Talk:New Topographics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject New York (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject History of photography (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject History of photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of History of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

"hazy and incomplete knowledge"[edit]

I wrote this from my own rather hazy and incomplete knowledge of this photographic movement. If anyone who reads this, who knows anything about the subject, thinks that it is a good description, please remove the cleanup-verify tag. If you think the article is missing important information, which I think not unlikely, please add it. Thanks! Jeff Medkeff | Talk 14:42, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)


I read the post and decided to just start all over again for the sake of the coherence of the text. Which does not mean that the text flows better but just that because of the amount of added content I could not just add it here and there which would have seriously jeopardized the coherence of your own text. Best, BC

(Bchalifour (talk) 00:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC))

title?[edit]

the description seems fine to me, but I question the title ... it's never referred to as "new topography," in my experience, but rather as "new topographics." don't know if this can be changed without breaking links.

Among the three or four places I've seen the genre referred to as "new topography" in print is Ian Jeffrey, The Photography Book, Phaidon 1997. I also had a college photo instructor use the term "new topography" for the genre. I've never heard the term "new topographics" until now; it sounds like a reference to practitioners of the genre. But my not having heard it doesn't mean much.
The article can be renamed. Click on the "move" tab to do so. That will leave a redirect here to the new article name, which is good. But check "what links here" (the link is on the left-hand side, below the search bar) before doing it, and be sure to fix all the links elsewhere in Wikipedia. Links from cat pages are automagically updated.
I do not object to a renaming, but I'd only feel good about it if a second authority that uses "new topographics" could be cited to trump my one citation for the current name. --Jeff Medkeff | Talk 13:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I've only heard "New Topography" myself, and that in a couple different places. Recury 17:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the article should be renamed New Topographics, because this is the title of the original exhibition that gave the movement its name. A simple Google search will support this. “New Topography” returns the Wikipedia article and not much else photo related, while “New Topographics” returns with numerous relevant photography sites.
The name “New Topography” also causes some internal confusion. The article on Robert Adams refers to “New Topographics”, but cannot link to this article. I will look for scholarly references that support this and check back. --vtphoto 27 July 2006
Re: the internal confusion on the name. I just checked the six articles that link to New Topography. Four of the six use the term “New Topographics,” but link to New Topography. --vtphoto 27 July 2006

Size[edit]

The article claims Frank Gohlke used "24 cm × 24 cm – close enough to 8”×10”" - 24x24 isn't that close to 8x10, it's more like 10x10 or more accurately 9.5x9.5 inches. Could someone check the size of his prints and amend accordingly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notnearlythere (talkcontribs) 08:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)