Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => Street Showcase => Topic started by: petermfiore on May 19, 2018, 08:01:45 am
-
Interesting read, Much food for thought...
http://thephotofundamentalist.com/general-discussion/is-street-photography-killing-itself/ from 2/2/17
Peter
-
Hi Peter,
It's an interesting article, but right off the bat I'm brought up short by his use of the word "egalitarian," in other words, "favoring social equality." I don't see how street favors social equality. But he seems to accept that idea without question and then plunges on. It's sort of like Marx deciding that value comes from human labor and that inequality can be explained by Capitalism stealing the fruits of that labor, then plunging on into Das Kapital.
He then charges into the idea that all those people out there are accessing public areas and banging away, and that all of that is street photography. That's roughly equivalent to saying that all those people making tourist pictures by banging away at distant mountains are ruining landscape.
He also seems to think that because digital photography is less work than film photography it's now easier to get good street shots. That means that as long as you have the right gear, you're a "rock and roll street photography sniper." It's sort of equivalent to Brooks Jensen telling us about the guy with the "good camera." (see http://www.russ-lewis.com/essays/TechnicalExcellence.htm).
But in general, I agree with him. I hate to see street photography brought down by people doing it badly. It would be easy to post a link to a good example of that, but I don't want to insult anyone I correspond with and often admire when they're not trying to do street.
Then I reflect on the first Impressionist exhibition, banished from the Salon and hung in Nadar's studio, and the fact that time heals all wounds (as well as wounding all heels), and that in the end good art survives while bad art dies a quiet death.
-
The guy makes some good points, but over all I get the feeling this is a person a bit jaded with photography in general. I found his argument that current cameras are much easier to get good shots with than those we had 20 years ago. Twenty years ago I was using a Nikon F100, whose operation (auto exposure, AF, fast zooms, etc.) is pretty much the same as my current D800E. It is easier to get a technically good shot with either of those cameras than it is a camera from the 1930s, but he didn't go back that far. All of his comments could be said about any other genre of photography--birds/wildlife, landscape, etc. There is a flood of people out there "banging away", partly because there is no longer the cost of film. I will argue that most of these photos aren't taken with cameras at all, but cellphones. Finally there is this: "The sad truth is that most of our effort in photography amounts to nothing. We’ve all worked hard and come back with a slew of entirely disappointing images, but this does not mean we stop trying." He is exactly right. I've been shooting and learning for over 30 years now, but still think only 5% (if that) of my photos are really any good. At times I find that discouraging, but then I look at the photos I took 25 years ago which I thought were my best, and now wonder, "Why did I take it?" ;D So, I'm making progress. It's that 5% that keeps me going.
Kent in SD
-
Actually, it seems that his point is that people actually publish those 99% failures because, amongst others they don't take the time to sit down and really filter the result. On top of that the social interaction creates filterbubbles that encourages "bad" results.
He also claims that there must be really good results out there but our exposure to it is diminishing quickly. The latter is a point that Mike over at TOP frequently makes that these days we make judgements about photography based on an extremely minute samplesize of images we see, since even if we see 100s of images each day, that still represents a completely negligable number relative to what we produce collectively.
But the former point is probably a correct observation, if we flood a genre with mediocre images in filterbubbles, this could well spell the end of the original meaning of such category.
-
The guy makes some good points, but over all I get the feeling this is a person a bit jaded with photography in general. I found his argument that current cameras are much easier to get good shots with than those we had 20 years ago. Twenty years ago I was using a Nikon F100, whose operation (auto exposure, AF, fast zooms, etc.) is pretty much the same as my current D800E. It is easier to get a technically good shot with either of those cameras than it is a camera from the 1930s, but he didn't go back that far. All of his comments could be said about any other genre of photography--birds/wildlife, landscape, etc. There is a flood of people out there "banging away", partly because there is no longer the cost of film. I will argue that most of these photos aren't taken with cameras at all, but cellphones. Finally there is this: "The sad truth is that most of our effort in photography amounts to nothing. We’ve all worked hard and come back with a slew of entirely disappointing images, but this does not mean we stop trying." He is exactly right. I've been shooting and learning for over 30 years now, but still think only 5% (if that) of my photos are really any good. At times I find that discouraging, but then I look at the photos I took 25 years ago which I thought were my best, and now wonder, "Why did I take it?" ;D So, I'm making progress. It's that 5% that keeps me going.
Kent in SD
Kent, if 5% of your photos are good you're hitting on all cylinders. Oh, and hindsight is always 20-20.
-
Yet another curmudgeonly, elitist rant about how when a change makes it less difficult for people to do something, more people do it, and do it more often, and almost inevitably a greater amount of poor to mediocre stuff comes out; even a greater fraction of the products being low quality. So harrumph, we should also have to do our own developing and printing, or maybe even prepare our own hand-coated emulsions, so that only truly dedicated artists can make photographs!
But it seems likely to me that even if the good quality stuff is a smaller fraction of the total, the overall number of good outcomes and of talented people getting into the field increases. Just more work for him to cull down to the stuff that impresses him.
And he documents the rant with a half dozen photos that do not impress him, with no indication of how he selected them (key words: "confirmation bias"), as if that proves anything beyond "hey, photographers inferior to me get to put their photos on the internet!".
P. S. I see this in my field of higher education: there are often complaints that easier access from about the 1950's on has lead to a reduced _average_ quality of an undergraduate education, but what I also see is that the total number of well-prepared graduates likely exceeds the total number of all graduates in that former era.
-
... I'm brought up short by his use of the word "egalitarian," in other words, "favoring social equality."
I think he makes it clear what he means by that term: the easier access due to the lower "cost of entry", since the genre does not require a studio, lights, assistants, etc. So "equality of opportunity", not "equality of outcomes"'; are you more comfortable with that?
-
Overall, I think he makes a good point: the world is flooded with snaps.
And no, it's not a modern problem nor is it confined to street alone. During the 70s/80s I was contracted with Tony Stone Worldwide, the foremost stock operation in the U.K. Soon after I settled here in Mallorca I explored every little bit of territory that looked promising for model shots (beaches, mostly) and also shot lots of so-called atmospherics for the travel market etc. I eventually got a call from the library asking me to stop shooting Med material, that every library in London was drowning in it.
Later, I contacted the stock library association HQ asking for advice regarding a different agency for model pix for lifestyle/calendars. The lady there wrote back saying exactly the same thing as the Stone agency: London agencies are flooded to drowning with every genre you can think about. That was pre-digital. Imagine the state today.
Why would street, even less of a commercial prospect, fare better or attract better photographers?
Dream on.
-
Why would street, even less of a commercial prospect, fare better or attract better photographers?
Dream on.
Rob,
Exactly...Too much access, Too many pictures of nothing and most a quirk at best. Todays cameras make tech easy. Lots a snappers aim and make an "art" frozen moment in time. It's all around us. The author was just saying we need to work harder and not rely on cliched concepts. We ALL can do better...
Peter
-
... Too many pictures of nothing and most a quirk at best. Todays cameras make tech easy. Lots a snappers aim and make an "art" frozen moment in time.
I have to ask again; why is an increase in the number or even the proportion of bad to mediocre photos on the internet in itself a problem? That increase does not rule out there also being as much or more good work being done, so long as it is not much harder to find it.
That "finding" is his main grievance seems, based on the the photos to be found by rambling through social media (he mentions Facebook, Instagram and Flickr, apparently not even considering the slightly more upscale options like 500px). So I am tempted to grumpily suggest that one way back for him to get back the "good old days" is to get back to the ways he discovered good examples of street photography in those days: probably through more "curated" outlets like galleries, magazines, word-of-mouth from fellow photographers and other trusted sources, and websites with actual editorial practices beyond "click here it upload".
So my rant would be against "relying on crowd-sourcing and automated search" and in favor or "curation and establishing some trusted sources".
The author was just saying we need to work harder and not rely on cliched concepts.
He was not just saying that; his headline (and yours) was far more dire: raising the prospect that street photography is killing itself.
Or maybe that was just click-bait in his headline — but then overall, I find misleading, fear-mongering or over-promising "click-bait" headlines far more damaging to journalism, communication and judgement than the ability of less talented and less "invested" people to take photos and publish them on social media, where none of us has to look at them if we are not interested.
-
If there's an issue with actually getting to see the creative/compelling/innovative photos being made nowadays, I think it has to do with a lack of credible tastemakers. People who wade through the muck, filter out the dross and spotlight the gems. Which in turn has to do with the decline of photography as a commercial enterprise. Same deal with other creative media, such as music. Not enough people being paid well enough to keep doing it at an ecosystem-supporting level. The tastemaking systems of the past were certainly flawed—favoritism, personal vendetta, payola, etc.—but they were economically viable and were taken seriously enough by enough people that they worked pretty well overall.
Nowadays you've gotta put more effort into finding the good stuff, and in an environment where there's so much more stuff in total to wade through. IMO it's hard not to get overwhelmed in the process.
-Dave-
-
If there's an issue with actually getting to see the creative/compelling/innovative photos being made nowadays, I think it has to do with a lack of credible tastemakers. People who wade through the muck, filter out the dross and spotlight the gems. Which in turn has to do with the decline of photography as a commercial enterprise. Same deal with other creative media, such as music. Not enough people being paid well enough to keep doing it at an ecosystem-supporting level. The tastemaking systems of the past were certainly flawed—favoritism, personal vendetta, payola, etc.—but they were economically viable and were taken seriously enough by enough people that they worked pretty well overall.
Nowadays you've gotta put more effort into finding the good stuff, and in an environment where there's so much more stuff in total to wade through. IMO it's hard not to get overwhelmed in the process.
-Dave-
Exactly the point...and the payoff is slight.
Peter
-
If there's an issue with actually getting to see the creative/compelling/innovative photos being made nowadays, I think it has to do with a lack of credible tastemakers. People who wade through the muck, filter out the dross and spotlight the gems. Which in turn has to do with the decline of photography as a commercial enterprise. Same deal with other creative media, such as music. Not enough people being paid well enough to keep doing it at an ecosystem-supporting level. The tastemaking systems of the past were certainly flawed—favoritism, personal vendetta, payola, etc.—but they were economically viable and were taken seriously enough by enough people that they worked pretty well overall.
Nowadays you've gotta put more effort into finding the good stuff, and in an environment where there's so much more stuff in total to wade through. IMO it's hard not to get overwhelmed in the process.
-Dave-
Absolutely right on the money (or lack of i!).
Stock photography used to be a great second-string for many professional photographers, and some very talented and persistent ones could make it a lucrative career that offered as close to total freedom as any artist could want. In my case, it was mainly a useful outlet for the extra shots from commisioned work, and promised to turn into a reasonable addition to later pension and savings.
The reality? I'm no longer even in a stock library and the people I knew who were in similar positions to myself have stopped contributing anything too. Not worth the cost of making the work. Why? The same reason that killed Kodak: people don't need to invest to speculate, now, thanks to digital. On top of that, one can thank the monopoly of Getty and Corbis (if it still exists) and the massive drop in percentage of the sale money going to the photographer. What's he gonna do? From 50% of the value of the sale, down to a few pennies in the dollar makes it attractive only to the guy who does it to get published, poor sod. What he is really getting, is screwed.
But he'll never believe you; pride won't let him.
-
Yet another curmudgeonly, elitist rant about how when a change makes it less difficult for people to do something, more people do it, and do it more often, and almost inevitably a greater amount of poor to mediocre stuff comes out; even a greater fraction of the products being low quality. So harrumph, we should also have to do our own developing and printing, or maybe even prepare our own hand-coated emulsions, so that only truly dedicated artists can make photographs!
But it seems likely to me that even if the good quality stuff is a smaller fraction of the total, the overall number of good outcomes and of talented people getting into the field increases. Just more work for him to cull down to the stuff that impresses him.
And he documents the rant with a half dozen photos that do not impress him, with no indication of how he selected them (key words: "confirmation bias"), as if that proves anything beyond "hey, photographers inferior to me get to put their photos on the internet!".
P. S. I see this in my field of higher education: there are often complaints that easier access from about the 1950's on has lead to a reduced _average_ quality of an undergraduate education, but what I also see is that the total number of well-prepared graduates likely exceeds the total number of all graduates in that former era.
Yes, he admits to his own taste and prejudice. Interestingly, in the days of paper, photography editors were rarely doubted or questioned but they certainly had their own prejudices.
I agree with you that while the democratization of photography has inundated us with pictures, we are the better for it. Digital and the internet has done for photography, and more so for video, what the printing press did for the written word which of course has also greatly benefited.
-
Yes, he admits to his own taste and prejudice. Interestingly, in the days of paper, photography editors were rarely doubted or questioned but they certainly had their own prejudices.
I agree with you that while the democratization of photography has inundated us with pictures, we are the better for it. Digital and the internet has done for photography, and more so for video, what the printing press did for the written word which of course has also greatly benefited.
Don't quite accept the totality of that!
Yes, the Internet has become a massive enabler of rapid transmission of thought, but there are many problems associated with that. As has been touched upon already, much of it is the little matter of editing (as distinct from censorship) or, rather, lack of it. The world of paper largely took care of that, and the filters were pretty efficient, which is perhaps why we of longer memory have based our view of good and evil (at midnight or otherwise, in gardens as in studios) on the culled work, not the entirety of the dross from which the jems were shaken out.
