Love Real Street

[RedwoodGuy]

The million dollar question obviously being: how does one know when an idea is truly innovative?

(And for those who have been here long enough to remember that discussion: wouldn't this qualify as "begs the question"?)

Of course. I fully agree that the artist probably couldn't care less about categories. But the more influential artists usually have a profound understanding of their chosen method of expression.

As an example of what I believe to be a very clear example of contemporary street:
http://www.siegfried-hansen.de

The million dollar question you pose is not a question pondered by any artist I've ever associated with. It's not the common cause of art. The premise that an artist is hunting for an "innovative idea," probably comes from the world of commercial photographers or Hollywood film producers, where novelty might be associated with money. I believe what you are trying to argue is that a hard definition provides a place for the artist to jump off and go innovate. Once more, that's a motive more associated with science than art.

As to your second claim that "influential artists usually have a profound understanding of their chosen method of expression," I can attest that that statement is vague enough to be true when you need it to be. Some do, some don't. Often the profound understanding was "intuition," and then later on called understanding. I can also point to artists that take no note as to "understanding" their method and simply "do it."

And how did that relate to a need for hard definitions?

 

[Chris Calohan]

The million dollar question obviously being: how does one know when an idea is truly innovative?

(And for those who have been here long enough to remember that discussion: wouldn't this qualify as "begs the question"?)

Of course. I fully agree that the artist probably couldn't care less about categories. But the more influential artists usually have a profound understanding of their chosen method of expression.

As an example of what I believe to be a very clear example of contemporary street:
http://www.siegfried-hansen.de

Great work by Siegfried hansen...gives me pause to reflect more on what good Street looks like.

A poster behind my two guys declaring "indifference," and mine goes from close to the Brass Ring.

[RSL]

 I really wonder if RG isn't Dale Thorn redux. If he uses the term "kool aid" I'll be sure.

[RedwoodGuy]

I never claimed to be a heavy weight. Given that the post to which you are replying had a grand total of 53 words, I stand by my assertion that you either cannot, or will not, read.

Maybe it's best you don't try to speak for others then when you can't hold up your end of the log?

But here's what I think about your posts. You want to argue for the sake of argument. I haven't seen as much as one word from you about art or photography that makes any sense at all. But you are wild about arguing, and tossing juvenile insults around. "You can't read!" - - is the sign of someone who is having their first forum experience. I guess it means, "I meant to say something else." When you start out declaring you're a bunch of heavy weights, you really do need to have something behind that besides, "Oh gosh! -  I didn't mean me!"

WOWIE - you're making an assertion! Lordy! Let's all pay attention to your valuable assertion! (And you're going to stand by it too?)  C'mon, drop all that pretentious and sophomoric nonsense and put something of substance into your post. Address the issue here and stop stamping your feet up and down.

[Chris Calohan]

I don't know Dale Thorn from Adam but do have another question.

For an image to be "street" by whomever's definition, does there have to be a visible connection between the subject and either the camera or esoterically as Siegfried-Hansen uses, something contrary to the image which makes the image cohesive?

I'll use this as an example. Ambiguity aside, and don't believe this is an abiguous shot at least given the 67,000 or so definitions given here in the last few pages, as the man is projecting an action by his look, stance and general facial interaction which to me suggests he's scoping out a potential shot - but, he's not put the camera to eye yet, so could it be construed as somewhat ambiguous as to what he will do next.

or, is it just a snapshot?

[RedwoodGuy]

I really wonder if RG isn't Dale Thorn redux. If he uses the term "kool aid" I'll be sure.

Didn't you try that dodge yesterday too? I've got the feeling you are going to try it each day. Let me save you some time: Nope.

Are you then the "heavy weight" here referred to by the guy who doesn't post photographs? Is that your "heavy weight" answer to all these questions about street photography? 

If you aren't, would someone please tell me who the "heavy weight" is.

[amolitor]

Ambiguity as to what's about to happen is one thing, but I think street's about ambiguity in the "now" in-frame more than about the few moments succeeding it. And it's more about ambiguity in what's going on inside people's heads than what's going on outside.

Without the camera, this one might be great street, the expression on the guy's face could be anything. With it, the scene collapses into something that strikes me as quite clear, even though I don't know if he's just taken a shot, or is just about to -- I have the sensation that I know what's in the guy's head pretty well.

I don't understand what you mean by "a visible connection between the subject and either the camera of esoterically [ etc ... ] " but it sounds interesting!

[Rob C]

I don't know Dale Thorn from Adam but do have another question.

For an image to be "street" by whomever's definition, does there have to be a visible connection between the subject and either the camera or esoterically as Siegfried-Hansen uses, something contrary to the image which makes the image cohesive?

I'll use this as an example. Ambiguity aside, and don't believe this is an abiguous shot at least given the 67,000 or so definitions given here in the last few pages, as the man is projecting an action by his look, stance and general facial interaction which to me suggests he's scoping out a potential shot - but, he's not put the camera to eye yet, so could it be construed as somewhat ambiguous as to what he will do next.

or, is it just a snapshot?

At the small magnification, it looks more like my Rolex Submariner before some of the links lost their 'spring'...

Rob C

[RedwoodGuy]

I don't know Dale Thorn from Adam but do have another question.

For an image to be "street" by whomever's definition, does there have to be a visible connection between the subject and either the camera or esoterically as Siegfried-Hansen uses, something contrary to the image which makes the image cohesive?

I'll use this as an example. Ambiguity aside, and don't believe this is an abiguous shot at least given the 67,000 or so definitions given here in the last few pages, as the man is projecting an action by his look, stance and general facial interaction which to me suggests he's scoping out a potential shot - but, he's not put the camera to eye yet, so could it be construed as somewhat ambiguous as to what he will do next.

or, is it just a snapshot?

