And Then. . .

[RSL]

I’m not suggesting this is a particularly good street shot, but it illustrates the difference between straight reportage and the unfortunately named “street” genre. Had the vendor been working on his wares and the passer-by standing and looking at the display it would have been reportage – journalism. But with the interaction between the principals it’s more than mere reportage. I realize some LuLa posters will laugh at the distinction, but then, there are those who laugh at the idea the earth is a spinning ball.

[Ivo_B]

Well,

One: There is a street in it. That's good.
Two: It is on a flee market, That's good as well
Three: It is Maniërisme, Again good
Damn. It is a street Photo!

 

oho, wait! It is not converted to Black and White. O No, Russ, You can't get away with this one. You obviously didn't study the Masters enough to understand color is a nono.



Just joking, Russ; Your point is?

[Alan Klein]

Russ: Nice shot but do you need all that stuff on the right?

[RSL]

Probably not, Alan, but I'm not holding this up as a great street shot. I'm showing it so that people like Ivo might learn the difference between reportage and street.

[BobDavid]

...lots to see in this picture. The overall scene is fun to look at.

[Ivophoto]

Probably not, Alan, but I'm not holding this up as a great street shot. I'm showing it so that people like Ivo might learn the difference between reportage and street.

There is no need to explain, Russ. Because I don’t care about the difference. I care about good pictures to my taste. That is another line diametrically on yours.
You can save you the effort, let’s talk about the quality not about the qualification.

[RSL]

Right, Ivo. So if you have a landscape with high quality do you call it landscape or street? I like quality too, but if I go to a museum showing of street photography or buy a book on street photography I don't expect to see high-quality landscape shots in the show or in the book. It's really not that hard to understand. Unless you insist on refusing to understand it.

[elliot_n]

So for a photograph to be 'Street' it should show people interacting with each other? Hmm, I don't think that's going to work as a definition.

[RSL]

I didn't, and wouldn't use that as a definition of street photography, Eiliot. Here's my definition: https://luminous-landscape.com/on-street-photography/ You need to expand your research before you come to unwarranted conclusions like that one.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

There is a museum showing on street photography!?

Street photography is as popular, easy to understand, and accessible concept as the deep web.

It must be somewhere out there, granted, but I have yet to encounter it. Over the years, I have participated in a number of photo contests, not once their categories, sometimes going into a dozen different ones, contained “street.” People, yes. Portrait, yes. Documentary, yes. Street? No.

It is a cult. Obscure and occult.

[RSL]

So, if I understand what you’re saying, Slobodan, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Andre Kertesz, Chim, Doisneau, Willy Ronis, Walker Evans, Elliott Erwitt, Mark Riboud, Garry Winogrand, Helen Levitt, and Robert Frank , among a multitude I’ve left out, are members of a cult, which is obscure and occult. To paraphrase Wellington: if you believe that, Slobodan, you will believe anything.

And yes, there have been museum showings of street photography. The National Gallery of Art, the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, and the Metropolitan Museum of Art in 2009 and 2010 had a Robert Frank exhibit titled “Looking In: Robert Frank’s The Americans.” Which is street at its best. A few years ago here in Florida one of our nearby universities had a similar exhibit of Walker Evans’s street work.

You need to get out more, Slobodan.

[Ivophoto]

Russ,

I don’t buy books about street photography. Same as I don’t buy books about renaissance. Nothing wrong with peoples who want to do so, but I’m not one of them.
I buy a book of an artist or photo books covering social topics or other topics catching my interest.

The only interest I have in genres and styles is in combination with historical, social and economic relation. This is probably the result of my extensive study of Bertrand Russell’s literature when a was younger. 

Please understand for some photography is broader than the image itself and that there are peoples amongst myself that believe there is a much richer, more evolved, more mature way of expression in photography than the obsolete limited and if performed poorly utterly boring street style.

[elliot_n]

So, if I understand what you’re saying, Slobodan, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Andre Kertesz, Chim, Doisneau, Willy Ronis, Walker Evans, Elliott Erwitt, Mark Riboud, Garry Winogrand, Helen Levitt, and Robert Frank , among a multitude I’ve left out, are members of a cult, which is obscure and occult.

But none of them called themselves 'Street Photographers'.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

No Russ, those are simply photographers, and museums were showing their work as photographers, not as street photographers. I did not say they were cult members. I said that those who believe there is such a thing as street photography, especially those who use straitjacket, yet ambiguous and nebulous definitions of it, are like a cult.

[RSL]

And so you'd say there's nothing like "landscape," and there's nothing like "portraiture," or "photojournalism?" It's just all photography? I'd certainly agree that it's all photography, but there's such a thing as genre. Genre helps us put things into categories so that when we buy a landscape book we don't find a bunch of street photography mixed in with the landscapes.

[RSL]

But none of them called themselves 'Street Photographers'.

Hi, Elliot, How about explaining what that has to do with anything.

[Ivo_B]

One of the moments a correct genre definition could be interesting is the moment you pay for a film on TV and want to be sure you got the real stuff.

 

[RSL]

I buy a book of an artist or photo books covering social topics or other topics catching my interest.

Please explain what you think "social topics" means?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

And so you'd say there's nothing like "landscape," and there's nothing like "portraiture," or "photojournalism?"...

No, those ARE genres that everyone understands what they are without having to read an essay on it (and still end up scratching one's head).

[RSL]

Really? Please explain what you understand these genres to be. "are."