Now a hard heart could argue that it boiled down to editiorial opinion which, of course, is entirely true. But don't forget: there were enough of us out there who agreed, to the extent of buying the publications, often when we could ill afford them. That meant we cared, that we felt a common, visceral connection; today, looking at websites costs nothing but the electricity, just like making a cellphone snap. And our three-minute minds save us from sleepless nights. In other words, in contrast, the viewer numbers are not reliable value indicators as were the buyer numbers of old.
I've looked at many of the so-called expert camera tester guys out there on the web, some self-appointed gurus of street; what an amazing bunch of con artists amongst them! Every new product is the best since the last, and not a shred of visual evidence backs them up. Some go walkies down the streets of wherever, sip coffee in coffee shops and make insider jokes. So coooool, so pointless and bland. Yet, of them all, poor old Ken R. appears to have been arbitrarily appointed principal cross-bearer.
As for finding the Internet as rewarding to language/writing as the printing press... you have to be joking! You were, weren't you?
;-)
-
Don't quite accept the totality of that!
Yes, the Internet has become a massive enabler of rapid transmission of thought, but there are many problems associated with that. As has been touched upon already, much of it is the little matter of editing (as distinct from censorship) or, rather, lack of it. The world of paper largely took care of that, and the filters were pretty efficient, which is perhaps why we of longer memory have based our view of good and evil (at midnight or otherwise, in gardens as in studios) on the culled work, not the entirety of the dross from which the jems were shaken out.
Now a hard heart could argue that it boiled down to editiorial opinion which, of course, is entirely true. But don't forget: there were enough of us out there who agreed, to the extent of buying the publications, often when we could ill afford them. That meant we cared, that we felt a common, visceral connection; today, looking at websites costs nothing but the electricity, just like making a cellphone snap. And our three-minute minds save us from sleepless nights. In other words, in contrast, the viewer numbers are not reliable value indicators as were the buyer numbers of old.
I've looked at many of the so-called expert camera tester guys out there on the web, some self-appointed gurus of street; what an amazing bunch of con artists amongst them! Every new product is the best since the last, and not a shred of visual evidence backs them up. Some go walkies down the streets of wherever, sip coffee in coffee shops and make insider jokes. So coooool, so pointless and bland. Yet, of them all, poor old Ken R. appears to have been arbitrarily appointed principal cross-bearer.
As for finding the Internet as rewarding to language/writing as the printing press... you have to be joking! You were, weren't you?
;-)
Spot on my friend...
Peter
-
The other side of my post above, and the thing that keeps me from being pessimistic about the situation, is that overall people are good at adapting to change. I don't mean individual humans…as individuals we're pretty crap at adapting. But the saving grace is that we all die off, leaving younger folks free to do things and respond to situations their way. Generationally we not only adapt but we bend our circumstances to better suit us. Nothing is static.
-Dave-
-
Dave,
The new will always redefine the ground rules for it needs to grow. Always has been that way, and will always be.
Peter
-
Dave,
The new will always redefine the ground rules for it need to grow. Always has been that way and will always be.
Peter
+1
Maybe street photography as it is defined by the street guru's is obsolete.
I find an image interesting when some elements come together: Strong story (and this can be the total absence of a story), Strong composition (and this can be the total ignorance of composition rules), colour balance, tonality, character of the image (I think B&W is obsolete for many reasons), Graphic, light balance (Contrast, Shadow vs light, claire obscure)
Imo, Street photography as defined is a subset of a broader photography theme: Urban Photography.
There is nothing 'elevated' or 'higher' on street photography. It is relatively narrow subset of a much more interesting scope: Human proliferation made visible with the comprehension of a camera's eye.
And I'm not convinced there where less garbage images pre digital era.
I remember endless dia shows at family evenings or photoclub presentations with all the same shit. Uncle Will who had the money to blow up every single shot of his perfectly centered unsharp picture of the tomcat of the house to poster format and hung it on literally every wall of the freaking house.
My dad who had the need to enlarge (and show the family) every 6x6 frame he shot in the local park. A birch. Two Birches, three Birches,........ But I have to say, all perfectly composed according to his 500BC manuscript 'Photographic compositions' written by Dr. Socrates himself.(ok this is not true)
The difference is, the internet is the perfect tool to flood all who is looking to his computer whit this image diarrhea. Is this good or bad?
It doesn't change a single thing.
If I want to see good photographs, I visit a well chosen exposition, just as we did pre 1990. Or I buy a Photo book with interesting theme or from the hand of a good photographer. Internet is not a trusty source for good photography. It is the flee market and that does have it's own charm.
Street photography is not killing itself, Society changes, so the subject is changing. If street photographers do not allow exegesis of the definition the style is deemed to fade out.
And there is something else. Contemporary Urban photography reflects the modern mentality. It reflects the complexity of people aware of there rights. Nowadays it is key to make you rights count, regardless if it make sense or not, if men have 'a right', are entitled to something, they race to court. (It would be great if peoples had the same urge to fulfill their duties as well)
In my home town, we have a mix of nationalities, pointing a camera in one direction on the street can end up with disturbances and perhaps physical violence, pointing the camera to the other direction can end up in a 'portraiture rights' claim. I was once arrested because I made a picture in the central station and by accident I had a undercover officer in the frame. He got me to turn in my film based on a 1890 law with states Rail station are of military interest and for that reason not allowed to photograph.
This change of environmental condition can not be kept out of the image, it sneaks in. Photographers have to find an answer on this changed reality.
A good friend of my have the natural talent to interact with peoples, even with the ones who would create disturbance. He makes wonderful street photography, but not according the 'rules' because there is interaction between the photographer and the subject.
If street photography is not following the reality it is framing, it will disappear for sure.
I think. :o :o 8)
-
Urban Photography is a neat title, but it's still too broad for what's generally understood to constitute street. You'd have to exclude architecture as it appears in broader cityscape shots. No Empire State snaps, then. So, what about HC-B and his equivalents in Paris?
I feel that anything that's trying to retain some connection with the origins of street, which was not called that in Europe during the 50s, at least, should have some human connection - even if just a reference to human consumption and appetites. Local, human-scale environment, then, as distinct fom wider shots.
Now that I think of it in this light, it strikes me that street has turned out to be one of the most confusing - and misleading - photographic brands; I believe that the pre-street appellation - candid - achieves exactly the humanistic sort of vibe that today's name tries to enforce without, it appears too much success.
On the assumption that unposed is the ethic of street, then what better word than candid, which really implies without artifice, cooperative planning?
Rob
-
Lots of badly written emails and even badly written books around. Doesn’t mean the death of literature does it. I read a lot and some good books out there. I see photography as the same.
On the candid thing I respectfully disagree. I still regard it as street if someone is asked to stand still for a moment and they pose themselves and an image is made. I also regard it as street if a person notices thay are being photographed and react is some way. Also not a candid. Anyway we all see it different. As long as the images are interesting and say something. Lots of pictures don’t meet that criteria.
-
Anyway we all see it different. As long as the images are interesting and say something. Lots of pictures don’t meet that criteria.
I agree with you conclusion, and that's what I took from the article in my OP.
Peter
-
Lots of badly written emails and even badly written books around. Doesn’t mean the death of literature does it. I read a lot and some good books out there. I see photography as the same.
On the candid thing I respectfully disagree. I still regard it as street if someone is asked to stand still for a moment and they pose themselves and an image is made. I also regard it as street if a person notices thay are being photographed and react is some way. Also not a candid. Anyway we all see it different. As long as the images are interesting and say something. Lots of pictures don’t meet that criteria.
On that basis, of being interesting, I have no option but to agree with you.
However, I think that where a subject spots you and reacts, then that doesn't betray any ethic of street; if anything, it's another aspect of the grand theatre. However, if you end up directing, then you are doing something quite else, and have stepped over the line into another role than snapper of the observed.
-
[quote author=Rob C link=topic=124853.msg1045309#msg1045309 date=1526901034.
However, I think that where a subject spots you and reacts, then that doesn't betray any ethic of street; if anything, it's another aspect of the grand theatre. However, if you end up directing, then you are doing something quite else, and have stepped over the line into another role than snapper of the observed.
[/quote]
Very true, directing is indeed something else...
Peter
-
However, I think that where a subject spots you and reacts, then that doesn't betray any ethic of street; if anything, it's another aspect of the grand theatre. However, if you end up directing, then you are doing something quite else, and have stepped over the line into another role than snapper of the observed.
And I'd agree, as long as the reaction of the person who's spotted you is instantaneous. Check the dog inside the boat in HCB's "Locks at Bougival." But if you're shooting a group and someone -- even worse, several people -- see what you're doing, they'll start acting for the camera and the game's over.
-
Don't quite accept the totality of that!
Yes, the Internet has become a massive enabler of rapid transmission of thought, but there are many problems associated with that. As has been touched upon already, much of it is the little matter of editing (as distinct from censorship) or, rather, lack of it. The world of paper largely took care of that, and the filters were pretty efficient, which is perhaps why we of longer memory have based our view of good and evil (at midnight or otherwise, in gardens as in studios) on the culled work, not the entirety of the dross from which the jems were shaken out.
Now a hard heart could argue that it boiled down to editiorial opinion which, of course, is entirely true. But don't forget: there were enough of us out there who agreed, to the extent of buying the publications, often when we could ill afford them. That meant we cared, that we felt a common, visceral connection; today, looking at websites costs nothing but the electricity, just like making a cellphone snap. And our three-minute minds save us from sleepless nights. In other words, in contrast, the viewer numbers are not reliable value indicators as were the buyer numbers of old.
I've looked at many of the so-called expert camera tester guys out there on the web, some self-appointed gurus of street; what an amazing bunch of con artists amongst them! Every new product is the best since the last, and not a shred of visual evidence backs them up. Some go walkies down the streets of wherever, sip coffee in coffee shops and make insider jokes. So coooool, so pointless and bland. Yet, of them all, poor old Ken R. appears to have been arbitrarily appointed principal cross-bearer.
As for finding the Internet as rewarding to language/writing as the printing press... you have to be joking! You were, weren't you?
;-)
Rob, you, me and most of LuLa are from a generation that was conditioned by the dependence on others to learn. Recently, Twitter and Facebook have, with the use of artificial intelligence, implemented a “relevance” way of offering information to their users which bypasses a user’s own decision making. But a howl of protest has forced social media to back off on trying to be the beloved editors of our times.
The kids are doing alright.
-
On that basis, of being interesting, I have no option but to agree with you.
However, I think that where a subject spots you and reacts, then that doesn't betray any ethic of street; if anything, it's another aspect of the grand theatre. However, if you end up directing, then you are doing something quite else, and have stepped over the line into another role than snapper of the observed.
That’s fine. I am certainly not the person that decides what is and isn’t street. Not that I really care for definitions but I don’t want to post something inappropriate here. Well I will now. The picture below is something I enjoy doing. People ask for money, I ask for their story as that always fascinates me then I will give them enough for a meal if they allow me to take a photo.
But it’s not street. Social documentary perhaps?
-
Informal portraiture. HCB did a ton of it.
-
That’s fine. I am certainly not the person that decides what is and isn’t street. Not that I really care for definitions but I don’t want to post something inappropriate here. Well I will now. The picture below is something I enjoy doing. People ask for money, I ask for their story as that always fascinates me then I will give them enough for a meal if they allow me to take a photo.
But it’s not street. Social documentary perhaps?
No, I don't think it's any kind of documentary at all, because without your explanation it could just as well be a snap of a friend doing nothing much in particular. It's an example, I think! of what Russ is explaining to folks new to the concept, about what street is not. That has absolutely no bearing on either the artistic or technical values within a given photograph, just of its relevance to a school, a genre.
Rob
-
Thanks, Rob. That's as clear an explanation as I've ever seen.
-
That’s fine. I am certainly not the person that decides what is and isn’t street. Not that I really care for definitions but I don’t want to post something inappropriate here. Well I will now. The picture below is something I enjoy doing. People ask for money, I ask for their story as that always fascinates me then I will give them enough for a meal if they allow me to take a photo.
But it’s not street. Social documentary perhaps?
If you would exhibit a serie, add pictures of the contex and add textuel story, it could be social photography.
Put six of your portraits in a row and it gets stronger.
-
If you would exhibit a serie, add pictures of the contex and add textuel story, it could be social photography.
Put six of your portraits in a row and it gets stronger.
Yes I would agree with that. I much prefer a series of images actually. I think growing up with copies of Life magazine around the house was a big influence.
-
Yes I would agree with that. I much prefer a series of images actually. I think growing up with copies of Life magazine around the house was a big influence.
Yep, there is a difference in approach. Tell a story in one picture, street style, or telling a story over multiple pictures, adding other media, etc. I prefer the second, it is less ‘cramped’ to consume.
-
Yep, there is a difference in approach. Tell a story in one picture, street style, or telling a story over multiple pictures, adding other media, etc. I prefer the second, it is less ‘cramped’ to consume.
Do you understand what you are really indicating here?
The thing you have just described is not street, not is it documentary. And here is why: HC-B, Ronis, Doisneau, Klein, Winogrand - all of those people shot what has become the de facto visual definition of street and/or documentary; on top of that, the first three people also made their pennies by working for the magazines, doing documentary or reportage - much of it so-called social, with the focus on the living conditions of the city poor and country bumpkin. In addition, HC-B also had access to the opposite end of Parisian society and covered events in that world, too.
