For my primary research I decided to draw up a questionnaire, and ask people I know, what they thought of Gohlke's work. My first question was 'Do you think this work is different at all from traditional landscape photography' to which the answers of this question surprised me very much. A common response was simply 'not really' the only slight difference was that all of his work was in black and white and 'that's not always used in landscape photography'. I feel the reason for this common response to his work in that it's not that different from what people are used to, is because he did this work 40 years ago and therefore, I can imagine, at his time it was never done before but now that he has influenced a lot of photographers and people have a lot more access to photography his work has become the thing he specifically set out to try and not to be, generic.
I then asked what people thought the purpose was for his work, to which I got a few responses saying it was fine art and was done to be hung up at a gallery. Other responses were that it looked as though it could have been used for documentation purposes, which I guess both of these responses would be correct, his work is hung in galleries and it was done to document man made constructs.
No comments:
Post a Comment