Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: tom b on August 13, 2015, 08:52:51 pm
-
Street Photography?
Over the last few decades the phrase ‘Street Photography’ has come to mean a great deal more than simply making exposures in a public place. Photographers like Robert Frank, Garry Winogrand, Lee Friedlander and Joel Meyerowitz have forced a redefinition of the phrase that has many new implications.
Joel Meyerowitz
Primarily Street Photography is not reportage, it is not a series of images displaying, together, the different facets of a subject or issue. For the Street Photographer there is no specific subject matter and only the issue of ‘life’ in general, he does not leave the house in the morning with an agenda and he doesn’t visualise his photographs in advance of taking them. Street Photography is about seeing and reacting, almost by-passing thought altogether.
For many Street Photographers the process does not need ‘unpacking’, It is, for them, a simple ‘Zen’ like experience, they know what it feels like to take a great shot in the same way that the archer knows he has hit the bullseye before the arrow has fully left the bow. As an archer and Street Photographer myself, I can testify that, in either discipline, if I think about the shot too hard, it is gone.
Matt Stuart
If I were pushed to analyse further the characteristics of contemporary Street Photography it would have to include the following: Firstly, a massive emphasis on the careful selection of those elements to include and exclude from the composition and an overwhelming obsession with the moment selected to make the exposure. These two decisions may at first seem obvious and universal to all kinds of photography, but it is with these two tools alone that the Street Photographer finds or creates the meaning in his images. He has no props or lighting, no time for selecting and changing lenses or filters, he has a split second to recognise and react to a happening.
Secondly, a high degree of empathy with the subject matter, Street Photographers often report a loss of ‘self’ when carefully watching the behavior of others, such is their emotional involvement.
Trent Parke
Thirdly, many Street Photographers seem to be preoccupied with scenes that trigger an immediate emotional response, especially humour or a fascination with ambiguous or surreal happenings. A series of street photographs may show a ‘crazy’ world, perhaps ‘dreamlike’. This is, for me, the most fascinating aspect of Street Photography, the fact that these ‘crazy’, ‘unreal’ images were all made in the most ‘everyday’ and ‘real’ location, the street. It was this paradox that fascinated me and kept me shooting in the ‘everyday’ streets of London when many of my colleagues were traveling to the worlds famines and war zones in search of exciting subject matter. Friends that I met for lunch would, just be back from the ‘war in Bosnia’ and I would declare proudly that I was just back from the ‘sales on Oxford Street’.
Nick Turpin 2000
Note, not a mention of ambiguity!
Cheers,
-
..
-
My Command F, find ambiguous did not pick up ambiguity.
Mea culpa.
Over forty years I've looked at street photographs, I have though of "capturing the moment" and the "ability to see the unusual". Never have I thought of ambiguity! It's an outdated concept.
Cheers,
-
My semi-houmorous contribution doesn't actually mean that I support the ambiguity concept as a preeminent criterion in the definition of street photography. I do think that ambiguity is simply one of the many possible facets of it.
-
My semi-houmorous contribution doesn't actually mean that I support the ambiguity concept as a preeminent criterion in the definition of street photography. I do think that ambiguity is simply one of the many possible facets of it.
Eye of the beholder, Slobo... :D :D :D
'Telling a story', 'ambiguity', 'juxtaposition of objects', 'gesture', etc., etc. To me these are all goose-chases and rationalizations intended to create something out of nothing. Good pictures are good pictures, but there's so much awful 'street' being proffered right now, and all the semantics and spin just don't redeem it.
-
Street photos seem to be better when they are from past eras. Why is that?
-
Street photos seem to be better when they are from past eras. Why is that?
In-Public (http://www.in-public.com/) has some great contemporary street photography. no different from the past.
Cheers,
-
Perhaps because scenes from the past are at least somewhat unlike what one can simply open the door and see on the street (or elsewhere) today. That's a characteristic that adds interest.
-
Editing.
-
Street photography is what the photographer thinks is street photography
Street photography is what the viewer thinks is street photography
It is not necessary for the two to be in agreement.
