Street photography by google.

[Lund]

Stumbled across this link there Jon Rafman has collected pictures taken by the Google street view project. What amazed my was how great many of the pictures are. Some by interesting content, but many just being good photography in their own right. For some reason it was very inspiring to me, in the just keep shooting kind of way.

http://9-eyes.com/

 

[Sparrow]

They're awful, just art by chance ... almost as awful as Gilbert and George, but without all the pretension.

... and they blurred the face of that pink rabbit suit, bizarre

 

[c.poulton]

Thanks for the heads up Lund - very interesting considering the pictures are really just lucky accidents that work. Some are really amazing too!

 

[uinku]

Here's an interesting Wired article that juxtaposes Jon Rafman's images with Michael Wolf's.

“In Tumblr and blog culture, authorship tends to get lost as interesting texts get blogged and reblogged without even the expectation of citation,” says Rafman. “I’ve had my entire blog stripped and reposted on someone else’s blog without attribution. In fact, you know you have ‘succeeded’ on the internet when your work is circulated so much that you lose authorship. The notion of an internet ‘commons’ can be a two-edged sword.”

 

[Griffin]

There are some seriously great shots there. Thanks.

 

[Neare]

They're awful, just art by chance ... almost as awful as Gilbert and George, but without all the pretension.

... and they blurred the face of that pink rabbit suit, bizarre

That's half the styles of photography and probably what you practice too.
Looking at another link that he links to http://googlestreetviews.com/installation_pics.html I think those shots are actually great, as long as the artist does not try to make it as if they took the pictures themselves it's all above board.

 

[raytoei@gmail.com]

i think google cam is tuned for street walkers and working girls...

 

[Sparrow]

That's half the styles of photography and probably what you practice too.
Looking at another link that he links to http://googlestreetviews.com/installation_pics.html I think those shots are actually great, as long as the artist does not try to make it as if they took the pictures themselves it's all above board.

... sadly our opinions differ, art requires the intervention a human intellect, that is just blind chance

... and while my stuff may well be impromptu they are not unreasoned or unpractised

 

[Neare]

... sadly our opinions differ, art requires the intervention a human intellect, that is just blind chance

... and while my stuff may well be impromptu they are not unreasoned or unpractised

The intention to plow through googlestreetview for and pluck out bits of randomness is what qualifies it as art, not photography. The 'art' behind this is not how they were taken, but rather how art exists everywhere, intentions or not.

 

[uinku]

Stewart, people were making the same criticism about photograph a century ago.

Rafman's likened his Street View photographs to readymades. If you're not a fan of Duchamp, or the Dadaists, there's a chance you wouldn't enjoy Rafman or Michael Wolf's work.

 

[GoneSavage]

The most interesting photoset I've seen in months, and definitely artistic. I was amazed at how much I disliked Micheal Wolf's interpretations of identical content.

 

[Sparrow]

The intention to plow through googlestreetview for and pluck out bits of randomness is what qualifies it as art, not photography. The 'art' behind this is not how they were taken, but rather how art exists everywhere, intentions or not.

... that's an editor, not an artist

 

[Sparrow]

Stewart, people were making the same criticism about photograph a century ago.

Rafman's likened his Street View photographs to readymades. If you're not a fan of Duchamp, or the Dadaists, there's a chance you wouldn't enjoy Rafman or Michael Wolf's work.

That's not art ... this is art!

 

[Neare]

Stewart the art world is endlessly broad, it's all how you approach it and who your audience is. Once upon a time art was painting and sculpture only, nowadays some people place a cardboard box in the middle of the floor and call it art.

Everything can be art provided you approach it in the way assuming it is art. Very few ever consider the aesthetic design that when into my computer screen and to some people out there, they would consider it art. Just as if I took that same computer screen, smashed it and stuck it in the middle of a gallery, some would call that art.

IMO, I think you're just not opening your mind up to how these sorts of works could be art in their own way. Not all art is alike.

 

[Sparrow]

Stewart the art world is endlessly broad, it's all how you approach it and who your audience is. Once upon a time art was painting and sculpture only, nowadays some people place a cardboard box in the middle of the floor and call it art.

Everything can be art provided you approach it in the way assuming it is art. Very few ever consider the aesthetic design that when into my computer screen and to some people out there, they would consider it art. Just as if I took that same computer screen, smashed it and stuck it in the middle of a gallery, some would call that art.

IMO, I think you're just not opening your mind up to how these sorts of works could be art in their own way. Not all art is alike.

Sorry but no, a bit of found driftwood is not sculpture, the wind in a tree is not music, a running horse is not dance and a coloured daub made by a chimpanzee is not a painting ... art needs to be first conceived in the mind of man, that's what art means, that's what an artisan is, this is just edited happenstance

 

[Neare]

Haha fine we disagree, I think all those examples above could qualify as art under certain circumstances.

 

[Griffin]

The intention to plow through googlestreetview for and pluck out bits of randomness is what qualifies it as art, not photography. The 'art' behind this is not how they were taken, but rather how art exists everywhere, intentions or not.

Bit late, but yeah.

 

[Lund]

Sorry but no, a bit of found driftwood is not sculpture, the wind in a tree is not music, a running horse is not dance and a coloured daub made by a chimpanzee is not a painting ... art needs to be first conceived in the mind of man, that's what art means, that's what an artisan is, this is just edited happenstance

Pierre Brassau isn't bad considering the style he painted. Even though he wasn't human.

http://ecclesiastes911.net/story/pierre_brassau.html

 

[kai.zorki]

I agree with Neare.
I think these googlestreetview pictures are indeed art. For me they show the randomness of life and also remind me of the question: "If a tree falls and no one hears it, does it make a sound?"

 

[andersju]

Quite seriously one of the most interesting collections of pictures I've seen in a long time. Thanks for the link.

Art? Definitely. I agree with Neare.

And the Pierre Brassau story is wonderful. 🙂