Interview MFT
MFT INTERVIEW 2019
Midway through 2019 a young Swiss kid asked to me interview for a school project and I obliged. This is how it went.
What are the fundamental aspects that characterize extreme alpinism for you? Do you believe that todays extreme alpinism has conserved those aspects? If not what has changed?
My first book was titled Extreme Alpinism but it was not my choice. The publisher wanted that title because they thought it would sell more books. I opposed it because I thought the word “extreme” was so overused as to have little meaning. But they had their way and twenty years later I am ambivalent about it.
With regards to climbing itself, “extreme” as a concept should be a sliding reference point, the definition evolving as the climbers themselves do: what ever is at the cutting edge of human performance may be described by the word. What was extreme in the 1970s may be viewed as rather pedestrian today but also sometimes not … I doubt there are many climbers these days who adhere to local ethics in Dresden (no chalk, knotted slings for protection, no shoes) to climb a route like "The Rost Riss, aka Schwager Crack" (UIAA VIII- or French 6c).
For me, the universal definition in reference to climbing would mean addressing the most difficult (and not only technically) objective possible with the absolute minimum of technological advantages so the weight of success sits on the shoulders and in the hearts of the climbers themselves. I think that what Josh Wharton and Vince Anderson almost climbed on Jirishanca this summer is representative of that: very light weight style, hard rock climbing (up to 7c+), steep, difficult ice, not inconsiderable objective danger, full commitment. There are many, many other examples I am sure but I don’t read too much about current climbing events.
What led you to dedicate yourself to extreme alpinism (What drove you)? Did you want to become the best in your field? Was it pure curiosity? Were you searching for something and if so did you find what you were looking for? Do you know what it was for most of your compatriots (was it specific to each person or was there a general motive?)? Do the extreme alpinists of today have the same ones?
In the beginning climbing was a non-standard, marginalized physical activity that went hand-in-hand with other social decisions I made about music, education, freedom and personal autonomy. It also fit with my background, having been born in Yosemite and grown up around mountains (without ever climbing any until I was 19 or 20 years old). Once I learned that I was good at climbing I made the commitment to do it until something stopped me. My attitude was against tradition not “for” it because I thought previous alpine climbers used too much technology to insulate themselves against the environment rather than integrating with it — the box tents, oxygen, fixed ropes, huge teams, etc. To me that was like playing out WW 1 against the mountains. When I learned that Messner and Habeler had climbed Hidden Peak (Gasherbrum 1) in alpine style it sparked my imagination like nothing had before — now there was something to inspire me rather than all of those siege style Himalayan expeditions to revolt against.
I think the main, underlying motivations were simple: to find the answers to questions many young people ask themselves, “Who am I? What am I capable of doing? Why am I here?” But also, there was the challenge, the opportunity to overcome, to demonstrate competence, and the more competent I became in the mountains the larger my map became; mountains and ranges invisible and inaccessible to the beginner become visible and attractive as technical ability and experience increase.
Regarding what motivates others, then and now, I believe it is largely individual and not a question I can answer.
How did you finance your expeditions? I know some are sponsored and some are mountain guides during their spare time what was the most common during your time? Did it pay enough for you and the other extreme alpinists to be able to live a normal life outside of alpinism?
In the beginning I worked in restaurants because the schedule meant I had almost four days off each week to go the mountains. Later I worked in climbing shops because the bosses understood my ambition and that I was good so they permitted me to take time off when the weather forecast or climbing conditions were good.
Sponsorship came later. After The North Face helped me get to the Alps the first time and I had a couple of good seasons, some other companies began supporting me, some from the US and some European. But there wasn’t a monthly salary for climbing back then and the contracts were based on actual media exposure not merely the hope of it so I wrote a lot of articles, shot and sold pictures, hired photographers to shoot me, etc. Much later I had reasonable financial support but ultimately renounced the idea of sponsorship because I wanted to be free to climb or not, to do what I wanted and not what the media wanted. Then I just had jobs that allowed me the time to express that freedom. I worked on a number of action films in France and did some things for the camera I would never have done had the camera and the “pressure” not been present.
What do you think of todays sponsorship? There have been rumours about sponsoring pressure and sponsors paying extreme alpinists meagre sums of money for dangerous exploits. Do you believe this has had an impact on todays extreme alpinism.
Surely, some sponsors will pay as little as possible to have the best possible return. That’s smart business. No climber is forced into relationship with a commercial entity. It is a voluntary transaction.
“Sponsoring pressure” has always been present — it may be more visible today as every company (and the athletes too) compete for attention in a world saturated with imagery, exploits, shouting, etc. Go back to Chamonix in the 1980s and you will see the early effects of sponsorship competition when the pie was small and many were fighting for their piece of it: Boivin, Profit, Escoffier, Thierry Renault, Patrick Berhault, Dominique Radigue, Benoit Grison, Gabarrou … it was an amazing time and the limits being explored were extraordinary. One specific instance of sponsor pressure identified with the death of an athlete, Bruno Gouvy, who, although not a climber per se, was involved in the scene and using the mountains as his canvas. The contract was for a specific number of “exploits” each year and he was short when it came time to renew. The pressure was NOT applied by the sponsor, rather Bruno wanted to renew the contract, and increase the value, so he put pressure on himself to attempt an enchainment on the Aiguille Verte despite conditions not being ideal.
I think this is the normal relationship to pressure: the athlete imposes it on himself or herself rather than the company doing that. The climber volunteers to do things he/she believes will be of value to the sponsor, and that may increase their own value when it comes time to seek new contracts or sponsors.
Patagonia has an admirable sponsorship program, paying athletes well not just for sport performance but for their contribution to product development, their writing, their other valuable skills in the real world (e.g. interior design of retail stores, cooking for promotional events, etc.), and they have published books for some of the athletes, with both company and athlete benefitting from promotion and sales.
Sponsorship is what it is, won’t go away, and will only become more cutthroat as the number of climbers, therefore the competition increases.
How does speed climbing as was approached by Ueli Steck (R.I.P.) and is by Kilian Jornet finds its place in extreme alpinism today? What do you think of it?
Speed is an expression of competence and an individual’s relationship to risk (because it is usual to climb alone in these instances). While the speed itself has been the point for some climbers, others simply use it as one more tool in the box, a tool that allows one greater opportunity in the mountains.
In your view, who are the representatives of extreme alpinism today? and why?
Well, I suppose most of the best are already dead. 2016-2019 were savage years for the guys who I considered to be among the very best: Kyle, Scott, Ueli, Hayden, Marc-André Leclerc, Tom Ballard, Jess, David, Hans-Jorg … but those among the living, I’ll put Aleš Česen and Tom Livingstone near the top of the list.
What does the future look like for extreme alpinism? What will be the new trend in your opinion. There are almost no more unclimbed mountains left (apart from a few "sacred" mountains in the Himalayas that countries have prohibited people from ascending) and almost every mountain has been scaled in every way (apart from K2 in the winter).
I believe the future of “mountaineering” (different from alpinism) will follow most social patterns because, after all, it is human beings doing the activity. The extremes will remain difficult to reach and the mediocre, the unremarkable, the non-visionary ascents and repetitions, will be lauded as “extreme” by mediocre, unremarkable climbers seeking to call attention to themselves and their pedestrian activities. Of course, Everest will remain the highest, therefore attractive to people who don’t actually climb the mountain but instead climb ropes and ladders and pay others to carry the weight they are incapable of shouldering or moving themselves, all with the aid of oxygen, of course, because why wouldn’t you drag the naturally occurring challenge down to the level that is more easily obtained? Yes, I am being sarcastic but what we saw on Everest this year is an accurate expression of human nature at its worst.
The future of real alpinism is not that of acquisition culture, where climbers “collect” ascents and summits and “trophies”, it is instead in the creative application of skill and experience. In the 80s when climbers in the Alps understood that the mountains were not getting any taller or more difficult the Enchainment was invented because the classic north faces and other routes had become easy for the current generation. After we climbed the Slovak Direct on Denali in a single, 60-hour push other similar style ascents in the Alaska Range followed, and then, when this was considered easy, Katsutaka Yokoyama, Yusuke Sato and Fumitaka Ichimura enchained the Isis Face and the Slovak Direct in a continuous, eight-day push (in 2008). History repeats itself and those repetitions open eyes to other, greater possibilities. I think those capable of, and interested in extreme difficulty will go further away from the normally trodden mountains and routes, e.g. Steve Swenson and Mark Richey on Link Sar this year, and Conrad and David on Lunag Ri earlier, and those journeys will open their eyes to new, more remote or creative opportunities. Yes, these will not be the tallest mountains of the world but they will be far away from the maddening crowds of people who will — by their congregation — ruin the sense of wildness and natural beauty in order to add another point to their resumés and social media profiles.
Is the current speed climbing trend really what will be left? Are crazy free solos like El Capitan and Cerro Torre (R.I.P. David Lama) the only new possible innovations left in the realm of extreme alpinism?
The speed and the free-soloing are expressions of competence demonstrated by those performing at the highest levels. This is not like technical grades where, the more people who can climb a certain grade the more people become (psychologically first, and physically second) able to do so. Of course, the combination of physical fitness and technical ability make the speed more accessible, but it is the risk involved with soloing that keeps most people from doing it. I was not a good technical climber but my relationship to risk allowed me to imagine and do climbs others would not consider. That my speed record on Slipstream in the Canadian Rockies still stands after 31 years proves this; the climbing on that route is very easy by modern standards (WI4 or 5 at the hardest) but the climb is threatened by séracs and anyone wishing to go faster will also have to go without the rope so I believe it is the risk keeping people away, or maybe the route just isn’t that interesting. The Reality Bath, also climbed in 1988, has not been repeated either but it is risk not difficulty that keeps climbers from going up there. I write this to suggest that it is the not only the physical terrain of the future that remains to be climbed but that the internal mountains are, and will always be the more difficult to overcome.
