The Absurdist

[pesphoto]

Do you feel the same about Winogrand or Helen Levitt or.......?
Honestly curious about your answer....

All he was saying is that it's extremely average "documentary" photography of things commonly seen in the street in NYC. Nothing special or inherently interesting to someone who lives here.

It's not fantastic photography, to my way of thinking, it's VERY ordinary clicking to capture common sights in the street.

The photos of Mars are extraordinary for us, because they are the first, and we've never seen them before. For a Martian, they are same old, same old.

 

[M. Valdemar]

Street photography for the sake of street photography is boring.

I actually find video footage of streets a lot more interesting than some of the stills.

It's been done very well already:

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/edhtml/edmpfr.html

 

[M. Valdemar]

Do you feel the same about Winogrand or Helen Levitt or.......?
Honestly curious about your answer....

I've extensively commented on Winogrand in another thread. This is one where Fred and I disagree.

In a nutshell, Winogrand doesn't impress me too much.

 

[pesphoto]

Found this on Stephen Shames website. thanks Fred.....

 

[M. Valdemar]

Let's say this Mermelstein character was using a disposable camera or a cheap digital camera to take the same photos.

If he wasn't walking around like a psycho holding his camera like a pistol, and you saw the same video of him taking his photos with a disposable camera, would you still think he was as talented?

Let's say you didn't know who he was. They showed you two videos. One of a guy taking photos with a disposable or cheap digital camera, and one with a fancy, expensive black M-Leica.

They didn't show ANY photos in the video, just him taking photos. When you were shown the photos afterwards, would your opinion of his photos be prejudiced because of the camera you perceived he was using?

What if a chimpanzee was taking the photos? Or a baby? Or a teenager on skateboard?

Answer honestly.

 

[Nh3]

... But I should add that the difference between an amateur and a professional/creative photographer is that extra step that extra push to the edge.

I don't have a problem at all with in-your-face aggressive photography as long as the results are worth it and the intention of the photographer is creative photos rather than showing off.

A majority of great/respected photographers are aggressive shooters and they shoot a lot as well, for example watch this video of David Allen Harvey, his a magnum photographer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aES5WD22FBA

 

[M. Valdemar]

What if a Middle-Eastern looking man wearing a gigantic turban and a Bin Laden t-shirt took photos in NYC the same way?

What about a really large, angry-looking black man?

What about an orthodox Jew?

Or a man wearing high boots and military/swat gear?

Or a very pretty woman in a tight mini-skirt?

Or a bum dressed in smelly rags?

Which one would be arrested or detained immediately for shoving a camera in people's faces and taking photos of them without permission?

 

[Nh3]

A trick that every photographer working on the street knows or must learn is that one should not stand out, act as if you know what you're doing and smile and nod and talk as often as you can.

If there is no time for that, exude a lot of confidence and act as if you know what you're doing and be calm and collected.

A photographer must be a good actor as well.