Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13]   Go Down

Author Topic: Love Real Street  (Read 24799 times)

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: Love Real Street
« Reply #240 on: February 14, 2013, 11:08:43 AM »

I've posted one of these things, but neither of the other two, I think. They've been sitting on my wall as a triptych (drugstore prints!) and I still like them, and I like them as a set. So, here's the three. There's a bit of street in here, but it's mostly documentary, if that.
Logged

RedwoodGuy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 417
Re: Love Real Street
« Reply #241 on: February 14, 2013, 11:52:52 AM »

26 .... no

33 .... yes  

35 .... yes

This is of course my opinion.  :)


What else could it be?

With regard to Dakowicz' photograph on page 35, I enjoyed the description above. Yes, having a few drinks and some fun with the party goers DOES mean better pictures. Whahooo! I can't say that leads one to Cartier-Bresson however without a considerable stretch to the breaking point. The photograph close up, explicit, unambiguous and reveals the involvement of the photographer. (As does the photograph on the facing page.) The photographer in his own words doesn't seem to be embracing the genre as previously defined by others. But as you say, this is just my opinion (And how would I know? I never see'd any of dem books 'n stuff!)
« Last Edit: February 14, 2013, 12:02:30 PM by RedwoodGuy »
Logged

RedwoodGuy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 417
Re: Love Real Street
« Reply #242 on: February 14, 2013, 12:31:34 PM »

26 .... no

33 .... yes 

35 .... yes

This is of course my opinion.  :)


What did you think of the introduction to the book? How do you think it served the title of the book?
Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8341
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Love Real Street
« Reply #243 on: February 14, 2013, 12:40:41 PM »

How about the photos on say, page 26, 33 or 35? Do they fall "squarely within the genre?"

You seem to have trouble with reading comprehension. I said "most," not "all."

nemo295

  • Guest
Re: Love Real Street
« Reply #244 on: February 14, 2013, 12:49:45 PM »

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.


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.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14669
Re: Love Real Street
« Reply #245 on: February 14, 2013, 01:05:00 PM »

She is selling snails which are escaping everywhere…

Cheers,


Yes, but only slowly.

Rob C

RedwoodGuy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 417
Re: Love Real Street
« Reply #246 on: February 14, 2013, 01:18:48 PM »

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?
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14669
Re: Love Real Street
« Reply #247 on: February 14, 2013, 01:23:16 PM »

It's bloody sad, but these recurring squabbles about nomenclature seem to accompany new brooms... it reminds me of those nature documentary repeats (happily flagged as such: Your latest chance to view again, but in HD!) that come on the tv every week to disguise the lack of funding for new progammes: same old wolf cutting down the same old deer, same old stag locking horns with another old critter, and on and bloody on. Why can't we just see more pictures and leave all the silly mind games at home for bed?

Let's accept that the latest members are always simply the most gifted, talented and wonderful people ever! Then, maybe they can relax, think they've earned their spurs, and, quite possibly, move on to pastures new to start over again, and leave us all in peace to wallow, vegetate and enjoy snaps as we may?

Love to the world!

Rob C

RedwoodGuy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 417
Re: Love Real Street
« Reply #248 on: February 14, 2013, 01:26:25 PM »

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.
Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8341
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Love Real Street
« Reply #249 on: February 14, 2013, 01:31:11 PM »

Well, I'd hate to be accused of cattle prodding anyone into shooting street or any other kind of photography. So it's time to close down this thread.
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13]   Go Up