What is street photography?

[RSL]

"From its context," Slobodan. If you can determine its meaning from its context, what you have is either photojournalism or tourist photography.

[Isaac]

Note, not a mention of ambiguity!

"All photographs are ambiguous. All photographs have been taken out of a continuity." page 91

Another Way of Telling, John Berger, 1982

[spidermike]

Which means every photograph is street photography.

That settles that then    Thread done.

[RSL]

Right, Mike. Glad to see that Isaac cleared all that up.

[mezzoduomo]

Are the labels really all that important? If a picture of the great outdoors also features a recognizable person, is it Landscape, or an Environmental Portrait? If an interior picture of a building's angles and shapes includes a vase on a desk near 3 pieces of fruit, is it Architectural, or Still Life? If 'Street' need not be urban...etc., etc., etc.

Why should we care, let alone argue about it?

Please define 'Blue Chip'. Please define 'Gourmet'.

Subjective shorthand expressions to assist in casual conversation, not terms that require precise specifications.

[Isaac]

Which means every photograph is street photography.

Which means that ambiguous does nothing to distinguish a street photograph from any other kind-of photograph.

When Russ says "ambiguity" it's just a form of special pleading used to include or exclude someones photographs.

[Isaac]

Are the labels really all that important?

Of course. People label themselves and label others and go to war.

Should labels be that important? Different question.

"Hardening of the categories leads to Art disease." Harry Holtzman

[RSL]

When Russ says "ambiguity" it's just a form of special pleading used to include or exclude someones photographs.

The problem with this discussion, and especially Isaac's contributions, is that the arguments are theoretical abstractions. I say especially Isaac's contributions because, as near as we can tell, Isaac never has made a street shot. In fact, there's no evidence Isaac ever has made a photograph. It's obvious that Isaac has done a great deal of reading on the subject, but that's not the same thing as doing the work.

But Isaac's partially correct in what he says. There's a difference between the genre we call street photography and pictures shot on a street. Ambiguity is a marker in the distinction. It's a way to include or exclude photographs from a generic classification, the same way we use brushwork and other markers to include or exclude a painting from being described as "impressionist." I guess that in Isaac's mind that's another form of "special pleading."

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

I think it's time for me to straighten you all out on Real Street Photography, the Purest form. Here are some examples.

One might argue that the first one isn't really Pure, since there are tiny bits of buildings (which of course are not "street") near the top, but they will be cropped out as soon as my Application for Permission to Crop has been approved by Russ.

The others are surely Pure Street, and the fourth one might suggest a commentary on the present thread.      

[mezzoduomo]

I think it's time for me to straighten you all out on Real Street Photography, the Purest form. Here are some examples.

One might argue that the first one isn't really Pure, since there are tiny bits of buildings (which of course are not "street") near the top, but they will be cropped out as soon as my Application for Permission to Crop has been approved by Russ.

The others are surely Pure Street, and the fourth one might suggest a commentary on the present thread.      

Awesome...   

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... the fourth one might suggest a commentary on the present thread.      

Hehe... Not to mention that the ghost in it seems to be horrified himself.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Hehe... Not to mention that the ghost in it seems to be horrified himself.

He's threatening to eat this thread, once he's finished the "Stop" sign.

[Isaac]

Ambiguity is a marker in the distinction. It's a way to include or exclude photographs from a generic classification…

Nope. All photographs are ambiguous. It is not a way to include or exclude photographs from a generic classification.

It's "special pleading" because you simply choose to see ambiguity when you wish to include some photo, and choose not to see ambiguity when you wish to exclude some photo.

[Isaac]

He's threatening to eat this thread, once he's finished the "Stop" sign.

If tom b wishes to discuss the idea of street photography without thinking he needs your permission -- Good for him.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

If tom b wishes to discuss the idea of street photography without thinking he needs your permission -- Good for him.

He doesn't need my permission. Do you?

And I'm sorry if my bit of humor offended you.

[RSL]

Nope. All photographs are ambiguous. It is not a way to include or exclude photographs from a generic classification.

It's "special pleading" because you simply choose to see ambiguity when you wish to include some photo, and choose not to see ambiguity when you wish to exclude some photo.

Isaac, as the Duke said: "If you believe that, you will believe anything." There's no ambiguity about Half Dome. It just sits there and tourists photograph it. There's plenty of ambiguity about "Behind the Gare St. Lazare." If you can't see these things then either you're blind or else you choose to ignore what's right before your face in order to try to make a point. You're not making it, my friend.

[tom b]

Eric's fourth image reminds me of this Trent Parke image.

Great street photography is when you click next and you go yum! Trent Parke.

Cheers,

[stamper]

He doesn't need my permission. Do you?

And I'm sorry if my bit of humor offended you.

You wasted your time? Isaac doesn't recognise humour.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Eric's fourth image reminds me of this Trent Parke image.

Great street photography is when you click next and you go yum! Trent Parke.

Cheers,

Thanks, Tom. I do wish I'd taken that shot!

[spidermike]

Isaac, as the Duke said: "If you believe that, you will believe anything." There's no ambiguity about Half Dome. It just sits there and tourists photograph it. There's plenty of ambiguity about "Behind the Gare St. Lazare." If you can't see these things then either you're blind or else you choose to ignore what's right before your face in order to try to make a point. You're not making it, my friend.

You have found ambiguity in "Behind the Gare St. Lazare.". Fair enough.

What about Half Dome? The ambiguity that this monolith has survived millions of years of erosion whereas strata just a few meters away have been eroded to create the monolith. Without destructive processes, the splendour that is Half Dome would not have been created. The duality of destruction and creation. Without death, is there life? Without destruction can we recognise beauty?
There are numerous routes up Half Dome, some natural some man-made. Does all this make shots of Half Dome 'street photography'?