Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => Street Showcase => Topic started by: Ivo_B on October 13, 2019, 02:37:38 pm
-
.
-
Photojournalism, Ivo.
-
Photojournalism, Ivo.
Interesting.
It is street in disguise. Look at the series and find the ‘street’.
-
Yes. It's on a street so it's gotta be street. Right?
-
Yes. It's on a street so it's gotta be street. Right?
🙄
Let’s turn things around. They have protest boards, so it has to be Photojournalism, right?
👍🏻
-
🙄
Let’s turn things around. They have protest boards, so it has to be Photojournalism, right?
👍🏻
For it to be street is should be shot at a flea market, farmers market, craft market or restaurant. Have you learnt nothing Ivo?
-
For it to be street is should be shot at a flea market, farmers market, craft market or restaurant. Have you learnt nothing Ivo?
I studied those particular masters of street insufficiently, I guess.
🤷🏻♂️
-
Photojournalism, Ivo.
Is it even photojournalism if the subjects are obviously posing?
-
Good point, Slobodan. But I'd say, "yeah." I've seen plenty of photojournalist's efforts that clearly were posed.
-
Is it even photojournalism if the subjects are obviously posing?
Hm, good point.
And since I was visiting Brussels: An informal traveler journalistic street impression.
-
Good point, Slobodan. But I'd say, "yeah." I've seen plenty of photojournalist's efforts that clearly were posed.
Wait a minute...
Are you admitting that a style is defined by it’s contemporary practice?
Russ? 🤦🏻♂️
-
Hm, good point.
And since I was visiting Brussels: An informal traveler journalistic street impression.
Ah, must be a 'Travel Atmospheric', then.
;-)
-
Ah, must be a 'Travel Atmospheric', then.
;-)
Yes!
A journalistic travel Atmospheric
Like it.
-
It's okay, guys. You'll never understand the difference but it doesn't matter.
-
It's okay, guys. You'll never understand the difference but it doesn't matter.
I’m beyond Kohlbergs second level, Russ.
-
This is turning into the kind of juvenile thing that can turn some people right off LuLa and bloody Internet conversations completely. And to think there are those who believe that it requires a political contex and content for that to happen! Far from it: politics matter to all of us, whether we realise it or not - they are fundamentally existential, whatever we believe. But photography? Come on.
Definitions of photographic genre are but a form of filing convenience, and as such, very useful in the way that any filing system is; those who feel it somehow offends their sensibilites for their "work" to be be able to be documented as fitting some specific category or more, really should accept that they are not unique in their outputs, that almost nothing today can lay claim to being usefully unique. We might all have honestly considered ourselves unique prior to the advent of the Internet if only because not all of us lived in capìtal cities where exhibitions were abundant, and therefore our knowledge of what was going down was limited to our little insular ghetto and the magazines we bought.
A little honest, modest person perusal would do none of us any harm.
-
This is turning into the kind of juvenile thing that can turn some people right off LuLa and bloody Internet conversations completely. And to think there are those who believe that it requires a political contex and content for that to happen! Far from it: politics matter to all of us, whether we realise it or not - they are fundamentally existential, whatever we believe. But photography? Come on.
Definitions of photographic genre are but a form of filing convenience, and as such, very useful in the way that any filing system is; those who feel it somehow offends their sensibilites for their "work" to be be able to be documented as fitting some specific category or more, really should accept that they are not unique in their outputs, that almost nothing today can lay claim to being usefully unique. We might all have honestly considered ourselves unique prior to the advent of the Internet if only because not all of us lived in capìtal cities where exhibitions were abundant, and therefore our knowledge of what was going down was limited to our little insular ghetto and the magazines we bought.
A little honest, modest person perusal would do none of us any harm.
Wouldn’t it be nice it started by the ones who claims the total knowledge of everything!
-
Is it even photojournalism if the subjects are obviously posing?
Exactly; it's attempted street-cum-photojournalism. And not without a little shot at using the resulting imagery as attack within LuLa.
Spanish tv last night showed the Catalan separist mobs in Barcelona confronting police of all kinds because the leaders of the rebellion had finally received their prison sentences. Just as in Hong Kong: airport lock-down; innocent travellers unable to enter or leave for hours, connections missed. What did British tv show of it?
On the ground, marchers and crowds waving flags, strutting into camera and saying it's about democracy! They could equally have been supporting the Bacelona footlball team. One guy showed a little red mark on his elbow, reminiscent of those left on the skins of tourists who don't know better than to scratch a mosquito bite. Everything today is "about democracy"; every crackpot little twerp with an agenda and the ability to excite even more dumb crowds claims he's doing it for democracy. Wait; that US lady who accidently killed a British motorcyclist will find soon herself embroiled in chants of democracy.
And that's another example of how the UK press sucks at its job: the parents of that poor kid have been taken over by the press, flown to the US and are being pushed into situations they would never have accomplished on their own. Their grief is being channelled into political battles about diplomatic immunity, none of which will bring the victim back, ease the loss. They harp on about another modern totem: closure. Fuck me, you lose somebody you love and who means the world to you and there is no bloody "closure: the hurt doesn't vanish by magic because somebody else is in prison, has been lynched or whatever. Closure is a concept that lives within the same box of verbal and politically correct bullshit as everything else these days; it's something that has a solution price in dollars or in public vindication. It's meaningless beyond the confines of marketing newspapers and tv channels and making somebody rich because somebody else has died.
-
Wouldn’t it be nice it started by the ones who claims the total knowledge of everything!
No, by all of us, Ivo.
-
Rob, you are free to pigeonhole to your heart's content. Each to their own. Here, at least, we all get a say.
-
No, by all of us, Ivo.
Don’t turn things upside down, Rob. Come on.
-
Actually, it's not worth arguing about. Everybody has a right to his own beliefs and opinions. Even Jackie Higgins's book The World Atlas of Street Photography thinks a picture of a street is street photography. It's unfortunate that a genre that deals with meaningful interactions between people and people and their environment, going about their business without realizing they're being photographed was given such a misleading name. Nothing we can do about it now.
-
Actually, it's not worth arguing about. Everybody has a right to his own beliefs and opinions. Even Jackie Higgins's book The World Atlas of Street Photography thinks a picture of a street is street photography. It's unfortunate that a genre that deals with meaningful interactions between people and people and their environment, going about their business without realizing they're being photographed was given such a misleading name. Nothing we can do about it now.
Your description of street is in a part of the world a privacy offense.
That’s why it is good genre rules are not carved in stone.
-
Your description of street is in a part of the world a privacy offense.
That’s why it is good genre rules are not carved in stone.
You are talking about legality here, not the kind of image, and they are totally different matters, Ivo.
Rob
-
Rob, you are free to pigeonhole to your heart's content. Each to their own. Here, at least, we all get a say.
Yes, absolutely, but nobody here has yet come up with a reasonable reason why a working, understandable index of types should be thought a bad thing.
That is in no way any kind of dictat as to what or how anybody must shoot anything; it is only a working description of what's what. Better yet, it allows a datum, once one does a wee bit of reading about it, as to what that what might actually be, and where, in the broader scheme of things, own's own images may be headed. Isn't it interesting to know? Living in a vacuum of self is not a good idea, by and large.
Rob
-
Yes, absolutely, but nobody here has yet come up with a reasonable reason why a working, understandable index of types should be thought a bad thing.
That is in no way any kind of dictat as to what or how anybody must shoot anything; it is only a working description of what's what. Better yet, it allows a datum, once one does a wee bit of reading about it, as to what that what might actually be, and where, in the broader scheme of things, own's own images may be headed. Isn't it interesting to know? Living in a vacuum of self is not a good idea, by and large.
Rob
And who lives in what vacuum?
-
Your description of street is in a part of the world a privacy offense.
That’s why it is good genre rules are not carved in stone.
The problem, Ivo, is with that "part of the world," not with street photography. Yes, it's a heartbreaker that HCB's France would do such a thing. But there you are. I've been around for nearly 90 years and I can tell you that "part of the world," including parts of the United States, has gotten stupider and stupider as we go along.
-
Yes, absolutely, but nobody here has yet come up with a reasonable reason why a working, understandable index of types should be thought a bad thing.
That is in no way any kind of dictat as to what or how anybody must shoot anything; it is only a working description of what's what. Better yet, it allows a datum, once one does a wee bit of reading about it, as to what that what might actually be, and where, in the broader scheme of things, own's own images may be headed. Isn't it interesting to know? Living in a vacuum of self is not a good idea, by and large.
Rob
Good luck with getting agreement here on that index of types.
;-)
-
I don't care much for categories in photography, but for those that like them, maybe Rob's "attempted street-cum-photojournalism" is worth it's own showcase?
-
Good luck with getting agreement here on that index of types.
;-)
You can say that again, Keith. It's pretty obvious. I'd bet we even could get into a pretty serious argument about what Impressionism is.
-
And who lives in what vacuum?
The facile reply would be moi, but it would be incorrect.
The mind can live in a different world to the body - if one is lucky. Living surrounded by alcoholics is not a wonderful experience unless you happen to be one too; spending one's days discussing football and ex-wives is no more rewarding, and neither would a permanent diet of plumber, electrician or photographer talk be very healthy for too long, though the first couple of options might be more useful to anyone in the long run.
Fortunately, I went to boarding school, which I detested, but it did teach me early the value and personal technique of spiritual levitation and rising above the horrors of the quotidian.
And salvation lies not in movement across continents and in crowds; you always end up meeting the same guy in the bathroom mirror.
-
The facile reply would be moi, but it would be incorrect.
The mind can live in a different world to the body - if one is lucky. Living surrounded by alcoholics is not a wonderful experience unless you happen to be one too; spending one's days discussing football and ex-wives is no more rewarding, and neither would a permanent diet of plumber, electrician or photographer talk be very healthy for too long, though the first couple of options might be more useful to anyone in the long run.
Fortunately, I went to boarding school, which I detested, but it did teach me early the value and personal technique of spiritual levitation and rising above the horrors of the quotidian.
And salvation lies not in movement across continents and in crowds; you always end up meeting the same guy in the bathroom mirror.
I agree with your contemplation, and I think we have more common ground than expected.
As long as the man in the mirror blinks his eye, I’m reasonably happy.
-
You can say that again, Keith. It's pretty obvious. I'd bet we even could get into a pretty serious argument about what Impressionism is.
Russ, there are those here who argue about anything and everything...
...myself included!
;-)
-
Russ, there are those here who argue about anything and everything...
...myself included!
;-)
Yeah. I've noticed that. ;D ;D
-
The problem, Ivo, is with that "part of the world," not with street photography. Yes, it's a heartbreaker that HCB's France would do such a thing. But there you are. I've been around for nearly 90 years and I can tell you that "part of the world," including parts of the United States, has gotten stupider and stupider as we go along.
Well, Jerry Lee Lewis was also very surprised about the opinion of ‘the world’ when he left his South American bubble.
-
I don't care much for categories in photography, but for those that like them, maybe Rob's "attempted street-cum-photojournalism" is worth it's own showcase?
Rip van Winkle!
It's already here, and living in the Street box - or pigeonhole, depending on noun of choice. Personally, I tend to frequent the sub-genre of street art which is dedicated to enjoying the metaphysical aspects of the actual locations rather than those based on human behaviour which I find more and more inexplicable, thus the art of photographing it less and less inviting and more and more difficult for me to do.
Perhaps all is illusion, which may account for the blank expressions with which much of what I find interesting in this photographic world rewards others.
Kids know about this: that's why they create secret societies. Sadly, with age, disillusion. It's sort of echoed in the reverse of the French saying: si jeunesse savait et vieillesse pouvait.
Rob
-
When I was doing Photojournalism 🙄, I was in Brussel for an exhibition of Brancusi.
Something to think about:
-
Good luck with getting agreement here on that index of types.
;-)
Hope lives until it dies!
:-)
-
Well, Jerry Lee Lewis was also very surprised about the opinion of ‘the world’ when he left his South American bubble.
Not sure what that has to do with anything, but okay.
-
When asked what kind of photography I do I'll answer that I spend half of my photographic life in abandoned buildings and the other half photographing people and interacting with them.
If that's a vacuum then so be it, but it is my real-world vacuum.
-
Keith, you're like the rest of us. You do some beautiful work and some not so beautiful work, and you can call it any damn thing you want to call it. In the end art always has to speak for itself.
-
Not sure what that has to do with anything, but okay.
I admit the link is far fetched.
Perception of things is in continuous change. When something (p.e. the definition of a genre) is not following the world in change, it is like Latin: dead.
-
Two questions, Ivo: (1) Has Impressionism changed? (2) Is Impressionism dead?
Two more: (1) Has photojournalism changed? (2) Is photojournalism dead?
-
Two questions, Ivo: (1) Has Impressionism changed? (2) Is Impressionism dead?
Two more: (1) Has photojournalism changed? (2) Is photojournalism dead?
Is this a rhetorical? Must be.
It’s a skewed comparison, but I’m curious how you are going to reply on whatever I reply.
Question one: no and yes
Question two: yes and no
Figure out the outcome for street photography without change.
-
Okay, Ivo. I'll buy the first answer.
Regarding the second, tell me how you think photojournalism has changed (and don't tell me about digital cameras or darkrooms, etc.).
And yes. Street photography has changed. We do it with digital cameras nowadays.
-
Keith, you're like the rest of us. You do some beautiful work and some not so beautiful work, and you can call it any damn thing you want to call it. In the end art always has to speak for itself.
And happy to be so, Russ.
-
Me too.
-
Okay, Ivo. I'll buy the first answer.
Regarding the second, tell me how you think photojournalism has changed (and don't tell me about digital cameras or darkrooms, etc.).
And yes. Street photography has changed. We do it with digital cameras nowadays.
Photojournalism is not a sole property of photojournalists anymore. News agencies reach out to eyewitnesses with iPhones streaming to social media like periscope, Twitter, etc.
There are a lot documentaries about how journalism changed in the last decades. Check it out.
Street photography changed enormously the last decades, because society became more complex and the human behavior/ social environments are in continuous change as well.
The rules of street photography are set in its environment, not in an obsolete dogma.
-
Okay, Ivo. First you did exactly what I said I didn’t want to hear about. You told me that some photojournalism is now done with cell phones. So what. Some photojournalism – in fact most – is now done with digital cameras. That’s a difference in equipment, not objective. Photojournalism always has worked for “social media.” Ever see a copy of Saturday Evening Post? And where are these “documentaries” about changes in photojournalism?
As far as street photography is concerned, all you gave me is a personal opinion – a generalization. Because “society became more complex?” Give me a concrete example of what you mean. Not an opinion or a generalization. An actual example. There’s no “dogma” involved in street photography. Its “changes” came about from people who never learned what it actually is.
-
When I was doing Photojournalism 🙄, I was in Brussel for an exhibition of Brancusi.
Something to think about:
On this occasion, I'd be drawn to agreeing with the critics.
Craft ability, i.e. the ability to work with tools in order to fashion objects does not imply that doing so is the same thing as creating an art object. A series of gross, shiny penises (peni? :-) ) is not, of itself, art, any more than a set of alloy wheels needs be art, but some, indeed, are works of art, though not the ones on my current car.
It's the old story: sometimes you can create art, but often you just create product. We photographers, if honest, know that only too well.
-
Okay, Ivo. First you did exactly what I said I didn’t want to hear about. You told me that some photojournalism is now done with cell phones. So what. Some photojournalism – in fact most – is now done with digital cameras. That’s a difference in equipment, not objective. Photojournalism always has worked for “social media.” Ever see a copy of Saturday Evening Post? And where are these “documentaries” about changes in photojournalism?
As far as street photography is concerned, all you gave me is a personal opinion – a generalization. Because “society became more complex?” Give me a concrete example of what you mean. Not an opinion or a generalization. An actual example. There’s no “dogma” involved in street photography. Its “changes” came about from people who never learned what it actually is.
I’m not going further in discussion, Russ. Reason: you disqualify all arguments to your taste, not to their validity.
If you don’t want to hear arguments, just put your fingers in your ears, that works quite well. 🙄
-
On this occasion, I'd be drawn to agreeing with the critics.
Craft ability, i.e. the ability to work with tools in order to fashion objects does not imply that doing so is the same thing as creating an art object. A series of gross, shiny penises (peni? :-) ) is not, of itself, art, any more than a set of alloy wheels needs be art, but some, indeed, are works of art, though not the ones on my current car.
It's the old story: sometimes you can create art, but often you just create product. We photographers, if honest, know that only too well.
O Rob, did you ever saw Brancusi’s work in real?
-
O Rob, did you ever saw Brancusi’s work in real?
Must be a vibrant (vibrating?) experience ;)
-
Must be a vibrant (vibrating?) experience ;)
honi soit qui mal y pense
The ‘princess X’ is a sculptured rendering of Marie Bonaparte.
It’s an absolute astonishing piece of art.
Next time you visit Paris, check out Brancusi’s atelier/ living room in front of centre Pompidou.
-
I’m not going further in discussion, Russ. Reason: you disqualify all arguments to your taste, not to their validity.
If you don’t want to hear arguments, just put your fingers in your ears, that works quite well. 🙄
In other words, Ivo, you can't come up with even one specific example. It's all talk.
-
In other words, Ivo, you can't come up with even one specific example. It's all talk.
You disqualify everything what’s not in your taste, try this with others, not me.
-
O Rob, did you ever saw Brancusi’s work in real?
I'm afraid not; however, would something well made mean it's art? That's not to say he didn't make art too, but the stuff on the page in your link doesn't strike me as being art... more experiment in direction.
Rob
-
You disqualify everything what’s not in your taste, try this with others, not me.
As usual, Ivo. You try to turn around and run from the question. The question is simple, and should be easy to answer if you actually believe what you're saying. If you think street photography has changed, tell me what you think the changes are. Give me an actual example of what you've called an evolution. Considering your position on this question, that should be easy.
-
I'm afraid not; however, would something well made mean it's art? That's not to say he didn't make art too, but the stuff on the page in your link doesn't strike me as being art... more experiment in direction.
Rob
That’s the problem of having ‘an opinion’ driven by the position in the crew instead of the facts.
How to experience a sculpture is different than a photograph. A sculpture is not 2D reproducible.
As example, the reactions on the work of Brancusi tells a lot about the openness of mind. I do understand why some peoples need stringent genre rules or otherwise getting upset and in panic.
There is a huge difference in recognizing a genre and feeling art. The first is a nice handle for everything around art, but no meaning to art itself.
(That said, genre classification is not the same as a movement in art)
-
As usual, Ivo. You try to turn around and run from the question. The question is simple, and should be easy to answer if you actually believe what you're saying. If you think street photography has changed, tell me what you think the changes are. Give me an actual example of what you've called an evolution. Considering your position on this question, that should be easy.
In a normal discussion, I would bring up a long answer, Russ. But in a conversation with you, it doesn’t matter, because you disqualify everything as not street when it doesn’t obey to your idea.
Doing this, you disqualify yourself as a conversation partner on this subject.
If you would be in the mood for a real conversation, I would be happy to join. But you are not. You set up a trap and elicit your conversation partner in the hope you can get him in your trap.
And in the occasion you are clearly pulling the short side of the rope, you bail out.
Try this with others, not with me.
-
In a normal discussion, I would bring up a long answer, Russ. But in a conversation with you, it doesn’t matter, because you disqualify everything as not street when it doesn’t obey to your idea.
Doing this, you disqualify yourself as a conversation partner on this subject.
If you would be in the mood for a real conversation, I would be happy to join. But you are not. You set up a trap and elicit your conversation partner in the hope you can get him in your trap.
And in the occasion you are clearly pulling the short side of the rope, you bail out.
Try this with others, not with me.
Hi, Ivo. Here are two of your statements from an earlier post:
"There are a lot documentaries about how journalism changed in the last decades. Check it out.
"Street photography changed enormously the last decades, because society became more complex and the human behavior/ social environments are in continuous change as well.:
Give me a link to at least one of the "documentaries" that show how journalism has changed. Maybe because photojournalists now are using digital cameras?
Give ma a link to at least one example of how "street photography has changed enormously in the last decades."
If you can't do these things it'll be clear to me and to everyone that you're just blowing smoke.
-
As said, Russ, I’m not stepping in one of the traps you open.
Because, regardless what I will answer, whatever link or example I will give, you will disqualify it. Done that before.
It’s like you are shouting: “Give me one single evidence the earth isn’t flat.”
And after looking at a photo of earth from the moon:
“That doesn’t count, the moon trip is a hoax, it’s fake”
How can I reasonably go in discussion with such a conversation partner?
The point is, you are not able to accept paradigm shifts.
;)
The Clue of the above is in this (impressionist) correction, thank you Russ: Expressionist painting of Frits Van den Berghe=>
-
Much a do about nothing. The OP snaps are neither good street, nor good photojournalism to justify three pages of lofty debate on the meaning of art. At best, they could end up some in Ecuadorian mom’s family album: “Look ma, I was there!” Bored people on a Sunday stroll, posing for Facebook posts.
-
Thanks, Ivo. You’ve more than adequately confirmed my suspicions. You have absolutely nothing to support your two assertions:
"There are a lot documentaries about how journalism changed in the last decades. Check it out.” and
"Street photography changed enormously the last decades, because society became more complex and the human behavior/ social environments are in continuous change as well.”
Instead of even attempting to give examples to support these two off-the-wall assertions you jump instantly into “oh poor me” defensiveness. You want me to give you a “single evidence the earth isn’t flat?” I can give you a wealth of such evidence if you really want to see it, but first, let’s deal with the subject at hand.
You say, “The point is, you are not able to accept paradigm shifts.” No crap? What, exactly (and I mean exactly) are these paradigm shifts you keep talking about? Do you even know what “paradigm” means? Give me one concrete example of a “paradigm shift.” A ghastly painting by Frits Van den Berghe which you call “Impressionist” is a long way from such an example. In fact, Berghe’s painting isn’t Impressionist. It may be Expressionist, though it’s a pretty crappy example of that genre too. Oh, damn, there we go again, stuffing things into genres. Oh, yeah, you just did that yourself, even though it was the wrong genre. Actually, Expressionism began in about 1912, so it's certainly not a recent "paradigm shift."
It’s no use, Ivo. You can run but you can’t hide. Either do it or get off the pot. Claiming that I’m abusing you ain’t gonna get the job done. If you really believe the two statements you made, give me your supporting evidence. I’m waiting with bated breath.
-
Thanks, Ivo. You’ve more than adequately confirmed my suspicions. You have absolutely nothing to support your two assertions:
"There are a lot documentaries about how journalism changed in the last decades. Check it out.” and
"Street photography changed enormously the last decades, because society became more complex and the human behavior/ social environments are in continuous change as well.”
Instead of even attempting to give examples to support these two off-the-wall assertions you jump instantly into “oh poor me” defensiveness. You want me to give you a “single evidence the earth isn’t flat?” I can give you a wealth of such evidence if you really want to see it, but first, let’s deal with the subject at hand.
You say, “The point is, you are not able to accept paradigm shifts.” No crap? What, exactly (and I mean exactly) are these paradigm shifts you keep talking about? Do you even know what “paradigm” means? Give me one concrete example of a “paradigm shift.” A ghastly painting by Frits Van den Berghe which you call “Impressionist” is a long way from such an example. In fact, Berghe’s painting isn’t Impressionist. It may be Expressionist, though it’s a pretty crappy example of that genre too. Oh, damn, there we go again, stuffing things into genres. Oh, yeah, you just did that yourself, even though it was the wrong genre. Actually, Expressionism began in about 1912, so it's certainly not a recent "paradigm shift."
It’s no use, Ivo. You can run but you can’t hide. Either do it or get off the pot. Claiming that I’m abusing you ain’t gonna get the job done. If you really believe the two statements you made, give me your supporting evidence. I’m waiting with bated breath.
Yes, You are correct on Van den Berge: it is an expressionist. Congratulations.
The painting is about the subject: 3 Jesuits. You know why they always walk in group of 3?
For the rest You don’t have a clou and will never have.
Point.
-
Much a do about nothing. The OP snaps are neither good street, nor good photojournalism to justify three pages of lofty debate on the meaning of art. At best, they could end up some in Ecuadorian mom’s family album: “Look ma, I was there!” Bored people on a Sunday stroll, posing for Facebook posts.
Hahaha, yeah, that’s the spirit. When nothing left: piss against the leg.
Statler and Waldorf in extreme.
I wonder, who on earth would think about starting a discussion under nothing. Must be a bunch of idiots.
I wonder: 1110 views, to look at nothing? (Or maybe it is Russ who is checking the topic every 2 seconds.... 😬🤓 )
-
Yes, You are correct on Van den Berge: it is an expressionist. Congratulations.
The painting is about the subject: 3 Jesuits. You know why they always walk in group of 3?
For the rest You don’t have a clou and will never have.
Point.
Okay, Ivo. So you admit your statements that "journalism has changed" and "street photography has changed enormously" are simply off-the-wall assertions which you can’t support.
Looks as if I’m not the one who hasn’t “a clou and will never have.”
-
Okay, Ivo. So you admit your statements that "journalism has changed" and "street photography has changed enormously" are simply off-the-wall assertions which you can’t support.
Looks as if I’m not the one who hasn’t “a clou and will never have.”
Priceless, you even don’t need a conversation partner to come to conclusions. Who is proving what?
;D ;D
-
Bye, Ivo. You jumped the track somewhere back there and you're now rolling down the hill. I'm outta here.
8)
-
... I wonder: 1110 views, to look at nothing?
No, Ivo, sorry, it is 1110 thread openings, without having a single clue what is in there (I guess the word "violence" in the thread title had something to do with it).
Once there, only 19 views, on average, on each of the posted snaps.
-
No, Ivo, sorry, it is 1110 thread openings, without having a single clue what is in there (I guess the word "violence" in the thread title had something to do with it).
Once there, only 19 views, on average, on each of the posted snaps.
Damn. There goes my dream. ;D
Next time I include ‘hooters’ in the title.
-
Bye, Ivo. You jumped the track somewhere back there and you're now rolling down the hill. I'm outta here.
8)
As predicted.
-
... Next time I include ‘hooters’ in the title.
We would be equally misled, expecting to see in pictures what the title implies ;)
-
We would be equally misled, expecting to see in pictures what the title implies ;)
Yeah, that’s how I got here on Lula in the first place . 😳
-
Ivo it seems to me that you set up the bait and then swallowed it yourself?
-
Ivo it seems to me that you set up the bait and then swallowed it yourself?
Ha, here is another helper.
The one is tired, the other takes over.
::)
-
Well, I finally was able to stop laughing and get up off the floor. I went back through earlier posts and noticed this one from Ivo:
“Street photography changed enormously the last decades, because society became more complex and the human behavior/ social environments are in continuous change as well.”
I can tell that Ivo hasn’t read my essay (https://luminous-landscape.com/on-street-photography/) on street photography. In that essay I said:
“An historical novelist guesses at the past on the best evidence he can find, but a photograph isn’t a guess; it’s an artifact that has captured time. And so, a street photograph that has captured not only the visages of its subjects, but the story that surrounds their actions can be a more convincing reminder of how things were than any novel or any straight, posed documentary photograph.
“Although good street photography is a powerful art form, it’s also a way of recording what people really are like and for those after us, a way of learning what we were like. It seems to me that besides the satisfaction it can give you, those two facts alone make it worthwhile.”
Ivo’s right. Social environments are in continuous change. They change one way, and then they change back again. Britain went from Elizabethan loose morality to puckered-lipped Victorianism. The reverse of that sequence is taking place in America right now. We’re moving away from early fundamentalism to an anything-goes society. Once our people feel the full effect of that change, we’ll move back the other way. And street photography, if it’s done right, will capture those changes. It’s not, as Ivo suggests, that street photography changes. Were it to change in accordance with “human behavior / social environments” it wouldn’t be able to record the changes in those things. In the end, unless the confusing name misleads its intended practitioners (the commonality of which LuLa has demonstrated), street photography is the constant.
-
Well, I finally was able to stop laughing and get up off the floor. I went back through earlier posts and noticed this one from Ivo:
“Street photography changed enormously the last decades, because society became more complex and the human behavior/ social environments are in continuous change as well.”
I can tell that Ivo hasn’t read my essay (https://luminous-landscape.com/on-street-photography/) on street photography. In that essay I said:
“An historical novelist guesses at the past on the best evidence he can find, but a photograph isn’t a guess; it’s an artifact that has captured time. And so, a street photograph that has captured not only the visages of its subjects, but the story that surrounds their actions can be a more convincing reminder of how things were than any novel or any straight, posed documentary photograph.
“Although good street photography is a powerful art form, it’s also a way of recording what people really are like and for those after us, a way of learning what we were like. It seems to me that besides the satisfaction it can give you, those two facts alone make it worthwhile.”
Ivo’s right. Social environments are in continuous change. They change one way, and then they change back again. Britain went from Elizabethan loose morality to puckered-lipped Victorianism. The reverse of that sequence is taking place in America right now. We’re moving away from early fundamentalism to an anything-goes society. Once our people feel the full effect of that change, we’ll move back the other way. And street photography, if it’s done right, will capture those changes. It’s not, as Ivo suggests, that street photography changes. Were it to change in accordance with “human behavior / social environments” it wouldn’t be able to record the changes in those things. In the end, unless the confusing name misleads its intended practitioners (the commonality of which LuLa has demonstrated), street photography is the constant.
Thanks Russ, now we are talking. I hope you have recuperated from your good fun.
Let’s also stop to underestimate each other’s understanding of photography, let’s have an adult to adult conversation.
As you know, I talk about pictures, not genres.
The results of shooting on the street (the pictures) changes due to the changing context, social, legal, etc. So we agree. Correct?
I have the impression you do not accept those changes in the contemporary photography. For that reason I question the so called ‘rules of street photography’ and anything else that put boundaries square on today’s society.
Theoretically, I’m with you about how a fixed window shows the world in change. But, practically, opening that window a bit more gives ‘more’ view of the world. And here is the paradigm shift. Change the set of rules reposition your window and give another look to the same world.
Now, I have posted the series under Street because I believe it is street. The ambiguity of the scene and the strange atmosphere, as Slobodan accurately described, the friendly soft character of the peoples, almost the family excursion level, makes it a registration of what is happening on a Saturday in A European capital town.
And here jumps in the limitation of ‘genre placing’
First reaction based on pre set definition: it’s photojournalism. And the questioning of the series stops instantly.
Wouldn’t it be interesting to ask : Why is the photographer doing this? And not automatically conclude: he doesn’t have a clue.
-
Another take on why I believe photographers should seek and redefine the boundaries of that window on the world:
The ‘world’ will eventually avoid that window, or ‘behave’ in front of that window. And actually, the legal frame of that window is put in question.
It’s happening in Europe, photography on the street is censored by privacy law.
Yes, eventually this will reflect in the pictures of this era: by the absence of concealed taken photographs. This absence will only indirectly document the change in privacy legislation, but street photography in its narrow definition risks to overlook all the rest what is happening.
-
North Korea.
There is not much chance to practice street photography in whatever definition.
This results in very rare pictures of the country. (Relatively speaking)
Magnum Photographer Carl De Keyzer took another approach, he let him guide by officials and shot that what was him allowed to. The result is a biased but subtle view on North Korea and it tells a lot about the regime. Carl found a way how to give us a view on North Korea by changing the premise of his approach.
-
...
[Ivo]
“Street photography changed enormously the last decades, because society became more complex and the human behavior/ social environments are in continuous change as well.”
[RSL]
“Although good street photography is a powerful art form, it’s also a way of recording what people really are like and for those after us, a way of learning what we were like. It seems to me that besides the satisfaction it can give you, those two facts alone make it worthwhile.”
Ivo’s right. Social environments are in continuous change. They change one way, and then they change back again. Britain went from Elizabethan loose morality to puckered-lipped Victorianism. The reverse of that sequence is taking place in America right now. We’re moving away from early fundamentalism to an anything-goes society. Once our people feel the full effect of that change, we’ll move back the other way. And street photography, if it’s done right, will capture those changes. It’s not, as Ivo suggests, that street photography changes. Were it to change in accordance with “human behavior / social environments” it wouldn’t be able to record the changes in those things. In the end, unless the confusing name misleads its intended practitioners (the commonality of which LuLa has demonstrated), street photography is the constant.
I see real changes in street photography that originate with the subjects, not the photographer. And that, perhaps, make both Ivo and RSL “right”.
A big social change in the past two decades is people’s camera-consciousness. In HCB’s time, a photographer at an event was a rarity (relatively) and people largely ignored them. So a sailor could be photographed kissing a nurse seemingly unaware of the photographer’s presence. That wouldn’t happen today. With the ubiquity of cameras comes camera-consciousness. Everyone is camera-aware. So one of the things that street photography will record, if done right in RSL’s terms, is that camera-consciousness. I’d argue that Ivo’s photos in the OP are an example of that.
I’d argue that “street portraiture” is something different that involves direction by the photographer, not just camera-awareness on the part of the subject. The guy who does the “Humans of New York” series is doing street portraits. Ivo is not.
-
Camera-consciousness in action.
(https://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Photographing_the_photographer.jpg)
;-)
-
Ivo, Let’s get right into it. You say:
“Theoretically, I’m with you about how a fixed window shows the world in change. But, practically, opening that window a bit more gives ‘more’ view of the world. And here is the paradigm shift. Change the set of rules reposition your window and give another look to the same world.
“Now, I have posted the series under Street because I believe it is street. The ambiguity of the scene and the strange atmosphere, as Slobodan accurately described, the friendly soft character of the peoples, almost the family excursion level, makes it a registration of what is happening on a Saturday in A European capital town.”
As usual, you talk in generalities without getting down to the nuts and bolts. You talk about a “paradigm shift” and “opening that window a bit more,” but you never define or illustrate what you mean by a “paradigm shift,” You talk about a “fixed window,” and opening that window, but you never attempt to define what you think is included in that “window” or what’s excluded. To you, “window” means something. To me, and I suspect to most, “window” in this context is meaningless. And as soon as I ask for an example to define what you mean you go defensive and try to bypass the question with insults. I was in politics for eight years. Insults don’t bother me, but they don’t help your case.
Your “belief” that what you posted is street will be laughed out of town by anyone familiar with the genre. There’s nothing ambiguous about the scene, nor is there anything strange about the atmosphere. It’s a demonstration, as you say, of what’s happening in a European capital town. In other words, your pictures are photojournalism, if that. They’re not pictures of people interacting with other people or with their environment without being aware they’re being photographed. They’re posing! That’s a long way from street.
Yes, I know that Europe has gone crazy – even HCB’s France – and has decided, absurdly, that you have an expectation of privacy when you’re out in a crowd. That’s one of those changes that will change back later on. You seem to think it’ll happen in the United States. All I can say is: don’t hold your breath.
But I don’t intend to get into an argument about what’s street and what’s not, Ivo. You can shoot away to your heart’s content and believe what you’re shooting is street. Be my guest. I’d really rather not be in conflict with you, Ivo. I think you’re a perfectly competent “professional” photographer, just like most of the ones who’s work I see in small town shop windows. I don’t think you’re a photojournalist or a street photographer. Enjoy what you do but don’t pontificate about things out of your reach.
-
A big social change in the past two decades is people’s camera-consciousness. In HCB’s time, a photographer at an event was a rarity (relatively) and people largely ignored them. So a sailor could be photographed kissing a nurse seemingly unaware of the photographer’s presence. That wouldn’t happen today. With the ubiquity of cameras comes camera-consciousness. Everyone is camera-aware. So one of the things that street photography will record, if done right in RSL’s terms, is that camera-consciousness. I’d argue that Ivo’s photos in the OP are an example of that.
Hi D, Check my essay "On Street Photography (https://luminous-landscape.com/on-street-photography/)." Only one of those pictures was shot with film. You're right. People have become very camera-conscious. I'd count that an advantage for street photography. Everybody's carrying a camera or a cell phone, so seeing a camera doesn't make anyone back off. There are plenty of cases where I can stand there and shoot a picture of somebody who's looking straight at me. Doesn't shake them up. They're not even sure I'm shooting. Bottom line: I think street photography has been given a real lift by digital cameras. I especially love shooting in St. Augustine, Florida. Everybody in sight has a camera and everybody's snapping away. It's a great place for street photography.
-
Ivo, Let’s get right into it. You say:
“Theoretically, I’m with you about how a fixed window shows the world in change. But, practically, opening that window a bit more gives ‘more’ view of the world. And here is the paradigm shift. Change the set of rules reposition your window and give another look to the same world.
“Now, I have posted the series under Street because I believe it is street. The ambiguity of the scene and the strange atmosphere, as Slobodan accurately described, the friendly soft character of the peoples, almost the family excursion level, makes it a registration of what is happening on a Saturday in A European capital town.”
As usual, you talk in generalities without getting down to the nuts and bolts. You talk about a “paradigm shift” and “opening that window a bit more,” but you never define or illustrate what you mean by a “paradigm shift,” You talk about a “fixed window,” and opening that window, but you never attempt to define what you think is included in that “window” or what’s excluded. To you, “window” means something. To me, and I suspect to most, “window” in this context is meaningless. And as soon as I ask for an example to define what you mean you go defensive and try to bypass the question with insults. I was in politics for eight years. Insults don’t bother me, but they don’t help your case.
Your “belief” that what you posted is street will be laughed out of town by anyone familiar with the genre. There’s nothing ambiguous about the scene, nor is there anything strange about the atmosphere. It’s a demonstration, as you say, of what’s happening in a European capital town. In other words, your pictures are photojournalism, if that. They’re not pictures of people interacting with other people or with their environment without being aware they’re being photographed. They’re posing! That’s a long way from street.
Yes, I know that Europe has gone crazy – even HCB’s France – and has decided, absurdly, that you have an expectation of privacy when you’re out in a crowd. That’s one of those changes that will change back later on. You seem to think it’ll happen in the United States. All I can say is: don’t hold your breath.
But I don’t intend to get into an argument about what’s street and what’s not, Ivo. You can shoot away to your heart’s content and believe what you’re shooting is street. Be my guest. I’d really rather not be in conflict with you , Ivo. I think you’re a perfectly competent “professional” photographer, just like most of the ones who’s work I see in small town shop windows. I don’t think you’re a photojournalist or a street photographer. Enjoy what you do but don’t pontificate about things out of your reach.
Again, I was stupid enough to believe that a normal conversation with you is possible. Your reply is peppered with contempt and under cover insult. You should be ashamed.
This ends my attempt to talk with you.
-
I see real changes in street photography that originate with the subjects, not the photographer. And that, perhaps, make both Ivo and RSL “right”.
A big social change in the past two decades is people’s camera-consciousness. In HCB’s time, a photographer at an event was a rarity (relatively) and people largely ignored them. So a sailor could be photographed kissing a nurse seemingly unaware of the photographer’s presence. That wouldn’t happen today. With the ubiquity of cameras comes camera-consciousness. Everyone is camera-aware. So one of the things that street photography will record, if done right in RSL’s terms, is that camera-consciousness. I’d argue that Ivo’s photos in the OP are an example of that.
I’d argue that “street portraiture” is something different that involves direction by the photographer, not just camera-awareness on the part of the subject. The guy who does the “Humans of New York” series is doing street portraits. Ivo is not.
Thanks for your valuable input, camera awareness is effectively one of the game changers
-
Again, I was stupid enough to believe that a normal conversation with you is possible. Your reply is peppered with contempt and under cover insult. You should be ashamed.
This ends my attempt to talk with you.
Whatever, Ivo.
-
I thought that "whatever" was the mating call of the American teenager. Looks like I was wrong.
-
I thought that "whatever" was the mating call of the American teenager. Looks like I was wrong.
Interesting; I thought where mating calls were concerned, it was more likely to be whoever.
:-)
-
Or whomever, Rob. I just ran back through this whole thread. I can't even believe I bothered with it as long as I did. Wow!
-
Or whomever, Rob. I just ran back through this whole thread. I can't even believe I bothered with it as long as I did. Wow!
That's the function of the Internet: keep us oldies active, at least with our fingertips, if not our minds.
But then, I look at the programmes that get advertised during the commercial breaks on Sky News and wonder who in hell watches that rubbish. Those domestic soaps about unattractive people... ye gods! You can experience all that in the street any day of your life without buying a viewing "package" from Sky!
LuLa is a better bet.
Rob
-
LuLa's a pretty good bet, even with the bullshit that goes down on it. I'm watching PhotoPXL and hoping for the best over there, but it would be hard to break away from LuLa.
-
... Statler and Waldorf in extreme...
Halloween edition:
-
I see real changes in street photography that originate with the subjects, not the photographer. And that, perhaps, make both Ivo and RSL “right”.
A big social change in the past two decades is people’s camera-consciousness. In HCB’s time, a photographer at an event was a rarity (relatively) and people largely ignored them. So a sailor could be photographed kissing a nurse seemingly unaware of the photographer’s presence. That wouldn’t happen today. With the ubiquity of cameras comes camera-consciousness. Everyone is camera-aware. So one of the things that street photography will record, if done right in RSL’s terms, is that camera-consciousness. I’d argue that Ivo’s photos in the OP are an example of that.
I’d argue that “street portraiture” is something different that involves direction by the photographer, not just camera-awareness on the part of the subject. The guy who does the “Humans of New York” series is doing street portraits. Ivo is not.
Don't know if you read about the photographer who took a picture of two people kissing in a doorway. The guy kissing the girl spotted the photographer and asked if he was taking pictures of them. He said yes and offered to delete the images. He got the living daylights beat out of him and his camera smashed. He refused to press any charges. That's not a chance I would take, not least because he probably recognized he was acting like a voyeur notwithstanding he was in a public place. Not only are people camera conscious, a growing number simply don't want their picture taken. You can get away with it in a general public setting, but when clearly pointing at people you often risk confrontation. I don't know how Russ does it, because as soon I raise the camera and aim it at someone they often ask if I am taking a photo of them. Not worth the hassle to me.
JR
-
You've got to do what The Shadow used to do, John. You need to learn to cloud men's minds (and women's too). The most important thing is to be non-threatening. You also need to move quickly, but smoothly. In street, if you have four seconds to make a shot that's a very long time. Usually you have from one to two seconds before the scene has dissolved.
-
Don't know if you read about the photographer who took a picture of two people kissing in a doorway. The guy kissing the girl spotted the photographer and asked if he was taking pictures of them. He said yes and offered to delete the images. He got the living daylights beat out of him and his camera smashed. He refused to press any charges. That's not a chance I would take, not least because he probably recognized he was acting like a voyeur notwithstanding he was in a public place. Not only are people camera conscious, a growing number simply don't want their picture taken. You can get away with it in a general public setting, but when clearly pointing at people you often risk confrontation. I don't know how Russ does it, because as soon I raise the camera and aim it at someone they often ask if I am taking a photo of them. Not worth the hassle to me.
JR
Yes, I did read about that. It's curious that in a time when most people are giving up privacy to all manner of corporate entities, more people are objecting to the recording of things they consider private actions in public spaces.
-
Yes, I did read about that. It's curious that in a time when most people are giving up privacy to all manner of corporate entities, more people are objecting to the recording of things they consider private actions in public spaces.
That’s also one of the particular aspects of today’s street photography.
Try to shoot from the hip, concealed or just unasked in a west European city with a high number of Salafist Moslims. If you are something else than a young pretty girl with a cellphone camera, you can get in nasty troubles.
I got in trouble myself on a public market. I was shooting with my GR, even not concealed, somebody asked me to delete all my picture, He was not on one of the pictures, but he found he had to speak for all. Waving with the GDPR, discussions get very cumbersome quickly.
That are social facts that make any theory about street photography practically obsolete.
-
That’s a European perspective Ivo. But a lot of people seem to think that Street needs to be shot in a first world country portraying mundane boring events otherwise it’s either travel atmospherics or photo journalism.
-
That’s a European perspective Ivo. But a lot of people seem to think that Street needs to be shot in a first world country portraying mundane boring events otherwise it’s either travel atmospherics or photo journalism.
I guess we will never get rid of our colonial mentality. 😞
-
Yes, I did read about that. It's curious that in a time when most people are giving up privacy to all manner of corporate entities, more people are objecting to the recording of things they consider private actions in public spaces.
With good reason. Face recognition and cellphone information together makes a very precise fingerprint.
-
I guess we will never get rid of our colonial mentality. 😞
In no way am I pointing at colonialism. It’s just that you live where you live and it’s easy to think that’s the world. Street photography involves a negotiable between photographer and the audience who is also the subject. It plays out differently in different times and different places. That’s why I think sticking with old set definitions is so unhelpful.
Actually getting into this debate here will lead nowhere but to insults.
-
In no way am I pointing at colonialism. It’s just that you live where you live and it’s easy to think that’s the world. Street photography involves a negotiable between photographer and the audience who is also the subject. It plays out differently in different times and different places. That’s why I think sticking with old set definitions is so unhelpful.
Actually getting into this debate here will lead nowhere but to insults.
Fully agreed, Martin.
I call it a day.
-
With good reason. Face recognition and cellphone information together makes a very precise fingerprint.
That’s true, but ironically, the person they need least to fear in that regard is the person with an actual camera.
-
That’s true, but ironically, the person they need least to fear in that regard is the person with an actual camera.
If you were the only one with a camera there ;)