Interesting quote, shooting street, then and now

[JackForster]

"JM - Those days were heaven. If you were fast and learned how to be invisible - like Bresson - you could do, it seemed, anything and no one was aware. Not like today where everyone is primed to think about 'fame', or celebrity, and wants to own their 'brand' so they're more aware and hostile to being seen. Then the camera wasn't as common as the ball point pen, as it is now, so carrying one didn't make you suspicious, or lecherous seeming as it does today when everyone is afraid their likeness or their child will appear on the internet as some strange trophy."

Joel Meyerowitz, from an interview with Nick Turpin in 2009

 

[kbg32]

He's so perceptive.

 

[jsrockit]

I've taken a class with Joel Meyerowitz. He seemed like a good guy and I like his work. Of course, it doesn't seem like there are many fans of him here.

 

[Richard G]

The gestalt now of someone taking a photograph in 2011 is a posture and a duration: it is the ungainly backward arch of the spine and the outstretched arms, prolonged into the puzzled inspection of the result and more fiddling with menus. We've become slightly less visible with a film camera and optical viewfinder. They are beginning not to notice us again. Whatever we did, if we did anything, couldn't have been taking a photograph.

 

[chathaway]

The gestalt now of someone taking a photograph in 2011 is a posture and a duration: it is the ungainly backward arch of the spine and the outstretched arms, prolonged into the puzzled inspection of the result and more fiddling with menus. We've become slightly less visible with a film camera and optical viewfinder. They are beginning not to notice us again. Whatever we did, if we did anything, couldn't have been taking a photograph.

Ummm...ok. Sure...

 

[rogerzilla]

In the UK, years of brainwashing by the lunatic right-wing press has led the public to believe that anyone with a camera is a paedophile, and probably also an illegal immigrant, a single parent and someone who accepts speed cameras.

 

[JackForster]

The gestalt now of someone taking a photograph in 2011 is a posture and a duration: it is the ungainly backward arch of the spine and the outstretched arms, prolonged into the puzzled inspection of the result and more fiddling with menus. We've become slightly less visible with a film camera and optical viewfinder. They are beginning not to notice us again. Whatever we did, if we did anything, couldn't have been taking a photograph.

Actually I rather like this observation. The physical posture we adopt thanks to the ubiquity of electronic devices is one of the first things I noticed when I started paying attention to how people move around again recently. Head down, face illuminated by a screen is certainly one but I think you capture the ungainliness of the posture of digital photography (sans viewfinder) very nicely 😀 .

 

[ddutchison]

Quotes like these seem to do more to discourage photographers than anything else, surprising coming from a guy like Meyerowitz. But I have to say that it's his colour 8X10 work that blows me away, not so much his street work.

I think your subjects reactions - or lack thereof - depend entirely on the attitude you bring into the situation.

 

[Turtle]

There is a certain truth to this. Silly film cameras are not to be taken seriously. If it has no screen it is amazing how people are disarmed if they decide to challenge you. Film = hobby, right?

The gestalt now of someone taking a photograph in 2011 is a posture and a duration: it is the ungainly backward arch of the spine and the outstretched arms, prolonged into the puzzled inspection of the result and more fiddling with menus. We've become slightly less visible with a film camera and optical viewfinder. They are beginning not to notice us again. Whatever we did, if we did anything, couldn't have been taking a photograph.

 

[JackForster]

Well, I think someone who really wants to do street photography is going to do it regardless of what anyone else says; the observations of others may inform how they approach the work (or not.) On the subject's reaction, I'm reminded of what a teacher of mine (a martial arts teacher) once said --something to the effect that the teacher is always completely responsible for teaching well and the student is always completely responsible for learning. I think the subject's reaction is always informed by both their disposition and the approach of the photographer, but how much of one or the other depends on who the photographer is and who the subject is.

Quotes like these seem to do more to discourage photographers than anything else, surprising coming from a guy like Meyerowitz. But I have to say that it's his colour 8X10 work that blows me away, not so much his street work.

I think your subjects reactions - or lack thereof - depend entirely on the attitude you bring into the situation.

 

[Jamie123]

I think your subjects reactions - or lack thereof - depend entirely on the attitude you bring into the situation.

I don't agree at all. The attitude you bring into the situation is only one factor among many that affect the subjects reactions. If there's any criticism to be made about Meyerowitz's observation is that it's stating the obvious. Today's culture and people's relationship to their own image is obviously vastly different than it was 30-40 years ago. You cannot 'attitude away' these changes and you cannot do the same kind of 'street photography' that Meyerowitz or others did at the time. I'm sure you can still do great photographs of strangers on the street but you need to adapt to today's culture.

 

[shadowfox]

I've taken a class with Joel Meyerowitz. He seemed like a good guy and I like his work. Of course, it doesn't seem like there are many fans of him here.

I saw him first in the documentary "The Genius of Photography" and have come to like him as well as his work.

 

[jsrockit]

Quotes like these seem to do more to discourage photographers than anything else...

I don't see it that way. I think he is commenting on the fact that the public views photographers differently today because they are more ubiquitous and that this recognition is a shame since it has everyone on guard. Seems to me he is just thinking of the good ol days. I don;t see any discouraging words towards photographers there.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

And the existence of the Internet plays a very big role here as well. Media reports of people's pictures being posted wherever, without permission, has put a lot of folks on edge. Personally I don't have a problem with this kind of exposure (short of posting pictures that purposely insult the subject), given how our culture is more than willing to accept 'reality TV', supermarket tabloids, etc.. And post pictures of their butts on Facebook. :-o 🙂