Does street photography even have to have a street in the scene???? ???
-
Street photos seem to be better when they are from past eras. Why is that?
That's probably because past street photographers were better than today's crop.
-
Eye of the beholder, Slobo... :D :D :D...
Well, Jeff, pointing out glaring contradictions (e.g., in politicians' or commentators' statements) is a staple of late-night comedy shows, hence the "humorous" part. The "semi" part is there to placate those whose sense of humor was surgically removed at birth ;)
-
My semi-houmorous contribution doesn't actually mean that I support the ambiguity concept as a preeminent criterion in the definition of street photography. I do think that ambiguity is simply one of the many possible facets of it.
I agree, Slobodan. One of the other facets has to be a story. But if the story is complete; if it gives you "closure," then it doesn't make you ask a question. We get all hung up on the word "ambiguity," but definitions of ambiguity are these, or their equivalents: "An expression whose meaning cannot be determined from its context," or "Unclearness by virtue of having more than one meaning." Unless the picture contains one of these conditions I wouldn't call it a street photograph because it doesn't raise a question. There's a sliding scale involved when it comes to ambiguity.
Beyond that, I don't think you really can define street photography with words. You have to become familiar with the work of the people who established the genre to understand what it is.
-
The HCB photo of the man jumping over the large puddle (Behind the Gare St. Lazare) - it's 'street', right? But I see a number of elements that make it an interesting photo. There's the reflection, undisturbed because his foot hasn't hit the water yet. There's the further reflection in the form of the advertising hording, with the dancer. Those elements alone make it a good photograph. But we've got the line of roofs & the railings of the fence, also reflected, and hinted at again in the ladder in the puddle. But there's huge contrast between that angularity & the curves of the foreground objects (I've no idea what they are) also sitting in the puddle, but these echo the shapes around the dancers on the advertising boards. There's even a structure on the roof that mirrors the ladder in the puddle. It's fascinating to read the photo - there's simply so much there. But I don't see any ambiguity. None at all. Zilch. Nada. Not a sausage. Bugger all. Just saying.
-
Street photos seem to be better when they are from past eras. Why is that?
We can go just outside and see what this era looks like. Past eras and more interesting to me because we cannot do that. It also gives a connection to the past if you can empathize or identify with the scenario.
-
The HCB photo of the man jumping over the large puddle (Behind the Gare St. Lazare) - it's 'street', right?
Do I remember correctly that a contact sheet to that photo has been published? Or photos, because a whole roll was shot to get the right image, man jumping a dozen times.
-
Do I remember correctly that a contact sheet to that photo has been published? Or photos, because a whole roll was shot to get the right image, man jumping a dozen times.
fwiw
…“I did remember that I saw his contact sheet of this picture (means Behind the Gare Saint-Lazare), I am so surprised that people these days doubt that picture is a “Set Up Picture”, I know it is NOT because I read the contact sheet from Henri Cartier-Bresson for that picture.” David Hurn told me that Henri Cartier Bresson was actually stand in a same place and waiting people to jump over the water, he captured every best moment and choose the “Best of the Best” moment (http://mrfox44.blogspot.com/2013/04/some-random-time.html) to become this most famous picture - “Behind the Gare St. Lazare”.
Everyone thought his was a pure chance, a piece of luck. Once again, it was but only to a certain degree. The contact sheet showed us that HCB had tried some 10 times to obtain that shot. With other cyclists, passers-by, pedestrians and such. He then chose the best one out of all those other ones (http://morganmoller.wordpress.com/2013/05/09/street-photography-is-the-hardest-branch-of-photography-cartier-bresson-still-teaches-us-every-day/) and it became this incredibly famous image. [Th]e rest of them never saw the light of day.
-
But I don't see any ambiguity. None at all. Zilch. Nada. Not a sausage. Bugger all. Just saying.
"But why has the man walked toward the flood on the little ladder? Since it's obvious he's not dressed for wading why is he jumping into the water? There's another man in the picture, slouching behind a fence. What's he doing there? Why is the partially destroyed poster on that desolate fence?"
Hi Bill, I guess you're telling me it all makes sense to you, but to me this is a perfect example of "An expression whose meaning cannot be determined from its context." Maybe you can explain it to me. "An expression whose meaning cannot be determined from its context" is the definition of ambiguity.
And Isaac's right. It was luck, but he made a lot of shots to get to the luck. As HCB pointed out at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4qZ3Z8shZE&feature=related, "It's always luck. You just have to be receptive. That's all."
-
Hi Bill, I guess you're telling me it all makes sense to you, but to me this is a perfect example of "An expression whose meaning cannot be determined from its context." Maybe you can explain it to me. "An expression whose meaning cannot be determined from its context" is the definition of ambiguity.
An alternative rendering is that you find an ambiguity and that makes the image more special for you. Whether those ambiguities (as you call them) are the reason the picture is famous is a different matter. Personally I have never looked at the image in the way you describe yet I still think 'it works'.
https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/art-1010/art-between-wars/intl-avant-garde/v/cartier-bresson-behind-the-gare-saint-lazare-paris-1932
Interestingly this analysis mentions nothing of the 'ambiguities' you mention and talks about classic photographic elements of geometry, reflections, and that catching split second timings such as this was, at the time, rare.
-
"But why has the man walked toward the flood on the little ladder? Since it's obvious he's not dressed for wading why is he jumping into the water? There's another man in the picture, slouching behind a fence. What's he doing there? Why is the partially destroyed poster on that desolate fence?"
Actually, who cares why? I certainly don't.
..."An expression whose meaning cannot be determined from its context" is the definition of ambiguity...
If I can't determine meaning, I call it...bs then ;)
-
"From its context," Slobodan. If you can determine its meaning from its context, what you have is either photojournalism or tourist photography.
-
Note, not a mention of ambiguity!
"All photographs are ambiguous. All photographs have been taken out of a continuity." page 91
Another Way of Telling (https://books.google.com/books?id=42-vYuNn7FAC), John Berger, 1982
-
Which means every photograph is street photography.
That settles that then ;D Thread done.
-
Right, Mike. Glad to see that Isaac cleared all that up.
-
Are the labels really all that important? If a picture of the great outdoors also features a recognizable person, is it Landscape, or an Environmental Portrait? If an interior picture of a building's angles and shapes includes a vase on a desk near 3 pieces of fruit, is it Architectural, or Still Life? If 'Street' need not be urban...etc., etc., etc.
Why should we care, let alone argue about it?
Please define 'Blue Chip'. Please define 'Gourmet'.
Subjective shorthand expressions to assist in casual conversation, not terms that require precise specifications.
-
Which means every photograph is street photography.
Which means that ambiguous does nothing to distinguish a street photograph from any other kind-of photograph.
When Russ says "ambiguity" it's just a form of special pleading used to include or exclude someones photographs.
-
Are the labels really all that important?
Of course. People label themselves and label others and go to war.
Should labels be that important? Different question.
"Hardening of the categories leads to Art disease." Harry Holtzman
-
When Russ says "ambiguity" it's just a form of special pleading used to include or exclude someones photographs.
The problem with this discussion, and especially Isaac's contributions, is that the arguments are theoretical abstractions. I say especially Isaac's contributions because, as near as we can tell, Isaac never has made a street shot. In fact, there's no evidence Isaac ever has made a photograph. It's obvious that Isaac has done a great deal of reading on the subject, but that's not the same thing as doing the work.
But Isaac's partially correct in what he says. There's a difference between the genre we call street photography and pictures shot on a street. Ambiguity is a marker in the distinction. It's a way to include or exclude photographs from a generic classification, the same way we use brushwork and other markers to include or exclude a painting from being described as "impressionist." I guess that in Isaac's mind that's another form of "special pleading."
-
I think it's time for me to straighten you all out on Real Street Photography, the Purest form. Here are some examples.
One might argue that the first one isn't really Pure, since there are tiny bits of buildings (which of course are not "street") near the top, but they will be cropped out as soon as my Application for Permission to Crop has been approved by Russ.
The others are surely Pure Street, and the fourth one might suggest a commentary on the present thread. ;D :D
-
I think it's time for me to straighten you all out on Real Street Photography, the Purest form. Here are some examples.
One might argue that the first one isn't really Pure, since there are tiny bits of buildings (which of course are not "street") near the top, but they will be cropped out as soon as my Application for Permission to Crop has been approved by Russ.
The others are surely Pure Street, and the fourth one might suggest a commentary on the present thread. ;D :D
Awesome... ;D
-
... the fourth one might suggest a commentary on the present thread. ;D :D
Hehe... Not to mention that the ghost in it seems to be horrified himself.
-
Hehe... Not to mention that the ghost in it seems to be horrified himself.
He's threatening to eat this thread, once he's finished the "Stop" sign.
-
Ambiguity is a marker in the distinction. It's a way to include or exclude photographs from a generic classification…
Nope. All photographs are ambiguous. It is not a way to include or exclude photographs from a generic classification.
It's "special pleading" because you simply choose to see ambiguity when you wish to include some photo, and choose not to see ambiguity when you wish to exclude some photo.
-
He's threatening to eat this thread, once he's finished the "Stop" sign.
If tom b wishes to discuss the idea of street photography without thinking he needs your permission -- Good for him.
-
If tom b wishes to discuss the idea of street photography without thinking he needs your permission -- Good for him.
He doesn't need my permission. Do you?
And I'm sorry if my bit of humor offended you.
-
Nope. All photographs are ambiguous. It is not a way to include or exclude photographs from a generic classification.
It's "special pleading" because you simply choose to see ambiguity when you wish to include some photo, and choose not to see ambiguity when you wish to exclude some photo.
Isaac, as the Duke said: "If you believe that, you will believe anything." There's no ambiguity about Half Dome. It just sits there and tourists photograph it. There's plenty of ambiguity about "Behind the Gare St. Lazare." If you can't see these things then either you're blind or else you choose to ignore what's right before your face in order to try to make a point. You're not making it, my friend.
-
Eric's fourth image reminds me of this Trent Parke image (http://www.in-public.com/TrentParke/image/1523).
Great street photography is when you click next and you go yum! Trent Parke (http://www.in-public.com/TrentParke/image/3495).
Cheers,
-
He doesn't need my permission. Do you?
And I'm sorry if my bit of humor offended you.
You wasted your time? Isaac doesn't recognise humour. ;)
-
Eric's fourth image reminds me of this Trent Parke image (http://www.in-public.com/TrentParke/image/1523).
Great street photography is when you click next and you go yum! Trent Parke (http://www.in-public.com/TrentParke/image/3495).
Cheers,
Thanks, Tom. I do wish I'd taken that shot!
-
Isaac, as the Duke said: "If you believe that, you will believe anything." There's no ambiguity about Half Dome. It just sits there and tourists photograph it. There's plenty of ambiguity about "Behind the Gare St. Lazare." If you can't see these things then either you're blind or else you choose to ignore what's right before your face in order to try to make a point. You're not making it, my friend.
You have found ambiguity in "Behind the Gare St. Lazare.". Fair enough.
What about Half Dome? The ambiguity that this monolith has survived millions of years of erosion whereas strata just a few meters away have been eroded to create the monolith. Without destructive processes, the splendour that is Half Dome would not have been created. The duality of destruction and creation. Without death, is there life? Without destruction can we recognise beauty?
There are numerous routes up Half Dome, some natural some man-made. Does all this make shots of Half Dome 'street photography'?
-
Hi Mike, Are you related to Humpty Dumpty? "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."
You probably ought to look up the word before you use it.
-
Hi Mike, Are you related to Humpty Dumpty? "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."
You probably ought to look up the word before you use it.
I fully understand what you mean by ambiguity. But to me many of your points (reply #17) are beyond Occam's razor
But why has the man walked toward the flood on the little ladder? Since it's obvious he's not dressed for wading why is he jumping into the water? [1] There's another man in the picture, slouching behind a fence. What's he doing there? Why is the partially destroyed poster on that desolate fence [2]?"
