The Street

Most of my, what to call it, travel or cultural and social documentary photography, wouldn't qualify as "street photography". They do have a lot of what generally is associated with the term "street" though, the dust of being out there.
kbg32 said:
I do not care much for the term/label "street photography". I am an "urban" photographer.
Click to expand...
"Urban photographer", I like that. Keith, I am curious, would good part of your photos possibly also not qualify as "street photography"?
 
It's documentary photography. Unless it's been content-manipulated, in which case it's illustration or photo art or something other than documentary.
How far from the public, multi-use (vehicles and pedestrians) thoroughfare is the line that determines that it isn't "street" photography any more? An alleyway, a city park, the beach, a construction site, a side street in a small town or village, an amusement park, a national park?
Also, the terms 'street photography' and the much more embarrassing 'street' have been so monetized and memed-up that it would be best not use them for a while.
 
pluton said:
It's documentary photography. Unless it's been content-manipulated, in which case it's illustration or photo art or something other than documentary..
Click to expand...

Right, in theory. However, for many of my "documentary" photos I take "on the street" I ask subjects if I can take the photo first. This will be seen as content manipulated and therefore not documentary any more, right? Which label is left for it then?
Personally I find the reactions, the stance or even pose subjects take, after being asked by this foreign photographer, as being very revealing and showing and certainly documentary, in it's own right, if you will.

E.g. look at these young school girls in Surakarta, Indonesia. As document it profits from some explanation. In Indonesia, as compared to years ago, many more women are covering hair, specially young women, school girls all seem to use hijabs nowadays. When I asked to take the photo one could see, or is it rather my interpretation (?), that they had been pleased and stayed relaxed but at the same time had been challenged. Look at the relaxed body language, legs and feet, but when I lifted my camera something else kicked in, an education, not to say "indoctrination", that reminded them that as good girls they should cover their faces.

It could be labelled "travel photography" and it's a bit of that. Since I have been frequenting most places I take photos in, since many years, mostly speak some of the local language asf. there often must be and will be differences to what generally is considered "travel" photography. It was prior experience of the place, if I may call so, my "historic" interest had made me take this photo. This commonly is little expected from "travel photography". For me it's mostly "documentary", even a bit "street", but for "photography" it's neither.


Untitled by andreas, on Flickr, CV Heliar f4.5/15mm, Sony NEX5n, Java, Indonesia 2018

I respect what has historically grown into "street photography", what is defined as "documentary photography". However, the exclusiveness of labelling may be helpful for marketing but I rather find it limiting and harmful to photography.
 
Rightly or wrongly, when I hear/see the term "street photography" I conjure up pictures in my mind of anonymous people walking down a city street, usually shot from the back, with stupid advertising posters behind them. These anonymous people are doing nothing interesting and the framing of the scenes are almost always the same with high contrast lighting, deep black shadows and cartoon colors.

That's why I grit my teeth when I hear or read the words "street photography".
 
Dogman said:
...anonymous people walking down a city street, usually shot from the back, with stupid advertising posters behind them. These anonymous people are doing nothing interesting and the framing of the scenes are almost always the same with high contrast lighting, deep black shadows and cartoon colors..
Click to expand...

Proudly and unapologetically ‘guilty’ of this…well, without the color…
 
I like the term "street photography." But I don't take it literally, any more that I would insist that landscape photography be exclusively about land.

I consider SP different than documentary photography, in that the latter has an objective, an intention to cover something, like a theme or place or happening. To me, SP follows the flaneur model--idle wandering with no particular goal in mind.

Actually, that was an issue I had with the film "Everybody Street." Most of the photographers covered seemed more like documentary photographers than street photographers.

John
 
Dogman said:
Rightly or wrongly, when I hear/see the term "street photography" I conjure up pictures in my mind of anonymous people walking down a city street, usually shot from the back, with stupid advertising posters behind them. These anonymous people are doing nothing interesting and the framing of the scenes are almost always the same with high contrast lighting, deep black shadows and cartoon colors.

That's why I grit my teeth when I hear or read the words "street photography".
Click to expand...

There's a lot of bad street photography.

But good street photography is assuredly not social documentary. A good street photograph (and we use the term because there isn't a better one) is a photograph that creates an abstraction by combining public ephemera and social interaction. The ordinary becomes extraordinary. Street photography is not portraiture, and it is not reportage in the strict sense. It must be candid. Typically movement is involved. Above all some human moment must be glimpsed and captured.

U74372I1526744537.SEQ.0.jpg
 
johnwolf said:
I like the term "street photography." But I don't take it literally, any more that I would insist that landscape photography be exclusively about land.

I consider SP different than documentary photography, in that the latter has an objective, an intention to cover something, like a theme or place or happening. To me, SP follows the flaneur model--idle wandering with no particular goal in mind.

