Actually, I tend to agree with Russ and Rob that it’s possible to make a reasonably clear distinction between street photographs and other pictures made in public locations. However, while it undoubtedly is useful to be familiar with the origin of the genre—or, more accurately—the origin of the label, I don’t think the pioneering street photographs made in the few decades after the introduction of small portable cameras should rigidly constrain our understanding of the genre today, or that it is all that useful to define street photography by pointing out examples of what it is not.
Having taken that position, I propose—admittedly with some hesitation—an explicit definition:
Street photography documents ephemeral, unposed interactions in public spaces between people, or between people and their surroundings, in a way that implies a narrative instead of simply depicting what was in front of the camera’s lens. The narrative may be explicit or implicit, obvious or subtle, literal or ironic, and subject to varying interpretations by different viewers. Animals or objects may take the place of people if their relationship with other elements in the photograph contributes to the narrative. 1. Similarly, the interaction need not take place in a street or an urban environment or even outdoors.
No doubt this definition could be improved upon, so please feel free (I know how shy all of you are about expressing your opinions) to do so.
As long as you acknowledge that whatever you think street photography is, 2. it is not a pipe.
1. I would agree with most of your definition, but exclude the bit accentuated.
Shots indoors, fitting the general lines you drew, could perhaps just be thought of as candids?
There might be a difference (in the history) of the appellations in Europe and the US; my own experience of the thing began mid-fifties, and was featured a few times in the British magazine,
Photography, edited by the late Norman Hall. It's where I first encountered the work of Frank Horvat, and I'm sure it was being referred to as photojournalism, interchangeably with documentary. The magazine was a hugely different beast to the staid, but useful, A
mateur Photographer, where I picked up some photographic how-to stuff. (
Photography saw my very first published shot: a girl, in a feature that was dominated by Peter Sellers and one of his then loves. I was over the moon, but of course, saw not a penny - but the thrill was worth more than any penny. That's why I understand the urge of those who have ruined the professional stock market: for them, money doesn't count. In the case above, it was nothing to do with professional illustrations, advertising, marketing, but of readers' efforts.)
2. No dispute or reservations about that: agreed, 100%! Just a reproduction.
Rob
