SO we are not talking about photography as art? Let me know when I need to get back to the fifth grade reading comprehension level.
SO we are not talking about photography as art? Let me know when I need to get back to the fifth grade reading comprehension level.
Huh?
You keep accusing me of declaring what is or isn't art, or what's good or bad art. I haven't uttered a word about any of it.
You can have conversations about art without making the kinds of proclamations you're absurdly attributing to me.
whatever......
Ahhhhh lighten up guys.....here's what I think
I agree/disagree with some of the things that have just been said, but the optical suggestions of the purity of line in Gohlke's work makes resonant the essentially transitional quality of the subject matter. With regard to the issue of content, the sublime beauty of the negative space endangers the devious simplicity of the inherent overspecificity and, the iconicity of the Greek undertones notates the remarkable handling of light versus shadow.
OTOH, it's difficult to enter into this work because of how the aura of the Egyptian motifs makes resonant the inherent overspecificity of the land. Although I am not a ladscape photographer, I think that the subaqueous qualities of the purity of line makes resonant the essentially transitional quality of the agro subjects tickling his visual cortex. I also think that the reductive quality of the spatial relationships contextualize the exploration of montage elements.
But all in all, I find this work menacing/playful because of the way the disjunctive perturbation of the spatial relationships brings within the realm of discourse the distinctive formal juxtapositions. It should be added that the mechanical mark-making of his LF negatives' space notates the larger carcass of humanity. IOW, the disjunctive perturbation of the gesture notates the essentially transitional quality of his subjetcs.
In closing, as an advocate of the Big Mac Aesthetic, I feel that the metaphorical resonance of the "sexy fish spatiallity" undermines the exploration of cryptic montage elements as found in the place where and when he was standing with his 8x10 stradling his overly-penalised shoulder and deeply-fried brain.
In clear: the work doesn't work for me
LOL..... Thanks for the laugh Daniel.Originally Posted by Daniel Grenier
Ahhhhh lighten up guys.....here's what I think
I agree/disagree with some of the things that have just been said, but the optical suggestions of the purity of line in Gohlke's work makes resonant the essentially transitional quality of the subject matter. With regard to the issue of content, the sublime beauty of the negative space endangers the devious simplicity of the inherent overspecificity and, the iconicity of the Greek undertones notates the remarkable handling of light versus shadow.
OTOH, it's difficult to enter into this work because of how the aura of the Egyptian motifs makes resonant the inherent overspecificity of the land. Although I am not a ladscape photographer, I think that the subaqueous qualities of the purity of line makes resonant the essentially transitional quality of the agro subjects tickling his visual cortex. I also think that the reductive quality of the spatial relationships contextualize the exploration of montage elements.
But all in all, I find this work menacing/playful because of the way the disjunctive perturbation of the spatial relationships brings within the realm of discourse the distinctive formal juxtapositions. It should be added that the mechanical mark-making of his LF negatives' space notates the larger carcass of humanity. IOW, the disjunctive perturbation of the gesture notates the essentially transitional quality of his subjetcs.
In closing, as an advocate of the Big Mac Aesthetic, I feel that the metaphorical resonance of the "sexy fish spatiallity" undermines the exploration of cryptic montage elements as found in the place where and when he was standing with his 8x10 stradling his overly-penalised shoulder and deeply-fried brain.
In clear: the work doesn't work for me
Daniel, if you could only express such thoughts in images rather than words, you'd have your own show at the MoMA. And we still wouldn't understand...
Personally, I don't "like" Gohlke's work. I don't "like" what I read in the newspaper either, but I read it every day. Some things aren't about "like".
Whether he is a "leading" figure in photography will depend on how many follow his direction or are influenced by him and his genre. I suspect he will be remembered as much for his role as the Riddler in the old Batman TV shows...
"I love my Verito lens, but I always have to sharpen everything in Photoshop..."
Nicely put. I don't like Cindy Sherman's work at all, but I'm in no position to deny the influence she's had on a generation of artists, or the huge audience she's built over the years.
But I do "like" the prices she commands for her, ah, art.
Mike
The old cliche, "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like," always seemed to miss the whole idea. If one is going to see "Art" as something more than reassuring decoration, "I like..." seems so much shallower a response than "I am disturbed/provoked/reminded of/informed by..." There is an approach that looks for the thoughtful challenge or uncomfortable insight more than the aesthetically pleasing. I may "like" hot fudge sundaes, but carrots and broccoli nurture me, and in time, become the prefered acquired taste.
If there is something that bothers me about my own work, it is that I "like" it.
Maybe my favorite cartoon in the New Yorker appeared many years ago. Two art critics are in a museum, looking at a painting, and one says to the other, "I know all about art, but I have no idea what I like..."
"I love my Verito lens, but I always have to sharpen everything in Photoshop..."
I wanted to add something to the discussion which may seem like dodging the question altogether. I have read almost all the posts, but at a certain point skipped to the end, so apologies if I end up repeating someone else.
I can see both sides, having found myself at different points both fascinated by his work, and then at others, left somewhat indifferent; in the end I feel like I generally come around to liking the work, especially the tornado stuff. I do, though, agree with people above that it's ultimately not about the like. The influence of the New Topographics is enormous, regardless of how dry one may find their perspective.
What was jarring about it when they first did their thing in the early 70's was not necessarily how they photographed the landscape. People before them like Walker Evans had also documented the less than glorious in urban and rural environments. But what the New Topographics did that shocked everyone was that they took this let's call it East Coast way of interpreting socialized patterns in our landscape, and took it out West, into land which our cultural imagination has always wanted to see as free and wild as possible (and which, of course, it is in part). While Adams and Weston showed us the wildness which we still want to believe as emblematic of the place, Wessel, Deal, R. Adams and Gohlke showed us things like parking lots, and said, this is what's really happening to that wildness; we see this human intervention, often negative, as the protagonist more than the mountains. Sentimentality versus nihilism, myth versus realism or rejection, if you want to call it that. The dialogue whose scope they helped define continues today in contemporary landscape work.
But to my somewhat deviating point. I think his site stinks, and it impacts how one sees the work. This is a perfect example of how site design does not distinguish between simple and boring. I'm not sure what should be done differently, but there is not enough consideration to getting the image to float off the screen into your imagination. Analogously, a badly designed book or poorly hung exhibit can lessen your opinion of an artist you may even otherwise cherish. For example, there is something about how the Getty hangs photo shows that leaves me befuddled; in recent years I have walked out of there not only uninspired by what I saw, but tempted to lessen my estimation of artists I even cherish, such as Sander. A quick look through a book, or prints somewhere else would then right the balance, but it has been a powerful lesson in how presentation can make or break something which one thinks somehow should be resistant to secondary aspects; I think we want the best work to have a reality independent from our own perceptions, something that approaches an objective truth, but unfortunately it is always dependent on the relative value of things as "menial" or secondary as the design and lighting which show it. I definitely like Gohlke's work less when I look at this site, which sets these presentation alarm bells ringing. So, with a different site, I think it might look very different to the eye, perhaps even more appealing.
And yes, I think that tagline is useless. True as it may be, it adds a monumental tone to bodies of work that are much more understated. That contradiction also provokes dissatisfaction in the viewer. We know Gohlke is important; why does it have to be explicitly stated and advertised as such?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks