Ansel Adams side question
mantu cain
from depression several times in his life? I ask this because of a teacher
I had in college years ago ( Many years ago) that claimed to have known him
and said he had several times in his life been stricken with depression, yet
I have never read or seen anything about this. Ansel was known to be
extremely honest in his dealings with everything, so I have often wondered
why, if this was true, it has never been mentioned.
Please known I am looking down on anyone with depression, I think we all
have it. My question is coming from the fact that teacher was known to spin
more than a few whoppers in his day.
Mantu.
--
Women are the only true works of art.
Tom Phillips
Gregory W Blank wrote:
> In the recent documentary on PBS they did mention that he had a brief
> nervous breakdown, which I
> guess could qualify.
>
> In article <0_Bz8.51$ie4....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>, "mantu cain"
> --
> Photographic website @
> http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank
SkyGzr
breakdown in the 30's. Didn't specifically mention depression, though.
Cathy Sienko
classroom, he was always disrupting his lessons with wild laughter and
strange behavior. Today he might be classified as having Attention
Deficit Disorder. His teachers were concerned about this, his parents
took offense, and took him out of school and taught him at the seaside
home in San Francisco.
As a young man, he had a difficult time, keeping the relationship he had
with his then girlfriend. He eventually married her,after 8 years of on
again and off again, but after his marriage he was always away "working."
The work/love relationship he had with his printing assistant is
probably the "nervous breakdown" you are writing about. From what I
have read he was torn between returning to his wife and children, that
he left in Yosemite, or remaining with Patsy English in San Francisco.
He returned to his wife and children after he took some time out (18
months?) at an institution.
Later in his life, he "dropped out" again, apparently of "burnout."
Cathy
Mike King
one beautiful print. Amazing how many of the great have to suffer for their
art (unfortunately the rest of us just suffer, sigh). Einstein flunked
arithmetic, Tom Edison got fired, Van Gogh cut off his ear, ...
--
darkroommike
......................
"Cathy Sienko" <katr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3CCF50DA...@worldnet.att.net...
Michael A. Covington (Portable computer)
his powers of concentration were about as great as anybody's could be. Fine
printing is not done by scatterbrains.
Tom Phillips
"Michael A. Covington (Portable computer)" wrote:
> Labeling Ansel Adams with ADD sounds weird because, to judge from his work,
> his powers of concentration were about as great as anybody's could be. Fine
> printing is not done by scatterbrains.
ADD is a catch all "diagnosis" for any kid who doesn't sit quitely today,
whether you have it or not. Adams described himself, I believe, as a
"hyperactive brat." I think he just grew (or was disciplined) out of it.
Bert Van Doninck
They also suggested he might have suffered from dyslixia.
"Michael A. Covington (Portable computer)"
<lo...@www.covingtoninnovations.com.for.address> schreef in bericht
news:3ccfd...@nopics.sjc...
Cathy
distracted. Many children who have higher degrees of ADD and
intelligence are placed on medication and are mainstreamed in school and
are forgotten about. Others with the same degree and intelligence are
placed in special education, in smaller classrooms, where the ratio of
teacher to student is very low, and these children excel. It takes time,
patience, dedication, nurturing and much love. Many children learn to
adapt to having ADD or PDD or Deafness or Blindness and go on to lead
productive and normal adult lives.
Ansel's parents decision to take him out of the classroom and to school
him at home, although for different reasons, was perhaps the break the
young Ansel needed to cultivate his power of concentration. His parents
taking him to Yosemite is yet another example of getting the "child" out
of the mainstream (the city.) Ansels only distraction was nature.
IIRC his mother suffered from depression. His nervous breakdown might
have been hereditary. Who knows.
Cathy
[_]
/ \
Sherman
news:3ccfd...@nopics.sjc...
> Labeling Ansel Adams with ADD sounds weird because, to judge from his
work,
> his powers of concentration were about as great as anybody's could be.
Fine
> printing is not done by scatterbrains.
>
Actually there are many forms of ADD. The one most people think of is ADHD
or ADD+ which is Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity. There is
also a form without the hyperactive component. In any of its forms the
person with ADD is capable of "hyperconcentration" or intense focus on a
single thing that interests and challenges the mind. These bouts of
intensity can come and go as new things catch the attention or they can
remain relatively constant for a range of subjects of interest.
Also, many people with ADD choose to participate in activities that by their
nature force them to slow down and focus in order to do it well. The
activities usually have a challenging mental component that allows the mind
to "wander" a bit while the overall activity involves focus. LF photography
fits this very well.
By the way, people don't usually "grow out of" ADD. It isn't something that
applies only to children. Recent research has shown that the percentage of
adults with ADD is approximately the same as the percentage of children. It
is just that the usual tests for ADD are designed for someone between the
ages of 5 and 8 years old. Newer diagnostic techniques take into account
development of certain processes as a person ages.
Sherman
hogarth
I may be all alone here, but why do you care?
Wouldn't it be better to think of Adams through his work? He was a giant as an
artist. He contributed greatly to the craft of photography. He contributed
greatly to getting photography accepted as art. He contributed greatly to
conservation efforts. He was a good and dedicated teacher. These are the things
that are important about Adams.
To gossip about his personal life is to raise it to the same level of
importance as his art. This is clearly inappropriate.
Johannes Brahms went through a lot of trouble to prevent this very thing. He
did not want people trying to analyze his life through his letters and juvenile
compositions. He burned the compositions he thought not worthy. He burned most
of his personal papers and letters before he died. We mostly know Brahms
through his music. As it should be.
Willhelm
one doesn't know. We all have "Depression," but we don't all have
"Clinical Depression." Mary Alinder's AA biography rather skips over
the material that might lead to such a diagnosis. What is not said,
however, and was common knowledge among his friends and associates, is
that Saint Ansel was an active, practicing Alcoholic! There is often
a connection between the two diseases, but I don't believe that
sufficient published material exists to make such a diagnosis
realistic.
Cathy
photoric
do a study of what make great artist so prone to depression. Just think of
all the great works of art prozac has never allowed to happen.
photoric
photoric
Photoric
mantu cain
was meaning to gossip or degrade Ansel Adams or his life. The question I
ask in the first post was due to a talk I had with some friends that had
seen the PBS special on Ansel Adams and the fact that an college professor I
had that claimed to have known and worked with him.