[1] because he has to in order to get to where he wants to be. The mere fact he is not dressed for wading means we know he is going to get wet which adds a sense of inevitability, and the reflection adds an interesting geometry
[2] Because it is. It was once a full poster but has got weathered and to me is no more meaningful a question as 'why did the rock of Half Dome not become eroded like the rocks so close to it'. The fact it happened has added another pattern and adds to the sense of dereliction also given by the ladder and hoops lying in the water.
I am not for one moment saying you are wrong for having these thoughts because interpretation of an image is a very personal thing. What I am saying is that to take what you do from a picture and use that to include/exclude someone else's work seems like stretching a point.
Now it may be that we both have a fair few thoughts about this (and many other pictures) in common and the issue is one of how we verbalise what it is we see/feel. As I have said before I can see where you are coming from but I just don't think you can say 'I don't see X in an image therefore it is not street photography'.
-
Okay, so to you the picture is an expression whose meaning can be determined from its context. Amazing. Do you also do seances?
-
Okay, so to you the picture is an expression whose meaning can be determined from its context. Amazing. Do you also do seances?
That's a straw man argument: I am not making any attempt at presuming the answer to the questions you ask (hence no need for psychic powers). If your comments on 'Gare' are typical, it is just that I don't ask those questions that to you are so important to define the genre. A lot of time the 'meaning' of a photo is obvious from its context but is still a damned good street photograph - unless you are using the word 'meaning' in a different context to how I would use it. But I fear that when discussing 'ambiguity' and 'meaning' we will end up in a circular discussion.
-
Hi Mike,
I'm glad to hear you're not a photographic spiritualist.
Let's get one thing clear from the start. I've never said that ambiguity is essential to a street photograph. I went back through my essays on the subject to make sure I didn't even imply that. What I said, in "Why Do Street Photography" was: "A good street photograph doesn't need to make you understand its story. Ambiguity can add to a street photograph's impact, but a story has to be there even if its meaning is hidden." That's the only place I used the word "ambiguity" in any of my web rants on the subject. In LuLa "discussions" I've also said that ambiguity is one element that helps define a street shot, but I've never implied -- at least I don't think I have -- that ambiguity is essential to a street photograph.
But I stand by the story part, and I disagree with you when you say: "A lot of time the 'meaning' of a photo is obvious from its context but is still a damned good street photograph. . ." READ MY FINGERS: "If a picture doesn't leave you with at least one unanswered question, it's not a street photograph. It's straight reportage." Whether or not unanswered questions always result in ambiguity is a semantic question.
-
There's no ambiguity about Half Dome. It just sits there and tourists photograph it.
Half Dome is a granite monolith, not a photograph.
What does a particular photograph of Half Dome (https://shop.anseladams.com/v/vspfiles/photos/1901020-2.jpg) mean?
Do you have any argument to put forward or just bluster -- "If you can't see these things then either you're blind or else you choose to ignore what's right before your face in order to try to make a point (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=102947.msg845158#msg845158). You're not making it, my friend."
-
Half Dome is a granite monolith, not a photograph.
What does a particular photograph of Half Dome (https://shop.anseladams.com/v/vspfiles/photos/1901020-2.jpg) mean?
Do you have any argument to put forward or just bluster -- "If you can't see these things then either you're blind or else you choose to ignore what's right before your face in order to try to make a point (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=102947.msg845158#msg845158). You're not making it, my friend."
More denigration Isaac. :o
-
More denigration Isaac
You've made 2 comments in this discussion thread.
Neither express any interest in the topic; both are personal attacks.
-
More denigration Isaac. :o
Just Isaac's "style." He's more interested in abstract arguments than in making photographs.
-
Just doing you the courtesy of taking your comments seriously.
What does a particular photograph of Half Dome mean?
-
What does a particular photograph of Half Dome mean?
Means it's a photograph of Half Dome.
-
What does a particular photograph of Half Dome mean?
