Ansel Adams

  Throughout that time, we agreed only on one thing: the value of nuclear power. As might be expected, we agreed for different reasons. Though I am totally opposed to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, I have been at odds for many years with those who are adamantly against nuclear power. I reminded President Reagan that the burning of fossil fuels pollutes water and air, reducing the ozone layer of the atmosphere and bringing acid rain. His curt reply was, “There is considerable scientific disagreement about the causes of acid rain.”

  Many of my friends are shocked by my support for nuclear power. I feel that unless we stop polluting our atmosphere we will poison ourselves and be just as dead as the bomb would make us. Nuclear power is, of course, potentially dangerous if less than perfectly managed. If very carefully controlled in every respect, it should provide all the energy required until fusion power is fully developed. The problem lies largely in the modern demand for energy, the wasteful use of power, and the finite limit of natural resources. Hence, I favor what I consider to be the lesser of two evils and support nuclear power. I find that most opposition brings forth no constructive alternatives, no answers that provide for our future power needs.

  Fusion power is the ideal solution to the energy problem, and its development should be given highest priority. In May 1983 we were invited to visit the Lawrence Livermore Laboratories to see the great installations in magnetic and laser fusion research. It was an enormously impressive experience, and, with the thought of what safe fusion power could contribute to the world’s energy supply, I became more confident in the future. During my visit with President Reagan, I suggested that he take ten billion dollars from his defense program and apply it to a crash program for magnetic fusion development. Reagan raised an eyebrow at my temerity, but I believe it is obvious that once fusion power is achieved, the energy shortage will be past and we will be independent of foreign fuels. In 1902 the automobile was in its infancy and the airplane an insubstantial dream. From the two-cylinder gas buggy to magnetic fusion is a giant stride, but, incredibly it can be accomplished during one lifetime.

  I was negatively impressed with Reagan’s failure to discuss or challenge my opinions at every turn. When I attacked the environmental policies of James Watt, the President rejoined, “James Watt is a remarkable person; he is doing exactly what I want him to do.” He then continued, “Anne Gorsuch Burford was shamefully railroaded out of her position. She was doing an excellent job.” After I left the President, all I could think of as a suitably concise description of our meeting was “When the vacuum hit the fan!”

  The flow of bilge from the Reagan administration is a blot upon our history of literacy. Reagan, with his smooth, unctuous repetitions, merely confirms our national style—which, of course, will not be remembered as one of our great historic legacies but may well be part of what brings us to our knees if our spirits fail and our resources fade. It is not good for the mind to rely upon the crutch of quotations, except when they are poignantly to the point. I thank Adlai Stevenson for the following, “Republicans stroke platitudes until they glow as epigrams.” I believe I am completely justified in my very strong criticism of the Reagan administration and most of the characters who inhabit it; but do I stroke accusations until they become mindless hostilities? I tried to keep this question in mind when I was interviewed by the Washington Post the morning after the Reagan-Adams meeting. I did fairly well with my recollections of the meeting. The interview was reproduced worldwide, not without effect.

  While Reagan and I talked about many environmental issues, the time slipped by and was gone before I was able to cover the subject of urgent need for protection of California’s Big Sur Coast. I first saw the whole length of the glorious Big Sur in the 1930s. Virginia and I accompanied William Colby on one of many trips we made with him all about California as he searched out appropriate scenic lands for preservation efforts. This excursion was a revelation. The coastal region beginning just south of Carmel to the borders of San Luis Obispo County, about ninety miles, is the most impressive landscape of its kind in the country. The Santa Lucia Mountains drop for thousands of feet to the sea, creating a complex of shore and surf that comprises an American treasure. The Big Sur Coast is truly of national importance and therefore deserves national protection; it is undoubtedly among the most beautiful of the untouched lands and certainly should be secured and protected for the future.

  The two-lane road through Big Sur has bumper-to-bumper traffic much of the year. Millions of tourists traveling between Los Angeles and San Francisco use this scenic highway. Mountains would have to be destroyed to increase it to four lanes. Every time a house is built on top of a coastal mountain, the access road slashes a raw scar across its face, visible from land, air, and sea. Mining companies must be held in check as they hungrily await the chance to pulverize Big Sur mountains, such as Pico Blanco, into limestone ore. Proposals to build resort hotels and homes abound, with no understanding of the fragility of our splendid coast. I have seen the environmental devastation of the famed French Riviera. Buildings crowd one upon another, from water’s edge to mountaintop. The subsequent air pollution produces thickly veiled views. It once had a very similar beauty to our Big Sur.

  I believe that many of the residents of Big Sur deeply desire that the area be protected for the future; they vary in their philosophy of how this may be accomplished. Some claim that for more than fifty years they have protected the coast and there is no reason why they cannot continue to do so. Some wish to retain development rights. Some want to save the coast, but also desire to retain the right to develop their own property. Those who cultivate marijuana back in its hills and valleys have been, of course, quite negative to the “Feds.” Many Big Sur residents fear the government would move in and take over their land without due process and full value purchase. They are dangerously naïve: modern political and financial pressures for development and commercialism are much more sophisticated and powerful than those of the past. Individualism is commendable, but I believe the public good takes precedence over any private advantage. Due to these beliefs, I became the recipient of anonymous threats, such as, “The People of Big Sur Await Your Sudden Death!”

  I had first thought of the National Park Service’s entering the scene with a plan similar to the Cape Cod National Seashore, by which both the land and the life-style of the residents were protected from the ravages of exploitation. Later, because of the proximity along the entire eastern border of the area of the Los Padres National Forest and the Ventana Wilderness, it seemed logical that the control of the area should come under the United States Forest Service. Control was intended as appropriate management and protection of the area, including the right of first refusal of sale of land and the maintenance of the qualities of any improvements that were logical and helpful to the project as a whole.

  A major political struggle began. The good functions of the Big Sur Land Trust in making possible considerable reserved areas, as well as the continuing acquisitions of state park lands, hold much promise for the future. The Big Sur Foundation, under the leadership of Will Shaw, a distinguished architect and planner, and the brilliant young attorney Saunders Hillyer, undertook serious study of the legal and political aspects of the project. I have served as vice president of that organization since its founding in 1977. We had good support from important politicians and organizations in Washington, notably California Senator Alan Cranston and Bill Turnage of The Wilderness Society. Big Sur became a leading project for the society and remains high on its agenda. Strangely enough, the Sierra Club has evidenced small interest in this project, although the local Ventana chapter members are supportive.

  Senator Cranston and our very excellent Congressman Leon Panetta formulated a bill that cleared the House of Representatives and would have passed the Senate in the closing session of 1980 except for the delaying tactics of former Senator S. I. Hayakawa. Certainly the worst senator from California in history in the areas of conservation and the environmen
t, Hayakawa denied the people of the United States protection for the Big Sur Coast. I hope that history will not be kind to his type of conservatism and insensitivity. We continue the fight and are determined that the protection of Big Sur will be achieved.

  When I say to a congressman or senator, “You know, I am really not a politician,” they smile. It seems that when one gets passionate about a subject he becomes political. As a private citizen I can come forward with very strong concepts and opinions. To appease a diverse electorate the professional politician must understandably guard both tongue and pen; the doing is more vital than the talking.

  In two recent, and typical, letters written to Senator Cranston shortly after the resignation of Secretary of the Interior James Watt, I stated:

  March 20, 1983

  Dear Alan,

  I have been thinking of you daily! The situation in the domain of the “All Highest” seems to be deteriorating. One down, one to go! It is not a laughing matter!

  I am trying to put together a letter which will express my convictions—I think all citizens should express themselves. I find it difficult to maintain objectivity in the face of both the ridiculous and the terrifying. I do not like to think we are coming apart at the seams. But when I see Falwell on TV and Reagan in action, I wonder if any man can carry the load of reconstruction over the years to come.…

  As ever,

  Ansel Adams

  June 25, 1983

  Dear Alan,

  We need fire, not glowing embers! We do not need hyperbole or bantering. I am waiting for a bit of wrath and outrage, expressed in the consistent mood of dignity and concern, impact and compassion. Like a full orchestra, not just a string quartet!

  A sense of compassion is extremely important. It’s what Reagan ain’t got! He has “jollyfication.” When severe, he reminds me of a school teacher I had, or the leading man in a righteous play.

  Especially of late, it seems obvious that he is reading his speeches; he has a gifted writer who can string words together with a melliferous intention—and not much else.

  I wish I were forty again. I would respond with joy and energy to a “Let’s Go” syndrome with all I’ve got. Maybe that would be a good punch line.

  Virginia and I send our affectionate greetings to you and Norma. LET’S GO!!!

  Ansel

  I have known many great people in California’s history, spanning my sixty active years. But I have never been in contact with a public official of such integrity, imagination, concern, and effectiveness as Alan Cranston. Based on personal contact and observation of results, I have found him to be a great leader, one who transcends party politics for causes of essential human importance. I first met Alan when we began working together for the protection of Big Sur. I particularly remember one conversation with him at Point Lobos, as we gazed out at the glorious ocean and its kelp beds, watching the sea otters play in the surf. Alan expressed his fears for the future of our land, sea, and air, and his concern for the devastation that is mindlessly wrought on our environment. He spoke of the near and far future of the world and of his staunch commitment to protect our planet for the generations to come. His leadership gives me hope.

  I chide my Republican friends on their misinterpretation of the term “capital.” They say they are concerned with security of property and money, collectively known as capital. “Capital” in this sense is actually the interest and dividends from exploitation of the earth and its manifold benefits. I reply that the only true capital is the resources of the earth, and misguided Republicans that they are, they are actually invading our basic capital at the expense of the future.

  Nature is always better when left to itself—but for what purpose? The dichotomy between our need for minerals, timber, and pasture and the equally valid need for nonmaterial experiences has persistently disturbed me. While I have been verbally aggressive about park and wilderness concepts and values, I have never been opposed to the presence of man in considered and appropriate relationship to the world.

  When I was young I traveled alone or with a friend or two of sympathetic outlook, wandering about the mountains for days or weeks without contact with the outside world. The wilderness became a private domain and the unexpected appearance of strangers seemed an intrusion or even trespass. I outgrew this youthful assumption. Starry-eyed reaction to the splendors of nature is an invaluable experience for everyone, provided it is tempered in time with a realization that this reaction hopefully exists for the many rather than the few. We must seek the healing that peace on earth and the wise use of its bounty can bring to all of us. Plato wrote in The Republic:

  Until philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy, and political greatness and wisdom meet in one… then only will this our State have a possibility of life and behold the light of day.

  23.

  Resolutions

  IN THE 1970S, AS I ENTERED THE SEVENTH DECADE OF MY life, I decided to place my negatives, photographs, correspondence, photography collection, and memorabilia in an institution where it would always be available to serious scholars and students. I offered my archive to the University of California system, but was rebuffed; at that time they were unwilling to put even minimal funds into an archive of creative photography.

  Following a 1973 solo exhibition at the Museum of Art at the University of Arizona, its president, Dr. John P. Schaefer, suggested I consider his university as the repository for my archive. In 1974 he visited me in Carmel. We spent quite a few wonderful hours together, wandering about Point Lobos, getting to know each other, and talking about photography. I found John to be a man of extraordinary energy and imagination. He stated that photographs as artistic and historical documents had been too long neglected by universities. I said that I wanted my archive to be part of a much larger entity containing the archives of several photographers. John’s ideas meshed with mine, and during those walks the Center for Creative Photography was born, with my archive as the beginning. Through a gift/purchase agreement I have already sent a very large number of my original fine prints and much of my personal collection of work by other photographers. The Center for Creative Photography’s holdings now include the archives of many photographers, including: Edward Weston, Sonia Noskowiak, W. Eugene Smith, Wynn Bullock, Fred Sommer, Harry Callahan, and Aaron Siskind.

  When I depart this sphere, all my negatives will be housed at the Center. I have specified that my negatives may be printed only for educational purposes by advanced students, faculty, and visiting scholars under the supervision and control of a committee of experts selected with the approval of the trustees of the Ansel Adams Publishing Rights Trust. These prints will never leave the Center and will be clearly stamped and labeled as not being an Ansel Adams print and must never be sold.

  Trained as a pianist, I am aware that I depended upon the music of the past (Bach through Scriabin) as the source for my musical expression. As most musicians, I am not a composer. Photographers are, in a sense, composers and the negatives are their scores. They first perform their own works, but I see no reason why they should not be available for others to perform. In the electronic age, I am sure that scanning techniques will be developed to achieve prints of extraordinary subtlety from the original negative scores. If I could return in twenty years or so I would hope to see astounding interpretations of my most expressive images. It is true no one could print my negatives as I did, but they might well get more out of them by electronic means. Image quality is not the product of a machine, but of the person who directs the machine, and there are no limits to imagination and expression.

  Before this resolution, I had considered following the practice of etchers and lithographers, who destroy the plate after a specified number of impressions are made; in the medium of printmaking, the plate or block allows for only a limited number of impressions before it deteriorates. In photography the negative can be printed from indefinitely without loss of quality, and thus the
destruction of the negative I believe to be an affectation, true to traditions of commerce, but not true to the medium itself. In the 1930s, Edward Weston decided to make small batches of prints, limiting the total to no more than fifty of any one image. I do not think that any of his masterpieces came even close to selling that many, and so he only made ten or so total prints of each.

  I had never made limited editions from my negatives, but was convinced it was appropriate on one occasion. Robert Feldman’s Parasol Press published my fifth, sixth, and seventh and final portfolios. Portfolio V, issued in 1970, moved rather slowly, but after several years it did sell out. When it came to Portfolio VI, we agreed that limiting the edition by canceling the negatives would favor the sale of the one hundred copies. In keeping with this, and because of my uncertainty of just what the future held for them, I took a Wells Fargo check canceler and ran it across each negative surface. I know now that I was wrong to mutilate them. Photography is a medium that theoretically allows unlimited printing from the negative; negatives should never be intentionally destroyed. I cannot accept the value of artificially produced scarcity as more important than the value of creative production.

  The Center was very fortunate to attract James Enyeart as its director. Excellent as both an administrator and historian, Jim has expanded the sphere of activities with remarkable speed and uncompromising quality. He has recently undertaken a multimillion-dollar fund-raising campaign to construct a much needed building to appropriately house, in temperature- and humidity-controlled rooms, the rapidly growing photography archive. Exhibition galleries worthy of the work of the many great artists and the superb collection will also be included.