A perspective on contemporary street photography

[intheviewfinder]

In The New Inquiry there's an article, Permission Slips, that looks at the Vivian Maier movie and has some very interesting questions, criticism, and perspective on contemporary street photography. For example, "the street photographer doesn’t just want your image, but the clicks, likes, followers, and big data it might generate." Not a short read but a thoughtful one.

 

[Ansel]

Yes, I can see the argument, Vivian Maiers work was private after all. In a sense it is bad what Maloof and others have done with it.

 

[35photo]

This for posting..Interesting stuff for sure. i have not seen the film yet. I have been following this pretty much since the beginning and even randomly met Maloof once selling him a camera on Craigslist..Had a nice conversation with him..

 

[Colin Corneau]

*SOME* photographers are interested in clicks/likes/follows/etc.

Some, not all. Generalizations and blanket statements aren't helpful to anyone.

 

[dnk512]

*SOME* photographers are interested in clicks/likes/follows/etc.

Some, not all. Generalizations and blanket statements aren't helpful to anyone.

Is this not a generalization? 🙄

 

[Lauffray]

*SOME* photographers are interested in clicks/likes/follows/etc.

Some, not all. Generalizations and blanket statements aren't helpful to anyone.

I second that. I found that article slightly annoying to be honest.

 

[jsrockit]

Interesting read... a bit simplified. I don't equate street photography with social media... but I guess there are those that do. I think it all comes down to intent.

 

[intheviewfinder]

I too found it a bit annoying - when this happens I figure there must be some truth in there. I think he's hit the nail with the statement about the social nature of the current climate of street photography. You really don't have to look farther than at HCSP and Eric Kim. With the increase of photographers within the street community the nature of the tradition has morphed, for good or bad.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

With the increase of photographers within the street community the nature of the tradition has morphed, for good or bad.

Everything changes. If it didn't, photography might become boring.

 

[hlockwood]

*SOME* photographers are interested in clicks/likes/follows/etc.

Some, not all. Generalizations and blanket statements aren't helpful to anyone.

Exactly my reaction.

HFL

 

[gho]

Hard to say, but my opinion is that the term "street photography" has become something like a label which is surrounded by a lot of business. But I have to think a bit more about it. My personal term for that is "street photography (tm)". But maybe it was always like this. It would be interesting to investigate the history of this subject in a bit more detail.

 

[BlackXList]

I'm a short way into this piece, so my opinion may change by the end (if I get there).

It's taking so long to read, not just because of the terrible layout, but because I keep stopping to roll my eyes.

The opening paragraph starts with some notion of "concerns about consent".
Nope.
The legal situation has been perfectly clear for a long time now. That's the end of the matter. If somebody feels they have some level of entitlement to not have their photograph taken above and beyond the law, then I'm afraid that's their problem and not any photographer's.

I know it's a handy quip for street photographers to blurt out, but there really is no parallel with security cameras or surveillance technology.
Completely different aim, and methodology. Street photography is not a tool of surveillance.

Similarly to lump names like Maier, Meyerowitz, Westerbeck, Scott and Mora in with sites like "girlsaroundme" which seem to exist solely to sexually harass people either with or without their knowledge, or a photographer who only took "upskirts" is at best obtuse lazy journalism and at worse bordering on defamatory.

I'm also heartily sick of hearing about Google Glass as related to "street photography", as if it would change things because people will have a camera with them at all times. They already do, in their phones. Also, I can't see the sensor size and other variables being the kind of thing many "street photographers" are frothing at the mouth for.

I'm getting irritated by the author's seeming belief that vomiting a thesaurus worth of flowery language onto a screen somehow gives their point of view some kind of value.

Maier by all accounts was more than a little odd. Not that that's a bad thing in itself, but it does make using her as a baseline to compare people against a bit ridiculous, especially when we bring in the changes that have happened in the medium ever since.

I've decided not to continue with the article as it was not doing my blood pressure any good.

I would point out though that at the bottom of the page there are buttons so that you can share the article on Facebook, Twitter and Tumblr, for those all important "clicks, likes and follows"

 

[NY_Dan]

I read Nathan Jurgenson's article from the link provided by OP. To me the article is like running around blindfolded and drunk with a camera on motor drive, not editing the results, and hoping something will stick. I seriously believe Jurgenson is a moron.

We all experience life in different ways and express these experiences as thoughts, writings, artworks of one form or another, and if we have a camera as photographs. We take "photos" with our eyes. Some people have a problem with photography. I don't care what they think. There's always someone to tell you you're wrong, and it always comes from people who think they're noble, but are anything but. Maloof has done nothing wrong. Vivian is dead, whatever happens to her work has no effect on her.

I don't care if some photographers like likes, or want followers as a way to share their work or make some money. The way some people talk one would think making money from photography was unsavory -- but I'm sure all these people like having money, and would do things that would really put the un in savory.

I'd like more money -- it would give me the freedom to go more places and annoy more people with my camera. To all the critics like Jorgensen -- I say, here's a camera, talk is cheap, keep your pontificating and show me what you got. 🙂 And I'm spent.

 

[rivercityrocker]

The way the the author uses the term "street photography" is more of a euphemism. I don't think this was intentional. I think he was grasping for something to use as a comparison and it was handy.

I find that overall the article was written more as a denouncement of Maloof taking Vivian Maier's life and putting it on display when it was known that she was deeply private.

In these days of "blog journalism" there are no editors. Had this piece been done for a magazine I think an editor would have cut out the irrelevancies about "street photography" and concentrated on the story at hand.

In the end what this really boils down to is sloppy journalism. When someone can't tell a story well they often cover up ineptitude by using 10¢ words to make them sound smarter to the reader.

 

[Takkun]

Hard to say, but my opinion is that the term "street photography" has become something like a label which is surrounded by a lot of business. But I have to think a bit more about it. My personal term for that is "street photography (tm)". But maybe it was always like this. It would be interesting to investigate the history of this subject in a bit more detail.

Trying to wrap my head around the article but I'm getting really lost here, so I'll respond to this comment--
It does seem like street photography, as a brand so to speak, has taken off and been commodified as its intersected with mobile phone photography. There's also a certain sense of self-importance I've picked up among the more devoted practitioners.

As for Meier, I think hers is a great story that's been shared through the wonders of the internet, but at the same time devalued in a way as it's become another topic to throw around on Facebook. Everyone I know knows of her; very few actually have seen her work, and fewer appreciate it artistically.

Amusingly, my friends are constantly haranguing me for what little of my work I share, be it on my website or on Facebook, even my snapshots of them. I guess I'm a bit like her in that way.

Edit: I reread this a third time, and I think I'm getting a grasp on it. Like what rivercityrocker said, it's not really about street photography but about social media, and co-opting something public for one's private vanity online. Interesting concept, just poorly written. Man, it needs an editor. I'm sure there's a meta-response to this piece just dying to be written...

 

[Colin Corneau]

Street photography is a pretty broad general term nowadays...some people still practice it and elevate it -- some are ADHD-addled little boys who think it's funny to machine-gun passersby with their camera shutters.

The best approach is a quote from Ansel Adams, interestingly enough. I'm paraphrasing here, but basically he says that you don't take pictures with a camera so much as you do with all the books you've read before, all the relationships you've had, all the experiences you've had, the music you've listened to and the places you've seen.

Seems the most honest truthful way of phrasing it.

 

[rivercityrocker]

Go read some of the other articles that guy has written. He was a sociology major. He is a hack writer trying to present himself as a deep intellectual. He's pedantic and boring.

http://thenewinquiry.com/author/nathanjurgenson/