I do not judge people on any grounds of their life ( at least I try not to )
and I do not find myself in any position to judge Ansel Adams in any respect
other than the fact I an a great fan of his work and life. Also, I am very
grateful for his books on the print and negative, etc. I have even put a
bid in on one of his prints, but was shot down in the first few min of the
sale. ( In 1992 ) So radio guy bought it.
All in all sorry if you thought I was being degrading in any respect to
Adams or any other persons with any manner of disability.
Mantu
"hogarth" <hogarth@**notspam***directvinternet.com> wrote in message
news:3cd00a6c$1...@nopics.sjc...
Tom Phillips
hogarth wrote:
> Wouldn't it be better to think of Adams through his work? He was a giant as an
> artist. He contributed greatly to the craft of photography. He contributed
> greatly to getting photography accepted as art. He contributed greatly to
> conservation efforts. He was a good and dedicated teacher. These are the things
> that are important about Adams.
>
> To gossip about his personal life is to raise it to the same level of
> importance as his art. This is clearly inappropriate.
>
> Johannes Brahms went through a lot of trouble to prevent this very thing. He
> did not want people trying to analyze his life through his letters and juvenile
> compositions. He burned the compositions he thought not worthy. He burned most
> of his personal papers and letters before he died. We mostly know Brahms
> through his music. As it should be.
Adams, on OTOH, was in fact quite open about his life in many respects.
Tom Phillips
Sherman wrote:
> Actually there are many forms of ADD. The one most people think of is ADHD
> or ADD+ which is Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity. There is
> also a form without the hyperactive component. In any of its forms the
> person with ADD is capable of "hyperconcentration" or intense focus on a
> single thing that interests and challenges the mind. These bouts of
> intensity can come and go as new things catch the attention or they can
> remain relatively constant for a range of subjects of interest.
>
> Also, many people with ADD choose to participate in activities that by their
> nature force them to slow down and focus in order to do it well. The
> activities usually have a challenging mental component that allows the mind
> to "wander" a bit while the overall activity involves focus. LF photography
> fits this very well.
>
> By the way, people don't usually "grow out of" ADD. It isn't something that
> applies only to children.
"Growing up" means learning self control and discipline, regardless of your
handicaps. Adams apparently did a lot of that, thanks to his parents who
recognized he needed special attention and would flounder in a conventional
educational setting.
Today, schools are essentially making medical judgments and drugging kids
"diagnosed" with ADD. Their parents are stupid enough to abandon them to the
system.
RICK5347
the material that might lead to such a diagnosis. What is not said,
however, and was common knowledge among his friends and associates, is
that Saint Ansel was an active, practicing Alcoholic! >>
Alinder's biography was respected by some and hated by others who knew Ansel.
Speaking for myself I really didn't need to know about Ansel's alleged affairs
and marital problems. As for his drinking, from a clinical definition I
suppose he could be described as an Alcoholic but so could most artists I know
(at least one drink a day). I never saw him in any situation where it was
obvious that he had been drinking and was in any way impaired.
Best regards,
Rick Rosen
Newport Beach, CA
www.rickrosen.com
Sherman
news:3CD04ACE...@aol.com...
>
> "Growing up" means learning self control and discipline, regardless of
your
> handicaps. Adams apparently did a lot of that, thanks to his parents who
> recognized he needed special attention and would flounder in a
conventional
> educational setting.
>
> Today, schools are essentially making medical judgments and drugging kids
> "diagnosed" with ADD. Their parents are stupid enough to abandon them to
the
> system.
>
Absolutely, that is sometimes a sad fact. Plus once a kid acquires that
"label" he tends to be treated differently from then on. Some kids (and
adults) definitely need medication to function with ADD but many don't.
Unfortunately most parents aren't as understanding as Adams' father was. He
was a lucky kid to be allowed to learn in the way that suited him best.
To be perfectly fair I don't know how schools can create the best
environment for each individual kid. However, concerned parents *can* do a
lot to work with their own kids and help them develop in the best way for
them. There might be a lot more artists and geniuses in the world if
parents did their part.
Sherman
007
"RICK5347" <rick...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> Alinder's biography was respected by some and hated by others who knew
Ansel.
> Speaking for myself I really didn't need to know about Ansel's alleged
affairs
> and marital problems. As for his drinking, from a clinical definition I
> suppose he could be described as an Alcoholic but so could most artists I
know
> (at least one drink a day). I never saw him in any situation where it was
> obvious that he had been drinking and was in any way impaired.
>
A drink a day does not qualify as alcholic anywhere that I know of.
Alcoholics drink to the point of detriment to health, career, or others, and
still cant stop.
Tom Phillips
007 wrote:
> A drink a day does not qualify as alcholic anywhere that I know of.
> Alcoholics drink to the point of detriment to health, career, or others, and
> still cant stop.
Incorrect. The definition of an alcoholic is not whether their drinking affects
their careers or even apparent health. And lots of alcoholics can in fact
refrain from drinking. They just don't want too.
Alcoholism is an *addiction*. The degree of that addiction is controlled better
by some individuals than others (meaning just because your not a wino and lead
an apparently normal and constructive life does not mean you're not an
alcoholic.) A good clue is how often you drink. It's likely that anyone who
drinks everyday regardless of amount is an alcoholic. And alcoholics who don't
drink are simply alcoholics who don't drink.
Tom Phillips
Sherman wrote:
> To be perfectly fair I don't know how schools can create the best
> environment for each individual kid. However, concerned parents *can* do a
> lot to work with their own kids and help them develop in the best way for
> them. There might be a lot more artists and geniuses in the world if
> parents did their part.
No argument with that. The parents make the kid. Adams was fortunate in that
regard.
"If you bungle raising your children, I don't think whatever
else you do matters." -- Jacqueline Kennedy
dr bob
children (choral) and mentally retarded adults (Yes, we use that politically
incorrect term - "developmentally challenged" doesn't cut it - at all.
