Margu
Established
watching tv is not the alternative to street photography. everything around can be a subject of photography, just because all the cool photographers are street photographers it does not mean everyone must "make their bones" on the streets.
I never said it was... my point is that what you consider a waste of time has bore many a great photo.
I agree. Many here know me personally and have seen my photography. I will photograph anything. In NYC I can't help but photograph in the streets if I don't want to photograph inside or be inside a small patch of woods in a public park.
Of course not, but to categorically dismiss a whole genre as a dead end is naive.
Michael Markey
Veteran
THe_traveler
Newbie
It's hard to ignore a categorical post like this, even at the risk of being rude in my first posting, but street photography is about the only part of photography I like, everything else is boring to me.
I have been asked not to take pictures 2 or 3 times and the only time the interaction rose above the level of conversation was in the park in Chinatown, SF when someone, who was 90 degrees from my pov, took umbrage and took a swing at me and started yelling. He was drunk and incoherent, I just held my ground and told him to go away and the situation dissolved.
Regardless of Margu's opinion, I think I will keep on shooting.
Margu
Established
do people enjoy looking at street photography?
in my own case, i almost never feel like editing or processing my own street photography images, to me that is a clear message from myself that this is not a genre for me.
in my own case, i almost never feel like editing or processing my own street photography images, to me that is a clear message from myself that this is not a genre for me.
Yes, they do. Of course, it's up to the viewer to find the stuff worth looking at. Garry Winogrand has had huge retrospectives... not sure the Museums would do that if nobody was interested.
Margu
Established
i'm sure there are people who're interested in street photography but i have yet to meet one.
imo the only people interested in street photography are people who do street photography. which makes the whole activity sort of inherently subjective... can art be subjective? i don't know. in my view art has to be objective.
So, huge retrospectives of a street photographer's work is only attended by other street photographers?
I'm not so sure Art can ever be objective. It relies too much on a viewer's perspective, experiences, and culture for it to be objective. And it's hard to photograph without bias and its hard for a photo to be a fact on its own.
Margu
Established
people attend retrospectives mainly because its a cool thing to do. people like famous people and when someone becomes famous, even if their work is no good, people with typical herd mentality think if this guy has become famous then he must be good.
art is defined by objectivity otherwise it would be nothing more than personal preference. something becomes art when it stops being subjective and becomes objective.
Highway 61
Revisited
Can you define what you call "street photography" ?
Just now in the Classifieds there is a masterpiece of a photograph which isn't a studio/macro/architecture/colors for colors/graphism for graphism/portrait/abstraction/Polaroid like/Instagram crap/lens testing/bricks wall/family boring snap photograph.
For me that kind of photograph is the quintessence of "street photography" as an Art.
As you can check by yourself, not a random shot of something being in front of the "street photographer". I don't want to be petty so I guess there is no need to tell why this photo is a masterpiece.
So - not too sure that we both speak of the same thing.
Ah and by the way, this is that photograph by Simon, one of our fellow RFFers.
Don't curators, editors, etc. use personal preference (among other factors) when choosing what to show?
Definition of objective:
- free of bias: free of any bias or prejudice caused by personal feelings
- based on facts: based on facts rather than thoughts or opinions
Margu
Established
street photography is one of those things that everyone familiar with it knows what it is but its at the same time impossible to define, which is another knock against it. if something cannot be defined it means its incomplete. street photography is an incomplete genre of photography, in fact its not even a genre, a genre is a complete structure.
street photography can produce pleasing images, but considering the output, the number of those are very few.
in the end of the day street photography could be considered practice photography or what photographers do when they're looking for inspiration or trying to perfect their skills, or simply clearing their mind. for street photography to be anything more than that requires a stroke of genius. that is why there are not more than five "great" streets photographers and only two are alive today - Robert Frank and William Klein.
Highway 61
Revisited
Margu
Established
an objective work of art appeals to everybody, regardless of class and creed, education or any other self reference criterion.
when people look at sistine chapel, they all know that is art, irrespective of who they're.
art has power and that makes it objective
rivercityrocker
Well-known
You seem to think everyone does everything because "it is cool". SO WHAT? If people want to be "cool" then let them. If street photography is too "cool" for you, don't do it. If you don't like to look at it, don't look at it.
I like looking at street photography. Not because it's "cool", but because it's a way to see the everyday world through someone else's eyes.
About 80% of what people who call themselves street photographers are awful at it. But then again so are about 80% of the portrait photography photos on flickr.
Personally, I don't even like the term street photography, and I don't fancy myself a street photographer, but I do shoot quite a bit in that style. Maybe it's because I spend a lot of time in urban environments, but I certainly find photographing people a lot more interesting than taking pictures of dogs and flowers all day. And you know what? I take dog and flower pictures quite a bit too.
To be so dismissive about a whole genre and group of photographers just because you think it's boring or pointless is narrow-minded.
Edit: Since you're bashing all street photographers how about posting a link to your recent work? Is your photography considered art?
So, then there is no art right? Nothing appeals to everyone.
Highway 61
Revisited
Hey - I've been inside the Sistine Chapel. In can tell you for sure that one of those cool people attending that cool show didn't even know there was Art on the ceiling, but knew there were some cool money and valuable goodies in my cool shoulder bag !
Margu
Established
let me reply to major points in the replies:
1- cool factor
people buy a million dollar car not because of its practical transportation value, they buy it because its one of the ultimate cool things to own. cool factor is woven in the very fabric of today's society. everything in the west and now in the east revolves around the cool factor, even if people are unaware of it.
and of course those rich people who buy art and keep it under lock and key are not interested in art, they're interested in the cool feeling of owning art.
2: appeal of art
art is not appealing or unappealing, its art. that label itself raises it above the ordinary. sistine chapel is not appealing or unappealing, it has no description and that is why its art. if it can be described then its ordinary.
1- cool factor
people buy a million dollar car not because of its practical transportation value, they buy it because its one of the ultimate cool things to own. cool factor is woven in the very fabric of today's society. everything in the west and now in the east revolves around the cool factor, even if people are unaware of it.
and of course those rich people who buy art and keep it under lock and key are not interested in art, they're interested in the cool feeling of owning art.
2: appeal of art
art is not appealing or unappealing, its art. that label itself raises it above the ordinary. sistine chapel is not appealing or unappealing, it has no description and that is why its art. if it can be described then its ordinary.
rivercityrocker
Well-known
You're typing out words, but the context has no real meaning.
Honestly, I find your musings on "art and coolness" laughable. You're spouting off pointless observations.
Put your money where your mouth is and show us some of your art.
Really, it has no description?