The photographer arrived too late to get a picture of the Full Dome.
-
"Personally I don’t feel the need to box everything into some kind of giant art infographic and get precious about definitions." - Olaf Willoughby
http://olafwilloughby.com/uncategorized/exploring-street-photography/
A quick read, and worthy article.
-
Means it's a photograph of Half Dome.
You might respond -- "If you can't see these things then either you're blind or else you choose to ignore what's right before your face in order to try to make a point (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=102947.msg845158#msg845158). You're not making it, my friend."
I just say -- special pleading.
-
You're free to say whatever you want to say, Isaac. Be my guest.
-
But why has the man walked toward the flood on the little ladder?
To get to the other side.
Since it's obvious he's not dressed for wading why is he jumping into the water?
It's not even an inch deep.
There's another man in the picture, slouching behind a fence. What's he doing there?
Slouching.
Why is the partially destroyed poster on that desolate fence?
To be seen by the people taking this well-used route - used enough for someone to bother putting down the ladder across the puddle.
-
The photographer arrived too late to get a picture of the Full Dome.
Nah, the photographer waited for the decisive moment.
-
And Isaac's right. It was luck, but he made a lot of shots to get to the luck.
The point is not that Behind the Gare Saint-Lazare was luck.
The point is that Cartier-Bresson found the backdrop for his photograph (with the multiple mirrored elements) and then waited, hidden by a fence, for movement to bring it to life.
(Behind the Gare Saint-Lazare is a bad example for what you wish to say about Cartier-Bresson because he really isn't working moment-by-moment on intuition as events unfold - the scene was set in advance.)
-
... Cartier-Bresson because he really isn't working moment-by-moment on intuition as events unfold - the scene was set in advance.)
Pardon me for this blasphemy, but isn't photography like a sausage? If you like the end product, do you really want to know how it's made?
-
My guess- especially if they like the end product - is that sausage makers want to know how the sausage is made.
-
My guess- especially if they like the end product - is that sausage makers want to know how the sausage is made.
If someone is a "maker," he by definitions knows it already. Learning how to do a standard, industrial-line product is one thing, learning how to do a great, unique product, is another and... impossible. The most you can hope for by dissecting HCB technique is how to plagiarize it. Just like all those "secrets to success" books... there ain't any (secrets, that is; plenty of books)
-
If someone is a "maker," he by definitions knows it already.
As-you-know that just means someone knows how to make some kinds-of sausage, not all kinds-of sausage.
Learning how to do a standard, industrial-line product is one thing, learning how to do a great, unique product, is another and... impossible.
As-you-know there are many great, unique kinds-of sausage and a long tradition of people learning how to make them.
The most you can hope for by dissecting HCB technique is how to plagiarize it.
I hope to avoid forming a false impression of Cartier-Bresson's photography.
It's unkind of you to imply that Russ and stamper and … are plagiarizing Cartier-Bresson.
-
... It's unkind of you to imply that Russ and stamper and … are plagiarizing Cartier-Bresson.
Since you apparently know what technique HCB used much better than either gentleman, they weren't that privy to the "secret," thus spared the danger of plagiarizing it. You, however, with all that knowledge... ;)
-
Love your new avatar, Russ. What a distinguished gentleman!
-
Since you apparently know what technique HCB used much better than either gentleman, they weren't that privy to the "secret," thus spared the danger of plagiarizing it.
Mea culpa I did not reflect your comment correctly.
It's unkind of you to imply the most Russ and stamper and … hope for is how to plagiarize Cartier-Bresson.
-
Love your new avatar, Russ. What a distinguished gentleman!
Thanks, Slobodan. Here's a more complete version.
-
Thanks, Slobodan. Here's a more complete version.
Nice portrait.
But where's the street? ;)
(I guess that's the ambiguity.)
-
Mea culpa I did not reflect your comment correctly.
It's unkind of you to imply the most Russ and stamper and … hope for is how to plagiarize Cartier-Bresson.
Isaac show me the post that shows that I have said anything about Cartier-Bresson.