Klein made a massive part of his reputation from his street books on New York and Rome; he did others, too. He made an enviable reputation for himself in the world of fashion photography and also produced films, both documentary and entertainment. He was not stuck in any mould. And when you look at the work in the city books, you also learn that every image stands tall as a unique, great still. It is said that you can take any frame from his movies and the visual content in it, too, makes a wonderful still shot.
As ever, the magic is in the eye, the imagination of the man with the camera.
And the thing about the above work, and why it differs in every respect from what you are describing is this: today, we do not see those left-wing magazines that provided the serial publishing space for the documentary photography of those guys, but, we do get to see the work in book form, in gallery collections or on the web; and guess what: whether as single, isolated image within the covers of a book, on a wall in a bar, those pictures have the power to grab you, tell you something and all without supporting bumff or additional images. The images are strong enough to stand alone.
-
Do you understand what you are really indicating here?
The thing you have just described is not street, not is it documentary. And here is why: HC-B, Ronis, Doisneau, Klein, Winogrand - all of those people shot what has become the de facto visual definition of street and/or documentary; on top of that, the first three people also made their pennies by working for the magazines, doing documentary or reportage - much of it so-called social, with the focus on the living conditions of the city poor and country bumpkin. In addition, HC-B also had access to the opposite end of Parisian society and covered events in that world, too.
Klein made a massive part of his reputation from his street books on New York and Rome; he did others, too. He made an enviable reputation for himself in the world of fashion photography and also produced films, both documentary and entertainment. He was not stuck in any mould. And when you look at the work in the city books, you also learn that every image stands tall as a unique, great still. It is said that you can take any frame from his movies and the visual content in it, too, makes a wonderful still shot.
As ever, the magic is in the eye, the imagination of the man with the camera.
And the thing about the above work, and why it differs in every respect from what you are describing is this: today, we do not see those left-wing magazines that provided the serial publishing space for the documentary photography of those guys, but, we do get to see the work in book form, in gallery collections or on the web; and guess what: whether as single, isolated image within the covers of a book, on a wall in a bar, those pictures have the power to grab you, tell you something and all without supporting bumff or additional images. The images are strong enough to stand alone.
Yes, I do realize, Rob
I hope my crappy English don’t create to much confusion.
I said: street ‘or’ the other approach.
I don’t disagree on most what you say, only, evolution of photography didn’t stop late 70’s.
What about the work of Nan Golding. It was not defined in the HCB era, it was a new approach, completely new. I suppose you agree it doesn’t comply with the 1960 definitions of photographic styles.
I think the statement : ‘A picture should stand on is own’ is correct, but it should not necessarily tell the story on its own. A series of standing on its own picture can tell a story, document a situation, etc.
Where exactly am I wrong?
Cheers Ivo
-
Yes, I do realize, Rob
I hope my crappy English don’t create to much confusion.
I said: street ‘or’ the other approach.
I don’t disagree on most what you say, only, evolution of photography didn’t stop late 70’s.
What about the work of Nan Golding. It was not defined in the HCB era, it was a new approach, completely new. I suppose you agree it doesn’t comply with the 1960 definitions of photographic styles.
I think the statement : ‘A picture should stand on is own’ is correct, but it should not necessarily tell the story on its own. A series of standing on its own picture can tell a story, document a situation, etc.
Where exactly am I wrong?
Cheers Ivo
Don't worry about your English - it is perfectly fine as it is.
You ask for a view on Nan Goldin: I find her hard to take seriously despite her success. In my view, she is the epitome of navel-gazing obsession. Her photographs may be filled with meaning to her, but I don't want to share her preoccupation with Nan G in any way or form. Exactly the same feeling informs my relationship with Larry Clark as per Tulsa. To me, the best thing out of Tulsa is the song, Tulsa Time.
In a way, Sally Mann does self-centred work, but it has the massive plus of beauty. Even a saint could not crown Nan with that quality.
But the thing is, neither Sally nor Nan claim to be street photographers, though.
Pictures standing on their own. Well, rereading my post, I don't find where I suggested single pictures are obliged to tell tales. What I do suggest, however, is that if successful, they have power, even alone, and that is sufficient to validate their existence. Very often there is no story, only emotional content which it's up to a viewer to get or not. In fact, single pictures telling a story is a bit of a contradiction in thought: a story demands continuity, as in a movie. All a good still offers is an emotional kick, not a defined one in any prescribed way, by any means, though there are exceptions to that.
In the snapshot of the person on the beach, there is none of this.
-
Do you understand what you are really indicating here?
The thing you have just described is not street, not is it documentary. And here is why: HC-B, Ronis, Doisneau, Klein, Winogrand - all of those people shot what has become the de facto visual definition of street and/or documentary; on top of that, the first three people also made their pennies by working for the magazines, doing documentary or reportage - much of it so-called social, with the focus on the living conditions of the city poor and country bumpkin. In addition, HC-B also had access to the opposite end of Parisian society and covered events in that world, too.
Klein made a massive part of his reputation from his street books on New York and Rome; he did others, too. He made an enviable reputation for himself in the world of fashion photography and also produced films, both documentary and entertainment. He was not stuck in any mould. And when you look at the work in the city books, you also learn that every image stands tall as a unique, great still. It is said that you can take any frame from his movies and the visual content in it, too, makes a wonderful still shot.
As ever, the magic is in the eye, the imagination of the man with the camera.
And the thing about the above work, and why it differs in every respect from what you are describing is this: today, we do not see those left-wing magazines that provided the serial publishing space for the documentary photography of those guys, but, we do get to see the work in book form, in gallery collections or on the web; and guess what: whether as single, isolated image within the covers of a book, on a wall in a bar, those pictures have the power to grab you, tell you something and all without supporting bumff or additional images. The images are strong enough to stand alone.
Rob's put his finger on the thing that defines street photography as a genre. And I'm guilty of misusing the word "story" when I say that a street shot needs to tell a story. A good street shot has the power to grab you, and is strong enough to stand alone. It's not that a good street shot tells a story; it's that a good street shot conveys something important about being human. The very best convey an intense look into human relationships.
This one, Cartier-Bresson's "The Locks at Bougival" is an example. He made this picture in 1955, 63 years ago. The whole thing is outdated -- not the kind of thing "moving forward" snappers are looking for. I don't know whether or not families still haul freight up and down the Seine in their boats. I doubt it. And I doubt most people dress like these people. And yet. . . what's in this picture is timeless. It's not the surroundings. It's not the dress. It's not the boat. It's the people and their relationships, and a bit of ambiguity in the fact that a grandmother is with the group. It grabs you, and it'll always grab people as long as there are people.
One thing I remember from the days of Look and Life and the Saturday Evening Post and their imitators: the front picture in a picture story often was what I'd call a street shot -- one that had the kind of human interest that's in HCB's shot and enough ambiguity to make you look at the rest of the pictures and maybe even read the text to see what's going on.
Really good street is powerful stuff, and really good street is self-contained. It's all in a single image.
-
Ok, we are narrowing the gap in understanding each other. :-)
I agree with you. A picture should have the power to grab the viewer, in that sense, a picture should stand on it's own.
And ok, I understand Russ last message about the misuse of the word 'story'.
Let's narrow the gap further and talk about this:
In a way, Sally Mann does self-centred work, but it has the massive plus of beauty. Even a saint could not crown Nan with that quality.
Lets look at this image of Nan Goldin.
Doesn't this tell a story?
Is this not powerful.
Maybe not the beauty that we like to see...
Is this (social) documentary?
I don't know, I don't care.
This is one of the few pictures engraved on the inside of my scull, I have a not small number of HCB images in memory, but non of them have the impact of this Nan Goldin shot.
(I'm not an absolute fan of Nan, and I do understand the feeling about navel gazing....)
(https://static.highsnobiety.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/24120451/nan-goldin-photography-02-1200x800.jpg)
Is it fine to say good, strong, images are not necessarily beautiful or well composed or even not properly exposed?
-
In addition to the previous, let's take a look to the work of Mary Ellen Mark, More specific the series of portraits, situational snaps, she made of Tiny, A girl she met and followed for 20 years. The photo's are worth looking on its own, but the real power is in the series, seeing Tiny getting older and grooved by life.
Or the reportage of the family Damm, a handful of shots exposing the drama in several layers, the drama of homeless families living in cars and the underlying drama of abuse of drugs and sexual abuse. Again, the strength is in the series of pictures, because the series is telling the layered story and expose the complexity of the Damm family situation, this would never be the case only by one picture, how strong that one image would be.
I absolutely enjoy and respect the work of p.e. HCB. But HCB never reached to bone out the subjects he was framing, maybe he didn't care because he was to much obsessed by the beauty of his decisive moment and sound composition.
This is why I hardly can agree to say 'street photography' is the highest form of photography.
It sure is an eloquent way of framing human behavior and that's fine, but it tends to be elitist and life is not eloquent, beautiful or simple enough to frame in one image.
-
Ivo, this has wandered all over the spectrum to the point that it appears to have no end.
With the best will in the world, life's too short to obsess over what another person sees as appropriate classification. Within all genres there will be favourites and others that disgust; 'twas ever so and isn't about to change today.
;-)
-
+1