Good shooting Stamper. The guy behind the tree makes #1, and #4 is a fine shot, ambiguous enough to fall into my own definition of street. #2 reminds me a bit of Garry Winogrand's "World's Fair, New York City, 1964" (http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artObjectDetails?artobj=53834&handle=li). I don't see ambiguity in #3, but it's a fine environmental portrait.
I was glad there was a rail track between me and the "ladies". Glasgow "ladies" can be brutal if they get you. ;DActually as I look at it again Stamper, they caught you!
Last but not least.
Hurrying home.
Guy, Sorry, but what I see is one high-school type snapshot and two environmental portraits -- no street photography. You need to go to a library or bookstore, pick up a book of Cartier-Bresson's photographs, and study it.Oh my. Thanks for the advice. However, it brings to mind two of the worst dangers in art - emulation and assumption of rules. And I thank you for presenting me the opportunity to say something about them. Emulation is deadly to anyone seeking their truth through art. To grab a forerunner's style, and assume it is a standard by which your own truth must conform, will kill the enterprise before it even begins. Whatever CBs truths were as he snapped his shutter are not my truths. His life is not my life. If art is life, how can I adopt his? This is not to deny in any way the appreciation of his life, no not at all. But it is to say that his is his, and mine is different. Necessarily then, my art wouldn't be his either. This confuses many people. This difference between appreciation and emulation. Never emulate! Always seek the truth within. And yes, CB had a certain way with his photographic truth, didn't he?
.....I have had another look at the first one and there is more to it than meets the eye. A bit like the Fonz in Happy Days......The dozen kids are on a junior prom night in front of the Ritz - a cocktail lounge normally having a few boring old people toddling in and out. To turn the corner and see this huge release of youth energy and laughter and excitement was really fun. In a matter of about 90-seconds it was all gone as they jumped into waiting limos and were off to the dance. But for a minute "the street" was positively pulsing with their energy and color. In the year long life of the Ritz, it might have been the most energetic minute experienced.
... Emulation is deadly to anyone seeking their truth through art. To grab a forerunner's style, and assume it is a standard by which your own truth must conform, will kill the enterprise before it even begins. ...
As to assumed rules of photography, be ever so careful of that tight box. A rule is a boundary generally claimed by someone who might have run out of ideas and seeks to assemble the world within the limits (rules) of their imagination. This is street photography, that is not! ...
And another. Ambiguous?
I don't know about ambiguous. Thought provoking, at least for me.
Mike.
All alone.
Last but not least.
Hurrying home.
Without communication, there is no art.
Without emulation, there is no communication. A photograph will inevitably refer to other photographs the viewer has seen, there's no way to look at a photograph without thinking of and being reminded of other photographs. The photographer should be mindful of this and deal with this reality, accept it and embrace it. Emulation is not copying.
Rules are one thing, they're just solutions to problems. You may choose other solutions to the problems, or leave the problem unsolved. Best if your lack of solution somehow serves the image and the communication, however.
Street photography is a genre, there aren't any specific "rules" for it, but it does have a pretty well defined definition. If we choose to eschew definitions, well, that's ok I guess. It's going to be awfully hard to communicate if nobody's using words to mean the same thing.
Fun documentaries, Guy, but not street photography. Nobody's suggesting you copy anyone. That's impossible in any case. But by studying the masters of street you at least stand a chance of learning two things: what street photography is and how photographic geometry works.I'm all ears. Since this is the critique forum, please do pick a photograph I posted and expound on how photographic geometry works. I'd be delighted to hear about it. I find that naked assertions are far less valuable in a critique, don't you?
Russ, this is the modern age.You're close, but you haven't quite got it there. Since this is a critique thread, I'd like to critique your commentary there. Rather than me posing as some authority with rules, I'm going to use the wisdom of accomplished artists to demonstrate my point and critique your view. Your view can be summed up as "People ought not claim themselves as artists on the strength of their own convictions."
You can photograph anything you like and then apply any old designation you wish. Why? "It's art because I say it is" spawned the right.
That it might be crap doesn't matter; it's what the 'creator' says it is! Don't you love that? Everybody feels good; we're all stars!
;-)
Rob C
RedwoodGuy, I can throw words around just as easily and happily as can you; fortunately, I've spent enough time on this planet to realise that one is always going to bump into someone whose pleasure in the exchange of ideas lies not in the ideas but solely in argument for its own sake. At that realisation, I simply bow out gracefully and let the person carry on talking to the trees, the walls or whatever else fills his vision.That's ok Rob. Don't feel bad about it. It was a pretty steep hill to climb.
Life's too short for this, something else learned from the time on this planet.
Enjoy the echoes.
Rob C
Stamper, all four of these are good shots, but the artifacts have almost taken over the images in the last two. That, the foreshortening, and the square format make me suspect you of cropping!
That's ok Rob. Don't feel bad about it. It was a pretty steep hill to climb.
Jeremy, do you have anything to contribute to the thread or are you just here to practise your repertoire of one liners?
I'm all ears. Since this is the critique forum, please do pick a photograph I posted and expound on how photographic geometry works. I'd be delighted to hear about it. I find that naked assertions are far less valuable in a critique, don't you?
If you think you're going to learn about photography, or any art form for that matter, from verbal descriptions then it's clear you haven't a clue and that you're charging off in all directions at once. The way you learn about how graphical geometry works is to look at the best examples of it until you internalize at least something of what's involved. But that aside, none of your posted photographs so far would be fit subjects for an explanation in any case.This is a critique forum, and it was your claim that I knew nothing about photographic geometry. Obviously, it was regarding one of the photos I posted, else why would you say it?