It is always obvious who the persons are who have and are having parental
involvement in their lives. It is very upsetting the number of relatives,
especially parents who have the attitude "the government 'owes me'" I was
reared rather without a lot of parental involvement, but it was there when
needed. My wife and I were heavily involved in our daughters' schooling and
activities and it paid off big. Our grandchildren are super in all
respects. Our 11 year old grandson has just received his black belt in
Karate (?) ty quan do(?) I am spelling deficient. Our granddaughter, 13,
is in music and art. I am very proud.
Truly, dr bob.
"Sherman" <sherman-r...@dunnam.net> wrote in message
news:ASZz8.2783$nY5.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Michael A. Covington (Portable computer)
> Alcoholics drink to the point of detriment to health, career, or others,
and
> still cant stop.
Right... lack of control is the defining characteristic of alcoholism.
Michael A. Covington (Portable computer)
Including almost the entire population of Europe?
One to two drinks per day is actually widely claimed to have health
benefits. I stick by what I said, that lack of control is the defining
characteristic of alcoholism. It's also the defining characteristic of
addiction. How do you define addiction otherwise?
I do not drink. I'm therefore not trying to justify my own behavior.
John
>Today, schools are essentially making medical judgments and drugging kids
>"diagnosed" with ADD. Their parents are stupid enough to abandon them to the
>system.
OTOH there are many who home-school their children. I have many friends
who do and believe me, none of their children have ADD or any other acronyms.
Regards
John S. Douglas, Photographer
http://www.darkroompro.net
HypoBob
> Yeah, ADD, today we'd dope him up, keep him "main streamed" and never see
> one beautiful print. Amazing how many of the great have to suffer for their
> art (unfortunately the rest of us just suffer, sigh). Einstein flunked
> arithmetic, Tom Edison got fired, Van Gogh cut off his ear, ...
>
> --
> darkroommike
> ......................
The stories about Einstein flunking math are urban myths, or whatever. Letters from his mother
to her friends indicate that he was always at or near the top of his class in math.
It is true that his math skills were not what one would expect from a world class physicist, and
he did rely heavily on a colleague (whose name escapes me at the moment) for assistance on the
math in his own theories.
Bob
007
I still disagree. An alcoholic is one with alcoholism. Admittedly this isnt
the final word, but the handiest definition I can find for alcoholism is
1 : continued excessive or compulsive use of alcoholic drinks
2 : poisoning by alcohol; especially : a complex chronic
psychological and nutritional disorder associated with
excessive and usually compulsive drinking
It has less to do with how often you drink, and much more to do with HOW you
drink. One drink is not excessive by any medical standards I'm aware
of-unless its compulsive or causes problems!
Anyway, this is OT and its about time for my nightly glass of red wine.
Colin DeWolfe
Michael, by his definition then, you are simply an alcoholic who doesn't
drink. So is the rest of the non-drinking population.
I agree with Michael.
Colin
Dan Smith, Photographer
is no more than a propaganda or feel good piece. To get a sense of the
person we need to know about the person.
After reading Alinders book on Ansel it seemed to me that a lot of his top
creative periods were associated with the times he had a crush on someone,
be it his wife or someone else. Nothing like love to stimulate the whole
creative process.
Ansel was a man and in my estimation a man to be admired. I am sorry I never
met him. But, warts & all, I do admire him for his work & his untiring work
in helping photographers & the art of photography.
Just as Ansel is a creature of mythology to so many, so are a lot of
"Ansel's Assistants". Just how many real assistants did he have? I know of
three main assistants with some others I know claiming to have been his
assistant relying on such dubious realities as having swept out his darkroom
or even handing him a print or piece of paper at a workshop. To have as many
assistants as claim to have worked with Ansel he would have to have started
in the 15th century and probably have invented photography himself.
While no biography can really tell all, I am glad for the human side of
Ansel that came out in the Alinder biography. The man was human as well as
someone to look up to in the world of photography while still being a
basically decent, caring person. Can't get much better than that.
Dan Smith
"007" <inv...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:aapsum$36e$1...@laurel.tc.umn.edu...
maf
> > benefits. I stick by what I said, that lack of control is the defining
> > characteristic of alcoholism. It's also the defining characteristic of
> > addiction. How do you define addiction otherwise?
Just a slight clarification here. The benefits of a couple of drinks per day
are usually attributed to wine and the salutary effects on the digestive
system. I don't believe that anyone has proven that 2 drinks per day of hard
liquor "causes" any improvement in one's health. However, there may be a
statistical non-causal relationship such as: people who drink in moderation
are more sociable than non-drinkers, and sociable people live slightly
longer, etc.
Tom Phillips
"Michael A. Covington (Portable computer)" wrote:
> > > A drink a day does not qualify as alcholic anywhere that I know of.
> > > Alcoholics drink to the point of detriment to health, career, or others,
> and
> > > still cant stop.
> >
> > Incorrect. The definition of an alcoholic is not whether their drinking
> affects
> > their careers or even apparent health. And lots of alcoholics can in fact
> > refrain from drinking. They just don't want too.
> >
> > Alcoholism is an *addiction*. The degree of that addiction is controlled
> better
> > by some individuals than others (meaning just because your not a wino and
> lead
> > an apparently normal and constructive life does not mean you're not an
> > alcoholic.) A good clue is how often you drink. It's likely that anyone who
>
> > drinks everyday regardless of amount is an alcoholic. And alcoholics who
> don't
> > drink are simply alcoholics who don't drink.
>
> Including almost the entire population of Europe?
>
> One to two drinks per day is actually widely claimed to have health
> benefits. I stick by what I said, that lack of control is the defining
> characteristic of alcoholism.
Michael you don't know what you're talking about. Sorry.
And BTW, they also used to claim cigarette smoking was "healthy." Including
doctors.
Alcohol is addictive; people *die* from it everyday. it's also toxic to human
tissue, and it kills brain cells *on contact*, regarless of the amount.
Consistent use alters brain chemistry, just like a drug. End of argument.
> It's also the defining characteristic of
> addiction. How do you define addiction otherwise?
no, it's not.
> I do not drink. I'm therefore not trying to justify my own behavior.
Then perhaps you should ask those more experienced.
Tom Phillips
Tom Phillips
maf wrote:
> > > One to two drinks per day is actually widely claimed to have health
> > > benefits. I stick by what I said, that lack of control is the defining
> > > characteristic of alcoholism. It's also the defining characteristic of
> > > addiction. How do you define addiction otherwise?