-
Isaac show me the post that shows that I have said anything about Cartier-Bresson.
stamper, no one here need answer your whimsical demands.
If you have a polite question or a polite request for assistance by all means ask.
-
stamper, no one here need answer your whimsical demands.
If you have a polite question or a polite request for assistance by all means ask.
I could politely tell you where to go? :) ;) I will make it easier for you. I haven't said anything about the dead Frenchman that you obviously adore so try not to link me with something I haven't commented on. OK
-
I haven't said anything about the dead Frenchman that you obviously adore so try not to link me with something I haven't commented on. OK
Were you talking about some other Henri?
"Which one should I choose if I want to slavishly follow Henri's advice?" (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=45987.msg594637#msg594637)
-
This thread has gone way off topic.
I posted some quotes from the iN-PUBLIC (http://www.in-public.com/) web site.
There is some great street photography there (and yes Russ, some not so great).
Having looked back at my favourite Australian photography exhibition, Russ has a point. Trent Parke and Narelle Autio's images in the Seventh Wave (https://www.google.com.au/search?q=the+Seventh+Wave&safe=active&espv=2&biw=911&bih=389&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAmoVChMIsefa0cu1xwIVxRimCh2GQwV0) exhibition show a lot of ambiguity, but they show a lot more.
Probably what the Seventh Wave exhibition showed most is that street could be visually stunning.
I think Trent Parke's photography is great.
I'll be honest I don't read much about street photography. However I have looked at a lot of street photographs. Trent Parke is my favourite Aussie!
I'd rather look at some great street photographs than read this pissing contest!
Cheers
-
Were you talking about some other Henri?
"Which one should I choose if I want to slavishly follow Henri's advice?" (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=45987.msg594637#msg594637)
I don't know how many Henri's you know. Do you count them to get to sleep?
-
This thread has gone way off topic.
I'd rather look at some great street photographs than read this pissing contest!
Cheers
Quite. iN PUBLIC is a joy to view and think about.
-
I think it's largely what you want it to be, but in the end you, the photographer, don't have the say.
http://www.gallery51.com/index.php?navigatieid=9&fotograafid=15
http://fraenkelgallery.com/an-interview-with-garry-winogrand-1981
Leiter was love at first sight, way back in '59 or '60 when I first met him on the pages of Photography Annual or perhaps it was Color Annual - they were both put out by Popular Photography magazine, which I hardy ever found, and the annuals only came my way because I'd haunt the kiosk in Glasgow's Central Station during that period, wishing and hoping I'd find something American and photography-related that I could afford to buy on my apprentice's pay; yep, just like rock 'n' roll then. I seem to remember the Leiter spread in the Annual was entitled 'A Painter's View of New York'.
(Incidently, despite Bailey's access, Leiter shot what I think are the most beautiful images of Shrimpton that I have ever seen.)
Some other, later, gallery-favourite 'street shooters' are credited with being the first to do it in colour; not so: Leiter and Helen Levitt were pioneers.
If you read Winogrand's quotation in the second link, you'll see he had his own thoughts on 'street'...
Thing is, if you are really in the life (in whichever photo-genre) and not the pretence, you just do what you know that you have to do. Simple, really: it's taken out of your hands by your own nature.
Whether you can crack a living at it is neither here nor there; Garry had to teach and do other things just to pay the bills; Arbus killed herself, and many others have followed the route to ending the inner struggle that stops you falling asleep at night and ruins much of your life... and that's why so few people today ever achieve the heights that some old-timers did: they generally can't take the pain, and have a second string that keeps them comfortable so they can go out to play at the weekends. Some call them warriors, I think.
But anyway, folks here only chat about the Americans or the French (real or adopted)) street guys; few are even aware of the Italian school of neo-realist photographers. It's really an immense world if you look for the detail...
Rob
-
As an Australian I really enjoy Trent Parke's (https://www.google.com.au/search?q=trent+parke&safe=active&espv=2&biw=911&bih=389&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAWoVChMIrMKTq7LKxwIVRJmUCh10YQjW)street photography.
Welcome back Rob.
