Talk:Frank Gohlke

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Frank Gohlke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://frankgohlke.com/About.
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150524001151/http://www.frankgohlke.com/Projects to http://frankgohlke.com/Projects
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150425062505/http://www.frankgohlke.com/News to http://frankgohlke.com/News
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150425062505/http://www.frankgohlke.com/News to http://frankgohlke.com/News
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.howardgreenberg.com/artists/frank-gohlke.

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Top importance or High importance?

An editor has twice downgraded this article from the longstanding Top importance to "High". This is wildly inconsistent with the ratings on other photography articles and at odds with our standards for these designations.

Frank Gohlke is a two-time Guggenheim, two-time NEA and Fulbright Grant winner who is heavily represented in the collections of museums worldwide, and who has a near-unequaled record of one-man and group exhibition at prestigious institutions. Gohlke was a seminal figure in the "New Topographics" movement that redefined American landscape photography in the second half of the Twentieth Century, and has taught at numerous top colleges and universities. What possible basis is there for a downgrade, especially alongside the long list of lesser figures recently tagged as "High"? The "Top" designation should be restored. Seeking third-party editor input. SPECIFICO talk 18:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Qono?

Specifico, you are asking why Gohlke has been downgraded from the ultimate level of importance available. Gohlke was indeed "a seminal figure in the 'New Topographics' movement that redefined American landscape photography in the second half of the Twentieth Century"; but so were other people. Among these seminal people, I don't think Gohlke has been or is particularly well-known. (Also, the redefinition of US landscape photography, while important, is hardly one of the greatest transformations in photographic history. It's dealt with in histories of world photography in a couple of pages or so, not in an entire chapter.)

For this purpose, "importance" is described not as importance to those who have taken postgraduate degrees in the history of photography, or even those who have half a dozen or more books from Steidl on their shelves. Instead, it's a matter of the likelihood of searches: the ranks "attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic". So Annie Leibovitz is a lot more "important" than Gohlke. For that matter, Anne Geddes is too.

True, this is partly contradicted by such descriptions as "extremely important, even crucial, to its specific field". (This contradiction/vagueness is one reason why WP:WikiProject History of photography eschewed "importance" rankings. Another was the feeling that too many photographers have their partisans, eager to claim high importance.)

Assuming for now that importance ratings are worth retaining, I have a related question. Why is the importance of so many people "High"? Henry Taunt seems a decent photographer and one who merits an article, but by which criteria is his importance "high"? -- Hoary (talk) 05:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Here's how we can compare the actual, rather than merely guessed, numbers of page views. (The numbers shown here are the daily averages for the last few days, as displayed by the tool a few minutes ago. For more up to date figures, click the links.)

• Annie Leibovitz: 985
• David Hamilton: 207
• Peter Lik: 103
• Anne Geddes: 89
• Robert Adams: 36
• Frank Gohlke: 5
• Henry Taunt: 3

-- Hoary (talk) 08:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I remain unconvinced. And although you presumably did not intend the somewhat snide dismissal of editors who have actual knowledge of the field, the criterion you state makes no sense, because it does not relate to (in this case) Photography. I suppose that's why Corot was way-way overestimated. That example alone is enough to invalidate the criterion you cite if in fact it is the one generally endorsed by members of the Photography Project. And as you say it is inconsistent with the brief descriptions of the rankings. That example alone is sufficient to throw out the page view ranking test. Using that Corot-Pageview metric, we would expect to see Bill Clinton, Condoleeza Rice, and Richard Nixon as a Top musicians (all widely reported for their relatively insignificant public performances). I see less harm in over-estimating importance (because it may encourage editors to improve the overrated articles). I share your reaction that many of the recently "High" rated photography articles have been over-rated, but there's somewhat less harm in that. However for articles that might benefit from improvement such as Gohlke, Nick Nixon and others the under-rating is adverse to our readers and WP content.

Also, the few page-view statistics you've cited don't really support your statements. Robert Adams has low daily pageviews, but is (appropriately) "Top", while Hippolyte_Bayard, with roughly the same low pageview count, is exactly the sort of bloke who's only known to scholars, experts, and aficionados. Then we have Alice Boughton, an obscure and ordinary Pictorialist, rated Top with 20 page views on average. There are many many more bad examples. Judy Dater also 20-30 page views, is almost entirely sourced to primary sources or promotional blurbs -- rated Top.

Basically, unless there is some valid objective criterion -- and one that serves a constructive purpose -- no editor or bot should mass-revise hundreds of pages in this way. Especially when there's no good consistent rationale for the edits. SPECIFICO talk 13:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I've responded to these concerns at the same discussion on the WikiProject Photography talk page. Qono (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Ernest Cole average 11 page views per day, rated Top. Limited exhibition history. SPECIFICO talk 16:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I hadn't intended, and certainly don't want, to dismiss the work of any editor, let alone editors who have a real understanding of photography. And snideness wasn't intended ... though I suppose I do have trouble remaining polite about the work of a number of demonstrably popular photographers. I understand your (Specifico) frustration here. I don't claim to understand the criteria for "importance" myself; so far as I do understand them, I have trouble agreeing with them; and where I do agree with them, I don't do so with any enthusiasm. However, I also have some trouble understanding what you're saying. I have no opinion on the importance of Judy Dater (an unfamiliar name to me), but yes I too am surprised to see her labeled "Top". (My knowledge of photography is patchy, but I do expect to have at least heard of the names of photographers of "Top" importance.) As for Ernest Cole, he's a particularly interesting example. His photographic career was tragically short, but I'm not alone in thinking that his work was first-rate. The book (House of Bondage) of his work -- I don't say "his photobook", because, however benevolently, it was turned into a polemic by other hands -- both sold a lot of copies and gets an appreciative write-up in one or other of the Parr/Badger books: a rare combination. However, I can't deny that the first Steidl book of his work was remaindered and that new copies were long available for a tenner or so. People don't seem interested, and I'm sad but not at all surprised to see that his article gets few page views. -- Hoary (talk) 01:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Hoary. Well, here is what we know. Qono is an account with about a 4 month history that shows up and rates several hundred articles. On the Project talk page, he claims that he was rating not according to the page view criterion you cite. He says he's using various proxies for the importance of the photographer's work and recognition by cultural institutions. Well, by that standard it is beyond question that Gohlke belongs in the Top category. This is evident from the cited content in this article, even in its current incomplete state. As editors, our personal opinions or reactions concerning any of these folks work is irrelevant. The "Top" rating has been stable in this article for years, and Qono did not follow BRD but instead repeated his edit against the established consensus and has given very flimsy and unsupportable justifications here and on the Project talk page. That's all we know. SPECIFICO talk 01:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)