>
> Just a slight clarification here. The benefits of a couple of drinks per day
> are usually attributed to wine and the salutary effects on the digestive
> system. I don't believe that anyone has proven that 2 drinks per day of hard
> liquor "causes" any improvement in one's health.
You are correct. Also, a strong disclainer is also usually applied to that
"recommendation" that alcohol is addictive.
But just for clarities sake, the alcohol in a glass of wine is not different
from the alcohol in one ounce of vodka or in one 12 ounce can of beer. The
content varies only by volume.
> However, there may be a
> statistical non-causal relationship such as: people who drink in moderation
> are more sociable than non-drinkers, and sociable people live slightly
> longer, etc.
About 100,000 people per year in the United States would "live" decades longer
if no one drank. Wishful thinking but true.
Tom Phillips
007 wrote:
> I still disagree. An alcoholic is one with alcoholism.
Alcoholism, yes. But anyone who drinks is susceptable since alcohol is an
addictive substance.
> I still disagree. An alcoholic is one with alcoholism. Admittedly this isnt
> the final word
Dictionary definitions are not clinical definitions.
> It has less to do with how often you drink, and much more to do with HOW you
> drink.
Wrong, 100%. You can be an alcoholic and not drink at all. The factors are: (1)
chemical (2) sometimes genetic.
> One drink is not excessive by any medical standards I'm aware
> of-unless its compulsive or causes problems!
One drink will kill brain cells on contact. That's a fact. Some drugs (like
crack) will cause addiction immediately; some require more consistent use over
time. Also a fact. All addictive drugs alter human chemistry. That's why
they're addictive. Another fact. A photogrpaher should understand chemical
changes, right? Those changes are permanent and also the effects can be passed
on genetically in human beings. All thersew things are common knowledge.
> Anyway, this is OT and its about time for my nightly glass of red wine.
It's your choice. Just don't try to bend the facts to justify it.
Tom Phillips
"Michael A. Covington (Portable computer)" wrote:
Tom Phillips
John wrote:
> On Wed, 01 May 2002 14:06:43 -0600, Tom Phillips <nosp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >Today, schools are essentially making medical judgments and drugging kids
> >"diagnosed" with ADD. Their parents are stupid enough to abandon them to the
> >system.
>
> OTOH there are many who home-school their children. I have many friends
> who do and believe me, none of their children have ADD or any other acronyms.
They are wise, IMO. In a public school your kid is just another body and more
minds get wasted there than in a mental institution, most likely. There are good
teachers who care, but the system doesn't tolerate individuality well.
Tom Phillips
HypoBob wrote:
> The stories about Einstein flunking math are urban myths, or whatever. Letters from his mother
> to her friends indicate that he was always at or near the top of his class in math.
>
> It is true that his math skills were not what one would expect from a world class physicist, and
> he did rely heavily on a colleague (whose name escapes me at the moment) for assistance on the
> math in his own theories.
He did this when he was working on his gravitational theories for General Relativity. The reason he
needed help with the calculations was he was such a poor student -- not meaning he couldn't have
passed his classes (in math or otherwise), just that he preferred to spend his time as a student in
the cafes rather than in class.
hmm...seems to me I did the very same thing when I was in high school. I absorbed much more coffee
than I did algebra ;-)
maf
>
> > However, there may be a
> > statistical non-causal relationship such as: people who drink in
moderation
> > are more sociable than non-drinkers, and sociable people live slightly
> > longer, etc.
>
> About 100,000 people per year in the United States would "live" decades
longer
> if no one drank. Wishful thinking but true.
>
cells. My statement is not wishful thinking because I never claimed it was
true, but it was merely a hypothetical example of how a statistical
correlation can exit among variables without there being any cause and
effect relationship.
But even if it were true, there can be both benefits and harmful side
effects to any given substance we put into our body, including all
pharmaceutical products.
Michael A. Covington (Portable computer)
>
> > One to two drinks per day is actually widely claimed to have health
> > benefits. I stick by what I said, that lack of control is the defining
> > characteristic of alcoholism.
>
> Michael you don't know what you're talking about. Sorry.
Do you define "alcoholic" as "anyone who drinks"? That is not the usual
definition.
Note that I do not drink, and have never been a regular or heavy drinker; so
I'm not biased by any need to justify my own behavior. If anything, a
knock-down argument for total abstinence would justify my own behavior! But
the evidence just doesn't seem to point that way.
Since this is a question of medical science, and since you are claiming that
numerous medical textbooks and reference books are mistaken, please cite
scientific evidence for your claims.
> And BTW, they also used to claim cigarette smoking was "healthy."
Including
> doctors.
Those tests were not based on scientific experiments. They were mostly paid
testimonials.
> Alcohol is addictive; people *die* from it everyday.
I don't dispute that. But only a small portion of the people who drink get
addicted.
> it's also toxic to human
> tissue, and it kills brain cells *on contact*, regarless of the amount.
Nonsense. For example, a 0.00000001% solution does not kill brain cells.
You probably didn't mean to claim that it does, but you said "regardless of
the amount."
> Consistent use alters brain chemistry, just like a drug. End of argument.
Details? There's quite a bit about alcohol in (for example) Arciniegas and
Beresford, _Neuropsychiatry_, (a book I recently read for different reasons,
because it's related to a research project I'm doing) but nothing that quite
matches what you are saying. And the authors are *not* keen on alcohol --
they have plenty to say about how harmful it is in large quantities.
> > [Loss of control] It's also the defining characteristic of
> > addiction. How do you define addiction otherwise?
>
> no, it's not.
How *do* you define addiction? Does the word "addiction" have any definite
meaning to you?
Bringing this back on topic: Someone claimed that Ansel Adams was an
alcoholic, and my point was that the evidence that they cited was not
convincing.
Michael A. Covington - Associate Director
Artificial Intelligence Center, The University of Georgia
http://www.ai.uga.edu/~mc
Michael A. Covington (Portable computer)
> > > > benefits. I stick by what I said, that lack of control is the
defining
> > > > characteristic of alcoholism. It's also the defining characteristic
of
> > > > addiction. How do you define addiction otherwise?
> >
> > Just a slight clarification here. The benefits of a couple of drinks per
day
> > are usually attributed to wine and the salutary effects on the digestive
> > system. I don't believe that anyone has proven that 2 drinks per day of
hard
> > liquor "causes" any improvement in one's health.
Note that I said "is...claimed." I seem to recall some evidence indicating
that it's the grapes, not the alcohol.
But the question was the definition of "alcoholic." Tom, how do you define
it?
Tom Phillips
maf wrote:
>
> > About 100,000 people per year in the United States would "live" decades
> longer
> > if no one drank. Wishful thinking but true.
>
> Obviously, something else besides alcohol has killed many of your brain
> cells. My statement is not wishful thinking because I never claimed it was
> true, but it was merely a hypothetical example of how a statistical
> correlation can exit among variables without there being any cause and
> effect relationship.
I was not referring to what you said, but that it was wishful thinking that
people would stop dying from alcohol related causes, since the world is full
of ignoramuses who think alcohol is a harmless social activity. Think about
what you're reading (and saying.) There isn't anything hypothetical about the
misery and death alcohol causes. Nothing hypothetical about alcohol's
addictive nature.
BTW, I do not drink.
> But even if it were true, there can be both benefits and harmful side
> effects to any given substance we put into our body, including all
> pharmaceutical products.
Bull shit. Consumptive alcohol is not a "pharmaceutical."
What's been killing your brain cells that you'd come up with that analogy?
Michael A. Covington (Portable computer)
> > One drink is not excessive by any medical standards I'm aware
> > of-unless its compulsive or causes problems!
>
> One drink will kill brain cells on contact. That's a fact.
Highly disputed, actually. Cite medical literature, please, and keep up to
date.
> Some drugs (like
> crack) will cause addiction immediately; some require more consistent use
over
> time. Also a fact. All addictive drugs alter human chemistry. That's why
> they're addictive. Another fact. A photogrpaher should understand
chemical
> changes, right? Those changes are permanent and also the effects can be
passed
> on genetically in human beings.
Addictions, or any other changes acquired during life, are NOT passed on
genetically. Ever heard of DNA?
Michael A. Covington (Portable computer)
it did involve some training in how to evaluate research results, and I'm a
working research scientist.
"Tom Phillips" <nosp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3CD1B5C2...@aol.com...
Tom Phillips
"Michael A. Covington (Portable computer)" wrote:
> "Tom Phillips" <nosp...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:3CD1B591...@aol.com...
> > > One drink is not excessive by any medical standards I'm aware
> > > of-unless its compulsive or causes problems!
> >
> > One drink will kill brain cells on contact. That's a fact.
>
> Highly disputed, actually. Cite medical literature, please, and keep up to
> date.
news to me and those bio chemists who've confirmed that to me.
Sorry, I don't actually have time to dig up and post cites for the pleasure of
this newsgroup. Especially being so off topic.
> > Some drugs (like
> > crack) will cause addiction immediately; some require more consistent use
> over
> > time. Also a fact. All addictive drugs alter human chemistry. That's why
> > they're addictive. Another fact. A photogrpaher should understand
> chemical
> > changes, right? Those changes are permanent and also the effects can be
> passed
> > on genetically in human beings.
>
> Addictions, or any other changes acquired during life, are NOT passed on
> genetically. Ever heard of DNA?
Alcohol casues genetic damage, and there is a school of thought regarding
genetic disposions toward alcoholism.
Michael A. Covington (Portable computer)
>
> "Michael A. Covington (Portable computer)" wrote:
>
> > "Tom Phillips" <nosp...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:3CD1B591...@aol.com...
> > > > One drink is not excessive by any medical standards I'm aware
> > > > of-unless its compulsive or causes problems!
> > >
> > > One drink will kill brain cells on contact. That's a fact.
> >
> > Highly disputed, actually. Cite medical literature, please, and keep up
to
> > date.
>
> news to me and those bio chemists who've confirmed that to me.
> Sorry, I don't actually have time to dig up and post cites for the
pleasure of
> this newsgroup. Especially being so off topic.
Then you won't mind that we don't believe claims that you can't
substantiate. The claim that one drink will kill brain cells was made in
the 1970s but didn't hold up.
> > > changes, right? Those changes are permanent and also the effects can
be
> > passed
> > > on genetically in human beings.
> >
> > Addictions, or any other changes acquired during life, are NOT passed on
> > genetically. Ever heard of DNA?
>
> Alcohol casues genetic damage, and there is a school of thought regarding
> genetic disposions toward alcoholism.
Yes, but if a genetic tendency to alcoholism were caused by the genetic
damage caused by alcohol, it would be a case of Lamarckian (non-Darwinian)
evolution (genetic transmission of acquired characteristics, in this case
the habit of drinking) and ought to have made big headlines. Has anyone
actually found that it works that way? If so, who, where?
And -- getting back to the original question -- what is the evidence that
Ansel Adams was an alcoholic?
Todd F. Carney
> Just as Ansel is a creature of mythology to so many, so are a lot of
> "Ansel's Assistants". Just how many real assistants did he have? I know of
> three main assistants with some others I know claiming to have been his
> assistant relying on such dubious realities as having swept out his darkroom
> or even handing him a print or piece of paper at a workshop. To have as many
> assistants as claim to have worked with Ansel he would have to have started
> in the 15th century and probably have invented photography himself.
>
With a working life that spanned almost six decades, it seems unlikely
he had only three "main assistants." From his autobiography, I just
quickly counted
Don Worth, Gerry Sharpe, Ron Partridge, Liliane De Cock, Alan Ross,
John Sexton, Ted Orland, Andrea Gray, Chris Rainier, and Rod Dresser.
Phyllis Donohue was specifically mentioned as a print spotter. De Cock
started as a print spotter before becoming a darkroom assistant. Since
these individuals were mentioned mostly in passing, it seems likely
Adams had many more assistants over the years.
Oh, of course, there was Patsy English in the 1930s. It seems likely
she didn't remain his assistant after he decided to stay with his
wife, so she must have been replaced by one or more assistants for the
remainder of the 30s and 40s. Worth and Sharpe were assistants in the
50s, but I do not know how long, so it seems likely he had others
during that decade too.
Aside from the fact that here are eleven assistants Adams specifically
mentioned (in passing), I don't see any reason to doubt others who say
they once worked for him. It would be a pretty outrageous claim to
make in public if it weren't true.
Todd Carney
Eugene, Oregon
Tom Phillips
"Michael A. Covington (Portable computer)" wrote:
> "Tom Phillips" <nosp...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:3CD1B022...@aol.com...
> >
> > > One to two drinks per day is actually widely claimed to have health
> > > benefits. I stick by what I said, that lack of control is the defining
> > > characteristic of alcoholism.
> >
> > Michael you don't know what you're talking about. Sorry.
>
> Do you define "alcoholic" as "anyone who drinks"? That is not the usual
> definition.
It's *not* defined by how one drinks, how much one drinks, or how much control
one has when drinking. This is what is being proffered, and it's wrong.
Also, many alcoholics can stop drinking, many cannot. Nevertheless they are all
still alcoholics and will always be so.
> Note that I do not drink, and have never been a regular or heavy drinker; so
> I'm not biased by any need to justify my own behavior.
Irrelevant. I don't drink either, nor am I an alcoholic. But obviously I know
qiuite a bit more about the subject than anyone here, for reasons that are no
one's business.
> If anything, a
> knock-down argument for total abstinence would justify my own behavior! But
> the evidence just doesn't seem to point that way.
I'm not arguing the merits of drinking or not drinking. It's you who are
mis-defining "alcoholism."
> Since this is a question of medical science, and since you are claiming that
> numerous medical textbooks and reference books are mistaken, please cite
> scientific evidence for your claims.
Perhaps you should cite the definition that says an alcoholic is only someone
who is out of control in their drinking or cannot stop themselves from
drinking. This is patently false. Otherwise, there would be no recovering
alcoholics (who recover for the rest of their lives, btw, since they can stop
drinking but cannot overcome the chemical addiction.)
> > And BTW, they also used to claim cigarette smoking was "healthy." Including
>
> > doctors.
>
> Those tests were not based on scientific experiments. They were mostly paid
> testimonials.
And you don't think the "scientific" claims that drinking alcohol is a "health"
benefit is being supported by the wine industry?
> > Alcohol is addictive; people *die* from it everyday.
>
> I don't dispute that. But only a small portion of the people who drink get
> addicted.
uh huh. I have news: 7% of the population (a frequently cited and questionable
stat used by those defending the health benefits of alcohol and promoting it's
daily comsumption) who suffer deleterious effects and become alcoholics
constitutes a LARGE number of people. World wide that's 500,000,000 alcoholics.
But I guess "small portion" is a matter of perspective.
> > it's also toxic to human
> > tissue, and it kills brain cells *on contact*, regarless of the amount.
>
> Nonsense. For example, a 0.00000001% solution does not kill brain cells.
> You probably didn't mean to claim that it does, but you said "regardless of
> the amount."
Whether you drink an ounce or a gallon, it kills brain cells.
Alcohol is toxic. Most alcoholics die from toxicity effects. Ever hear of
alcohol poisoning? It's what kids on college campuses occasionally die of at
binge parties.
> > Consistent use alters brain chemistry, just like a drug. End of argument.
>
> Details? There's quite a bit about alcohol in (for example) Arciniegas and
> Beresford, _Neuropsychiatry_, (a book I recently read for different reasons,
> because it's related to a research project I'm doing) but nothing that quite
> matches what you are saying. And the authors are *not* keen on alcohol --
> they have plenty to say about how harmful it is in large quantities.
Alcoholics exhibt altered brain chemistry. If you don't think drugs are
chemical and affect body chemistry, there simply isn't anything else to say...
> > > [Loss of control] It's also the defining characteristic of
> > > addiction. How do you define addiction otherwise?
> >
> > no, it's not.
>
> How *do* you define addiction? Does the word "addiction" have any definite
> meaning to you?
Addiction is chemical, not behavioral. Behavior only initiates addiction, it's
not the cause.
> Bringing this back on topic: Someone claimed that Ansel Adams was an
> alcoholic, and my point was that the evidence that they cited was not
> convincing.
Whether he was or wasn't I couldn't say. If he drank frequently or every day he
may have been. Frankly, I couldn't image anyone shooting 50,000 negatives and
getting anything done in the darkroom while imbibing. The two just don't go
together. But as I said, the definition of an alcoholic isn't how much control
he or she has. Lot's of alcoholics exhibit a fair amount of personal control
over their drinking and lead productive lives. Many do not.
This is off topic and I'm weary of it.
Tom Phillips
"Michael A. Covington (Portable computer)" wrote:
> Note that I said "is...claimed." I seem to recall some evidence indicating
> that it's the grapes, not the alcohol.
This is correct.
> But the question was the definition of "alcoholic." Tom, how do you define
> it?
Addiction is chemical
Tom Phillips
Michael A. Covington (Portable computer)
define
> > it?
>
> Addiction is chemical
That's not a definition. Can you elaborate?
Actually, though, I really don't care how *you* define it, I care whether
(for instance) Ansel Adams was an alcoholic, and whether your other
statements about alcoholism are true, using the word "alcoholic" the way the
medical and scientific community *normally* uses the term.
You might as well say the moon is made of green cheese, if you adopt a
sufficiently unusual definition of "green cheese."
I agree with you that drinking should be discouraged, and that alcohol is
dangerous in large quantities. However, I am finding this whole argument
tedious. I really don't want *your* personal opinions, I want facts or
expert opinions based on widely accepted evidence.
Tom Phillips
"Michael A. Covington (Portable computer)" wrote:
> > news to me and those bio chemists who've confirmed that to me.
> > Sorry, I don't actually have time to dig up and post cites for the pleasure
> of
> > this newsgroup. Especially being so off topic.
>
> Then you won't mind that we don't believe claims that you can't
> substantiate. The claim that one drink will kill brain cells was made in
> the 1970s but didn't hold up.
Most people don't stop at one drink. I've never been to a social occasion where
that occurred. Ever.
Secondly, I take lightly those who demand scientific cites who only make
generalized claims themselves. No credible scientist would claim only people
who can't control themselves are alcoholics or drug addicts. There simply is no
such medical or scientific definition, nor is addiction so simplistic.
Addiction is chemical and alcohol is both chemical and addicitve. I don't need
a cite to prove what's already common knowledge.
Some of these arguments remind me of Bob Dole, who actually said he didn't
think nicotine was addictive (a generalized claim proffered by the tobacco
industry.) Having been addicted to nicotine, I can say he doesn't know what
he's talking about and I don't need a cite for that either. Nicotine is
addictive and tobacco kills. I've seen it. Alcohol is addictive and alcohol
kills. I've seen that too, up close and personal. I'm not going to spend my
limited time quoting cites for the purpose of disproving silly claims.
> > > > changes, right? Those changes are permanent and also the effects can be
>
> > > passed
> > > > on genetically in human beings.
> > >
> > > Addictions, or any other changes acquired during life, are NOT passed on
> > > genetically. Ever heard of DNA?
> >
> > Alcohol casues genetic damage, and there is a school of thought regarding
> > genetic disposions toward alcoholism.
>
> Yes, but if a genetic tendency to alcoholism were caused by the genetic
> damage caused by alcohol, it would be a case of Lamarckian (non-Darwinian)
> evolution (genetic transmission of acquired characteristics, in this case
> the habit of drinking) and ought to have made big headlines. Has anyone
> actually found that it works that way? If so, who, where?
Didn't say possible genetic dispositions were caused by genetic damage. I
simply said alcohol can damage genes AND there is a school of thought
regarding genetic dispositions. Separate comments. I didn't intend to relate
the two.
BTW, if you have blue eyes, is that news? It's nevertheless acquired
characteristics, your parents passed on. Meaning since when is evolution of any
theoretical genra news? We're not talking about missing links here.
> And -- getting back to the original question -- what is the evidence that
> Ansel Adams was an alcoholic?
That's someone else's discussion.
Tom Phillips
"Michael A. Covington (Portable computer)" wrote:
> > > But the question was the definition of "alcoholic." Tom, how do you
> define
> > > it?
> >
> > Addiction is chemical
>
> That's not a definition. Can you elaborate?
Alcoholism is chemical addiction. As with most all addictions, thre is also a
psychology. That does not mean every alcoholic is out of control, unproductive,
or can't stop drinking. I've known productive alcoholics. I've known falling
down drunks as well. I've known alcoholics who've stopped drinking.
If you want an exact, succinct clinical definition, some research would be in
order, but I don't think you'll find one. But some pertainent points from
Merck's, which medical manual commonly available was researched and edited by
medical doctors. It classes alcohol as a drug. It states people of all ages are
susceptible. It states alcohol produces both psychologic and physical
dependence. It defines drugs producing physical dependence and addiction as
those to which the body adapts and inceases tolerance for , "so that people who
drink can [consume] more alcohol than non-drinkers..." Withdrawal symptoms,
milds or severe, or physical reactions follow drug dependence and essentially
define addiction. That's all the further I have time to quote.
> Actually, though, I really don't care how *you* define it, I care whether
> (for instance) Ansel Adams was an alcoholic, and whether your other
> statements about alcoholism are true, using the word "alcoholic" the way the
> medical and scientific community *normally* uses the term.
Again, not all alcoholics are falling down drunks who can't control themselves.
A lot of alcoholics hold jobs and control their drinking, more or less, for
years even decades. Behavior does not define it; behavior is symptomatic. Still
I can't image Adams doing the amount of work he did *while* drinking.
> You might as well say the moon is made of green cheese, if you adopt a
> sufficiently unusual definition of "green cheese."
>
> I agree with you that drinking should be discouraged, and that alcohol is
> dangerous in large quantities. However, I am finding this whole argument
> tedious. I really don't want *your* personal opinions, I want facts or
> expert opinions based on widely accepted evidence.
Funny, since what was originally proffered as the definition of an alcoholic
(someone who can't control their drinking or themselves) was wholly without
merit, evidence, and highly generalized. Talk about calling the kettle black!
Don't accuse me for responding in like manner. At least I use common sense AND
have a vaild personal basis and knowledge via my experience with alcoholics. I
stated all along alcoholism is chemically based, not defined by how one drinks.
maf
> > effects to any given substance we put into our body, including all
> > pharmaceutical products.
>
>
> What's been killing your brain cells that you'd come up with that analogy?
>
never said or implied that alcohol is a "pharmaceutical." I said that a
substance CAN (not necessarily that all do) have both beneficial and harmful
consequences. Case in point is wine (which aids the digestive system when
used in moderation).
Your psychosis regarding alcohol seems eerily pathological.
Tom Phillips
Could'a fooled me. And I majored in English as well as photography. So, if you
weren't making an analogy (i.e., a comparison or similarity between things
that are otherwise dissimilar...get it?) why mention pharmaceuticals in the
same breath (discussion) as alcohol?
Ding ding ding...because it's an analogy.
And it isn't the alcohol in wine that is beneficial. In fact, alcohol
interferes with the proper absorbtion of various nutrients and as a drug is not
even digested. It's absorbed directly into the blood stream through the lining
of the small intestine. You should stop watching CNN.
Tom Phillips
Tom Phillips wrote:
vis-a-vis, Hemingway was a well known alcoholic. Ha drank every day, socially.
But never while writing -- and his writing was brilliant. He'd work through the
morning, as I understand, and finish his day's work before he began drinking.
A perfect example of a controlled alcoholic, it would seem. Whether Adams was one
I don't know.
Douglas K
Around 1989 I did a fair bit of research for a report on prescription
abuse. At that time it was widely acknowledged that one does not need to
have a chemical dependency in order to be addicted.
To quote a fairly large health site,
"It's not how much or how often you drink or take drugs that determines
if you are addicted. It's a set of criteria that includes the 3 Cs:
consequences, loss of control and compulsion."
http://health_topics/emotional_behavioral/addiction/index.shtml?the_diagnosis_of_drug_or.html
and
"It's not how much or how often you drink or take drugs that determines
if you are addicted. It's a set of criteria that includes the 3 Cs:
consequences, loss of control and compulsion."
http://www.drkoop.com/dyncon/article.asp?at=&id=5419
Now then.... if we go in the darkroom every night does that mean we are
addicted? No. But if our darkroom use can be described by the 3 C's
above... maybe we are addicted. :-)
Douglas
Tom Phillips
Douglas K wrote:
> Well... off-topic tho it is, I'll throw in my 2 cents worth.
>
> "It's not how much or how often you drink or take drugs that determines
> if you are addicted. It's a set of criteria that includes the 3 Cs:
> consequences, loss of control and compulsion."
> http://health_topics/emotional_behavioral/addiction/index.shtml?the_diagnosis_of_drug_or.html
>
> "It's not how much or how often you drink or take drugs that determines
> if you are addicted. It's a set of criteria that includes the 3 Cs:
> consequences, loss of control and compulsion."
> http://www.drkoop.com/dyncon/article.asp?at=&id=5419
>
> Now then.... if we go in the darkroom every night does that mean we are
> addicted? No. But if our darkroom use can be described by the 3 C's
> above... maybe we are addicted. :-)
>
> Douglas
Good points. Addiction is never a simple matter .
Alcoholics suffer from psychologic addiction as well as physical-chemical addiction. Loss of control is
relative: as mentioned Hemingway seemed to have a fair amount of control regarding when he drank and
possibly how much. One thing I've always noticed: addicts of any type tend to remain addicted because
they *want* to.
Sort of like being addicted to posting in a newsgroup :-)
Bill Laut
>
> [...]
>
> vis-a-vis, Hemingway was a well known alcoholic. Ha drank every day,
> socially.
> But never while writing -- and his writing was brilliant. He'd work
> through the morning, as I understand, and finish his day's work before he
> began drinking.
>
> A perfect example of a controlled alcoholic, it would seem.
>
This is OT, but for the historical record Ernest Hemmingway submitted to
electroshock "therapy" to treat depression and wound up having his
creativity cauterized in the process. He couldn't write after electroshock
and wound up committing suicide as a result.
--
Bill Laut
PGP public key - www.i2k.com/~laut/pgp/dh_3072.asc
Fingerprint - 0A64 07B2 1F45 B823 ABD5 CD54 DEB8 3ED3 AC9E 8EB8
Other encryption and signing keys -- www.i2k.com/~laut/pgp/
Peter Krynicki
> Tom Phillips wrote:
>
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > vis-a-vis, Hemingway was a well known alcoholic. Ha drank every day,
> > socially.
> > But never while writing -- and his writing was brilliant. He'd work
> > through the morning, as I understand, and finish his day's work before he
> > began drinking.
> >
> > A perfect example of a controlled alcoholic, it would seem.
> >
>
> This is OT, but for the historical record Ernest Hemmingway submitted to
> electroshock "therapy" to treat depression and wound up having his
> creativity cauterized in the process. He couldn't write after electroshock
> and wound up committing suicide as a result.
To be totally correct, you would have to say that Hemingway had not
published anything in the few years before he submitted to
electro-shock therapy. The Old Man and the Sea was '54, after which he
won the Nobel Prize for Literature. From that time until the therapy,
he worked off-and-on on what would become Islands in the Stream, A
Mavable Feast, The Garden of Eden, and the "African Book" which would
become True at First Light. But from '54 until his visits to the Mayo
Clinic, he was never satisfied enough with anything to allow it to be
published.
I think what I am saying is that the therapy did not cause him to stop
writing. He submitted to the therapy *because* he could not write and
because of his depression and suicidal tendancies.
hth
Pjk
Tom Phillips
Peter Krynicki wrote:
Whether depression (which is often chemical in nature) is a factor in alcoholism or whether
alcoholism causes depression I couldn't say. Adams was apparently also depressed in some
regard (since I *still* haven't seen the documentary, I only relate what others say about
it...)
My point was even if Adams had been an alcoholic I can't imaging him accomplishing his
photographic or darkroom work *while* drinking. I only used Hemingway as an analogy and as
with most analogies is imperfect.
OTH, many writers either stop writing or suffer from "writer's block" and it may have
nothing to do with depression or drinking.
RICK5347
accomplishing his
photographic or darkroom work *while* drinking. >>
For many years I spent considerable time around Ansel as I was on the staff of
his workshops in Yosemite. I also visited his home many times. While Ansel
did like his afternoon drink I never saw him in any capacity that I would have
called impaired or drunk. His level of energy often challenged his assistants
and others working with him on his many projects.
Best regards,
Rick Rosen
Newport Beach, CA
www.rickrosen.com
Tom Phillips
RICK5347 wrote:
> << My point was even if Adams had been an alcoholic I can't imaging him
> accomplishing his
> photographic or darkroom work *while* drinking. >>
>
> For many years I spent considerable time around Ansel as I was on the staff of
> his workshops in Yosemite. I also visited his home many times. While Ansel
> did like his afternoon drink I never saw him in any capacity that I would have
> called impaired or drunk. His level of energy often challenged his assistants
> and others working with him on his many projects.
A useful insight, Rick.
Dan Smith, Photographer
longer
> if no one drank. Wishful thinking but true.
Not, not really true. They won't live decades longer, it just seems that way
without a beer or glass of wine occasionally.
Tom Phillips
"Dan Smith, Photographer" wrote:
Facetious moron. It's a factual statistic that many people (e.g., children etc.
-- possibly yours...) in the US die alcohol related deaths each year,
including drunk driving deaths, alcohol related violence, etc. Meaning many of
those deaths are innocent victims of other people's drinking.
Peter Krynicki
I've always thought that there were two Hemingways; the pre-WWII one
and the post WWII one. The former accomplished almost all of the work
he would always be famous for, with the exception of The Old Man and
the Sea. The latter, whether is was from illness of drinking, never
seemed to be able to finish anything that he was satisfied with.
I mention this because the former Hemingway drank very little when he
was working, certainly not enough to be called an alcoholic. He never
drank while
actually writing or editing, even if he was sitting at a cafe, and
whenever he was finished writing for the day, he would only drink wine
or beer or a cocktail. He seems to have realized the effect abusing
alcohol could have on his creative process. One of the reasons he fell
out with F. Scott Fitzgerald is that Fitzgerald would allow his wife
Zelda take her out to parties knowing that Scott would drink until he
passed out, and thus affecting his writing.
The pre-war Hemingway, while working, was very much like a
prize-fighter preparing for a bout. The post-war Hemingway was a
completely different man. Alcohol and the many head-wounds he had
suffered must have contributed.
Thanks
Pjk