Street Art

[GreggP]

Here's another one that I'd consider as 'Street Art'


Agora by Gregg Plummer, on Flickr

[Rob C]

With all due respect, I really think this entire section has lost its way.

As far as I can see, we are simply getting, with a few exceptions, the same old same old, which better fits into the general sections of the critique area. There appears to be hardly any understanding either of street or of street art, the latter being what you, the photographer, can make of the things out there, not just a tourist shot of what the local city fathers thought would be a nice "support a local artist" project, or of some quaint architectural quirk; if you really study the people who did this work very well, such as Leiter, you might undertand that he was able to shoot a traffic light - hardly someone's art project - yet turn it into something else; he could shoot out of a bus widow or right through a taxi and create an interesting image within an image. Some red umbrellas in the city snow. He could photograph a couple of people walking down a wet pavement, through a rain-spattered window, and create an enchanted city.  Now those kinds of ideas can be street art.

Perhaps LuLa should return to being a landscape site, something it appears to do quite well.

I feel so disappointed.

[32BT]

With all due respect, I really think this entire section has lost its way.

As far as I can see, we are simply getting, with a few exceptions, the same old same old, which better fits into the general sections of the critique area. There appears to be hardly any understanding either of street or of street art, the latter being what you, the photographer, can make of the things out there, not just a tourist shot of what the local city fathers thought would be a nice "support a local artist" project, or of some quaint architectural quirk; if you really study the people who did this work very well, such as Leiter, you might undertand that he was able to shoot a traffic light - hardly someone's art project - yet turn it into something else; he could shoot out of a bus widow or right through a taxi and create an interesting image within an image. Some red umbrellas in the city snow. He could photograph a couple of people walking down a wet pavement, through a rain-spattered window, and create an enchanted city.  Now those kinds of ideas can be street art.

Perhaps LuLa should return to being a landscape site, something it appears to do quite well.

I feel so disappointed.

But Rob, who' to blame for your disappointment? What you just wrote is so entirely different from your OP, it's no wonder people make mistakes.

And speaking of mistakes: not everybody has the same background and knowledge level as everyone else, and each has to walk their own path to growth. It would be useful if some of the more knowledgeable people would show a little more leeway for mistakes other people make on their road to enlightment. It could be considered your prerogative if you will, to support people in their understanding. None of us got our understanding for free...

[32BT]

Not specifically aimed at you Rob, i'm also looking at Russ. If something doesn't comply with the general consensus, we should be able to explicate the discrepancies, and not just dismiss the effort when we fail at the former.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

How's this?...

Uhhhm... no.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Ok, Rob, how about this? I posted it in a separate thread, with no reaction. Here, I can at least get a negative one, given the current sentiment — “Head in the Clouds”:

[Rob C]

Not specifically aimed at you Rob, i'm also looking at Russ. If something doesn't comply with the general consensus, we should be able to explicate the discrepancies, and not just dismiss the effort when we fail at the former.

Nothing really to do with falling short in making that type of photograph - everything to do with understandng what it is. Below is what is perhaps the best guide to the genre that I have discoverd so far, street art as different to street. The link refers to the artistic type of street as compared wth the in-your-face kind of work beloved by some younger people with overactive testosterone glands.

http://jongorospe.blogspot.com.es/2013/05/saul-leiter-early-colour.html#!/2013/05/saul-leiter-early-colour.html

Now, the problem could well be that to understand what this is about, you have to have already been an artist of sorts. It may be no coincidence that both Leiter and HC-B were painters first.

Just in case it comes across as some sort of personal glory trip, hold your horses: I have posted very little of my own work in this zone because I do not see myself as a street shooter of the confrontational type, and that thought I loved paint before film, I relised early enough to prevent breaking my own heart that painting was quite a bit beyond my ability to turn it into a way of earning my crust, never mind enough crusts to feed a family and run a home.

That cleared, I do know that I have long loved much of the above sort of photography, and over enough time to realise from whence it cometh.

Now, as already pointed out in other post, this has nothing to do with technique; it has everything to do with the ability both to understand the genre and to work within it.

Insofar as meeting or not meeting the suggested concept in the original post kicking off this thread, I can't understand how that could have encouraged some of what it has.

[Rob C]

Ok, Rob, how about this? I posted it in a separate thread, with no reaction. Here, I can at least get a negative one, given the current sentiment — “Head in the Clouds”:

Well, Slobodan, that's obviously street! What more can I add?

;-)

[Ivophoto]

With all due respect, I really think this entire section has lost its way.

As far as I can see, we are simply getting, with a few exceptions, the same old same old, which better fits into the general sections of the critique area. There appears to be hardly any understanding either of street or of street art, the latter being what you, the photographer, can make of the things out there, not just a tourist shot of what the local city fathers thought would be a nice "support a local artist" project, or of some quaint architectural quirk; if you really study the people who did this work very well, such as Leiter, you might undertand that he was able to shoot a traffic light - hardly someone's art project - yet turn it into something else; he could shoot out of a bus widow or right through a taxi and create an interesting image within an image. Some red umbrellas in the city snow. He could photograph a couple of people walking down a wet pavement, through a rain-spattered window, and create an enchanted city.  Now those kinds of ideas can be street art.

Perhaps LuLa should return to being a landscape site, something it appears to do quite well.

I feel so disappointed.

I thought I understood your idea....

[Rob C]

I thought I understood your idea....

That makes at least two of us!

;-)

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Well, Slobodan, that's obviously street! What more can I add?

A wise man once said, responding to someone claiming that pictures of graffiti are nothing but a reproduction of someone else’s art (bold mine):

... there's more than a subtle difference between making a copy of an existing piece of art and using it to make something else out of it and the peculiarities of its position or whatever else strikes the photographer as remarkable.

Now is there something more you can add?

[RSL]

With all due respect, I really think this entire section has lost its way.

As far as I can see, we are simply getting, with a few exceptions, the same old same old, which better fits into the general sections of the critique area. There appears to be hardly any understanding either of street or of street art, the latter being what you, the photographer, can make of the things out there, not just a tourist shot of what the local city fathers thought would be a nice "support a local artist" project, or of some quaint architectural quirk; if you really study the people who did this work very well, such as Leiter, you might undertand that he was able to shoot a traffic light - hardly someone's art project - yet turn it into something else; he could shoot out of a bus widow or right through a taxi and create an interesting image within an image. Some red umbrellas in the city snow. He could photograph a couple of people walking down a wet pavement, through a rain-spattered window, and create an enchanted city.  Now those kinds of ideas can be street art.

Perhaps LuLa should return to being a landscape site, something it appears to do quite well.

I feel so disappointed.

I'm with Rob 100% on this one. I'm also kicking myself, realizing that I pushed for a street photography section. I should have know that very, very few posters on LuLa have even the remotest clue what street photography is all about. I see complaints that nobody is teaching them about street photography, but there have been lists and lists of sources for this information. Of course that means you have to go to the sources and study them; but of course that's too much work. Better to just shoot a picture with a street in it and post it. After all, if there's a street in it, it must be street photography, same way if there's a tree in it it must be landscape.

Oh well. . .

[JNB_Rare]

Okay, maybe we can establish another box, a place where we can show shots that need have nothing at all to do with human figures, pretty, grotesque or at all, but do look at the shapes, designs or just random images that the town, village or city can give - if it feels so inclined.

Don't know if these qualify or not. "In the street", I just look at what draws my eye. Unlike Russ (and others), it's almost never people. That's not to say that I don't admire such photography – I do.

[JNB_Rare]

A few more. All taken before we moved out of the city to a small rural town.

[GreggP]

With all due respect, I really think this entire section has lost its way.

As far as I can see, we are simply getting, with a few exceptions, the same old same old, which better fits into the general sections of the critique area. There appears to be hardly any understanding either of street or of street art, the latter being what you, the photographer, can make of the things out there, not just a tourist shot of what the local city fathers thought would be a nice "support a local artist" project, or of some quaint architectural quirk; if you really study the people who did this work very well, such as Leiter, you might undertand that he was able to shoot a traffic light - hardly someone's art project - yet turn it into something else; he could shoot out of a bus widow or right through a taxi and create an interesting image within an image. Some red umbrellas in the city snow. He could photograph a couple of people walking down a wet pavement, through a rain-spattered window, and create an enchanted city.  Now those kinds of ideas can be street art.

Perhaps LuLa should return to being a landscape site, something it appears to do quite well.

I feel so disappointed.

I appreciate your explanation but isn't that like telling an artist that the only valid style of painting is impressionist? If you believe (maybe correctly) that there are specific definitions we need to adhere to, then fine. My posts definitely didn't qualify. I'm new here and based on comments from you and RSL, I'm beginning to feel that maybe I don't belong. Here to learn, that's all, didn't mean to offend.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

[Chris Kern]

“Head in the Clouds”:

If the essence of street photography is making pictures of interesting ephemera in public spaces, then I'd say this image—which is both clever and rather striking—qualifies.  I might also describe it as a cityscape.

Not that it matters all that much which bucket it fits into as long as it's an interesting photograph.

[GreggP]

Just a few years ago, when I started taking my photography more seriously (yes, I'm a rookie compared to most of you), I joined a website dedicated to Wisconsin photography. It is mostly landscapes, which I don't do except as a tourist. One of the photographers I met there also does some interesting work which he calls "Photo Impressionism."

https://jayrasmussen.smugmug.com/Central-South-America-For-Sale/PhotoImpressionism/

I like it, so I tried making something similar.


Street Impressions by Gregg Plummer, on Flickr

I think mine looks pretty sloppy and I haven't really done much of this sort of thing since but would still like to learn how.

[Ivo_B]

Some more.

Barcelona by Ivo Bogaerts, on Flickr


Merksem by Ivo Bogaerts, on Flickr

Kasterlee by Ivo Bogaerts, on Flickr

[Chris Calohan]

With all due respect, I really think this entire section has lost its way.

As far as I can see, we are simply getting, with a few exceptions, the same old same old, which better fits into the general sections of the critique area. There appears to be hardly any understanding either of street or of street art, the latter being what you, the photographer, can make of the things out there, not just a tourist shot of what the local city fathers thought would be a nice "support a local artist" project, or of some quaint architectural quirk; if you really study the people who did this work very well, such as Leiter, you might undertand that he was able to shoot a traffic light - hardly someone's art project - yet turn it into something else; he could shoot out of a bus widow or right through a taxi and create an interesting image within an image. Some red umbrellas in the city snow. He could photograph a couple of people walking down a wet pavement, through a rain-spattered window, and create an enchanted city.  Now those kinds of ideas can be street art.

Perhaps LuLa should return to being a landscape site, something it appears to do quite well.

I feel so disappointed.

And in your own comments, Rob and Russ, for every treatise on "Street Photography," there are six more that don't just contradict a long held study of what constitutes Street, but indeed completely reinvent the wheel. I spent the better part of this week looking at the all time greats starting with HCB and while I think I understand the mindset into what they shot and why, I then go to some of the more modern streeters and they don't seem to see the HCB style an d have developed a "new" street style.

It seems to me there is more a direction toward trending the human condition rather than observing the same. There seems to be a need to exploit the poor, homeless, addicted, etc instead of recording the interaction of humans to one another or humans toward the environment. I don't know but the more I read, the more I become confused.

[MattBurt]

I'm new here and based on comments from you and RSL, I'm beginning to feel that maybe I don't belong. Here to learn, that's all, didn't mean to offend.

I get the feeling I don't either as an outsider to this club, yet I still drop in now and then to see what people here are doing (and arguing about).
I thought cityscapes would fit this thread but now I think I'm hearing they don't.
Oh well, I'm not a street shooter or trying to be one so I'll just return to my landscapes, cityscapes, and adventure stuff.