Actually, that was an issue I had with the film "Everybody Street." Most of the photographers covered seemed more like documentary photographers than street photographers.

John
Click to expand...

Lots of folks hate the term “street photography” but still use it anyway for lack of a better alternative, which itself causes more consternation.

But it’s not the ambiguity of the term that’s most problematic as much as it is the certainty with which some define it: it must be urban, it must include humans—-candids only, it must be black & white, it must use a wide angle, normal at longest, and so on. To note, I actually prefer some of the "rules" I just stated, but I ain't out to semantically impose them.

I agree that most folks who do street photography usually lack any objective other than to find that rare moment when a variety of visual elements combine to create something hopefully compelling…again, a rarity.

As Winogrand said, he took photos to see what something looks like photographed, and that pretty much sums it up.
 
Ansel Adams referring to putting photography into categories:
"Definitions of this kind are inessential and stupid; good photography remains good photography no matter what we name it."-Ansel Adams

"We have been slaves to categories, and each has served as a kind of concentration camp for the spirit"-Ansel Adams

I agree with both statements....

Though the hypocrite in me does label so I am not without that ha ha. I think the left brained world is the one that needs categories. It is how left brained folks seem to understand the world. Thats not a criticism. Only an observation. Without left brained folks that give me a lot of help my business wouldn't make a dime. SERIOUSLY....

Most really creative people don't create to fill a category. Most do it because they have to. They have something to say and usually the medium that stye choose is the only way they can effectively speak their truth. I know when I create I don't for one second even think about what pre existing category the work is going to be labeled as. I just create and let those that do those kinds of thing do their thing.
 
airfrogusmc said:
Ansel Adams referring to putting photography into categories:
"Definitions of this kind are inessential and stupid; good photography remains good photography no matter what we name it."-Ansel Adams

"We have been slaves to categories, and each has served as a kind of concentration camp for the spirit"-Ansel Adams

I agree with both statements....

Though the hypocrite in me does label so I am not without that ha ha. I think the left brained world is the one that needs categories. It is how left brained folks seem to understand the world. Thats not a criticism. Only an observation. Without left brained folks that give me a lot of help my business wouldn't make a dime. SERIOUSLY....

Most really creative people don't create to fill a category. Most do it because they have to. They have something to say and usually the medium that stye choose is the only way they can effectively speak their truth. I know when I create I don't for one second even think about what pre existing category the work is going to be labeled as. I just create and let those that do those kinds of thing do their thing.
Click to expand...

Categories are only useful inasmuch as they describe. Once a category prescribes then it is no longer useful as a category for the artist. The distinction between descriptive and prescriptive is very helpful in this conversation.
 
I don't worry too much about labels. As for street photography, it may not be a very elegant term, but everyone knows what you are talking about so it gets the job done. I read the descriptions of different types of photographers in an early issue of Aperture, and the one that fits my photography best is documentary photographer: "I was there and this is what I saw." It basically covers everything, including landscape, abstract, editorial, etc. You could also say you are a fine art photographer. Everything shows up in galleries these days. Better to be too broad that too narrow. You don't want to artificially limit yourself, unless you do.
 
Darthfeeble said:
Those who can, do. Those who can't create labels and criticize. Any picture should be mostly interesting. There seems to be a lot of "street" shots that just aren't to me.
Click to expand...

I don't't know, Darthfeeble. Labels can give us an identity, focus our efforts, align us with a tradition -- all healthy scenarios. The problem isn't labels; it's over-identification, to the exclusion and judgement of differences.

John
 
Could be worse.

Per Wikipedia:
Heavy metal categories:

Alternative metal
Funk metal
Nu metal
Rap metal
Avant-garde metal
Black metal
National Socialist black metal
Red and Anarchist black metal
Symphonic black metal
Viking metal
War metal
Blackgaze
Christian metal
Unblack metal
Crust punk
Death metal
Blackened death metal
Death 'n' roll
Melodic death metal
Technical death metal
Doom metal
Death/doom
Drone metal
Funeral doom
Sludge metal
Extreme metal
Folk metal
Celtic metal
Pirate metal
Medieval metal
Pagan metal
Glam metal
Gothic metal
Grindcore
Deathgrind
Goregrind
Pornogrind
Industrial metal
Kawaii metal
Latin metal
Metalcore
Melodic metalcore
Deathcore
Mathcore
Neoclassical metal
Neue Deutsche Härte
Post-metal
Power metal
Progressive metal
Djent
Space Metal
Speed metal
Stoner metal
Symphonic metal
Thrash metal
Crossover thrash
Groove metal
Teutonic thrash metal
Traditional heavy metal


And after all of this, we know that the one and only true metal band is Black Sabbath…
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom