Is Street Photography Dead?

Is Street Photography Dead?

  • Yes

    Votes: 82 20.6%

  • No

    Votes: 317 79.4%
  • Total voters
    399
porktaco said:
maybe the exoticism was gone from urban photography after atget, and yeah everyone's seen a camera and knows how to hold their facial muscles to look like hollywood, but humans are pretty fascinating and they leave themselves open to observation. it's not like no one's ever seen a picture, and i don't know that HCB's puddle leaper would have the effect today that it did back at the dawn of time, but visual imagery is very powerful. i don't know that photos are quite like radio, but your point is well taken. we would do well to remember that at one point, RCA and Zenith were high-tech companies and that hermes still makes buggy whips (though they likely are used primarily in non-buggy related applications 😱 ).

i'm always curious about the effect of cars. i grew up in a walking city - new york - and i live in a driving city - austin - and i'm quite conscious of the difference. public life still exists here, but it's not schoolgirls walking down narrow alleys to night markets. people have to be more intentional about how they congregate. that intentionality lends itself to observation. i'm often disappointed (from a photographic standpoint) in meandering around austin. i find i have to be a lot more intentional about my own activities. in new york, on the other hand, or in london or paris or hong kong, photographic subjects appear serendipitously (to me at least) a lot more frequently. still, i think there's a fairly deeply democratic pool of activity in my car-based environment.

otherness, voyeurism, narrative tension all exist in the city of austin, but i find that austin's public life is a lot more shopping/touristy/quotidian stuff than that of a city like new york. i have found a high level of exoticism in the otherness of india when i've been there, but it's not clear that i know what to look for or where to look for it in mumbai, even if i do know that there is a lot to look for. i have a pretty good idea about where to look in places i'm more familiar with. and for me, that helps me as a photographer. the world is indeed a smaller place and a less romantic one than it was 100 years ago, but i think there's still plenty of stuff worth shooting.
Click to expand...

One thing that is very new in the past decade and is hard to avoid (if one would indeed want to) is the cell phones and texting.

The reason I think HCBs jumper would still be just as strong today is the use of visual language. I have been to a lot of his exhibits over the years and have seen this image time and time again and it seem to always surprise me. All the repeating shapes in it. The poster in the background and the mirror image in the water and the shape that the jumpers legs make and the image in the water form an arrow head with the shaft being the board. And the fact if you look in most of his work you see repeating shapes or leading lines triangular compositions and many other visual elements that make his work so strong. Some of those elements are in most of his work and in some cases all of those elements are in the image.

The work of Robert Frank is much different from HCBs but his better work still has those visual elements and is also a mirror to our society as it was in the mid to late 1950s.

Now in this new age there are many issues a good street photographer can address but what will remain in all the better work is the strong use of the language we all try and use to communicate ideas. How fluent we are will show in how complex those elements are in our work. We are all a product of everything we have lived and learned. Those lessons will be in our work no matter how deep or shallow that may be. Minor White said that"all photographs are self portraits" and DeCarava said that 'when you see my work you see me and when you see me you see my work".
 
also, aristophanes, it's noteworthy to me that you've used the words "freak show". this is often how i shorthand the things i like to go and shoot here in austin (even my kids know this about me). i think a lot of things that persist as valuable subjects were at the time of origin freak shows, even intentionally constructed ones. gypsies, surf culture, teenage toughs in brooklyn, just to name three groups that are treated topically on my bookshelves.

the editorial board does note that any conclusion that therefore all freak shows are shootworthy fails. 🙂
 
or the great bruce davidson

david_dwarf.jpg


i wonder if this image wouldn't be as great if it never had the whole book to appear in and all the other images around it to provide context. perhaps a big issue about street has to with the (perceived) decline of glossy-book publishing. images, as i read just the other day, work best in groups where they can support each other.
 
A lot freaks in BDs Subway to.

I think all the greats work in terms of bodies of work which many today miss. One great at bat no more makes an MVP than one good photo makes a great photographer.

Works like Robert Franks The Americans is about the larger whole and each individual piece might be great on its on but its more important how it fits into the great whole. And thne how one image leads into the next and how it works laying in say a book next to the other image (transitions) I read a piece years ago where Ralph Gibson talked about an image that he made that was very strong but didn't include it the current body of work he was working one because it didn't fit but that image was the start of a new direction for his next project. He called it a point of departure IIRC.

Heres a good piece on The Americans BW. Sorry if you've already seen it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHtRZBDOgag

It really is so much more difficult to put 40 images that are all strong and all work well together and all have a common goal than it is to make one good photograph. And the editing is SO hard. Leaving out a strong image that doesn't really fit can be so tough because you as the photographer can be so close to it..
 
Ming Rider said:
He mentions Robert Frank working with and photographing 11 year old girls. And that, my friends, is the difference between street photography in the 50's (and photography in general) and street nowadays. You are no longer regarded as an artist, more an anti-social predator.
Click to expand...

Thats not all Frank photographed. In fact probably not one of his more memorable images. And a bright photographer could somehow show that new reality. Hey a new street project....
 
jsrockit said:
Very well put Aristophanes. However, is the only reason to continue to do something is to break new ground? Also, each year there are people who just discover there is something called street photography and it is all surely fresh to them. If we worry about your place in history, you may never actaully do / enjoy anything. It seems to me that the people who worry about if something is dead are the ones who are trying to "make it" instead of doing it because they can't help but do it. Doing something for notoriety seems to be a young person's concern.

This time period needs to be documented just as much as any other. That said, I guess the point comes back to the fact that people think it is overdocumented. I figure history will sort out and remember what's worth remembering.
Click to expand...

Boils down to one's definition of "street". As a slice of life pictorial, go for it. Fun. Might see some new things. Stopping our world's spin with a snap is still an insight into itself.

As a groundbreaking news or art form, "street" is dead. What is the message it is trying to impart? The "moment"? Taken over by sport photography 🙄

Untold stories of urban culture? Urban decay? Street violence (the tension inherent in the Rodney King LA riot videos did that in compared to the Watts photos of an earlier era)? Fashion? Drug abuse? Sure, still relevant in essay and documentary form edging towards photojournalism. All still valid forms of information, but not going to turn heads as an expressive art in itself the way HCB/Winogrand envisioned the movement. For most of the 1980's the "street" was literally replaced by the mall, yet street photography never quite kept up with the times. "Street photography" in the classic sense depended on a public life that does not exist so much now in the West, so unless one goes down the supposed newfound authenticity of the ethnic street, any sense of tension or discovery is not so much in the medium as in the content. Oh, those weird Asian streetscapes and people! Such odd food hanging in the windows. Look at that guy's beard! Those poor, poor urchins selling sodas in traffic. Etc.

I used to watch Jeff Wall stage some outdoor shots in Vancouver; the complete opposite of classic "street" photography. Yet, upon viewing the finished product, in some ways far more interesting outcome than happenstance street photography in the same locale. For some reason his work touches a nerve of familiarity with the location and the people despite being elaborately staged, more than any "street" photo I saw of my home town.

I am one of those people just a little bit scared of clowns 🙁
 
Aristophanes said:
Boils down to one's definition of "street". As a slice of life pictorial, go for it. Fun. Might see some new things. Stopping our world's spin with a snap is still an insight into itself.

As a groundbreaking news or art form, "street" is dead. What is the message it is trying to impart? The "moment"? Taken over by sport photography 🙄

Untold stories of urban culture? Urban decay? Street violence (the tension inherent in the Rodney King LA riot videos did that in compared to the Watts photos of an earlier era)? Fashion? Drug abuse? Sure, still relevant in essay and documentary form edging towards photojournalism. All still valid forms of information, but not going to turn heads as an expressive art in itself the way HCB/Winogrand envisioned the movement. For most of the 1980's the "street" was literally replaced by the mall, yet street photography never quite kept up with the times. "Street photography" in the classic sense depended on a public life that does not exist so much now in the West, so unless one goes down the supposed newfound authenticity of the ethnic street, any sense of tension or discovery is not so much in the medium as in the content. Oh, those weird Asian streetscapes and people! Such odd food hanging in the windows. Look at that guy's beard! Those poor, poor urchins selling sodas in traffic. Etc.

I used to watch Jeff Wall stage some outdoor shots in Vancouver; the complete opposite of classic "street" photography. Yet, upon viewing the finished product, in some ways far more interesting outcome than happenstance street photography in the same locale. For some reason his work touches a nerve of familiarity with the location and the people despite being elaborately staged, more than any "street" photo I saw of my home town.

I am one of those people just a little bit scared of clowns 🙁
Click to expand...

I know here in Chicago there has been a new interest everywhere in street photography as an art form. So its clearly not dead. Most sports photography is moving to remote muti-camera set ups which is slowly moving to video with someone a half world away in a both finding the moment from a video stream and most sports photography is done in a commercial type situation. I say commercial in reference to anything being shot with money being the main reason. Fashion would also fall under that definition for my comments here. Rarely is anything created commercially art. What photographers that work and do it a living (myself included) usually separate their personal work which is all theirs from what they create commercially which is for a client and money. There is nothing wrong with that at all its just rarely a photographers vision that is the main creative driver but more the art director and the client.
 
No. This argument should be laid to rest once and for all.


Know your rights. Courtesy "Peta Pixel".

1. You can make a photograph of anything and anyone on any public property, except where a specific law prohibits it.

i.e. streets, sidewalks, town squares, parks, government buildings open to the public, and public libraries.

2. You may shoot on private property if it is open to the public, but you are obligated to stop if the owner requests it.

i.e. malls, retail stores, restaurants, banks, and office building lobbies.

3. Private property owners can prevent photography ON their property, but not photography OF their property from a public location.

4. Anyone can be photographed without consent when they are in a public place unless there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

i.e. private homes, restrooms, dressing rooms, medical facilities, and phone booths.

5. Despite common misconceptions, the following subjects are almost always permissible:

* accidents, fire scenes, criminal activities
* children, celebrities, law enforcement officers
* bridges, infrastructure, transportation facilities
* residential, commercial, and industrial buildings

6. Security is rarely an acceptable reason for restricting photography. Photographing from a public place cannot infringe on trade secrets, nor is it terrorist activity.

7. Private parties cannot detain you against your will unless a serious crime was committed in their presence. Those that do so may be subject to criminal and civil charges.

8. It is a crime for someone to threaten injury, detention, confiscation, or arrest because you are making photographs.

9. You are not obligated to provide your identity or reason for photographing unless questioned by a law enforcement officer and state law requires it.

10. Private parties have no right to confiscate your equipment without a court order. Even law enforcement officers must obtain one unless making an arrest. No one can force you to delete photos you have made.

These are general guidelines regarding the right to make photos and should not be in
 
kbg32 said:
No. This argument should be laid to rest once and for all.


Know your rights. Courtesy "Peta Pixel".

1. You can make a photograph of anything and anyone on any public property, except where a specific law prohibits it.

i.e. streets, sidewalks, town squares, parks, government buildings open to the public, and public libraries.

2. You may shoot on private property if it is open to the public, but you are obligated to stop if the owner requests it.

i.e. malls, retail stores, restaurants, banks, and office building lobbies.

3. Private property owners can prevent photography ON their property, but not photography OF their property from a public location.

4. Anyone can be photographed without consent when they are in a public place unless there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

i.e. private homes, restrooms, dressing rooms, medical facilities, and phone booths.

5. Despite common misconceptions, the following subjects are almost always permissible:

* accidents, fire scenes, criminal activities
* children, celebrities, law enforcement officers
* bridges, infrastructure, transportation facilities
* residential, commercial, and industrial buildings

6. Security is rarely an acceptable reason for restricting photography. Photographing from a public place cannot infringe on trade secrets, nor is it terrorist activity.

7. Private parties cannot detain you against your will unless a serious crime was committed in their presence. Those that do so may be subject to criminal and civil charges.

8. It is a crime for someone to threaten injury, detention, confiscation, or arrest because you are making photographs.

9. You are not obligated to provide your identity or reason for photographing unless questioned by a law enforcement officer and state law requires it.

10. Private parties have no right to confiscate your equipment without a court order. Even law enforcement officers must obtain one unless making an arrest. No one can force you to delete photos you have made.

These are general guidelines regarding the right to make photos and should not be in
Click to expand...

Keith, excellent post. I'm glad to see your in NY, because I do all my shooting in the NYC are. I always wondered about a few of these scenarios.
 
Aristophanes said:
Boils down to one's definition of "street". As a slice of life pictorial, go for it. Fun. Might see some new things. Stopping our world's spin with a snap is still an insight into itself.
Click to expand...

True, I choose to have a wide open definition of what street photography can be. If one is out on the streets photographing found subject matter, it is street to me... still life, portraits, decisive moment, etc. Of course, commercial stuff like fashion is done on the streets too, but then i wouldn't consider it street.

As a groundbreaking news or art form, "street" is dead. What is the message it is trying to impart?
Click to expand...

Every time something is proclaimed to be dead in the arts, someone comes along and breathes new life into it. I just think it moves further and further away from the mainstream with each decade. I mean even Winogrand and Cartier Bresson are not known by the average joe.

Oh, those weird Asian streetscapes and people! Such odd food hanging in the windows. Look at that guy's beard! Those poor, poor urchins selling sodas in traffic. Etc.
Click to expand...

Well, that the jaded attitude towards photography these days. I choose to photograph what I want to photograph. If someone else wants to look at my photos, even better. Yes, a lot of it is derivative and I'm not immune to the cliche. I cannot concern myself with worrying about what's been done already. If we all did, there would be no photos made. I choose to be a fan of photography and to not be bothered by its supposed death. Perhaps it is a selfish, self-indulgent act, but I enjoy it. I'm not concerned with only street photography though... I like many of photography's dead genres. 😉

I used to watch Jeff Wall stage some outdoor shots in Vancouver; the complete opposite of classic "street" photography. Yet, upon viewing the finished product, in some ways far more interesting outcome than happenstance street photography in the same locale. For some reason his work touches a nerve of familiarity with the location and the people despite being elaborately staged, more than any "street" photo I saw of my home town.
Click to expand...

He makes interesting work at times and I can agree with what you say. But I'm a fan of conceptual art as well and its use of photography. Good work is good work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom