Slobodan, a quick question: What was it about that picture that made you decide it was good street? Even the best street photo of 2018? Just curious.
Hi Russ!
I have finally found the time to answer this. The "best" Street is a hyperbole, good enough to grab attention in a headline. I do not have sufficient exposure to the current crop of street photography to be able to make an educated selection. Maybe it is, maybe not. However, given the historic significance of the violence in Paris, I think it would be ranked pretty high anyway.
As for "is it Street"... but of course, the street is rather prominent in it
Now, what do I see in this photograph?
Art is a dialog. A special kind of dialog, like a silent movie, without words. A dialog between the artist and the viewer. With no words on the artist's side, the viewer can only engage in a quiet guessing game. Not unlike trying to understand what a woman wants. Truth to be told, in my personal experience, I have a better track record understanding the former.
In that quiet guessing game, one thing that can help in better understanding is what some refer to as "baggage" and others as 'knowledge." The more one knows about the subject, the better (up to a point, of course).
There are five elements in this picture:
- girl
- phone
- burger joint
- soldier
- protests
Each of these elements tells a story in itself, but taken together, they create a tension.
A grinning girl, even without the phone, is a highly bizarre, paradoxical, contrasting element to the events outside. Is it really possible to be so blissfully happy and unaware of the events unfolding just meters in front of her? Or is she laughing at the events? I guess that is the ambiguity you like to underscore as essential for a good Street.
But it doesn't stop there. Enter the phone. A symbol of social media, of the faux world of happiness, where we present our best self, always smiling and happy, for friends to be jealous about. Is she doing a selfie, facetiming, or videotaping the events outside? Another layer of ambiguity.
The Burger King. Just the mere presence of this symbol of the American cultural imperialism and corporate hegemony (as often perceived by the rest of the world) is enough for tension. Coupled with the street protests and violence, it tells its own story. It wasn't long ago that France was violently against the presence of McDonald's and its burger-joint brethren. Seen as a complete antithesis to the French way of life and the art of enjoying food, seeing it on the streets of France is sufficient to create a tension of its own. Not to mention that in the current Parisian violence, the western symbols of corporatism, the Starbucks and McDonald's of the world, are among the first to have windows smashed and be set of fire. If I were in her shoes, I wouldn't be so care-free in an establishment so likely to be attacked itself next. Especially in such a vulnerable glass enclosure.
The soldier. Ah, the poor soldier! Back from a deployment, returning home, with medals for bravery, wondering what the hell happened to his world? He just survived a real war somewhere, was looking forward to coming home, to mom's ratatouille, only to find himself once again in the war-like zone, in his own home city. He stoically leans forward, covers his face with his collar, and soldiers on. What goes through his head, we can only imagine. Is he cursing the government or the protesters? Or just wants to get out of there? Another ambiguity.
We often argue that an image should stand by itself, not needing a verbal explanation. This isn't always the case. A simple title, like "Paris Street Violence, 2018" would provide a necessary context to connect all these elements into a story.
So, there you go, Russ. A picture that has a physical street in it, ambiguity, a story, or multiple ones, surely must fit even your narrow definition of Street?
