daninjc
Well-known
A good street photo (whatever that means) to me is mostly about aesthetic content and ambiguity. I'm not sure I'd be interested in a shot of the mass of people in the street - even if it managed to convey a sense of the energy that sometimes hits you in the city. I'm afraid that would make for an uninteresting image.
[FONT="]As a photographer, I want to translate to film the emotions and expressions seen when people are swirling together, elbow to elbow, in very close proximity to other strangers. I want to communicate to people, who don't/haven't experienced the power of a Manhattan, or any other bustling metropolis, the energy and power masses of humanity can create. You can feel it, like an electrical current there on the street. A photograph may communicate the visual part of that energy. It cannot communicate all the energy of the experience... just the visual.
[/FONT] [FONT="]Now the questions:
I think that if a person who hasn't often/ever visited a big city does so, then goes to view street photographs, they would bring that experience with them; and have a greater appreciation/understanding for the images. They will experience those pictures differently.
[/FONT] [FONT="]Does anyone agree?
[/FONT] [FONT="]I've been a bit philosophical as of late; and street photography isn't appreciated as much as it used to be. That's too bad. What is the reason for that you think?
[/FONT]