Frank Gohlke, a leading figure in American landscape photography just updated his website. The site now includes a few of the projects he has been working on, a listing of books he is in, as well as a few of his writings.
Frank is having a mid-career retrospective of his work which goes on tour in the US starting this fall with a new monograph. Take a look when you get a chance.
http://www.frankgohlke.com
Wow, I was here yesterday.
http://www.frankgohlke.com/pbl/photo...0_North/4230n7
Sweet. I love it all.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
OK I'm probably asking for it...but what is so great about his work and why is he a leading figure? I find it very mediocre and boring.
Doug, you may not be alone with your query.
Originally Posted by Doug Dolde
Ditto
OK, this is one of those digital vs. traditional arguments, but here goes. In oversimplified, simple terms, there have been two major threads in American Landscape photography, romanticized and documentary. While I am a practitioner of the romanticized, I have a deep appreciation for the anti-romanticized, because I think it keeps the medium real and is capable of stimulating more profound political discussions of the plight of landscape, the environment etc. New Topographics, when it emerged was a revelation if you were around back then. It should be looked at from a different standard as documentary photography. Gohlke was one of the originals and had/has IMO a very refined and contemplative eye. I don't want to do it myself (I tried in graduate school), it is not my "aesthetic nature", but I am very glad it is out there.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
Frank does wonderful work; he's also an excellent teacher. He taught as a visitor for years at my college. I never had the opportunity to study with him, but I met him a couple of times and found him to be wise and insightful. His recent solo show at MoMA (the mount saint hellens work) was stunning.
Kirk, it's interesting to look at the idea of un-romantic landscape work as anti-romantic, especially in light of Wallace Stevens' observations that anti-romanticism is actually a kind of romanticism. And possibly the purest kind of romanticism (even though many practitioners would shudder at the thought ...)
Ahh I get it...His website home page calls himself a "Leading figure in American landscape photography"
But I really DON't get it despite these sophist explainations. To me it's still boring and unimaginative.
I don't get it either. Boring as hell IMHO no matter what it is called.
But if he makes a living doing it, them good for him.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks