Absolutely wonderful, John. Anybody with a desire to do street photography, or thinks he’s doing street photography should see this presentation. Anderson understands what makes street photography different from a simple depiction of what’s before you. As he points out, what really matters in street painting or street photography isn’t sight; it’s insight. He’s right. Manet began the move toward street, but was accompanied by Degas and a few others of the same period. When the small camera came along, their work culminated in Cartier-Bresson and his successors. If you don’t understand what Anderson is saying in this 30 minute film, you aren’t ready to do street photography.
And how it's been subverted, too.
I believe that the problem is that from catching "insights" of our fellow beings, as it were, it's turned into confrontation, with the objective often being an attempted demonstration of the photographer's daring. Two different beasts.
It's perhaps why I find street "art" more interesting - and certainly more in line with the kind of street work I acually do, when I do, which isn't very often. It is also one of the ways in which Lindbergh, for one, managed to make his street fashion interesting: he focussed on facial expressions and gestures - check out the rich Linda Evangelista catalogue with him - which made the entre picture look alive. (How sad having to refer to him in the past tense.)
Drifting to the latest link to him that I posted, his remark that a laughing face tells you absolutely nothing about character is so true: it's the perfect mask. I think this applies to street as well.
Rob