Chris,
May I ask, what is it YOU wanted to express with this photograph that you took?

Related  Discussion
When you push the shutter release, are thinking about the definition of street photography? Are you wondering what other guys might do? Are you visualizing photographs from some other photographer? Is any of those holds, why? Do you know the cause of your art, or are you simply snapping away trying to make photos that please some external standard?

[Rob C]

Thank goodness pornography isn't ambiguous, huh?

That's a tough one: I don't know enough about the subject to help you. Perhaps it is, perhaps it's not.

Rob C

P.S. What's your day job? Or is this it?

[Chris Calohan]

I retired this year...so, I guess this is my day job...though I do quite a bit of team sport group and individual shooting..buys my lenses and keeps me out of trouble. I take it you're still working...

[nemo295]

For an image to be "street" by whomever's definition, does there have to be a visible connection between the subject and either the camera or esoterically as Siegfried-Hansen uses, something contrary to the image which makes the image cohesive?

or, is it just a snapshot?

Completely academic, imo. I would start by asking if you like your photograph. If so, then it becomes a matter of what, if anything, you want to do with it. Do you want to do nothing with it or do you want to submit it for publication or as a photo contest entry or to sell as prints? When you start to involve the aesthetic opinions of others then the question is what do others think of it. Art is all about taste. Some people like Rembrandt, some people like Matisse and some like paintings of dogs playing poker. Everyone has different tastes. Who is your audience and what will they think of it? So, really the important question isn't whether it's "street" or not, but whether it works in the way you want it to work.

[RedwoodGuy]

Kudos to Doug Frost. I'm beginning to think he's the "heavy weight" here.

[Rob C]

I retired this year...so, I guess this is my day job...though I do quite a bit of team sport group and individual shooting..buys my lenses and keeps me out of trouble. I take it you're still working...

Chris, I wasn't asking you; regarding myself, though, I wish that I was working, but age and evolution have conspired to grind me into the second-below-current level of archaeological dust. You may find me discovered by David Attenborough one day. If so, raise a glass in fond memory!

;-)

Rob C

[Rob C]

Gosh! I think I just heard a snapping straw.

Rob C

[Chris Calohan]

Completely academic, imo. I would start by asking if you like your photograph. If so, then it becomes a matter of what, if anything, you want to do with it. Do you want to do nothing with it or do you want to submit it for publication or as a photo contest entry or to sell as prints? When you start to involve the aesthetic opinions of others then the question is what do others think of it. Art is all about taste. Some people like Rembrandt, some people like Matisse and some like paintings of dogs playing poker. Everyone has different tastes. Who is your audience and what will they think of it? So, really the important question isn't whether it's "street" or not, but whether it works in the way you want it to work.

I appreciate your comments, Doug. Really, all I wanted was an answer to my question. If I didn't like the image, I wouldn't have PP'ed it, so that's pretty much a moot point. It works the way I want it to but the question I proferred still stands. This isn't about a critique for my image, it is about a question regarding the "rules," or whatever the hell they are which divides "street" from almost or is there such a thing. Redwoodguy will tell you there is as will Amolitor and the rest also have similar but differing opinions. I don't know, hence my question. 

[RSL]

Completely academic, imo. I would start by asking if you like your photograph. If so, then it becomes a matter of what, if anything, you want to do with it. Do you want to do nothing with it or do you want to submit it for publication or as a photo contest entry or to sell as prints? When you start to involve the aesthetic opinions of others then the question is what do others think of it. Art is all about taste. Some people like Rembrandt, some people like Matisse and some like paintings of dogs playing poker. Everyone has different tastes. Who is your audience and what will they think of it? So, really the important question isn't whether it's "street" or not, but whether it works in the way you want it to work.

Exactly! Right on, Doug. Are we talking about how successful a photograph is or whether or not it's street photography? They're too completely different things.

[RedwoodGuy]

I've looked at the image several times to find interest that would hold me for more than a brief moment to understand the content. I don't think it is there. I didn't develop any intellectual interest in the subject, and it didn't cause me to feel anything noticeable, and visually, it seems flat and mundane. That all sounds worse than it is. There could be something of interest here, and there's no reason why the photographer could not have taken a more interesting photo at that time and place, but the choices made didn't yield a great result. The subject was placed in the middle of the frame in a very static pose. This removes any tension of dynamics from the image. The lighting was blah, and thus no opportunity for developing even the slightest mystery around any of the scene. The direction of the camera to subject is ordinary in the sense of one guy holding a camera shooting at another guy holding a camera. Nothing in the area surrounding the subject is of much interest.

I get that flat-footed feeling. I suspect, if the photographer moved around and looked for more interesting angles, lighting, surroundings, or just better framing, this "event" which was captured could be very interesting. People aren't all that different from one another in everyday circumstances. Meaning, this guy could be interesting just like some guys in more powerful photographs are interesting. It's isn't that he was the wrong guy, it is that he wasn't put in an interesting enough photographic context. Edges of the photograph define what is in and what is NOT in. When you look through the viewfinder, you have to be aware of those edges defining the selected content, not just the main subject in the middle. I don't like to play "what was in the photographer's mind" - but for this example, it is useful to wonder, what about that stuff inside the edges seemed interesting enough to include? (Again, no insult intended. I am just illustrating the point.) I see little of that stuff being useful at all. I think the odd badge on his shirt is probably far more interesting than all that stuff around the edge.

[nemo295]

Exactly! Right on, Doug. Are we talking about how successful a photograph is or whether or not it's street photography? They're too completely different things.

It gives me a warm fuzzy feeling when we can agree on something, Russ.   

[nemo295]

Kudos to Doug Frost. I'm beginning to think he's the "heavy weight" here.

Thank you. My bathroom scale would heartily agree.