Old Street

[rabanito]

Exactly...and that's an Italian film. Show a behavior that his. A European.

Peter

Sorry, I don't get the meaning of what you're saying here.

[RSL]

Okay, Rab, but I think it depends on your definition of words like “compassion,” and “humanity.”

What do you think about Frank’s book, The Americans? There was some really rough stuff in there. The book certainly showed humanity and compassion, though not in a soft, feely way. The reason it showed compassion and humanity is that up to that time, some of our favorite humanitarians, including Norman Rockwell and Alfred Eisenstadt had been showing America as all sweetness and light, and were ignoring the downsides of what really was going on around them. For a while in the mid-fifties, roughly the period when Frank was shooting for the book, I was at Air University in Montgomery, Alabama. Every night when I’d come out there’d be KKK literature under my windshield wipers. The local “separate but equal” schools taught black boys how to do field work, and taught black girls how to do housework. Frank’s book showed the truth about what was happening, and it was shocking, even to outfits like Popular Photography, which in those days was about photography rather than equipment, and which panned the book.

Now, one question that comes to mind when I think about The Americans and its period is this: was The Americans street photography or photojournalism? Well, really good photojournalism always contains an element of street photography, and the best street photography is a chunk of photojournalism turned into fine art. What confuses the question is that a lot of photography called street isn’t street at all. But in the end, what I conclude is this: Frank was shooting street. Every one of the pictures in The Americans can stand alone as street photography, but Frank put them together and made a strikingly powerful photojournalistic statement. I think that what he did was more loaded with compassion and humanity than anything I’ve ever seen by Gordon Parks or Ernst Haas, though I like the work of both.

[petermfiore]

Sorry, I don't get the meaning of what you're saying here.

Paparazzo is a European in the film. Correct? He's not a likeable character. Correct? So, he must have the American sense of R E S E P E C T...

Peter

[rabanito]

Paparazzo is a European in the film. Correct? He's not a likeable character. Correct?

Peter

Well, "European" is a wide concept. Some are likeable, some not. Most are neutral.
Actually Paparazzo is a Calabrian name. Many north-italians do not identify with south italians, they call them "terroni".
And if you put together an Italian (N or S) with a Swede, you'll usually recognize differences.
So the word "European" for Paparazzo is not accurate IMHO.
"Paparazzo" in wider sense can be used for Europeans, Russians, US Americans  and Antarcticians, if they are doing paparazzi-things
The word "paparazzo" is what is called an "eponym". Can be applied to anyone, Italian or else.

[rabanito]

Okay, Rab, but I think it depends on your definition of words like “compassion,” and “humanity.”

What do you think about Frank’s book, The Americans? There was some really rough stuff in there. The book certainly showed humanity and compassion, though not in a soft, feely way. The reason it showed compassion and humanity is that up to that time, some of our favorite humanitarians, including Norman Rockwell and Alfred Eisenstadt had been showing America as all sweetness and light, and were ignoring the downsides of what really was going on around them. For a while in the mid-fifties, roughly the period when Frank was shooting for the book, I was at Air University in Montgomery, Alabama. Every night when I’d come out there’d be KKK literature under my windshield wipers. The local “separate but equal” schools taught black boys how to do field work, and taught black girls how to do housework. Frank’s book showed the truth about what was happening, and it was shocking, even to outfits like Popular Photography, which in those days was about photography rather than equipment, and which panned the book.

Now, one question that comes to mind when I think about The Americans and its period is this: was The Americans street photography or photojournalism? Well, really good photojournalism always contains an element of street photography, and the best street photography is a chunk of photojournalism turned into fine art. What confuses the question is that a lot of photography called street isn’t street at all. But in the end, what I conclude is this: Frank was shooting street. Every one of the pictures in The Americans can stand alone as street photography, but Frank put them together and made a strikingly powerful photojournalistic statement. I think that what he did was more loaded with compassion and humanity than anything I’ve ever seen by Gordon Parks or Ernst Haas, though I like the work of both.