Cheers,
-
Cher Rob,
Finalement ce soir, tu avais une surprise!!! Donne-nous un peu plus de temps! C'etait bon de te sentir.
-
Patricia,
Merci, mais je ne sais pas... plus court le temps que me rest, moins la patience avec les gens qui non me fait heureux.
First time I've attempted that since I was seventeen... humiliating, when I consider one of my granddaughters spent a year in Paris reading law, in that tongue, and along with a New York girl, came out on top at the end of the course, leaving some native speakers in the dust. I never shared that gift; the closest I got to it was having no shame about speaking bad Spanish because I realised, pretty soon, that it's about communication, not trying to prove how elegantly one can spout forth. When the other person hasn't a clue about English, he cares even less about the niceties of your grammer - he just wants to be able to know exactly what the hell you want from him. Even if that's just a cup of decaf coffee with milk.
My wife and I thought our school French was 'good enough', and all those years ago it probably was, but when we took our first road trip to Scotland via Fance from here, we realised PDQ that though the ability to read had largely remained, the ability to understand the sounds had not. But so what, those many trips remain my own Route 66 adventure for ever.
Lovely to know you're still cookin' and thanks again for the Leica Dot Coke shot inspiration!
Rob
-
Rob!
Had to do a double take ...
So good to see you illuminating these threads once again.
All best,
Manoli
-
(Incidently, despite Bailey's access, Leiter shot what I think are the most beautiful images of Shrimpton that I have ever seen.)
Rob, I was prompted to fill out a gap in my education and look up some of Saul Leiter's photographs of Shrimpton here (https://www.pinterest.com/rosarosas/saul-leiter/).
I nearly fell off my chair with one image. It reminds me so much of Bardot. No wonder you liked Leiter's work. :D
-
Rob, I was prompted to fill out a gap in my education and look up some of Saul Leiter's photographs of Shrimpton here (https://www.pinterest.com/rosarosas/saul-leiter/).
I nearly fell off my chair with one image. It reminds me so much of Bardot. No wonder you liked Leiter's work. :D
Hi David,
Nutshell!
Rob
-
"But anyway, folks here only chat about the Americans or the French (real or adopted)) street guys; few are even aware of the Italian school of neo-realist photographers. It's really an immense world if you look for the detail..."
Having posted that, here are a few Italians that might interest you:
http://www.ugomulas.org/index.cgi?action=view&idramo=1107773031&lang=eng
http://onlinebrowsing.blogspot.com.es/2012/07/mario-de-biasi.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKOrtXBJ8MQ
(In the above, Horvat speaks about the effect of Jewishness to psychology.)
http://www.google.es/search?q=gianni+berengo+gardin+imagenes&biw=1257&bih=889&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=XO1UVZqMIsrisAT85oGQCw&ved=0CCAQsAQ#imgrc=FTBlRQVNrvzaxM%253A%3BhRil59P5p5FVlM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252F1.bp.blogspot.com%252F-QpiqQK2Lh2E%252FTnzFissIU1I%252FAAAAAAAAEJY%252FaPXZqcBr4JA%252Fs1600%252F10802_Gianni_Berengo_Gardin.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Ffakeclumsylove.blogspot.com%252F2011%252F09%252Fgianni-berengo-gardin.html%3B750%3B540
http://www.oscarmarzaroli.com/home.html
(I knew Oscar very slightly in Glasgow.)
http://www.photography-now.com/artist/gianni-berengo-gardin
Enjoy.
Rob C
-
Rob,
It's a pleasure to see how the level of discussion improves as soon as you join (or rejoin) a thread!
You add insight rather than meaningless nattering. Thank you!
-Eric
-
Rob,
It's a pleasure to see how the level of discussion improves as soon as you join (or rejoin) a thread!
You add insight rather than meaningless nattering. Thank you!
-Eric
Eric, you should hear me when I'm alone and chatting to myself, as we all do. My wife used to tip-toe across the corridor and gently close the office door so she could concentrate on her book. She never mentioned the conversations later. Miss her.
;-)
Rob