Lewis Baltz

So maybe I declared I was going to focus on David Bailey's NW1 for the M.H.B. However upon further advice ive looked more into the monographs of Robert Adams, Joel Sternfeld and Lewis Baltz. Whilst the Adams books we're ones I would like to pursue, the Sternfeld book i felt would not be a good choice because there is something so American about the photographs and plasticaised almost in parts (I've been studying 'American Prospects') I dont think it deserves to be tainted by myself.

The Tract Houses on the otherhand, one of the Baltz books I've been looking at I feel would be interesting to explore.

Tract Houses are a very American invention, the major developments with only a few variations in structure and design. The obvious English equivalent is the council house, but what about private developers? David Wilson, for example, use the same basic structure for a number of housing developments in different areas at the same time. So although not strictly a tract house in that the size of the developments are much smaller, it is part of a repetitive design. Below is 'Carron' this is style and very similiar ones are all the range right now at David Wilson. I'd count how many times the designs used but theres 143 developments across the UK

Tract House # 1

Tract House # 10

Tract House # 11

Tract House # 15

Tract House # 20

Robert Frank + Bernard Plossu

Robert Frank.

Iconic.

Topographer.

Denver.

I've never seen much of Robert Franks 'Denver' but what I have is quite beautiful.

"In Adams' words he "wanted to explore whether a romantic view of Denver and the American West was entirely wrong." In 93 photographs he presented his critique of America's poor stewardship of the land with rapid expansion of housing and obsessive consumption." (5b4.blogspot.com)

Is romantasing a place necessarily a bad thing?

It's much more aesthetically pleasing. Which is always nice.

Denver is very polished. Although not all nice new subjects, nothing is overly 'dirty' so to speak. I think b&w has a part to play in this to some extent. Most things look nicer (in this style, subject matter) in b&w to an extent. Straight lines are very important.

Bernard Plossu.

Stumbled by him by accident. Although the websites I have been looking at tend to be in French I know he is a documentary photographer alleged to have 'bridged the gap' between American and European photography in the 70's and 80's.

Although I'm not entirely sure what this works about its entitled "Plossu couleur Fresson" It's Plossu's first (published/shown?) colour photographs, prior to this he was know exclusively for his b&w photos. This work is printed on Charcol paper, hence the inclusion of 'Fresson' in the title.

the images themselves date from 1965-2005. Theres no logical correlation and yet the images fit together. They create a questioning audience.

Californie 1974

Mexico 1966

Mexique 1966

Roads, Monument Valley 1982

Santa-Fe Nouveau Mexique

Sofa rouge de Carlos Serrano, Madrid 1975

Taos, Mexique 1979

Section One - Who Are You?!

Define your area of practice.

Landscape? I am told

Topographic? Is this just style?

Documentary? Really? I'd say documentS rather than documentARY. Like a photographer for the painter. Like Atget to the painters of Paris. Or Ed Ruscha to himself. Without the painting bit. Just a set of imges to show what there is. read what you want into it. ???

The Plan is to update this as I figure it out.




UPDATE!


I think I am a Landscape photographer. When I look at personal work I've shot for the hell of it I notice a lot of geometric patterns appearing and bold lines, often vertical defining a landscape. But then I inter mix this with lots of detail shots kind of like my 302 finals but with less consistency in the far out/close up shots.