Is Street Photography Dead?

Is Street Photography Dead?

  • Yes

    Votes: 82 20.6%

  • No

    Votes: 317 79.4%
  • Total voters
    399
The streetpix we took today will attract attention in fifty years. I may still be dead than, but my name will be immortal :D
 
Not dead, but maybe as more and more of us live in urban areas/cities, it's just not interesting to us. Maybe what was gritty and exciting in the 50s, 60s,70s is just boring now. I don't look at much street photography, as I'm sick of seeing it in real life every single day. Maybe if I lived in the countryside, I'd develop an interest.

Perhaps also, it's very hard to come up with something new in street photography. Whereas for landscape, I don't need something new, a beautiful landscape is a beautiful landscape either now or 100 years ago.
 
lonemantis said:
I think there is just as much a need for street photography as there ever was, but it's far less understood these days by those who don't know about the likes of HCB and Winogrand. One of the original goals of street photography was to capture the way people live, but we now live in a world that's almost excessively well documented and recorded. However, it's become an automatic and soulless process - think of satellite imagery, CCTV, Google Maps and Steetview - totally devoid of human commentary or aesthetic value.

Great street photographers can capture the human moments that satellites miss, serving as representations of our generation and times. It seems mundane to some, potentially creepy or criminal to others, but the value of a well executed street shot is immense, and that value will only increase with time.
Click to expand...


Lonemantis has provided us a perfect answer...
 
lonemantis said:
I think there is just as much a need for street photography as there ever was, but it's far less understood these days by those who don't know about the likes of HCB and Winogrand. One of the original goals of street photography was to capture the way people live, but we now live in a world that's almost excessively well documented and recorded. However, it's become an automatic and soulless process - think of satellite imagery, CCTV, Google Maps and Steetview - totally devoid of human commentary or aesthetic value.

Great street photographers can capture the human moments that satellites miss, serving as representations of our generation and times. It seems mundane to some, potentially creepy or criminal to others, but the value of a well executed street shot is immense, and that value will only increase with time.
Click to expand...

This is a very clever post, thanks for posting this.

But, yet, I second the good questions asked by Carterofmars about the interest towards whose would be the contemporary Winogrands, Meyerowitzes, Erwitts (and Leiters).
 
For me, it's dead in the sense that we've seen it all 1000 times before.

What else is new? Another kid chasing a balloon? Some babe in a miniskirt, lighting a cigarette and glaring at us? Another homeless person? A couple in a cafe reading the paper over espressos?

Yeh, it's a good picture, but . . . it really needs a distinct edge to stand out, you know.
 
Paraphrasing the Talking Heads: You may find yourself in another part of the world, letting the days go by, how do I work this?

For me street photography is the aesthetic document, that is, an experiment in merging documentary photography (I'm a historian by trade) with all these everyday slices of life and decisive moments aesthetically portrayed. The photograph by nature automatically becomes a document with age, but by golly it should also be pleasing to look at.

Quoting David Byrne again: Same as it ever was, same as it ever was, time isn't holding us, time isn't after us, time doesn't hold you back.

I published a book on my hometown in Iceland, Selfoss, in 2011. One of the houses shown in the book has burned down. Many storefronts have changed beyond recognition and houses have been built were none were before. My aesthetic pursuit of the town is slowly becoming a document about how it once was. (But hopefully still pleasing to look at.)

My point being, as we humans continue to live in societies some of us find it interesting or pleasing or even necessary to walk about snapping pictures to show the others how their world looks/looked like. And that I think is not so bad. Street photography is dead, long live street photography.
 
Why would it be dead? Photography exists and streets exist.

Do you mean is it dead in regard to becoming "rich" and "famous?" Seems that is what people mean when this type of question comes up. If the only reason you do something is for glory or money, then you picked the wrong approach.
 
maybe a bit ;)

beyond the usual ups and downs also times have changed a bit..

not so much "real" life on the streets anymore. so i think the interesting photography, which wants to show everyday life, is made in a more private space nowadays; in a documentary way, but also in a half-documentary or staged way. (e.g. i think of Beth Yarnelle Edwards, also have a look at stephanie steinkopf http://www.stephaniesteinkopf.de)

i also see a bit of a trend to go to other countries with a more vivid street-life and some exotic-factor. especially african countries.
but as these photographs are not made by domestic people, or people who have at least lived there for a long time, i see it more as travel photography in the style of "street" then as street photography.


street was too prominent the last decades. so too many people are just imitating now. it may need a break to regenerate, and people with new ideas will try it again.
 
Peter_wrote: said:
i also see a bit of a trend to go to other countries with a more vivid street-life and some exotic-factor. especially african countries..
Click to expand...

One person's exotic is another person's familiar. Africans may find the streets of Sioux Falls, SD interesting.
 
Street photography is an outdoor activity. Its going out and strolling and taking photos. The main juice is in the strolling and photographing, the images themselves are secondary...... I also think "___ is dead" is dead itself, due to overuse and abuse.
 
Maybe it is dead. Has anyone practiced it at the level of a Frank or a Winogrand? Has anyone since the seventies created anything as vital with it? If they did, was there an audience?
Photography took a different turn in the eighties, away from the documentary style. It was a turn away from what interested me about the medium, but I understand that people need change. Something new.

If it is dead, maybe that is the best time to do it.

Here is an interesting related essay by Paul Graham that you might want to read...
http://www.paulgrahamarchive.com/writings_by.html
 
daveleo said:
For me, it's dead in the sense that we've seen it all 1000 times before.

What else is new? Another kid chasing a balloon? Some babe in a miniskirt, lighting a cigarette and glaring at us? Another homeless person? A couple in a cafe reading the paper over espressos?

Yeh, it's a good picture, but . . . it really needs a distinct edge to stand out, you know.
Click to expand...

I agree with you in that it's all been done.... that's why it's so difficult to make a decent street photo (and decent doesn't even equate good).
 
Often (and thankfully), as soon as you say that everything's been done, something comes along to surprise you.
 
Peter_wrote: said:
i also see a bit of a trend to go to other countries with a more vivid street-life and some exotic-factor. especially african countries.
Click to expand...


I felt this way for a very long time, but then saw photos done in rural environments and small towns that have changed my thinking & attitude drastically.

For example: Kate Kirkwood
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom