The picture helps in showing that both natural and human may have some relationship. His work is also seen as different from recent photographers. As a result, there is argument that his work is old fashioned and lacking taste. However, it is clear that his work maintains some originality and complexity. Hence, one may argue that Adams work provide a vivid description of the realities on the ground.
The other controversy in the article is perception of the relationship between man and nature. Some artists such as Thoreau are shown to believe that man is not part of nature (4). However, as the article notes a good landscape may be achieved with people on it. I concur with this view as in many occasions; man has struggled to make improvement to the landscape through beautifications. For this reason, man should not be made to appear different from the aesthetic component. Man should be seen as playing part in the beautification of land.
On the other hand, it is clear that man should not be seen as an enemy to preservation of nature. This is because man plays a significant role in the preservation of nature. For example, man erects a fence to preserve parks (4). Hence, excluding man will not help in preserving our natural landscape. The conservation can only be achieved through natural use of land by man. Therefore, as Adams notes, if a man uses natural environment badly, he is the one to blame.
On the other hand, there is the focus on photography as provision of meaning. Real photography is seen as proving more meaning as compared to the aesthetic component (7). Moreover, photography is also shown as offering description of a place. In my opinion, photography can help in understanding of a place if properly taken by an objective person. For example, this can be seen in documentary photographs