Regarding Eggleston; I have a similar issue with Frank Gohkle

I'm having a problem right now with Frank Gohlke, like others are debating about Eggleston. With a lot of his work, I just don't get it. OK, I get the Mount St Helens stuff, and I sort of get the grain elevators. But for a lot of it, it almost seems to me that it's considered good because of who he knows, or something. A lot of it looks like a lot of other photographs I've seen. It appears no more informed than anything else, almost as if there is an assumption that THIS photographer took a shot with knowledge and insight and meaning, and THAT photographer took a shot because he liked the colors, and THIS one is art but THAT one is cultural detritus, regardless of any other merits of the photographs. And I'm not comparing it with HDR shots of vacation highlights, I'm trying to see it for its composition (he has written that everything in the frame is important) and as a collection, for what it says about landscape.

I'm willing to listen and be convinced otherwise. But I bought the book, and read the essays, and I just don't see what's so special. Perhaps if I saw the prints themselves, maybe there is something special about the actual physical thing that isn't conveyed by the image in the book? I'm willing to listen. It may be that I'm just being bullheaded.

Links?

http://www.frankgohlke​.com/pbl/photography

None of it does anything for me. Other than it being a one-time occasion or something you don't see everyday, there is nothing I find appealing about the aesthetics of work. Doesn't make me think, doesn't stimulate me, etc.


The only thinking it's making me do is wonder how this guy sells this stuff.

But he's incredibly well regarded as a landscape photographer. I'm not sure why. The photo "Boxborough Station, Boxborough, MA - from 42.30 North: A Line on the Land, 2002"; I don't want to link it, copyright and all, but it's in the 42.30 North page; I took a similar shot a couple years ago and it is sitting in my "eh" folder; not all that interesting. Same high gray-white sky, road crossing a set of tracks, electric poles and wires, gate... just a different location in America. Was it as good? No. Could a thousand other photographers have take it as well? I think so.

To me, like I said: I don't see what those who think this work is exceptional see. That doesn't mean it isn't there. I want to know, not only why this is great, but what is there about it that is different from so much other photography that makes it great. If this stuff was posted in "critique corner" as the work of a beginner, it would draw dozens of comments, not all of them good. IMO, anyhow.

Maybe his photos are in the category of "so simple that it's complicated"??

For me, those images were a big meh.

Check out the term "vernacular photography" a lot of Eggleston and Gohlke type work falls into this catagory. As with pretty much any genre of any artform there are those who like it and those who do not. I actually enjoy some of each of these fellow's work quite a bit, some of it not so much, I tend to go on an image by image basis, we all have really bad shots, whether we edit those out before anyone sees them or not is where a big part of popular sentiment about these artists and others like them lies.

Some of Gohlke's stuff I like, such as some of the grain elevator shots, others not so much, but there is a place for everything (how else do you explain the Dave Hill look).

Actually, when they do hit on it, such as Eggleston (although not a fan of the bike photo in particular), Stephen Shore, and Robert Adams, I find it compelling and poignant: it uniquely draws me in, but that's also probably because I spent a good portion of my youth growing up in the South and Midwest during the 1970s and early 1980s.

While they are working along the lines of the vernacular, the photos that stand out have something almost imperceptibly askew, and trying to replicate this atmosphere is remarkably difficult without ending up with just another 'snapshot.'

In any case, it is not for the mainstream, and I can understand why people, whether they are in the mainstream or not, might be averse to this style. Arguably, a sort of Emperor's clothing scenario for some, but for me, as I stated, they are some of the most difficult types of photographs to successfully produce. Again, it is very personal, and if you don't 'get it,' that's cool---some people like red, some people like green.

Mosca wrote in post #10197302
...If this stuff was posted in "critique corner" as the work of a beginner, it would draw dozens of comments, not all of them good. IMO, anyhow.

Just a comment on this statement, many of the most influential photographs throughout history (whether one actually likes them or not) would get lambasted in 'critique corner,' and for me, such criticism might stand more as an actual compliment in the overarching scheme of things.

Just an addendum to my previous comment on photo critiques. From Mike Johnston's Online Photographer site:

http://theonlinephotog​rapher.blogspot.com …graphers-on-internet.html

sjones wrote in post #10197915
Just an addendum to my previous comment on photo critiques. From Mike Johnston's Online Photographer site:

http://theonlinephotog​rapher.blogspot.com …graphers-on-internet.html

sjones, it was Mike Johnston's review of Gohlke's work that made me decide to get Gohlke's book of essays Thoughts on Landscape, as well as his book of photographs Accommodating Nature. I feel almost stupid, that after seeing the photographs and reading the photographer's essays on his own work, others' work, and photography in general, the images are as opaque as if I'd seen them on Flickr. I sort of get the composition, but in many of them I simply can't make any connection from the composition to any larger feeling or meaning, and the composition itself often isn't enough to make me sit up and notice. I get it, that the set 42.30 North is all about being pulled from the front to the back. I just don't get what's so special about that, nor how this particular set of photographs is better at doing that than anyone else's set might be.

Again, maybe it has something to do with the actual prints, what they look like in the gallery.

sjones wrote in post #10197915
Just an addendum to my previous comment on photo critiques. From Mike Johnston's Online Photographer site:

http://theonlinephotog​rapher.blogspot.com …graphers-on-internet.html

LOL, I actually had that in mind when I wrote my comment! I knew I was walking on thin ice there.

When I say I'm open minded, I really am. I understand that I'm probably missing something and don't know what it is, and don't have the tools to find it. I have no problem learning what that is and readjusting my opinion, which is the reason I started the topic.

Mosca wrote in post #10198079
LOL, I actually had that in mind when I wrote my comment! I knew I was walking on thin ice there.

When I say I'm open minded, I really am. I understand that I'm probably missing something and don't know what it is, and don't have the tools to find it. I have no problem learning what that is and readjusting my opinion, which is the reason I started the topic.

Yeah, Johnson has a soft heart for the 'simple' photos.

For me, I've looked at a Steve Shore photo, for example, and thought, this is just a photo of a Holiday Inn parking lot---a child could have accidentally pulled this one off, yet, there is something beyond the visual that just grabs me. It really is more visceral, not visual or even intellectual, and I think personal taste and perhaps how it might relate to past experience adds to the appeal.

Also, just to reiterate, Gohlke's work in particular (at least from what I've seen) is less consistent for me, and I have the same reaction you and most of the folks do when looking at several of his photos.

But I really want to stress that you are not missing anything, as I just think it is very subjective, not really cognitive. If it doesn't do anything for you, then it is just not your thing, and like I said, a lot of his photos didn't do anything for me either.

I think your inquiry is an important element of reviewing any of the arts (music, literature, paintings, photography, etc.), since far too often people automatically accept the 'Masters' without further examination or even personal honesty, and at least your questioning what's so great. While it is certainly good that you are looking at it with an open mind, ultimately, it's more than OK if your final conclusion is: This is crap!

Also, just to clarify, my link to Johnson was not directed at you by any means, just the cautious value of Internet critiques in general.

I don't quite know what to make of this thoughtful and introspective thread...

*looks around wondering where to throw my 2c regarding 24-70 vs 24-105*

Mosca; you're not the only one. I've been guilty of trying too much to understand/appreciate/​'get' an image by a master simply because they're a master.

I don't get Gohlke...maybe I am missing something...but then, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar...or as sjones puts it, maybe it's just "crap"!

Off topic; that blog post is gold! I laughed. Whenever I see the image of Tank Man from Tiananmen Square, I often wonder if Jeff Widener has amateurs contacting him and saying "clone that damn light post out!!".

To be honest, his photos look like someone leaned out their car window and grabbed some snapshots while on vacation. If you hadn't insinuated he was a professional photographer in your original post, I'd never have known.

I think it was Scott Bourne who said with photography, people don't buy your photos, they buy the relationship they have with you. This guy must be very charismatic in person...

I like Gohlke's clean lines, I like his structure. But I don't think his photographs are special, just well crafted. Thanks for the input, I'm glad I'm not alone. What I really would love to have someone who has a different opinion come here and share. I may not agree, but I'd still like to know. I read Gohlke's essays on his own work... but I'm not sure that helps. If a guy has to write 25 pages to help me understand what he's trying to do with his photographs, that might mean that his photographs are not very successful.