RollingBall
Established
Don't know if this has been posted or not, but heres a video of Street photographer Matt Stuart.
http://spinetv.net/stolenmoments/2010/10/2
http://spinetv.net/stolenmoments/2010/10/2
dfoo
Well-known
Nice video. Loved some of those shots.. the ones of the pigeon + feet, and the peacock were amazing.
jky
Well-known
A few years ago when I was just getting into sp, I was in London @ a burger joint watching some guy take photos. He didn't linger much - shot a couple pics and then he was gone...
but he did this enough on this one block that I was able to remember his face 4 years later - Matt Stuart.
but he did this enough on this one block that I was able to remember his face 4 years later - Matt Stuart.
Nikkor AIS
Nikkor AIS
Nice work. I enjoyed the little video. Thanks for sharing.
gns
Well-known
I'm reminded of a thread a while back about the visual one-liner.
A lot of "Street photography" falls into this category, I think.
The Peacock picture, for instance. I think any number of people probably would have made the same photo had they happened by. There is the obvious joke that gives you a chuckle, but nothing beyond that which would make this interesting to look at again.
Or am I missing something?
Cheers,
Gary
A lot of "Street photography" falls into this category, I think.
The Peacock picture, for instance. I think any number of people probably would have made the same photo had they happened by. There is the obvious joke that gives you a chuckle, but nothing beyond that which would make this interesting to look at again.
Or am I missing something?
Cheers,
Gary
gns
Well-known
I guess I am kind of saying it's simple to make. I said any number of people WOULD have made it, not COULD have. That they could have pretty much goes without saying.
I like a good joke as much as anyone. I'm just saying I don't see a lot of depth I guess. I wouldn't want to own it or look at it repeatedly.
Again, maybe I just don't get it.
Cheers,
Gary
I like a good joke as much as anyone. I'm just saying I don't see a lot of depth I guess. I wouldn't want to own it or look at it repeatedly.
Again, maybe I just don't get it.
Cheers,
Gary
I think you have way too much faith in the photographic community. Many people just walk past stuff like this and never even see it because they are looking to make the same old cliche photos. Even if I give you that this photo is simple to make, the man's body of work proves he knows how to make photos that are not simple. If anything they are deceptive in their simpleness because they are so well done. Sure, people make one or two of these types of images, but he has a body of work based on this stuff. I'm of the opinion it is not as easy as it seems.
http://www.mattstuart.com/
Last edited:
Neare
Well-known
The guy is a great photographer. He picks up on all those funny visual cues that I don't believe that every photographer would actually see, all that visual irony. I'm actually amazed that he has got an entire profiled filled with them, finding those shots is extremely difficult and comes down to a lot of luck... the guy is amazing.
pggunn
gregor
Exactly. You said it well.
_larky
Well-known
Interesting to see the difference between this video, and this one:
http://vimeo.com/4376763
Is it me or does the SLR simply look too creepy on the street?
http://vimeo.com/4376763
Is it me or does the SLR simply look too creepy on the street?
GSNfan
Well-known
His pictures are surrealistic and he uses color very effectively. Anyone who finds a unique style and look, working on the street deserves recognition.
GSNfan
Well-known
What looks creepy is the over-sized backpack, his jacket and the way he moves around so fast and suspiciously. Even if he carried a Leica, he'd still look creepy.
Its not the camera, actually its the over all appearance of a street photographer, from his clothing to his haircut, the way he carries himself, his bag and even his shoes, everything matters when you work the streets.
There is no point in carrying a taped up Leica when you're standing out like a sore thumb amongst the crowd.
It's creepy no matter what, but you have to do what you have to do.
ElectroWNED
Well-known
Not really... look at that Daido Muriyama video ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VViYphLJWOk ) or Meyerowitz( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Qjym5uliDw ).
Theres no creepiness there-- maybe its just a reflection of each society. New York and Tokyo vs CCTV'd England...
The photos might not be creepy, and I am a fan of many street photographers... but the act of photographing strangers is a bit creepy at times no matter what camera is used... it is inevitable. I've taken a class with Joel Meyerwitz and have seen him in action in NYC and on a beach in the Bronx. I can tell you that half of the people he approaches think he's creepy (I've seen the reactions) and the other half don't... and he's a likable person with a good approach (and some balls... he'll approach anyone).
Last edited:
dyao
Well-known
My problem with the visual one-liner is that it's too easy to understand. once you 'get' the pun or joke in the picture you move on - the picture doesn't invite further contemplation.
of course, there are plenty of visual one-liners that do invite deeper introspection - Frank's 'made blinds' picture, for example.
I can certainly respect Stuart's work ethic and results, but his pictures are not for me.
Well, the same can be said of many other genres of photography no? Plus, what is wrong with getting something quickly? I get his photos quickly and I still like to look at them again and again. I'd argue that the reason you get the photo so quickly is because it is well done.
I would also argue that the Robert Frank photograph is completely different than what Matt Stuart does. I wonder if "Made Blinds" would have the impact it has without the body of work which is The Americans.
Last edited:
dyao
Well-known
Yes, which is why I have little patience for many other genres of photography! For me, the best pictures have a sort of unresolved tension, energies within the frame that invite deeper contemplation. Easily apprehended meaning is not interesting, to me - what more is there to look at in the frame? What more is there to think about?
nightfly
Well-known
I attended a street photography forum with Matt Stuart, Jeff Mermelstein and a few others (maybe Gus Powell?) at the Museum of the City of New York a few years back and I totally concur with this assessment of his photos.
They don't really invite further contemplation. He is very well spoken but I do find his photos a little simplistic. However that forum opened my eyes to color street photography in a way that is still percolating through my system. Joel Meyerwitz was there as well but as I recall he was in the audience, not a participant.
I often resist the urge to shoot the easy visual pun or one liner or edit it out later if I simply couldn't help myself. Once in awhile though they do creep in.
I think this idea of the unresolved tension in the photo you need to really look at to get is what challenged me initially about Gary Winogrand, his best photos tend to be crowded and dense and resist your initial efforts to understand but ultimately become more satisfying with further examination (although he occasionally has the monkey in the car type of photos that succumb to the sort of easy one liner that's tough to resist).
Last edited: