Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 8   Go Down

Author Topic: Street Art  (Read 9167 times)

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 13635
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Street Art
« Reply #60 on: May 26, 2018, 09:58:13 am »

Yes, Russ, that is the problem.

Which is why I thought it a good idea to start this separate thread of "Street Art", as distinct fom the classical sense of street as we understand it.

In this different context, the image fits perfectly, with a tendency to drift towards the kaleidoscopěc.

The essence of the new thread or, rather, its definition, lies in the making of something unique from the raw marterials of the city street (if you are fortunate enough to have a city!).

Rob

Exactly, Rob, and I should have thanked you right up front for starting this thread. I hope it'll divert some of the more unfortunate attempts at street genre and convert them to something more significant.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

Ivo_B

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1047
    • www.ivophoto.be
Re: Street Art
« Reply #61 on: May 26, 2018, 11:46:04 am »

Exactly, Rob, and I should have thanked you right up front for starting this thread. I hope it'll divert some of the more unfortunate attempts at street genre and convert them to something more significant.

I'm sorry Russ,

Do you realize how pedantic this sounds?

Common Russ, there is no need to minimize others work like that. Maybe it would be good if you try to see what photographically happened post 1970.
You can, Russ

  ;D :-*

Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 13635
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Street Art
« Reply #62 on: May 26, 2018, 12:03:05 pm »

I'm not "minimizing" anyone's work, Ivo. There's a big difference between saying your work is crap and saying what you think is street or landscape or wabi sabi or formal portraiture is not street or landscape or wabi sabi or formal portraiture. I tried to make the point when I posted a nautilus in the landscape section. I guess it's not a big deal. As Jeremy pointed out, you can call anything anything you want to call it. But one thing painting does is keep its genres straight. I think one reason photography sometimes gets laughed at as fine art is that it's so easy to pick up a camera or a cell phone and start shooting and calling the result art without ever bothering to learn the history of the medium or the lessons taught by the practitioners who made it fine art. I run into people like that all the time, but I hate to see it happening on LuLa.

Oh, and are you convinced that the work I've been posting is pre-1970 stuff? Some of it is. Some of it is from day before yesterday. Can you tell the difference?
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

Ivo_B

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1047
    • www.ivophoto.be
Re: Street Art
« Reply #63 on: May 26, 2018, 12:43:02 pm »

I'm not "minimizing" anyone's work, Ivo. There's a big difference between saying your work is crap and saying what you think is street or landscape or wabi sabi or formal portraiture is not street or landscape or wabi sabi or formal portraiture. I tried to make the point when I posted a nautilus in the landscape section. I guess it's not a big deal. As Jeremy pointed out, you can call anything anything you want to call it. But one thing painting does is keep its genres straight. I think one reason photography sometimes gets laughed at as fine art is that it's so easy to pick up a camera or a cell phone and start shooting and calling the result art without ever bothering to learn the history of the medium or the lessons taught by the practitioners who made it fine art. I run into people like that all the time, but I hate to see it happening on LuLa.

Oh, and are you convinced that the work I've been posting is pre-1970 stuff? Some of it is. Some of it is from day before yesterday. Can you tell the difference?

No Russ, I don't think your work posted here is pre 1970, I think you vision is.

Don't misunderstand me, I strongly believe in learning from old masters, see my above post about color composition.
And I don't have any problem defining genres.

I do feel that obeying to the definition of a genre should not be the benchmark, I would quote good old star Trek: To Boldly Go Where No Man Has Gone Before...

The benchmark should not be the definition of a genre, it should be the right of the image to exist, Is the picture worth not be trowed away straight away. We should think twice before showing our work publicly. (And I count myself as very guilty on this matter)

I look at a photo and try to appreciate it on its own merits, eventually, I assess to what style or genre it can belong. And the more it doesn't belong to what I know, the more curious I get.
I have the impression some on this subform, not only you, first look to the validness of the picture according to the genre and only if it qualifies willing to take a closer look.
I see very mediocre work appreciated because it is in the lines of what some think it should be and I see splendid work ignored for the opposite reason.

All this results in chitchatting about the rules and not playing the game.

I hope I didn't offended anybody, I react because I would find it a pity if members would not dare to show there nice work (I refer to the good portrait of the boy on the beach) because of the above.

Kind regards

Ivo


Logged

Martin Kristiansen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1392
    • Martin Kristiansen
Re: Street Art
« Reply #64 on: May 26, 2018, 01:10:07 pm »

Well I was told that the boy on the beach was just a snap shot. Rob said that. It’s his opinion. I have no issue with him expressing his opinion. I don’t agree. The image meant a lot to me and I took it as one of my successes. Also I have no issue with Rob. Let me be clear on that.

I also don’t agree on the whole genre thing. Go look at HCB we are told. No issue with that. I am actually very familiar with his work, and his politics. So anyway I look again and get even more confused. I see photos that are photojournalism such as one of Ghandi. Lots of tourist images from Asia. All the images exquisite. But I see he didn’t define himself nearly as narrowly as we are defining this area. So if he defines street where does that leave me?

Anyway I couldn’t be bothered trying to figure out if it’s street if not. Should it be in a city. Can it be in a foreign country or is that touristy. Did the people notice me taking the photo. Is it newsworthy making it photojournalism. I mean I’m sure it’s well intentioned but it’s certainly not very encouraging.

Not having a go at you Rus. You seem like a decent guy. It’s just that narrow restrictive genre definitions are not my thing.
Logged
Commercial photography is 10% inspiration and 90% moving furniture around.

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 23311
Re: Street Art
« Reply #65 on: May 26, 2018, 01:18:33 pm »

Ivo, what are you finding so difficult to understand?

There is no reason on God's Earth why the shot of the person on the beach should not be shown on LuLa; there is every reason why it should not be shown in threads devoted to "street". It has bugger all to do with street.

If the poster cares so little for the efforts of others to create a little bit of order within LuLa, then I think your ire or misunderstanding might be better served going in his direction.

We are not expecting LuLa to be some form of private, anarchic state where anything goes just because it annoys somebody else and, well, it's physically possible to post in the wrong slot.

I repeat: do whatever form of photography gives you your spiritual orgasm, but do try to do it in the right room.

If nothing more, it will show a little degree of respect for those of us who do care about these things enough to create such dedicated slots.

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 13635
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Street Art
« Reply #66 on: May 26, 2018, 01:29:04 pm »

No Russ, I don't think your work posted here is pre 1970, I think you vision is.

Don't misunderstand me, I strongly believe in learning from old masters, see my above post about color composition.
And I don't have any problem defining genres.

I do feel that obeying to the definition of a genre should not be the benchmark, I would quote good old star Trek: To Boldly Go Where No Man Has Gone Before...

The benchmark should not be the definition of a genre, it should be the right of the image to exist, Is the picture worth not be trowed away straight away. We should think twice before showing our work publicly. (And I count myself as very guilty on this matter)

I look at a photo and try to appreciate it on its own merits, eventually, I assess to what style or genre it can belong. And the more it doesn't belong to what I know, the more curious I get.
I have the impression some on this subform, not only you, first look to the validness of the picture according to the genre and only if it qualifies willing to take a closer look.
I see very mediocre work appreciated because it is in the lines of what some think it should be and I see splendid work ignored for the opposite reason.

All this results in chitchatting about the rules and not playing the game.

I hope I didn't offended anybody, I react because I would find it a pity if members would not dare to show there nice work (I refer to the good portrait of the boy on the beach) because of the above.

Kind regards

Ivo

I think I agree, Ivo. I'd suggest LuLa get rid of categories altogether and go back simply to User Critiques. There's no reason to have a separate Landscape segment or a Street segment. We can discus styles in User Critiques, in fact that's where any such discussion should take place. Same thing with Is it Art. I think we'd all agree to keep Michael's Phlog. It's not going to change now. And we certainly need a Coffee Corner just for the excitement that goes with it. But beyond that, why specify genres when it's obvious they don't mean anything? I'm really kicking myself for suggesting a Street segment. It was a big mistake.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2018, 01:42:55 pm by RSL »
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15853
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Street Art
« Reply #67 on: May 26, 2018, 01:41:42 pm »

Change the name of the subsection into:

Street, Streat Art, Cityscapes, Urban Exploration

And be done with it. No confusion, no genrefication (or is it genrepontification?).

There will be more photos, less bickering.

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 13635
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Street Art
« Reply #68 on: May 26, 2018, 01:54:57 pm »

Street has absolutely nothing to do with cityscapes or urban exploration, Slobodan. From its very beginning "street photography" meant photography that you do outdoors with a camera that's fast enough to catch life in passing. It started with the introduction of the first Leica. Before that you had photographers like Atget posing people in order to get pictures with people in them. Study the work of Kertesz, who probably was the first to take the Leica outside. Then study the work of HCB who was the one who really defined street photography. If you look closely you'll see that there are damned few streets or cityscapes or urban situations in these pictures. Street is photography free of the studio and the film holder and the hood. It's unfortunate that it was named "street." That's what confuses most people who aren't willing to learn about it.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

Ivophoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1103
Re: Street Art
« Reply #69 on: May 26, 2018, 02:07:31 pm »

Street has absolutely nothing to do with cityscapes or urban exploration, Slobodan. From its very beginning "street photography" meant photography that you do outdoors with a camera that's fast enough to catch life in passing. It started with the introduction of the first Leica. Before that you had photographers like Atget posing people in order to get pictures with people in them. Study the work of Kertesz, who probably was the first to take the Leica outside. Then study the work of HCB who was the one who really defined street photography. If you look closely you'll see that there are damned few streets or cityscapes or urban situations in these pictures. Street is photography free of the studio and the film holder and the hood. It's unfortunate that it was named "street." That's what confuses most people who aren't willing to learn about it.

I would suggest taking a look at Brassaď
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 23311
Re: Street Art
« Reply #70 on: May 26, 2018, 02:14:45 pm »

Change the name of the subsection into:

Street, Streat Art, Cityscapes, Urban Exploration

And be done with it. No confusion, no genrefication (or is it genrepontification?).

There will be more photos, less bickering.


Be careful what you wish for, Slobodan.

Rob

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 23311
Re: Street Art
« Reply #71 on: May 26, 2018, 02:16:57 pm »

I would suggest taking a look at Brassaď


Bad idea; a waste of too many euros, in my case. No wonder it came sealed!

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15853
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Street Art
« Reply #72 on: May 26, 2018, 02:17:38 pm »

Street has absolutely nothing to do with cityscapes or urban exploration, Slobodan...

Hence the suggested all-encompassing title that lists them separately.

Within such a broad subsection, you can then establish a thread, tentatively titled “Only Russ-Approved Street” where members would PM you candidates for posting and you’d post them only with your seal of approval. Deal?  ;)

Ivophoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1103
Re: Street Art
« Reply #73 on: May 26, 2018, 02:21:16 pm »

Kertesz, HCB, etc are all pioneers of their time. They used new technical possibilities to frame what was not possible before.
Sticking to the style of images they produced in this eta makes a photographer so un-HCB.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 23311
Re: Street Art
« Reply #74 on: May 26, 2018, 02:24:52 pm »

Hence the suggested all-encompassing title that lists them separately.

Within such a broad subsection, you can then establish a thread, tentatively titled “Only Russ-Approved Street” where members would PM you candidates for posting and you’d post them only with your seal of approval. Deal?  ;)

That's not very nice. Slobodan, even with a smiley.

Just because some people don't want to know the difference in genres is no reason that those for whom if matters should be stifled by the less caring.

I have to say, I'm rather surprised.

Rob

JNB_Rare

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 946
    • JNB54
Re: Street Art
« Reply #75 on: May 26, 2018, 02:26:41 pm »

Sometimes it depends on how we each categorize these things for ourselves. For example, what I admire about HCB is the timeless slice of humanity that he so often captured. In this same category, I also think about Dorthea Lange, Walker Evans, Paul Strand, Helen Levitt, Vivian Maier, Winogrand, Frank, W. Eugene Smith, and even the better photojournalists covering conflict, war, famine, poverty, the human condition. Saul Leiter and Fan Ho straddle humanity, but I'm more drawn to the art – design, impression, mystery – inherent in their photos. That's not to diminish the "art" inherent in the humanity images – in many cases, it's the artistic strengths of the photos that make them stand apart, and greatly enhance the humanity message.

So in my categorization, HCB-style "street" is a narrow subcategory of a more important theme – humanity. But that's just one opinion.
Logged

Ivophoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1103
Re: Street Art
« Reply #76 on: May 26, 2018, 02:28:55 pm »


Bad idea; a waste of too many euros, in my case. No wonder it came sealed!
Just Google. It will only cost you an illusion.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 23311
Re: Street Art
« Reply #77 on: May 26, 2018, 02:29:19 pm »

In vainglorious attempt to keep my interest here alive a little bit longer, here's another photograph made on the street and taken into a little adventure of its own.



Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 23311
Re: Street Art
« Reply #78 on: May 26, 2018, 02:32:09 pm »

Just Google. It will only cost you an illusion.

Again, you fail to remember what has already been posted; I bought the goddam thing and it sucked.

Wooden, posed and a study in nothing. Granted, he did that exceptionally well.

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 23311
Re: Street Art
« Reply #79 on: May 26, 2018, 02:37:17 pm »

Sometimes it depends on how we each categorize these things for ourselves. For example, what I admire about HCB is the timeless slice of humanity that he so often captured. In this same category, I also think about Dorthea Lange, Walker Evans, Paul Strand, Helen Levitt, Vivian Maier, Winogrand, Frank, W. Eugene Smith, and even the better photojournalists covering conflict, war, famine, poverty, the human condition. Saul Leiter and Fan Ho straddle humanity, but I'm more drawn to the art – design, impression, mystery – inherent in their photos. That's not to diminish the "art" inherent in the humanity images – in many cases, it's the artistic strengths of the photos that make them stand apart, and greatly enhance the humanity message.

So in my categorization, HCB-style "street" is a narrow subcategory of a more important theme – humanity. But that's just one opinion.

No, it's two people's opinion at least!

Why is it that you are able to understand the differences between these photographers, and the broad classifications they represent, yet for others it's Telugu?

If I had the safety of more hair, I'd be scratching my head.

Rob
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 8   Go Up