I make no direct accusation, RedwoodGuy, but your intellectual posture is one I(and many of us) have seen before. It is a posture frequently held by people who are too lazy to understand their antecedents, and cling to the notion that they can simply intuit their way into doing wonderful art. So far you don't seem to have cited Mozart, thank goodness.Underhanded insults are no better than honest direct ones. When you begin by saying you are not making an accusation, then don't make an accusation. I'm lazy? Tell me exactly what you would know about my work habits, or my intellectual rigor. Where did I indicate anywhere on these forums that I am 'intuiting my way into doing wonderful art?' Please, make the citation so we can see what you are talking about.
Anyways, I too will bow out of the conversation. Feel free to imply that I simply haven't the intellectual stuff to keep up with you.
Jeremy, do you have anything to contribute to the thread or are you just here to practise your repertoire of one liners?
Hah! Touche.
Recycle.
I managed to get this SNAPSHOT of a recycler.
It seems to me that humour is another legitimate element in street photography. The first is an example of male multi-tasking. The second is, well, just fun when school's out. Both brought a smile for me - a small but priceless treasure on any given day.
...Yes, some artists may compete with each other...When I think about the history of the art forms I know something about, or the lives ans writings of artists I have studied in detail, I find it difficult to think of any who haven't competed, in some sense, with those they consider to be their real peers, whether contemporaries or predecessors. There is a branch of critical theory which goes into it - you might find this article (http://web-facstaff.sas.upenn.edu/~cavitch/pdf-library/Bloom_Apophrades.pdf) interesting (hard going, but worth the effort, IMO). Harold Bloom started off a lot of useful thinking about one of the things that drives many artists. Emulation isn't imitation - on the contrary, mere imitation gives up on any ambition to emulate. Nor is emulation - or competition - necessarily a hostile act - on the contrary, it is the highest kind of tribute.
When I think about the history of the art forms I know something about, or the lives ans writings of artists I have studied in detail, I find it difficult to think of any who haven't competed, in some sense, with those they consider to be their real peers, whether contemporaries or predecessors. There is a branch of critical theory which goes into it - you might find this article (http://web-facstaff.sas.upenn.edu/~cavitch/pdf-library/Bloom_Apophrades.pdf) interesting (hard going, but worth the effort, IMO). Harold Bloom started off a lot of useful thinking about one of the things that drives many artists. Emulation isn't imitation - on the contrary, mere imitation gives up on any ambition to emulate. Nor is emulation - or competition - necessarily a hostile act - on the contrary, it is the highest kind of tribute.Thanks for the Bloom piece. It's too long to read tonight and do justice, but I wanted to make a quick and simple comment. It seems we disagree on what emulation means. I stand by the common meaning of emulation, which includes imitation in part (see my previous post). As to whether emulation or competition is hostile act, that's not a position I took this morning. I only suggested that it led one away from one's true self and results in a loss of authenticity. That's not about hostility.
As to the competition angle, I am not persuaded yet by your argument, but if Bloom has that persuasive argument, I'll let you know. I did preciously say, "some do compete," so I have acknowledged it is a choice made by some.I am not sure if I have an argument, so much as an observation, that the major artists I can think of are all competitive in one way or another - all aware of the quality in each others' work and determined to do as well or better. I would be keenly interested, and not necessarily surprised, if you could point out any who aren't competitive in that sense. What the Bloom article does is expand on one way in which great writers have been competitive. He is talking about major artists, recognized as such by their contemporaries and/or posterity - as am I. I am sure there are lots of people who think of themselves as artists, and may be entitled to think that way, who aren't particularly competitive. I hope you won't take that personally - I don't mean it that way at all.
OK, can someone give me a succinct definition of what "street" photography is? From this thread it seems that I have been misapprehending.
OK, can someone give me a succinct definition of what "street" photography is?What it means is what people who use it mean by it - with some bias towards the views of those who have thought about it a lot. Even there, seems to be some variation. Eric's contributions provided a humorous corrective to too much definitional agonizing. What Russ calls ambiguity (I am not entirely happy with the word, because to me it implies two possible meanings, and that doesn't seem quite right) is certainly a powerful tool for distinguishing photographs that are interesting in a particular way. I am not sure if it is a winnable battle to seek to confine the phrase "street photography" to photographs that are interesting in that way, although I will probably allow it to govern my own usage from now on.
I managed to get this SNAPSHOT of a recycler.
I'm therefore inclined to request a new thread be opened, with a proper invitational opening message, and we try to limit the number of submissions per timeframe. ("inclined" being the operative word here).Maybe you would be the right person to open it. Although I am not too optimistic about the chances of controlling where threads go by anything said in the opening post.
I don't see how it can be "cleaned up". If Michael were to agree to a new forum it would help but you can't control how people post. Stricter moderation would probably/possibly spoil contributions. I have posted a few of my own in an endeavour to help the thread along and keep it "live" but I am not holding my breadth.
I agree with Ken. "Ambiguity" doesn't come close to adequately describing what makes street photography street photography. And I don't even like the term "street photography." I wish there were a better name for it. If you don't know much about the history of photography the term "street photography" implies that you can grab a camera, go out in the street, start shooting, and have street photography. And that assumption seems sensible even if it's wrong.
Street photography's development goes back at least as far as Andre Kertesz, but it really was defined by Henri Cartier-Bresson. Young Henri was one of André Breton's acolytes. He'd attend Breton's gatherings and sit silently in awe during the discussions of surrealism and readings of André's surrealist poems, and when he started walking the streets of Paris with his Leica the surrealism spilled over into his photography. But those early pictures aren't quite surrealistic, and, I think, "ambiguity" comes as close as any word I can find to describe the merger of surrealism and the kind of realism you can't avoid within a well-composed photograph. When Cartier-Bresson joined with Bob Capa, Chim, George Rodger and Bill Vandivert to start Magnum, Capa had to advise him to avoid the "little surrealist" reputation being hung on him and call himself a photojournalist.
Which brings us to the difference between street photography and journalism, or, to put it in a more general way, documentation. As I'm sure Seamus with his background in journalism can tell you, for the most part photographs to be used in journalism can't afford to be surrealistic or even ambiguous. The whole point of photojournalism is explication, and surrealism most emphatically doesn't explain. But I said "for the most part." I've seen plenty of photojournalistic spreads in magazines like Life or Look where the central photograph was ambiguous enough to grab your attention and get you to read the article. Often the photojournalism was by HCB.
So if someone can come up with a better term than "street photograph" for a photograph that includes people or their artifacts in somewhat surrealistic juxtapositions, let's have it. But, as I've said before, there's no way to come to terms with the definition of whatever you call that kind of photography without studying its early masters. Words can point to it but they can't define it. You need to internalize the art to understand.
On a personal note I recently bought the Canon sx50 camera. It has a swivel screen with a leveling indicator on the screen. It can therefore be used at waist level. Look down at the screen and the indicator will mean if you line it up the image shouldn't be of at an angle. Less likely to be noticed doing this?
Sontag makes the claim that Photography is the only actual Surrealist art form. She explicitly chucks out pretty much of actual surrealism to make her claim stick, effectively re-defining the word completely until it fits all of photography and none of surrealism.
So, it's pretty much crap, but as with so much of Sontag there's the germ of something in there. I haven't got my arms around it yet, but it's more than just "some photographers did surrealism" and less than "photography is the True Surrealist Art". I think.
I agree with Ken. "Ambiguity" doesn't come close to adequately describing what makes street photography street photography. And I don't even like the term "street photography." I wish there were a better name for it. If you don't know much about the history of photography the term "street photography" implies that you can grab a camera, go out in the street, start shooting, and have street photography. And that assumption seems sensible even if it's wrong.
Street photography's development goes back at least as far as Andre Kertesz, but it really was defined by Henri Cartier-Bresson. Young Henri was one of André Breton's acolytes. He'd attend Breton's gatherings and sit silently in awe during the discussions of surrealism and readings of André's surrealist poems, and when he started walking the streets of Paris with his Leica the surrealism spilled over into his photography. But those early pictures aren't quite surrealistic, and, I think, "ambiguity" comes as close as any word I can find to describe the merger of surrealism and the kind of realism you can't avoid within a well-composed photograph. When Cartier-Bresson joined with Bob Capa, Chim, George Rodger and Bill Vandivert to start Magnum, Capa had to advise him to avoid the "little surrealist" reputation being hung on him and call himself a photojournalist.
Which brings us to the difference between street photography and journalism, or, to put it in a more general way, documentation. As I'm sure Seamus with his background in journalism can tell you, for the most part photographs to be used in journalism can't afford to be surrealistic or even ambiguous. The whole point of photojournalism is explication, and surrealism most emphatically doesn't explain. But I said "for the most part." I've seen plenty of photojournalistic spreads in magazines like Life or Look where the central photograph was ambiguous enough to grab your attention and get you to read the article. Often the photojournalism was by HCB.
So if someone can come up with a better term than "street photograph" for a photograph that includes people or their artifacts in somewhat surrealistic juxtapositions, let's have it. But, as I've said before, there's no way to come to terms with the definition of whatever you call that kind of photography without studying its early masters. Words can point to it but they can't define it. You need to internalize the art to understand.
More pictures and less talk, anyone? 8)+10.
Well, there you have it. I'm not sure it's necessary to quibble over what make a "proper" "street photograph," but that one sentence is a nice attempt at what makes an *interesting* photograph in the genre. Combine that with some semblance of generally decent composition and a smidgen of technical competence, and you have yourself a "street photograph."
More pictures and less talk, anyone? 8)
Precisely.
All this blather about what properly constitutes an X photograph versus a Y photograph brings to mind the idiocy of those who insist there are 'landscape lenses' and 'portrait lenses'.
More pictures and less talk, anyone?
I agree. Only the image matters. I don't care about labels;
Family of Man:
Fair enough. Here's a landscape.
And here's a still life for you.I liked your "landscapes" better. No matter what you call them, only the photograph matters. No one cares what category a great image fits into and no label will improve a photograph that sucks. You may argue whether Cartier-Bresson's definition of what he thought "street photography" ought to be is something other photographers should care about, but at the end of the day it's just an empty academic exercise. Labels don't matter. Art matters.
You may argue whether Cartier-Bresson's definition of what he thought "street photography" ought to be is something other photographers should care about, but at the end of the day it's just an empty academic exercise. Labels don't matter. Art matters.
Family of Man:Boy in the bubble photo:
Ok, here's a landscape called 'Brainwave':@Brainwave.
I don't argue any such thing. HCB never "defined" street photography in words, but he defined it pretty convincingly in photographs. I'm glad to know that "art matters."
Family of Man:
And here's a still life for you.@ Man beating drum
Thanks, Doug. Here's another landscape.@Man on cell phone in lobby
@ Man beating drumBut it's a Still Life, not a Street Photo, so it doesn't need ambiguity. ;D
Is this ambiguous? Really?
But it's a Still Life, not a Street Photo, so it doesn't need ambiguity. ;DOh gee, I didn't get that. Thanks so much.
Be careful what you wish for:There is a string of very explicit photographs here. Some work pretty well, such as the boy in the bubble. I think this one doesn't work well, so I was interested to analyze why.
An early digital test shot for me...I like it, but would like it better without the title which, for me, detracts rather than adds in this case.
I like it, but would like it better without the title which, for me, detracts rather than adds in this case.
Looking again, I am seeing the case for the title: it is of the same vintage as the photograph. Where have all the chicks gone?
"Two". I like to think they were discussing sculpture - we and they had just come out of a fine exhibition. (http://www.mca.com.au/exhibition/anish-kapoor/). I could only here the odd word.
... Where have all the chicks gone?
Ambiguity is nice, sometimes, as long as it doesn't come from your bank.Now that has to be the definitive word on "ambiguity." Bravo, Rob!
