contributed, to some degree, to Playboy's status as an authoritative institution, one whose values should be accorded respect.
I feel that Adams made a poor choice in associating with Playboy.
 
A little more insight into Ansel's approach: a short interview with his son Michael.

Exclusive - Ansel Adams' Yosemite Landscape Photography​

 
Given the date of the interview, tjhis is an interesting comment from Adams.

'Already, I can’t make a print with the quality of laser-scan printing, and who knows what is going to come?'

I know I can't make a darkroom print as good as an inkjet, but that may just be me and lack of practice for... years. However, perhaps I'm not alone;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top