Frank Gohlke's new website

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

If one looks at all the "series" in the web site, we see many of the photographs were taken in the 70s and 80s. So I can buy what Kirk is saying that these are examples of documentary landscape that is telling us "hey, what AA et al are doing is outside the norm, this is our reality!" Having said that, I don't see why documentary photographs cannot also be aesthetically pleasing. For example, the grain eleveator shots. I have seen far, far better grain elevator shots that those presented in the web site, in fact for my taste the best shot is the one in the home page, the rest are mediocre at best.

In the end, it is a matter of taste and maybe historical relevance. What really dissappointed me were the photographs in the series 43.50 N. These are contemporary photographs taken in 2002 and they show the exact same vision. In other words it seems to me there has been no growth and he is doing the same ol' thing just in color this time.

Anybody who is not aware of environmental/consumerism issues presently is either living on a cave or too poor to afford a TV and has bigger things to worry about than the environment. The documentary landscape photography showing us these issues has become a tired cliche and is manily used by some present day photographers to garner notoriety. For Mr. Gohlke to continue in the same vein it seem to me he has fallen in a rut.

OTOH, if these are just projects, like "well, I will take pics along this parallel" without any relevance to environmental issues then I don't get it, why take such banal shot?

[Eric Biggerstaff]

I am with Jorge, my favorite image is the homepage one.

I understand where Gohlke is going and I admire what he, Robert Adams and others have done to show our world as most people see if everyday. But this everyday realism is why the images seem boring and out of date, in my opinion. We see these scenes day in and day out and so images of them tend to pass through our memory pretty quickly.

I agree with Jorge also in that I wish his new work was different than the old ( other than being in color). It would be nice to see an important and established artist push into new directions and take chances with their work. I know I would learn a great deal more about the artist and their work if I could see this.

[scott_6029]

hmmmm? whatever...not my cup of tea...

[Merg Ross]

Kirk, I believe that I understand your point, and as a teacher you are more knowledgeable than I on this subject. However, O'Sullivan, and his contemporaries Watkins and Vroman, were documenting the West with artistry to their work. I do not believe that the passage of time has made their work any better than it was at conception; for the most part the work was well seen and surely not boring or mundane.

Anyway, my two cents; your work is much more to my liking!

[seawolf66]

His Mount St. Helens foto's do not turn me on , He has nothing on Weston or ansel with that series: My two Cents

[Kirk Gittings]

Thanks Merg, for those kind words.

So I can buy what Kirk is saying that these are examples of documentary landscape that is telling us "hey, what AA et al are doing is outside the norm, this is our reality!" Having said that, I don't see why documentary photographs cannot also be aesthetically pleasing.

Jorge

I came to the same conclusion Jorge for my own work after exploring an aesthetic similar to Robert Adams, who was my mentor for awhile in the early 1980's. Not to say that I don't find much of RA's work aesthetically pleasing, I do, and I deeply respect what he did, but for myself I need more personal drama in my landscapes, which more reflects my relationship with the American West. Ultimately I found I was not an observer of landscape but instead landscape became a vehicle for expressing personal ideas about spirituality etc.

All that being said, I am forever grateful that LF photography is not all AA/Weston all the time.......

[davidb]

For you book collectors, try finding a copy of the original show catalog.

If you can, they cost about $1200.

I've seen it and a relative owns it. To me it wasn't very impressive.

[paulr]

but for myself I need more personal drama in my landscapes, which more reflects my relationship with the American West. .....

Which is the key point here. Kirk acknowledges that drama is ONE possible goal for a landscape photograph. Without coming out and saying it, a lot of people are suggesting that if if it's not dramatic, it's not interesting.

Gohlke and others like him have shown bodies of work based on more subtle relationships of forms, and more subtle relationships between the artist and the subject. It's not fair to say their work is "just documentary." I happen to be drawn to the esthetics of the work as much as to any other aspect of it. It just happens that this work requires more quiet reflection than some of the more bombastic, romantic types of landscape.

If work bores you, it might be because it doesn't have much to say. But it might also be because you haven't looked closely enough. I think of William Carlos Williams, the grandfather of anti-romantic American Poets, who said, "I want to write poems that you can understand, but you got to try hard."

[Bill_1856]

"If work bores you...it might also be because you haven't looked closely enough."
I always worry about that -- a lot.
I come from an older generation where a good image should whack you in the face. But the new generation is a lot more image conscious, from being exposed continuously to TV, and advertisements, and video games, etc. I wonder if they are able to discern visual messages in an image that I can't see -- or, instead, if they are so blase that they must be REALLY whacked over the head?
I don't know the answer to that -- I just know that this work does nothing for me.

[cyrus]

Yes, today, but in 25 or so years it will be historical. What will the landscape look like then?

Just goes to show you that opinions are like A..holes, everybody has one. Me, I don't get the out of focus poorly developed images that a lot of people like to swoon over.

I suspect that the used car lots, fast food joints and strip malls will all look pretty much the same in 50 years.

People & fashions though change. I have spent a few rolls simply shooting people standing at a pedestrian crosswalk here in NYC and other such mundane shots. Right now, there's nothing interesting about the photos. However I suspect a lot of my street photos will only start to be "interesting" in oh, say, 30 years. I'll be the Atget of NYC I tell you!!!

But maybe I should shoot a set of similar photos...out of focus...with peppers! Lotsa peppers!