Rob C
The direct connection of two people creates a little tension through their obvious differences, as seen by the observer here. This kind of featureless lighting though doesn't create much drama, and doesn't accentuate the composition, which I think is very good. The bars make a nice grid for the scene and the even sky works to keep attention on the figures. But there is little dimensionality here and for that I think the idea suffers a bit. Imagining some deep shadows here I can see a more powerful picture. I think the idea works well for me, but the actual photograph is a bit under-performing considering the subject matter.(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8104/8468640176_27415e33d8_o.jpg)
Passing Glances
The last many pages have been filled with explicit documentary style street photographs. I haven't seen one claim yet of ambiguity by the photographer, nor one ambiguous photograph. (Wondering what two people are saying to each other is not a demonstration of ambiguity.)
Would someone mind saying which of their photographs posted here they think are ambiguous? There was so much insistence on ambiguity I thought for sure there would be many examples posted. It would be interesting to see just one to study.
The direct connection of two people creates a little tension through their obvious differences, as seen by the observer here. This kind of featureless lighting though doesn't create much drama, and doesn't accentuate the composition, which I think is very good. The bars make a nice grid for the scene and the even sky works to keep attention on the figures. But there is little dimensionality here and for that I think the idea suffers a bit. Imagining some deep shadows here I can see a more powerful picture. I think the idea works well for me, but the actual photograph is a bit under-performing considering the subject matter.
EDIT: With regard to the category here, I should have mentioned in the critique that this is an explicit and unambiguous photograph, like most of the others in the thread. Of course the photographer didn't claim it was ambiguous, so that's good, but I should mention it given the debate about street photography.
I would differ as the scene is quite ambiguous. There is no certainty as to what exchange, if any has taken place. There is a rather vague connection made to what I saw as "boredom - resignation on the parts of the two players but there also may be a reaction. The guy on the right might have called the other one a name and the gocart guy has responded with a look of contempt...anything could be taking place; thus we have ambiguity in its fullest measure.Now I understand why you all think these photos are "ambiguous." Your concept of an ambiguous photo is one in which you can imagine various story lines to apply to the people. He might have called her a slut, she might have said let's have sex, he might be arguing with his boss on the phone, or she might be arguing with her mother, she might be talking with the pope, and so on, and so on. Therefore it follows, that any photograph involving a person is ambiguous, because we can invent multiple stories of what each is doing, saying, or perhaps thinking. As you put it, "when there is no certainty of of the exchange."
Ambiguity = Emperor's new clothes
Faithfuls are seeing it, infidels not.
:P
The guy on the right might have called the other one a name and the gocart guy has responded with a look of contempt...anything could be taking place; thus we have ambiguity in its fullest measure.
I am unclear on what does constitute an ambiguous photograph, then. Can you post, or otherwise direct my attention to an example, please?I think you have it backwards. It's you fellas that have been going on and on about ambiguity as an ingredient in street photography, not me. Didn't you just a few hours ago post something you claimed was ambiguous?
Sometimes surreal juxtapositions can really work.Yes, they can. Are there some photographs in here you think demonstrate that?
Ambiguity = Emperor's new clothesI think it was presented as a matter of fact, not faith. There were commands to "run to the library and get books," and so on, as though the idea were as clear as seeing that animal is different than vegetable. In fact not a soul here yet has A) defined this thing that is so easily contained in books, B) nor have they demonstrated it with the works, aside from one claim for a picture which has no ambiguity of any kind.
Faithfuls are seeing it, infidels not.
:P
It seems as if we are arguing about the application of a somewhat ambiguous word. That could go on for a long time. We also need to be careful about whether we are using the word as descriptive or evaluative. Is it a synonym for quality, so that more of it is better, or just one characteristic among others? For mine, there are degrees of "ambiguity". Sometimes there is something jut a little bit unclear about an only mildly interesting narrative - as in my shot, IMO. Sometimes the implied narrative is stronger and less clear - Chris C's shot a fair way along that continuum, but not as far as it is possible to go.
RG you've told us that what we all mean by the word ambiguity is wrong. You're not doing a good job of explaining what you think it means, though. That was the thrust of my question, a request that you do so. I repeat that request now.It wasn't my challenge to explain it. You forget so easily, it was the posters here who made all the claims about "ambiguity in street photography." I was the guy saying, "explain it." And no one can.
Of course we're not very interested in copying the contents of books here. You can go read HCB etc yourself. Feel free to. Since it took those guys pages and pages to describe some things, it's pretty unlikely that lesser people, like us, could whip out a quick explanation in a 200 word forum post.
Especially since we all have ambiguity wrong to start with!
Okay, we need to get back to square one on the "ambiguity" thing. My dictionary defines ambiguity as "1. An expression whose meaning cannot be determined from its content." and "2. Unclearness by virtue of having more than one meaning." When trying to apply the meanings to street photography I'd probably rule out #1, but #2 would come closer to what's involved, though it doesn't really get there.
I'll say again what I've said over and over: if you really want to understand what street photography is you have to become familiar with the work of the people who defined it. They didn't define it in words. They didn't say anything like: "street photography has to be ambiguous." What they did was shoot pictures that are in a class by itself -- a pretty distinct photographic genre. If you're not familiar with the real thing you're not going to be able to apply a word like "ambiguity" to a photographic genre and have it make sense.
Let's try the term "self-explanatory." I think that comes closer to dealing with what's there. If a picture is self-explanatory it's not street photography. So let's see if applying that term helps.
Let's go back through some of the pics above. I don't want to go too far back because it's time for me to get to bed so I can get up before dawn and go out on the river. Is Slobodan's "Chicks" self-explanatory? You bet. It's a girl and her mother looking at some chicks. Cute picture, but there's nothing else there. My "Stroller?" Not quite. The guy's pants don't explain themselves. Chris's "Passing Glances?" Almost. Basically two guys shooting the breeze. Ken's "Two?" I really like the picture, but it's a couple talking. Nothing that goes beyond what's there in the picture. Rob's "Girl Flowers Alley?" It's too small for me to see what's in it. Mike's "In the Courtyard?" A guy smoking and reading a paper. Another good shot, but quite self-explanatory. Cjogo's little girls? Again, too small to be sure. Cute, but I don't see anything there but some kids up against a screen. I've made comments on some of Seamus's stuff and Stamper's stuff so I don't need to go there again.
So let's toss out the word, "ambiguity" and try to use a different approach. There IS a genre called "street photography" and in order for a picture to fall into the genre it can't be self-explanatory. There's more to it than that, but that's a start.
We did explain it, and you said we were wrong. We explained that it at least included ambiguity in the narratives we write when we see a photograph. That was an explanation. That is, in fact, the explanation.I made it very clear a few posts above your post here:
You rejected this explanation, rather snottily, and have been prattling arrogantly along for 100s of words now about how wrong we are. Apparently you have some notion of what "ambiguous" means. If you didn't, then how would you know our definition was wrong? Ours seems to work pretty well.
You have said something on this subject:
"Ambiguity isn't about making up countless variations of stories for the photograph. It is about the photograph driving in two (or sometimes more) basically divergent directions based on the photographic content - not some imagined verbal content."
which I am unable to make sense of. I have asked you now, three times, to make an effort to clarify this, and you are dismissive every time. I begin to suspect that you don't know what it means either.
Im not in to street photographing
But i have start to get a taste of it.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8365/8451484433_f5682af322_b.jpg)
/Dahlmann
If all photographs are made ambiguous by nothing more than making up possible dialogs, then the term is meaningless.Indeed. But I don't think anyone is saying that. My take on it starts with the notion that the human mind is, among other things, a machine for inventing and finding stories. Google "narrative psychology" for pages and pages of references in a variety of fields. Put simply, we look for and find stories in the world around us, including on the streets, and including in photographs. Photography (and visual art generally) hooks into this quality of the mind in a variety of ways. Documentary photography, as Russ has described it, as a common way. Obama's inauguration, a mother and baby, the audience at a rock concert - you get the idea. It is worth noting that you have to know the story before you can find it and many stories are more or less culturally specific. To a member of an undiscovered tribe in the upper Amazon, a picture of Obama's inauguration probably wouldn't tell much of a story but they would probably get the mother and baby. To me, a photograph of a landscape in Central Australia is just another landscape, while to an aboriginal person who lives there it will tell a detailed story about creation myths and the songs in which they are remembered.
Indeed. But I don't think anyone is saying that. My take on it starts with the notion that the human mind is, among other things, a machine for inventing and finding stories. Google "narrative psychology" for pages and pages of references in a variety of fields. Put simply, we look for and find stories in the world around us, including on the streets, and including in photographs. Photography (and visual art generally) hooks into this quality of the mind in a variety of ways. Documentary photography, as Russ has described it, as a common way. Obama's inauguration, a mother and baby, the audience at a rock concert - you get the idea. It is worth noting that you have to know the story before you can find it and many stories are more or less culturally specific. To a member of an undiscovered tribe in the upper Amazon, a picture of Obama's inauguration probably wouldn't tell much of a story but they would probably get the mother and baby. To me, a photograph of a landscape in Central Australia is just another landscape, while to an aboriginal person who lives there it will tell a detailed story about creation myths and the songs in which they are remembered.
Sometimes, though, there has to be a story there, but we can't work out quite what it is. "Ambiguity", as I have argued before, and as Russ has agreed, isn't at all a good word for this because, as you rightly say, it implies two or more identifiable meanings which you flip between and that absolutely isn't what we are talking about. It has, however, been the word used in many conversations about photographs which have the quality we are talking about, because nobody has come up with a better one. It isn't a matter of making up a variety of possible dialogues arbitrarily as you suggest. The image asks for a narrative answer, even demands one, and constrains, through its content, the possible answers, but refuses to conclusively provide one - but we can't let it drop, because the image is powerful enough to suck us in. It's not that you make up stories, rather that the image asks the question "what exactly is going on here" and you can't quite get to an answer. This is an experience which you may or may not have had. If you have had it you know what we are talking about.
I agree with you that "ambiguity" in this sense is just one possible quality in photographs of people out of doors and isn't in any way synonymous with quality. But I am a bit surprised that you go on to say that you have never heard of anyone regard it as synonymous with quality. When you denounce those of us who value "ambiguity" as being stuck in the past and talk about how young street photographers are doing different and fine things, you seem to imply that we think that "ambiguity" is the only way to do photography of people out of doors. I think most of us don't, and we we mostly agree about the young street photographers as well. And if you want to talk about the past, google "Cartier Bresson Images" and look through what you find. I just did this and concluded that many, even most, of the shots I found were primarily documentary. But some had this other quality, to a greater or lesser degree. If we could sit down together in front of a screen, we could have a friendly discussion about where we found it. I find it, for example, here (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-bRUSC_QBEOM/UOvW9voabQI/AAAAAAAAAtI/Ebyl--MjrkI/s320/09cartierspan-1-articleLarge.jpg) - and note that people looking out of the frame is a common feature, because you wonder what they are looking at.
cheers
Ken
If I reduce it down, I'd say you are describing the quality of mystery and enigmatic narrativeNo, I am not. Something much more specific. And just one among many interesting characteristic of (some) photographs, and not something I put on a pedestal. But I don't think it is worth going on with. If I were to, I would have to start by pointing out the places in which you attribute to me views and attitudes which I don't hold and haven't expressed, and I don't have the patience. Productive discussion requires a certain level of engagement with what the other party actually says, and I don't feel I am getting that from you. Probably I haven't expressed myself clearly enough to give you the raw material you would need.
We don't need more faith, we need more fact.
I think we are in great danger of over analysing the meaning of Street. It obviously means different things to different people and that is possibly/probably good. That means a variety of image will be posted but if it is narrowed down to one meaning then the posts will become restricted and the thread will die.
You're a rude, nasty and arrogant man. I don't have much interest in engaging you. If you can't hold your arrogance in check, I'll just ignore you from here forward.
This new rule is in clear conflict with the very essence of photography, which is that ALL photographs are both self-explanatory, self truthful, and self-contained.
More to the point, the photograph is an explanation of time and space itself.
A thing which can't explain itself can not therefore be a photograph.
But that statement doesn't carry with it the idea that every viewer will understand or accept the explanation offered in the photograph.
The photograph IS...whilst the viewer APPROACHES.
I know some folks who insist that Rock and Roll means Buddy Holly, period. I don't care really, but the world moved on from that, and Rock and Roll evolves with new artists - - thank goodness, as far as I am concerned.
No, I am not. Something much more specific. And just one among many interesting characteristic of (some) photographs, and not something I put on a pedestal. But I don't think it is worth going on with. If I were to, I would have to start by pointing out the places in which you attribute to me views and attitudes which I don't hold and haven't expressed, and I don't have the patience. Productive discussion requires a certain level of engagement with what the other party actually says, and I don't feel I am getting that from you. Probably I haven't expressed myself clearly enough to give you the raw material you would need.I hope you didn't mistake my use of the word "you" - for which I generally meant "one." I had no intention of attributing to you views you don't hold. I might have clumped together the group view about ambiguity though. I had no design to offend you. It might be true though your point wasn't clear.
As to the rest of what you say, I agree with most of it and I certainly don't doubt your credentials.
Maybe it would be best to start here: Why do you feel you need a definition and set of rules for this kind of art? How often will you change the definition? Should artists with new ideas put them aside if they don't fit the definition?
I so hope, pray, and wish,
with all my heart,
that facts are not the truth
behind great works of Art.
Even so, I'll try at a succinct definition under the guise of less-is-more:
Street-photography depicts a recognisable situation within human society, and gives that situation a distinctly different graphical or narrative meaning.
-------------------------------
1. "A recognisable situation within human society" means a more or less common occurrence in a synthetic context. A street is the prime example of such a context. The word "street" also represents the notion of an everyday situation that one could encounter going outside "on the street".
2. "A distinctly different meaning" means it allows for an alternative interpretation as graphic elements or in narrative, which is at least as clear as the normal interpretation (by a moderately intelligent observer).
2a. If the alternative interpretation co-exists with the normal interpretation, or there are several alternative but coherent interpretations possible, then it can be understood as "ambiguous".
2b. If there is no clear alternative interpretation, or it is incoherent, then it fails the specific "street" category and probably fits the "documentary" category. (It may still be a pleasing image).
-------------------------------
Note that I am in no way, shape, or form equipped with an artistic background that allows me to make these type of definitions. I am simply trying to help define what I have read here, and combining that with what little knowledge I have to at least attempt to form a "constructive" definition.
Using too many words to explain which rules do not apply, still doesn't help to create a uniform agreement on what can at least be considered part of the game. So here is a futile request to some of the avid contributors without naming people explicitly: if you have strong ideas about what "street-photography" might be, please help in a definition attempt. Merely dismissing attempts by other people is not going to advance our joint effort here.
The poor guy's nuts.
Why would a poor man's nuts be any different from a rich man's?
In the spirit of howlers, let me just pick a few lines more or less at random:Your problem here and in most posts, is that you don't pay any attention to the content, because you are too busy trying to invent an insult. This is common in forum posters with no discipline. It makes your rebuttal insipid, silly and weak. In the paragraph above you have rebutted nothing of the argument that photographs are self-explanatory, and self truthful. You substituted yourself for the photograph as a rebuttal?
Simply asserting that photographs are both [sic] self-explanatory, self truthful, and self-contained doesn't make it true, and this is a point of view with which virtually everyone who's thought about art at all disagrees with. No art is self-explanatory, it exists (at least) in a social context which is required to make it meaningful. "Self truthful" doesn't seem to mean anything at all. I can be self-truthful because I contain systems, like ethical ideas, ideals, and so on, and I can choose to act in ways that conflict with (not self-truthful) or are aligned with (self-truthful) those systems. In order to be self-truthful, a photo must contain something to be truthful to, as well as something which can be truthful or not be truthful to it. This seems like rather a lot to ask of a picture. Perhaps RG simply means that the various ideas and tropes in the image should be aligned and pointing in the same direction? A lack of self-contradiction? If so, this is simply wrong. Sometimes the point of the image is the internal contradiction. Self-contained is true only in the most literal sense, art without, for instance, a viewer is as best pointless and at worst not art at all.
The poor guy's nuts.Thank goodness pornography isn't ambiguous, huh?
That came to me in the shower; not sure if it was self-examination or even related to self, sanity or state of bank account or even of wallnuts: more likely it was a subliminal mind game played around the definitions of ambiguity. At the very least it invoked a welcome change from singing in my wet echo chamber, the pleasure in which conceit evaporated years and years ago when my wife yelled at me to shut the eff up because it was exciting the dog. Or was that one of the twenty-plus cats or, heaven forfend, all of them at once? I forget; I might even have invented this. But the thought, and the subsequent definitions and intepretation of that short sentence amused me for ages.
Part of the problem associated with ambiguity is when it's roped into definition of Rock 'n' Roll, of which Buddy Holly was but a palid, gringo copy. It misses the point of R'n'R completely: white versions were simply watered down versions of black R'n'B, and would have been more aptly labeled as thin white blues. I love Jerry Lee Lewis, but he's not rock 'n' roll at all: mixture of white church, boogie woogie and hugely country, itself a mix of many of the same ingredients.
http://youtu.be/H_lqJk5JzeA
But Rock 'n' Roll pretty much ended with the start of Motown. Soul was something designed absolutely for the interiors of fashion photography studios and model agency parties. Then along came Bubblegum: witness The Archies and Sugar Sugar, at which point, all you had to do was hold your glass and watch those delightful young ladies move... you didn't even have to help them!.
http://youtu.be/JywK_5bT8z0
Thank goodness for ambiguous pedants! Such delightful reminiscences of mammaries past and hips long swayed into memory.
Life is good!
Rob C
Maybe it would be best to start here: Why do you feel you need a definition and set of rules for this kind of art?
How often will you change the definition?
Should artists with new ideas put them aside if they don't fit the definition?
To save space I'll dispense with the rest of the fatuous arguments that followed this. RG's two sentences serve to establish a point of departure:Aside from the fact that nothing in your post relates to the discussion - - - good job of typing!
I suspect everybody on LuLa who's past third grade is familiar with the impressionist genre of painting. But imagine trying to distinguish impressionism from other genres for someone who's not familiar with impressionist painting. What single word, or short phrase could you come up with to explain how impressionism differs from, say expressionism? Nothing you could say would get the job done unless the listener had studied the genres enough that the two of you could agree on elements that distinguish them.
Of course RG would argue that as the world moves on from Monet and Van Gogh there's no reason we can't let impressionism evolve to include, say, Edward Hopper -- a "new artist." Actually, we can't. It's not that we can't include Hopper in the impressionist basket, it's that if we do, the whole idea that there's a distinct impressionist genre evaporates. From the standpoint of the art does that really matter? Of course not. To say that Ken's beautifully composed picture, "Two," isn't street photography in no way belittles its value as a photograph. It's a very good picture; it's just not a picture that falls into the "street" genre, a genre that was very badly named from the very beginning.
So, let RG go his own way. It sounds as if he's very young. The guy in the "Courthouse" picture he posted under the "Street View Photography" thread may very well be a self-portrait. There's no reason for him not to live in his own world and enjoy it.
So we are able to communicate the category amongst peers. As is true with all words and all communication.If you enjoy "formal definitions" maybe science is more your field than art?
For me personally only as long as is necessary to form an understanding.
For the general case, as long as is necessary to form the most concise definition of category.
Yes, in the sense that the ideas should be put "aside" in a new category if appropriate.
Note that I am not interested in lengthy discussions about the gray areas of the boundaries. I do believe however that a formal definition is always possible, we just might not be able to explicate the definitions properly, which usually is cause for a lot of confusion and other mishaps as this thread pretty much exemplifies.
RG I take it you are trying to get the thread closed? A thread that could be very useful to the members if you kept out of it.Stamper,
... Tell me you haven't heard a parent of a 16 year old saying, "That crap is not music!" ...
RG, you should probably accept that your efforts to set yourself up as an intellectual authority based on your ability to write long sentences has failed. We're not going to welcome you as a god. It turns out that LuLa is actually a pretty heavy weight class to be trying these games in.
You just never know when someone is going to push those boundaries with a (gasp!) new idea!
And keep in mind there is a very big difference between artists and art historians.
The claims of your heavy weight status would be best illustrated by the photographic works, or your ability to express something knowledgeable about photography - not more claims. By the way, do you ever post photographs? I'd enjoy seeing what such a self-proclaimed heavy weight can do.
The million dollar question obviously being: how does one know when an idea is truly innovative?
(And for those who have been here long enough to remember that discussion: wouldn't this qualify as "begs the question"?)
Of course. I fully agree that the artist probably couldn't care less about categories. But the more influential artists usually have a profound understanding of their chosen method of expression.
As an example of what I believe to be a very clear example of contemporary street:
http://www.siegfried-hansen.de (http://www.siegfried-hansen.de)
The million dollar question obviously being: how does one know when an idea is truly innovative?
(And for those who have been here long enough to remember that discussion: wouldn't this qualify as "begs the question"?)
Of course. I fully agree that the artist probably couldn't care less about categories. But the more influential artists usually have a profound understanding of their chosen method of expression.
As an example of what I believe to be a very clear example of contemporary street:
http://www.siegfried-hansen.de (http://www.siegfried-hansen.de)
Great work by Siegfried hansen...gives me pause to reflect more on what good Street looks like.
A poster behind my two guys declaring "indifference," and mine goes from close to the Brass Ring.
I never claimed to be a heavy weight. Given that the post to which you are replying had a grand total of 53 words, I stand by my assertion that you either cannot, or will not, read.Maybe it's best you don't try to speak for others then when you can't hold up your end of the log?
I really wonder if RG isn't Dale Thorn redux. If he uses the term "kool aid" I'll be sure.Didn't you try that dodge yesterday too? I've got the feeling you are going to try it each day. Let me save you some time: Nope.
I don't know Dale Thorn from Adam but do have another question.
For an image to be "street" by whomever's definition, does there have to be a visible connection between the subject and either the camera or esoterically as Siegfried-Hansen uses, something contrary to the image which makes the image cohesive?
I'll use this as an example. Ambiguity aside, and don't believe this is an abiguous shot at least given the 67,000 or so definitions given here in the last few pages, as the man is projecting an action by his look, stance and general facial interaction which to me suggests he's scoping out a potential shot - but, he's not put the camera to eye yet, so could it be construed as somewhat ambiguous as to what he will do next.
or, is it just a snapshot?
I don't know Dale Thorn from Adam but do have another question.Chris,
For an image to be "street" by whomever's definition, does there have to be a visible connection between the subject and either the camera or esoterically as Siegfried-Hansen uses, something contrary to the image which makes the image cohesive?
I'll use this as an example. Ambiguity aside, and don't believe this is an abiguous shot at least given the 67,000 or so definitions given here in the last few pages, as the man is projecting an action by his look, stance and general facial interaction which to me suggests he's scoping out a potential shot - but, he's not put the camera to eye yet, so could it be construed as somewhat ambiguous as to what he will do next.
or, is it just a snapshot?
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8093/8471501000_2f6aa950f4_o.jpg)
Thank goodness pornography isn't ambiguous, huh?
For an image to be "street" by whomever's definition, does there have to be a visible connection between the subject and either the camera or esoterically as Siegfried-Hansen uses, something contrary to the image which makes the image cohesive?
or, is it just a snapshot?
I retired this year...so, I guess this is my day job...though I do quite a bit of team sport group and individual shooting..buys my lenses and keeps me out of trouble. I take it you're still working... :D
Completely academic, imo. I would start by asking if you like your photograph. If so, then it becomes a matter of what, if anything, you want to do with it. Do you want to do nothing with it or do you want to submit it for publication or as a photo contest entry or to sell as prints? When you start to involve the aesthetic opinions of others then the question is what do others think of it. Art is all about taste. Some people like Rembrandt, some people like Matisse and some like paintings of dogs playing poker. Everyone has different tastes. Who is your audience and what will they think of it? So, really the important question isn't whether it's "street" or not, but whether it works in the way you want it to work.
Completely academic, imo. I would start by asking if you like your photograph. If so, then it becomes a matter of what, if anything, you want to do with it. Do you want to do nothing with it or do you want to submit it for publication or as a photo contest entry or to sell as prints? When you start to involve the aesthetic opinions of others then the question is what do others think of it. Art is all about taste. Some people like Rembrandt, some people like Matisse and some like paintings of dogs playing poker. Everyone has different tastes. Who is your audience and what will they think of it? So, really the important question isn't whether it's "street" or not, but whether it works in the way you want it to work.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8093/8471501000_2f6aa950f4_o.jpg)
Exactly! Right on, Doug. Are we talking about how successful a photograph is or whether or not it's street photography? They're too completely different things.
Kudos to Doug Frost. I'm beginning to think he's the "heavy weight" here.
The poor guy's nuts....
Exactly! Right on, Doug. Are we talking about how successful a photograph is or whether or not it's street photography? They're too completely different things.What a refreshing advance then. It's no longer about rules, definitions and books to read, but about photographs taken.
... By the way, do you ever post photographs? I'd enjoy seeing what such a self-proclaimed heavy weight can do.
For an image to be "street" by whomever's definition, does there have to be a visible connection between the subject and either the camera or aesthetically as Siegfried-Hansen uses, something contrary to the image which makes the image cohesive?
... Is Slobodan's "Chicks" self-explanatory? You bet. It's a girl and her mother looking at some chicks. Cute picture, but there's nothing else there...
Pardon my limited understanding of English, but are you referring to guy's balls or are you saying that the guy (the guy) is crazy? ;)
Pardon my limited understanding of English, but are you referring to guy's balls or are you saying that the guy (the guy) is crazy? ;)
What a refreshing advance then. It's no longer about rules, definitions and books to read, but about photographs taken.
There you have it: the kernal of the nut!
Ambiguity, dear Slobodan, ambiguity! That's why I took time off from singing: can't handle too many concepts at once - I'm not female, you know.
Rob C
Aye, but if you didn't have any, you could sing like one. ;D
One from Rome, 1978…What was she selling? Looks a bit like the wings from baby birds. Those Italians will eat anything.
What was she selling? Looks a bit like the wings from baby birds. Those Italians will eat anything.
Where is she now? In her prime, as I see it these days.
It may not be "street" on the ambiguity-based definition, but if Cartier-Bresson often does documentary on the streets, why not the rest of us?
Not too sure if I agree with Russ's narrow view of street.
One from Rome, 1978…
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-bmAuXPU2rhI/URwL2jlQW8I/AAAAAAAABNk/wqaTgmbq1kc/s1600/snails.jpg)
Cheers,
You may argue whether Cartier-Bresson's definition of what he thought "street photography" ought to be is something other photographers should care about, but at the end of the day it's just an empty academic exercise.
How about the photos on say, page 26, 33 or 35? Do they fall "squarely within the genre?"
But take a look at Street Photography Now, edited by Sophie Howarth and Stephen McLaren. The book's copyrighted in 2010, so it's recent enough to show what current street photographers are shooting. Most of the pictures in that book fall squarely within the genre. So there are people out there who know the difference, and when you set out to do something like publish a book called "Street Photography Now," you'd better know the difference.
26 .... noWhat else could it be?
33 .... yes
35 .... yes
This is of course my opinion. :)
26 .... noWhat did you think of the introduction to the book? How do you think it served the title of the book?
33 .... yes
35 .... yes
This is of course my opinion. :)
How about the photos on say, page 26, 33 or 35? Do they fall "squarely within the genre?"
But take a look at Street Photography Now, edited by Sophie Howarth and Stephen McLaren. The book's copyrighted in 2010, so it's recent enough to show what current street photographers are shooting. Most of the pictures in that book fall squarely within the genre. So there are people out there who know the difference, and when you set out to do something like publish a book called "Street Photography Now," you'd better know the difference.
She is selling snails which are escaping everywhere…
Cheers,
You seem to have trouble with reading comprehension. I said "most," not "all."You seem rather obsessed with hurling these kind of insults. Let me say this - my purpose here involves photography, what's yours?
I'm sure it's a good book with some great photographs in it, but I think the term "street photography" has become a cattle prod that pedagogues use to coral photographers into thinking and creating in a way they judge to be appropriate. In my opinion the term and the mindset of those who routinely brandish it are toxic to the creative spirit.As it relates to the book in question, my read of the introduction - which define the spirit of the book - is that it is specifically intended to ditch that 'cattle prod' as you refer to it, in favor of open and joyous celebration of how this art is evolving, and bringing new meaning to the new artists who jump in with camera. If there is any prodding of any kind on the part of the authors, it has to be the prodding to go out on the street with your cameras and show the world what you think. I guess I need to add, "That's just my opinion," in order to avoid confusion.