Frank Gohlke's new website

[Michael T. Murphy]

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.

.... 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.

Thank you, that is a very insightful post.

I remember finding the New Topographic work when I was an undergraduate photography student. It was both brilliant and beautiful in it's own way, unlike anything I had ever seen up to that time. It did feel like a big release and return to the "real" world after AA, Weston, et. al.'s idealized vision of the west that never really existed (though I liked his/ their work at the time, including Plowden too, etc.)

I have always admired Gohlke, along with Robert Adams, and a number of others from that group. They are precusrsors to some of our strongest western LF photographers of today, like Mark Klett.

I have to say, though, that I am not particularily interested in/attracted to the images on his site. They may just be complex to compress to a small jpeg, etc.

I would recommend finding his books and judging based on what you see there. I could not see a good history of western LF/landscape photography from the 1880's to the 1980's being written without Gohlke.

Best,
Michael

[paulr]

lots of great points, claudiocambon. pretty much equals my impressions of his work and website. and what you say about the new topographics lends a lot of clarity. i find myself talking about that movement a lot, but on close reflection i realize i've mostly studied robert adams (who is like the movement's grandfather, but who has done a lot that isn't specifically part of it. if you can even call it a movement, which a lot of people would question). the other photographers associated with it i've looked at much less closely ... gohlke included. i really just knew his grain elevators.

as far as his site, i don't mind the simplicity of it, but i hate the editing. too few pictures to really give a sense of each body of work, and in spite of the large section of writings, no statements at all about the projects. this is especially unfortunate with bodies of work like the one named by the latitude/longitude, which could really use some background.

[chrismoseley]

Well I probably shouldn't admit this, but I wasn't even born until 1979.

So what are you saying?

[patrickjames]

I had never heard of this man until I ran across this thread. Without commenting on the work itself, I have to ask if he would be in the position he is in based solely on the work itself. In other words, can his success be attributed to his work, or who he has known and studied with?

Patrick

[Mark Sawyer]

I had never heard of this man until I ran across this thread. Without commenting on the work itself, I have to ask if he would be in the position he is in based solely on the work itself. In other words, can his success be attributed to his work, or who he has known and studied with?

I'd opine his "success" is owed to that, and to where he's taught, his exhibition, lecture, and publication record, collections his work is in, grants, fellowships and awards received, commissions completed, reviews, etc. All of which have something to do with his work.

Making photographs is one talent, successfully promoting your work and yourself, (and therein photography as a fine art), is distinctly another, which most artists sadly lack...

[keviesten]

Doug, you may not be alone with your query.

[Paul Paletti]

One thing you have to keep in mind is that you must see the original prints, not computer screen images. They have an elegant delicacy in the print quality that is lost if not seen in person. His is a quiet vision, and it may not appeal to everyone. But there is a great deal of sophistication in his work.

[Kirk Gittings]

Well said Paul, there is an understated glow to his prints, he is a master printer.

[keith english]

I'm glad I', not the only one who had that reaction to his work. I'm sure he is a great fellow, and teacher, and technically good, but I just don't understand what makes some work especially important to collectors unless it is convincing some art museum curator that it is, then you are set. The work of William Eggleston and Stephen Shore comes to mind.

[paulr]

The work of William Eggleston and Stephen Shore comes to mind.

You mean the work of the two most highly regarded color photographers of the 20th century? Gohlke would no doubt be flattered by the comparison. I know I would.