Is Street Photography Dead?
- Thread starter Carterofmars
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 291
- Views 6K
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
It's certainly not dead ... but it's heavily over discussed IMO.
Which is not to deride this thread ... I'm just stating the 'bleedin' obvious!'
Which is not to deride this thread ... I'm just stating the 'bleedin' obvious!'
Bob Wilson
Established
Thanks for referencing these- powerful, compassionate work.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Keith if the work is good it can never be discussed to much imho. In fact i would say there is far to little discussion about content and way to much about cameras, lenses, f/stops and shutter speeds.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
True ... but I think as an art form it is heavily diluted by very ordinary work that I don't really regard as worth while or significant. A lot of it has as much impact as google earth for me.
The good though is very good and I can discuss that any time! 🙂
furbs
Well-known
Street photography isn't much different than other artforms in that regard - the bell curve of talent is there, with the vast majority in the mediocre middle, surrounded by the relative few who are laughably bad or truly superb.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Visual imagery is all diluted to a point of total over saturation but there is still some good out there. Does that mean we need to stop enjoying and discussing any art form whether its painting, photography, literature or any other art form just because there's so much of it now? I would argue its even more important now to have those discussions.
Jubb Jubb
Well-known
It is very hard to get a good street photograph, and i think it comes down to a lot of poor editing
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I forgot to actually answer the question ... no it's definitely not dead.
Some of its finest exponents are though but no reason to assume that the torch cant be carried by others with equal vision!
Some of its finest exponents are though but no reason to assume that the torch cant be carried by others with equal vision!
Dirk
Privatier
"Street" in a wider sense (i.e. whatever I see while walking around, no pavement required) is all I do, and I'm getting more and more into it. So no, it's alive and kickin'.
telenous
Well-known
No, street photography is not dead but the fact that one asks is telling. It often seems the art world and the academia ignore it, if not openly disdain it, like some kind of black sheep. Maybe they just had too much of it in the glory days of the 30s,40s,50s and 60s. Who can blame them for that? A lot of what I see these days is some kind of ironic take on the history of the medium, so what chance has street photography, a kind of photography that is done completely in earnest, to be taken seriously by the banters? And yet, once in a while something completely left field reminds us that it is there, straightforward but powerful and engrossing as it always was...
.
.
haempe
Well-known
A friend said once, any art form starts dying in the moment, when it hung the first time in a gallery...
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
I saw a lot of people taking pictures in the street last week, so it seems very much alive to me.
Vince Lupo
Whatever
I don't know if it's dead, but I think the editing of those photos is dead (or at least makes it a bit tougher to sort out the good ones from the not-so-good ones, at least from a viewer's perspective). A lot of what I see now are photos of people talking on their cell phones or staring at their smartphones. Not very interesting, at least to me.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
The one thing that clearly differentiates todays street work from that of say Brooklyn Gang by Davidson is the use of portable devises. Its a product of the times. To be able to somehow incorporate those devices in a visual context to the other elements in the frame and to tie it into our society today and that might be something. So much street work today is just people on the street with no visual rhythm or other visual context. No repeating shapes, leading lines, contrasting tones. No since of geometry and no moment captured. Its just snap shots on the street. But there are some that are doing some interesting work. A few post here.
OurManInTangier
An Undesirable
Perfectly said as a whole, but the text in bold shows the greatest issue for me. Far too much snapping of nothing, with little thought behind that snap. Or perhaps it is simply that, rather than 'Street' being dead, its editing that is in fact dead. Too many people too eager to upload rather than think honestly about their own pictures. Then there are the internet comments on the pictures that we like to tell ourselves are helping to improve our photography...yet the same aimless crap gets posted, thanks Flickr, Tumblr et al. I don't like to rail against things online particularly as its a wonderful fast track to sounding like an arrogant, clueless and over confident tw@t, but its too late now.
and to clarify; am I a top street photographer. No.
am I just another internet w*nker. Yep, no doubt.
Still bloody depressing though.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Yes I hear ya. Those are the ones that should be going to see Bressons work and looking at his books and reading his thoughts on his work,. They are also the ones that should be watching this piece when its released. But they make comments like those guys are all in the past and are not relevant. "I like________on flickers work much better" and it's tight shots of a homeless people taken from a half block away with a 400 2.8 lens wide open. Talk about ____ and the guy making the comment not getting it and probably not wanting to get it.
They have no interest in history or even trying to make an effort to understand the visual language that all the greats were so good at. Thats OK because they will never be taken seriously. I have also seen some amazing work on line but some that really do get it so I guess there is hope.
I will keep trying to find and capture those things in my work and usually its a lot more failure than success (LoL). I'm alway humbled by the likes of Robert Frank, Davidson, Meyerowitz, Bresson, Winogrand, Helen Levitt, Danny Lyon, Diane Arbus, Roy Decarava and so many more of the great photographers that work in this way.
I think you guys need to remember that the internet (and this site) has an experience level from pure beginner to pro. If any of you have taken a Photo 101 course (I don't care what decade), you know that the output in those classes is generally similar to what we see on the web. The issue is that we now get to see the good, the bad, and everything in-between from a lot more people. In the past, street photography didn't have any way to self-publish and reach masses of potential people.
