Interesting debate about street Photography

[Ivo_B]

I agree, Rob. As I said in On Street Photograhy: "One thing most of us shouldn’t do is walk down the street like Bruce Gilden, wearing a mesh photographer’s vest, carrying a camera in one hand and a flashgun in the other, shoving the camera and flashgun into people’s faces and blinding them. I’m always amazed when I see a decent street picture by Gilden, and I’m always amazed when I realize Gilden’s still alive."

But that doesn't mean street photography should be banned. Real street photography, as opposed to this kind of thing can show us the attitudes of our forbears. Again, from my article: ". . .people change; it’s not just their surroundings and the way they dress that change. Their attitudes toward life change, and really good street photography can give later generations a revealing glimpse at the attitudes and the outlook of their forebears."

What this guy is doing isn't street photography. It's his own way of looking at the particular chaos around him. He may not be wearing a photographer's vest or carrying a flashgun, but his approach is very close to Gilden's. What he's doing is legitimate, but it's not street photography.

A selfie Ad verecundiam... Priceless. 

[Rob C]

No, I don’t think a camera is a license to assault others space. I strongly believe that my freedom ends where yours start, and visa versa.

But there is something to consider in this discussion. Can you tell us what you think of this picture of Nan Goldin?

AIDS.

I have never understood her popularity.

Ditto that woman who used to make selfies standing by the side of the road. Imaginary movies.

[Ivo_B]

AIDS.

I have never understood her popularity.

Ditto that woman who used to make selfies standing by the side of the road. Imaginary movies.

I didn’t ask what you think about the maker......... See my point?

[RSL]

And here we go again.

Where?

[KLaban]

I would approach him, give him my email address, and ask him to send me the pictures.

Whoever is in public space is a fair game.

Perhaps you should try that approach in Morocco, Slobodan.

;-)

[Rob C]

I didn’t ask what you think about the maker......... See my point?

But I did tell you: it looks like somebody saying adios to somebody else dying of AIDS. What else is there, worth the writing, to say? If anything, it's a pretty sordid looking image, much in keeping with the rest of the stuff that made her name - for better or for worse. It symbolises what I dislike about her and that world: it's ugly and I don't need it in my life.

It might even be the most tender moment in two lives, but I still don't want to be there, and the colour balance is the stuff of nightmares. Exactly as I guess she wanted: sensational, in the wrong sense of that word.

Rob

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

This is not the case in a fair part of theworld.

Unfortunately. That’s why America remains the only truly free country for photographers... and in general.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I didn’t ask what you think about the maker......... See my point?

Your points are as opaque as your photography (hint: need a written explanation the length of War and Peace to get the point across).

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Can you tell us what you think of this picture of Nan Goldin?

Was the guy lying on the street? If not, than your “point” is totally irrelevant for this thread.

[Ivo_B]

But I did tell you: it looks like somebody saying adios to somebody else dying of AIDS. What else is there, worth the writing, to say? If anything, it's a pretty sordid looking image, much in keeping with the rest of the stuff that made her name - for better or for worse. It symbolises what I dislike about her and that world: it's ugly and I don't need it in my life.

It might even be the most tender moment in two lives, but I still don't want to be there, and the colour balance is the stuff of nightmares. Exactly as I guess she wanted: sensational, in the wrong sense of that word.

Rob

And the rest is projection?

Is your initial dry comment ’AIDS’ including all what this picture shows?

Don’t misunderstand, nothing wrong, even unavoidable to project, but there is a huge gap between what an image is and how it is understood. And then: opinions about the maker, it troubles the perception even more.
Wagners music is pulled down, not because of the music, but because someone nasty liked it so much....

[Ivo_B]

Unfortunately. That’s why America remains the only truly free country for photographers... and in general.

I suppose you can find peoples in the US who have another opinion, it only takes a walk outside the gold plated ivory tower to see.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I suppose you can find peoples in the US who have another opinion...

I rest my case.

[Ivo_B]

Your points are as opaque as your photography (hint: need a written explanation the length of War and Peace to get the point across).

It needs a bit of thinking out of the box. To much asked?

[Ivo_B]

Was the guy lying on the street? If not, than your “point” is totally irrelevant for this thread.

Read your comment again and again, and perhaps you will figure out why you reaction is so on the person.

Is it because of me? Or because of what the image shows? Or is it because of the subject? Or are there cognitive things in the game? Politics perhaps? I don’t know. But it is relevant to this discussion.

[RSL]

It needs a bit of thinking out of the box. To much asked?

Please explain this post at length, Ivo. The cliché "thinking out of the box" really needs an explanation of what you think "the box" is. 

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Please explain this post at length, Ivo. The cliché "thinking out of the box" really needs an explanation of what you think "the box" is. 

Exactly!

[RSL]

Read your comment again and again, and perhaps you will figure out why you reaction is so on the person.

Is it because of me? Or because of what the image shows? Or is it because of the subject? Or are there cognitive things in the game? Politics perhaps? I don’t know. But it is relevant to this discussion.

As Ronald Reagan once famously said: "There you go again."

"Cognitive things in the game?",  Ivo? You use abstractions that I suspect even you don't understand. Once you make a simple statement like that one, in order for it to have meaning you'd have, as Slobodan suggests, to write a book-length explanation to get your point across. You may think you know what you mean, but throwaway phrases don't enlighten anyone else.

[Ivo_B]

Please explain this post at length, Ivo. The cliché "thinking out of the box" really needs an explanation of what you think "the box" is. 

The box is you idea of photography

[RSL]

Please explain what you mean by that post, Ivo. As usual, you say something that might mean something to you, but doesn't mean anything to anyone else reading it.

[Ivo_B]

As Ronald Reagan once famously said: "There you go again."

"Cognitive things in the game?",  Ivo? You use abstractions that I suspect even you don't understand. Once you make a simple statement like that one, in order for it to have meaning you'd have, as Slobodan suggests, to write a book-length explanation to get your point across. You may think you know what you mean, but throwaway phrases don't enlighten anyone else.

I know you quickly suspect other peoples as clueless. On whatever subject.

It always boils down to:
This is not real street, the person clearly doesn’t have a clue.

When other opinions are given, some old baked forum semantics mingled with cameraclub knowledge take over and the whole discussion turns out in a discussion which could easily be compared with the pathetic comedy between Trump and Pelosi. The one overrules common sense with brutality and the other rips apart what she does not like.

Im not into this.

Cheers