I cannot disagree with any of this, Russ.
But different societies have different customs and they regard them as "right"

I was arrested once in Hurghada, Egypt, for taking street photographs.
Not a funny situation. The people who had complained felt genuinely used and were hurt.
And I believe they were right.
After interrogatory they decided I was just an inoffensive fool and let me go.
No hard feelings from my part either.   
But I'm more careful of the rights of the others now

[RSL]

Well, it's something I don't have to worry about any longer, Rab. At 90 I'm not leaving the United States any longer. And when I was shooting in Asia there always was a war going on.

But I do have a hard time understanding why a part of the world that once celebrated people like Kertesz, HCB, Chim, Rodger, Ronis, Lartigue, Brassai, Koudelka, Brandt, Doisneau, Burri, Franck, Riboud, etc., etc., suddenly ran inside and are frightened of somebody peeking at their humanity. I'm soooooo glad I'm an American where people aren't afraid of things like that. The introduction of catastrophic navel-gazing in Europe breaks my heart.

[Rob C]

Well, "European" is a wide concept. Some are likeable, some not. Most are neutral.
Actually Paparazzo is a Calabrian name. Many north-italians do not identify with south italians, they call them "terroni".
And if you put together an Italian (N or S) with a Swede, you'll usually recognize differences.
So the word "European" for Paparazzo is not accurate IMHO.
"Paparazzo" in wider sense can be used for Europeans, Russians, US Americans  and Antarcticians, if they are doing paparazzi-things
The word "paparazzo" is what is called an "eponym". Can be applied to anyone, Italian or else.

I didn't think Paparazzo was an unpleasant character at all; he was just a gossip column snapper following the people who made up that kind of material. As a young guy, I found him quite interesting and envied him his access and excitement. Perhaps the only unpleasant moment was when the mob of photographers meet the bus carrying the wife of the guy who just took out his family. That felt kinda wrong, but all the "scandal" stuff seemed perfectly fair play, including the too long chapter on the apparition of the Virgin as reported by the horrid pair of small kids who played up the fervent crowd for all it was worth.

All of that aside, there is a vague justification for paps that does not, IMO, cross over into amateur life. Sure, I have been as guilty as anyone else of sneaking snaps once or twice, but not, as far as I remember, ever to damage people. I have even pixelated faces ...

[rabanito]

Russ and Rob, you just don't die.
There is still a lot to learn from you   

[RSL]

Sure, I have been as guilty as anyone else of sneaking snaps once or twice, but not, as far as I remember, ever to damage people. I have even pixelated faces ...

But why pixelate a face when you're not damaging the person with the face, Rob? Do you look at HCB's "The Locks at Bougival" and feel that the two women are damaged by the fact that they're recognizable? How about the face of the woman in his "Cardinal Pacelli in Montmartre?" I look at that face and my heart says: "God will grant that woman's wish." Both these pictures show something about humanity worth showing and saving. And Europe has decided that that's wrong? What a travesty.

[rabanito]

But why pixelate a face when you're not damaging the person with the face, Rob? Do you look at HCB's "The Locks at Bougival" and feel that the two women are damaged by the fact that they're recognizable? How about the face of the woman in his "Cardinal Pacelli in Montmartre?" I look at that face and my heart says: "God will grant that woman's wish." Both these pictures show something about humanity worth showing and saving. And Europe has decided that that's wrong? What a travesty.

If you make that great picture, ask for permission for publishing it and the woman grants it, then it's OK
But if the woman wish was "Please no more wars" or "Please Your Most Reverend Eminence intercede for the Jewish people" and now she's feeling stupid because the God in which she believed didn't listen nor did Pacelli the later Pope intercede, then maybe the whole symbology is a travesty.
Just MHO

[Rob C]

Russ and Rob, you just don't die.
There is still a lot to learn from you   

Maybe, but most of it's redundant now; the world moved along whilst I was tying my shoe strings, my head bent down to make sure both strings belonged to the same shoe. Shit can happen if you're not careful.

:-)

[RSL]

If you make that great picture, ask for permission for publishing it and the woman grants it, then it's OK
But if the woman wish was "Please no more wars" or "Please Your Most Reverend Eminence intercede for the Jewish people" and now she's feeling stupid because the God in which she believed didn't listen nor did Pacelli the later Pope intercede, then maybe the whole symbology is a travesty.
Just MHO

Rab, the woman's wishes about publication have nothing to do with the fact that the picture is a powerful depiction of human emotion, and deserves to be shown. It's a work of art. Suppose it were a realistic painting. How would you feel about it then?

[rabanito]

Rab, the woman's wishes about publication have nothing to do with the fact that the picture is a powerful depiction of human emotion, and deserves to be shown. It's a work of art. Suppose it were a realistic painting. How would you feel about it then?

Of course the picture is great.
But I would not like MY FACE being used for it without my consent.
If the law backed me, I would forbid its diffussion.
Let alone it's storing into a CIA, MSS, BND or whatever data base :-)
A lost battle, I know :-(
Paraphrasing the  Blackstone ratio. "Better a lost work of art than the general loss of the right to privacy" 

[petermfiore]

Paraphrasing the  Blackstone ratio. "Better a lost work of art than the general loss of the right to privacy" 

A lot of great art would me missing from the world...much of it would seminal works.

Peter

[rabanito]

A lot of great art would me missing from the world...much of it would seminal works.

Peter

Well, I would say "some".
Don't forget Rubens, Velazquez, Rembrandt, de la Tour, Michelangelo, Raffael, Vermeer...
Some of them made "street" 
Photography was not invented that much ago.
But of course I understand your point.
Depends on what is important to oneself.

[RSL]

Paraphrasing the  Blackstone ratio. "Better a lost work of art than the general loss of the right to privacy" 

The problem with that, Rab, is that when you're out in public you have no right to privacy. It wold be like saying, "Here I am in this crowd, but you folks aren't allowed to look at me." The whole thing is ridiculous. If you want privacy, stay home.

And, as Peter says, were the world to adopt this idiocy, a lot of the world's great art would disappear. That's too high a price for the right to hide your head in the sand.

[petermfiore]

Well, I would say "some".
Don't forget Rubens, Velazquez, Rembrandt, de la Tour, Michelangelo, Raffael, Vermeer...
Some of them made "street" 
Photography was not invented that much ago.
But of course I understand your point.
Depends on what is important to oneself.

When I say art, I'm including photography. Photography is an art. For sure there are tons of photographs the would not exist.

Peter

[Rob C]

The problem with that, Rab, is that when you're out in public you have no right to privacy. It wold be like saying, "Here I am in this crowd, but you folks aren't allowed to look at me." The whole thing is ridiculous. If you want privacy, stay home.

And, as Peter says, were the world to adopt this idiocy, a lot of the world's great art would disappear. That's too high a price for the right to hide your head in the sand.

No Russ, that's you being a little disingenuous: a world of difference between "look at me" and "photograph me".

Privacy wears many coats and some are capable of existing within the public space and some not, just as I believe the rights of other people are variable too, and being photographed without one's permission is one of the ones best not violated. That does not preclude honest city views etc. and I think the distinction between having someone appear in your cityscape by chance is not the same as someone being set up or tracked. Having done both, I understand it comes with a thrill of sorts, but then so might somebody else's wife, and we know where that would probably lead.

:-)

[RSL]

Sorry, Rob, but I don’t really see the difference. If you’re talking about someone, like a little kid, saying to a single person, “You can’t look at me,” that’d be one thing, but to say to a crowd of people “You can’t look at me,” essentially is saying “Even though I’m out here mingling with you, I have an expectation of privacy, which you’re not to abjure by looking at me.”

Here’s an example. As far as I’m concerned, this photograph by Winogrand is an extremely powerful work of art. Are you telling me we should hide it because the girls and a bystander are recognizable? How about HCB’s “Locks at Bougival?” Another work of art that would disappear.

I can’t see any reason why humanity should be stripped of images that reflect our humanity. Do you? Really?

[rabanito]

When I say art, I'm including photography. Photography is an art. For sure there are tons of photographs the would not exist.

Peter

It looks like I couldn't explain myself.
As always, let's blame my poor English.
You wrote
"A lot of great art would me missing from the world..."

And I expressed my opinion that  it is not "a lot" but only "some"
Counting the Great Painters that made "Street", the number of good photographs that would be lost is infinitesimal.

I'm not arguing here whether photography is "Art" or not. That's only a word, probably invented by the Art Critics, Curators or Vendors
That's a different subject.
But I wouldn't sit Rembrandt at the same table with any photographer.
No offence intended, guys. Just my humble opinion.