Additionally, not everyone is going to be good... even if they put a lot of time into their work. I don't think it is fair to go on flickr and compare the average joe to the masters of the past. People don't magically get good. It takes time. They might not even know that their photography is bad or worse than someone elses. They might not ever figure out what makes a good photo. Honestly, there is nothing wrong with sucking and enjoying it. Sites like flickr may be misleading too... we have no idea why people are posting their images. Is it just so a few friends can see or are they trying to become famous? I would think the former is truer more often than not.
As far as street photography goes, many people have a very limited definition as to what it is and what it can be. It's sad.
Additionally, not everyone is going to be good... even if they put a lot of time into their work. I don't think it is fair to go on flickr and compare the average joe to the masters of the past. People don't magically get good. It takes time. They might not even know that their photography is bad or worse than someone elses. They might not ever figure out what makes a good photo. Honestly, there is nothing wrong with sucking and enjoying it. Sites like flickr may be misleading too... we have no idea why people are posting their images. Is it just so a few friends can see or are they trying to become famous? I would think the former is truer more often than not.
As far as street photography goes, many people have a very limited definition as to what it is and what it can be. It's sad.
sjones
Established
If street is not dead, the simplicity and redundancy of the genre (open ended as it might be), has increasingly whittled away whatever remaining new ground there may be to explore. And to clarify, when I say "simplicity," it is not derogatory by any stretch, as I'm simply saying that street photography is fairly austere in its structural demands much the way rock 'n' roll is with its 'three-chord' backbone.
If you want to play straight, loud, four-four rock, you're simply going to have a harder time creating a new influential movement than in the past, and to nobody's fault! This said, and I think it's analogous to street photography, there are still some great rock acts around, even if their derivations are showing a bit more brightly…
Besides, getting back to the semantic angle, hopefully not too much, what is street? I lived in large cities, took photos of my surroundings because, tautologically speaking, it was around me.
Put me out in a farm, and I'll continue to go outside to take photos of my surroundings….OK, then get bored and move back to a city.
If one is living in a city or even town, where people assemble regularly, and at least a few sidewalks and buildings spot the grounds, then how can "street" die, lest photographers simply abandon their cameras before stepping foot into an urban environment.
And of course, we can reasonably ask does street even have to involve the urban, since perhaps just 'life' is fine, as in signs of life (as in people not even required).
But how fresh can street be?
I see kids today looking like hippies from the late 1960s, punks from the late 1970s, and rappers from the late 1980s---and did kids from the northwest US ever really toss their plaid shirts just because the co-opting fickle fashion mongers declared grunge dead?
Retro referencing has solidly become a defining aspect of the current, perhaps more so than at any other time. If anything, photography has had ample opportunity to jump off this circular flow with the advent of digital and the ease, in relation to the wet darkroom, of manipulation.
Yet, street photography is generally not about getting all Dave Hill, and look how many of its practitioners haven't even moved to digital, or at least, like me, maintain a hybrid approach (film-scanner). But then again, this is the simplicity of it, which is the beauty of it, but it is also its burden in the pursuit of originality untainted by pretension.
You like jeans and T-shirts, but you want to be different; that's a tough one, especially since every haircut possible was tried by 1983. Or maybe you don't care about being different, just about being comfortable with yourself.
An upcoming era that will match the 1930's to 1960's; doubtful, at least in my lifetime, but death, no. Not for me, because what else would I do?
If you want to play straight, loud, four-four rock, you're simply going to have a harder time creating a new influential movement than in the past, and to nobody's fault! This said, and I think it's analogous to street photography, there are still some great rock acts around, even if their derivations are showing a bit more brightly…
Besides, getting back to the semantic angle, hopefully not too much, what is street? I lived in large cities, took photos of my surroundings because, tautologically speaking, it was around me.
Put me out in a farm, and I'll continue to go outside to take photos of my surroundings….OK, then get bored and move back to a city.
If one is living in a city or even town, where people assemble regularly, and at least a few sidewalks and buildings spot the grounds, then how can "street" die, lest photographers simply abandon their cameras before stepping foot into an urban environment.
And of course, we can reasonably ask does street even have to involve the urban, since perhaps just 'life' is fine, as in signs of life (as in people not even required).
But how fresh can street be?
I see kids today looking like hippies from the late 1960s, punks from the late 1970s, and rappers from the late 1980s---and did kids from the northwest US ever really toss their plaid shirts just because the co-opting fickle fashion mongers declared grunge dead?
Retro referencing has solidly become a defining aspect of the current, perhaps more so than at any other time. If anything, photography has had ample opportunity to jump off this circular flow with the advent of digital and the ease, in relation to the wet darkroom, of manipulation.
Yet, street photography is generally not about getting all Dave Hill, and look how many of its practitioners haven't even moved to digital, or at least, like me, maintain a hybrid approach (film-scanner). But then again, this is the simplicity of it, which is the beauty of it, but it is also its burden in the pursuit of originality untainted by pretension.
You like jeans and T-shirts, but you want to be different; that's a tough one, especially since every haircut possible was tried by 1983. Or maybe you don't care about being different, just about being comfortable with yourself.
An upcoming era that will match the 1930's to 1960's; doubtful, at least in my lifetime, but death, no. Not for me, because what else would I do?