This is street photography?

[tuanvinh2000]

The winning submissions all have their own stories if you read the interviews within inside. It shows how humans connect to their surrounding and define their own perspectives. I see quite a few of them still shooting film (medium format/large format).
They use effectively the composition to reflect their points and worthy winners. I'm on the same page with Rich minus the imitation of street photography on RFF part. I think we all learn/have fun during the process and share with friends here.

 

[airfrogusmc]

One thing that did happen in the early to mid part of the last century was the death of pictorial photography. Photograph that was trying to imitate paintings. Adams, Weston, a changed Stieglitz were all responsible but so were Bresson, Eisenstaedt, Kertesz with their work. They all knew for photography to be an art form separate from other forms it had to do what it does best. Things that painting, sculpture, literature, music can't do.

One thing prevalent in all good work is a strong use of visual language. Bresson wrote a lot about that very thing and more important its was in his work. I think it is in all good work being produced today. As long as we find humans interesting I think there will always be this type of urban work being produced. Like anything it will always be in a state of change and constantly moving and reinventing itself as it should.

 

[zauhar]

The winning submissions all have their own stories if you read the interviews within inside. It shows how humans connect to their surrounding and define their own perspectives. I see quite a few of them still shooting film (medium format/large format).
They use effectively the composition to reflect their points and worthy winners. I'm on the same page with Rich minus the imitation of street photography on RFF part. I think we all learn/have fun during the process and share with friends here.

I am not really negative in my reactions to the contest photos. I did not read the backstories, but did look at a number of the images, and I think many of them are very, very good.

(Although I still can't get over the prize winner with its microscopic bare ass. )

Randy

 

[airfrogusmc]

A fine analysis Rich. I would suggest that the decisive moment style is now relegated to the dustbin because it is difficult. It is hidden. It involves much time, invested with no immediate result, a large element of chance, perhaps even the magic of ones psyche to put oneself at the right place at the right time.

Contrast the classic street photographer like Cartier-Bresson with his modern counterpart. (This is all fantasy on my part, so sue me.) HCB strolls the streets - or stays in one place. He has a simple camera, maybe only one lens. He does not appear to be doing much. At the end of the day he unloads his camera, ultimately ignorant as to whether or not he succeeded in capturing anything of value.

The modern photographer is constantly in motion. Gear to set up, maybe a tripod. Since he is a recorder of snapshots, of raw reality unencumbered by his own psyche, he can get right at it. He has immediate feedback from his LCD screen, and on silicon he is ready to accumulate thousands of images. At the end of the day, he knows exactly what he has. Back at his office, he spends hours enhancing the images (not quite snapshots, are they?), hours of constant activity.

In short, the modern photographer is the epitome of "Busy-ness". Like the office worker who needs to fill every hour with pointless meetings and email, constructing spreadsheets with numbers that in the end build nothing and fill no bellies. Just as the modern photographer has a rich Art House vocabulary to give apparent meaning to their toil, likewise the modern office worker has an extensive (if laughable) toolkit of words to justify all they are doing.

I doubt that many RFFers have illusions that the images they post are on par with notable photographers, rather they are sharing their current work with friends.

Randy

EDIT: Before I am pounced on, yes I did understand that you were not describing the contest photos as 'merely' snapshots, but rather recognized their subtle organization and structure.

I don't see it in dustbins. Its alive and well and I see it in work being done today and I feel its still what separates the good from ordinary. I try to find it in my own work everyday. (shameless plug)

It is hard and it takes a lot of time to gain the visual skills needed. I think Steichen said it takes years for a photographer to develop not unlike a musician. Its not any different today.

The moment lives and is still in most of the work that matters.

 

[dabick42]

@ Rich C...

Firstly, I think you'll find, on closer inspection, that the comment you've attributed to me was in fact posted by ''clayne'' in post 78.

Secondly, I refute your assertion that decisive-moment street photography has become ''irrelevant'', has ''burnt itself out'' and is ''dismissed by most serious photographers''.

What nonsense is this ?

Are you seriously suggesting that casual snapshots shamelessly hyped as cutting edge street art - as typically depicted by the first 3 placings in this sadly misnamed competition - are in any way comparable to the ''decisive moment'' artwork of the acknowledged masters of the genre from the past ?

Don't delude yourself, Rich.... casual snapshots are just that, and will ever remain so.

They are sow's ears that will never become silk purses, no matter how much hype is poured over them....

 

[BlackXList]

As jsrocket says, these images are far more typical of photography, an opinion supported by history and usage. It’s more likely that the “decisive-moment street photography” style beloved by RFF will become relegated to the past. In fact, it’s arguable that it has already become irrelevant as a photographic approach, and has “burnt itself out as it grew old amazingly fast”: it’s certainly dismissed by most serious photographers (e.g. look through the portfolios of Magnum photographers who joined the agency within the last two decades).

The true photograph is the snapshot, a record of the world, showing the deliberate and the extraneous - and this applies to nearly all photographs: those being taken now, and those from the past. Fox Talbot - one of the inventor’s photography - alludes to this snapshot aesthetic that so many of you dismiss, in the world’s first photobook published in the 1840s, “The Pencil of Nature” (free, here):



Although I speak of “snapshots”, this is mere shorthand: a snapshot is spontaneous with no artistic or other intent than to simply record, taken without regard to technique. The images in this competition - which Dabchick calls "look at what I can see, observant aren't I?” photography - are not snapshots: they show a high degree of technical skill, compositional ability and concern with narrative and our culture.

In contrast, the highly contrived, poor attempt at the “decisive moment” beloved by RFF is about performance, shape and geometry - not the essence of photography. These images are “all show and no go”. Most decisive moment photographs on RFF are nothing of the sort: they’re simply awkward moments and juxtapositions. The decisive moment is far more complex than capturing an aesthetic moment, often involving a person caught mid-movement. Even Cartier-Bresson acknowledges this: the decisive moment is composition plus the peripeteia - the “story telling” moment. It’s about capturing that time during the unfurling of an event that tells us most about what’s happening. Picture a kissing couple... It seems that for most (including RFF, judging from the gallery) the decisive moment is when they kiss - but you’ve missed Cartier-Bresson’s point entirely.

Let us return to our amorous couple – would not a picture of them a moment before the kiss, eyes locked on each other, lips parted, not quite touching, tell us more about their passion than the kiss itself? Or maybe the moment after, longing and desperation apparent as they part? The kiss itself tells us far less. This idea of picturing the perfect moment of a narrative is by no means new, and long predates Cartier-Bresson and photography: it’s Diderot’s instant, described by the critic in the mid-18th century.

In short, the images in this competition are far more relevant to photography and to culture, through their acknowledgement of picture-making and technology - both in the present and historical - than most so-called “street photography” encountered today (like much of the photography on RFF). And also far truer to Cartier-Bresson's forging of the decisive moment than the many pale imitations on RFF.

A child's first squawking attempts on a saxophone are more typical of Saxophone usage in history than the sounds that Coltrane got from it.

That in no way means that the "true" saxophone players are the children, and that in some way Coltrane's work is less "true"

Simply being in step with the majority of usage has no special meaning, in fact quite the opposite, and it's usually the artists who move outside of that typical usage in some way, or find their own aspect of it that create lasting works.

If you prefer the snapshotty work that's fine (and I'm using the shorthand for snapshot that has been used in this thread, with no other connotation),but to proclaim it "true photography" or "truer to photography" is ridiculous.

There are plenty of images in that competition that are just pastiche of what Saul Leiter has been doing for many years. therefore they do not have any sudden intrinsic relevance to "now"

In fact I'd go so far as to say your entire response is illustrative of the "fine art" approach to street photography, that's more about the theory than the moment.

For me the street photography that comes from that angle lacks any immediacy and impact, it may be technically "clever" but it leaves me utterly unmoved.

When people talk about HCB etc having studied painting etc, it was so that the visual language became fluid to him, perhaps unconscious, the knowledge provides a foundation, but the work is about feel.

Too much of the work in those galleries seems like it's about the knowledge to me, and not the feel, and as such, I don't connect with it. It's one thing knowing the structure and history of a language, and quite another being able to express yourself in it.

 

[PatrickCheung]

Has anyone bothered to click on the winning entrant's photo to see the rest of his stuff? It's all pretty amusing...

I mean, he won, and there's nothing people can do about that. To be honest, I was kind of wondering why... but viewing the rest of his photos kind of helped me understand why... this guy sees and captures some pretty bizarre things, and almost all the scenes he captures are insanely surreal and quite hilarious, and I think that deserves some credit/merit.

Even if the scenes were set up, I don't think anyone here would have considered shooting what he did, and that too deserves some credit.

Whether or not it fits our personal definition of street photography... well that's up in the air.

 

[Godfrey]

Having just been to the Garry Winograd exhibition yesterday at SFMOMA, flipping through the photos shown for the International Street Photography contest I didn't see much of anything that caught my interest when it comes to street photography.

G

 

[RichC]

@ Rich C...

I think you'll find, on closer inspection, that the comment you've attributed to me was in fact posted by ''clayne'' in post 78.

Apologies for the misattribution.

@ Rich C...
Are you seriously suggesting that casual snapshots shamelessly hyped as cutting edge street art ... are in any way comparable to the ''decisive moment'' artwork of the acknowledged masters of the genre from the past ?

Don't delude yourself, Rich.... casual snapshots are just that, and will ever remain so.

Oh, I agree entirely. BUT the photos in the competition are a million miles away from casual snapshots - there's nothing "casual" about them whatsoever, albeit they acknowledge that aesthetic, as much modern photography does.

You may not like the trajectory of photography - the aesthetic you so abhor began in, roughly, the 1970s (that's four decades ago now) - but time and culture move on.

The photography you like is an anachronism, relegated to the backwaters of inhabited by the amateur photographer. The serious photographer has moved on to fresh, more fertile pastures... Just look at recent Magnum portfolios, or at the winning entries of every major photographic competition, or the output of every photographic degree, or any contemporary exhibition of photography in a gallery - then tell me who's being deluded...

 

[airfrogusmc]

Apologies for the misattribution.


Oh, I agree entirely. BUT the photos in the competition are a million miles away from casual snapshots - there's nothing "casual" about them whatsoever, albeit they acknowledge that aesthetic, as much modern photography does.

You may not like the trajectory of photography - the aesthetic you so abhor began in, roughly, the 1970s (that's four decades ago now) - but time and culture move on.

The photography you like is an anachronism, relegated to the backwaters of inhabited by the amateur photographer. The serious photographer has moved on to fresh, more fertile pastures... Just look at recent Magnum portfolios, or at the winning entries of every major photographic competition, or the output of every photographic degree, or any contemporary exhibition of photography in a gallery - then tell me who's being deluded...

HHMMMM I see plenty there that used language and the moment quite well I commented in detail on one. See #35

 

[RichC]

HHMMMM I see plenty there that used language and the moment quite well I commented in detail on one. See #35

Not saying that these competition photos don't. In fact, the opposite: they are very carefully constructed, and the photographers are seemingly well aware of visual language, composition and the history of art and photography (including the decisive moment and street photographers like Winograd).

But these photographers are also place their practice well within contemporary photography strategies, as reflected by the more reflective, "deadpan" aesthetic in several of the images.

 

[dabick42]

@ Rich C...

I don't mind that you've arbitrarily shoved the type of photography I like into a pigeonhole labelled ''anachronism''.

Perhaps you think that I, personally, am also an anachronism....

Maybe so.

As Clint Eastwood famously said, ''opinions are like a***holes, everybody's got one''.

But after 5 decades of active photography and a lifelong interest in visual art in all its forms, I can recognise talent and ability when I see it, and can detect BS when I smell it.

Regardless of any accompanying arty-farty prose extolling its ''virtues'', any image created by whatever means must stand alone on its own merits and to be considered successful it must excite the emotions, delight the eyeballs and elicit admiration and respect for its creator.

Social snapshots don't do this for me 99.9% of the time, but if they float your boat, so be it.

Perhaps I really AM an anachronism.... (!)

 

[hlockwood]

Apologies for the misattribution.


Oh, I agree entirely. BUT the photos in the competition are a million miles away from casual snapshots - there's nothing "casual" about them whatsoever, albeit they acknowledge that aesthetic, as much modern photography does.

You may not like the trajectory of photography - the aesthetic you so abhor began in, roughly, the 1970s (that's four decades ago now) - but time and culture move on.

The photography you like is an anachronism, relegated to the backwaters of inhabited by the amateur photographer. The serious photographer has moved on to fresh, more fertile pastures... Just look at recent Magnum portfolios, or at the winning entries of every major photographic competition, or the output of every photographic degree, or any contemporary exhibition of photography in a gallery - then tell me who's being deluded...

I sense from this and previous posts, Rich, that in your view "amateur photographer" and "serious photographer" just don't fit together. Those of us who make claim to being both serious and amateurs are among the many who are anachronisms, who are outside the current trajectory of photography, and who are relegated to the backwaters of photographic history. Out with the old and in with the new "modern" photography!

This attitude also permeates your disdainful comments about what street photography is, or should be, all about. But the sponsors of the contest had a different view, seen here.

Do you not see why so many of the posts here disagree with the choices made by the judges? Do you not see any conflict between your position and what the sponsors sought from the entrants? Was there not a disconnect between what the sponsors sought and what the judges wrought?

For consistency, perhaps you should instead be lobbying against the very existence of such a narrowly defined (and outdated) contest as this one.

HFL

 

[Godfrey]

...
The photography you like is an anachronism, relegated to the backwaters of inhabited by the amateur photographer. The serious photographer has moved on to fresh, more fertile pastures... Just look at recent Magnum portfolios, or at the winning entries of every major photographic competition, or the output of every photographic degree, or any contemporary exhibition of photography in a gallery - then tell me who's being deluded...

That's quite a set of sweeping generalities there, RichC.

I don't care about winning major photographic competitions, obtaining photographic degrees, or being in sync with contemporary exhibitions (although I've done all of those things in recent years anyway).

I care about making photographs that matter to me, and to my clients if I'm doing photography for clients. Nothing else is important to me as a serious photographer, whether I'm a pro (someone making their income from photography, for hire) or an amateur (someone who does photography for the love of the pursuit of photography for whatever reason).

Serious and casual are orthogonal in meaning to amateur and professional.

G

 

[sevo]

Regardless of any accompanying arty-farty prose extolling its ''virtues'', any image created by whatever means must stand alone on its own merits

Hardly so. And you can't even make believe it does unless you deliberately ignore the entire art theory of the past century. It is impossible to stand alone on your own merits - every man made work inevitably is a reflection of his social, cultural and historical environment.

 

[clayne]

Not saying that these competition photos don't. In fact, the opposite: they are very carefully constructed, and the photographers are seemingly well aware of visual language, composition and the history of art and photography (including the decisive moment and street photographers like Winograd).

And this is what makes it so damn annoying - they're all carefully *constructed* - carrying loads of synthetic "feeling" with it. Engineered photography. Being well aware of the language to the point of imprinting that awareness on each photograph is cloying and shallow. In certain ways, it also lacks humbleness and integrity.

The photography you like is an anachronism, relegated to the backwaters of inhabited by the amateur photographer. The serious photographer has moved on to fresh, more fertile pastures... Just look at recent Magnum portfolios, or at the winning entries of every major photographic competition, or the output of every photographic degree, or any contemporary exhibition of photography in a gallery - then tell me who's being deluded...

This is such complete BS. Straight-forward photography, in general, that does not depend on gimmicks or cliche is quite alive and practiced by many real photographers. It may not be in vogue or what all the kids are after these days - but that means very little in the grand scheme of things. Street photography, of the "traditional" sense, is just a sub-set of straight-forward photography.

If you think snap-shots are the bee-knees, then great - but that doesn't mean everything else is anachronistic and outdated. If you want to pull the Magnum card, I'd respond that the majority of their "new" photographers pump out loads of crap as it is.

Everyone may pronounce on the surface how great it is, but that's just the emperor's new clothes.

 

[RichC]

Re. "amateur" vs "serious" photography... It’s worth mentioning that I straddle both - I’m a member of my local camera club (to which I shall always be grateful, as it was through them that I learnt how to use a camera and became passionate about photography) but I will also graduate this year with a master’s degree in photography (after being tutored by Mark Power, of Magnum). So, no disrespect to either.

I guess what got my goat were comments like:

“I guess these are the cream of the crap”
“The emperor has no clothes...”
“boring, with rather weak technical parameters and not so pleasant composition”
​

My aim is more at those posters. You wouldn’t like someone dismissing your photographs as crap, would you? Treat others as you expect to be treated. Of course, not liking these competition photographs, and stating why, is perfectly OK - but to insult and heap vitriol and invective on the photographers...? They aren't here to defend themselves, so I felt it fair to take the stand for them.

We are all free to photograph in our own ways, but it annoys me when certain photographers feel the need to exalt their way of seeing above all others and also heap vitriol and invective on other forms and styles of photography - be it, say, contemporary photographers like Gursky or Photoshop.

To those who disparaged this competition, you do yourself an injustice if you close your eyes to the wider practice of photography outside of your own. You don’t have to like these photographers, but to insult them is small minded...

 

[zauhar]

I don't see it in dustbins. Its alive and well and I see it in work being done today and I feel its still what separates the good from ordinary. I try to find it in my own work everyday. (shameless plug)

It is hard and it takes a lot of time to gain the visual skills needed. I think Steichen said it takes years for a photographer to develop not unlike a musician. Its not any different today.

The moment lives and is still in most of the work that matters.

Nice photo Allen, were I in Chicago I would make a point to see your work.

I of course don't really believe that street photography is in the dustbin, just that there is a class of people that would prefer to see it that way. ;-)

Randy

 

[RichC]

And this is what makes it so damn annoying - they're all carefully *constructed* - carrying loads of synthetic "feeling" with it. Engineered photography. Being well aware of the language to the point of imprinting that awareness on each photograph is cloying and shallow. In certain ways, it also lacks humbleness and integrity.

And you think that the hallowed names of street photography didn't "engineer" their photographs and "imprint awareness"?!

They were just as aware of culture, history and art as today's photographers, and many had academic training in the arts - just a few examples off the top of my head... Cartier-Bresson went to art school and had rigorous theoretical art training, David "Chim" Seymour went to the Berlin Academy for Graphic and Book Arts, Lee Friedlander also went to art school, Garry Winogrand studied painting and photography at university.

 

[clayne]

And you think that the hallowed names of street photography didn't "engineer" their photographs and "imprint awareness"?!

They were just as aware of culture, history and art as today's photographers, and many had academic training in the arts - just a few examples off the top of my head... Cartier-Bresson went to art school and had rigorous theoretical art training, David "Chim" Seymour went to the Berlin Academy for Graphic and Book Arts, Lee Friedlander also went to art school, Garry Winogrand studied painting and photography at university.

To be aware of what makes a photograph work is not engineering. Your example of Winogrand is probably the worst - as he was well-known for burning many, many rolls without even looking at them. Actually shooting a photograph, in the non-premeditated context, is about reflexive seeing. What makes a photograph work and how that comes into play after the fact is where editing/culling is involved. I'm purely talking about pre-meditation, and you know that, but you're playing games.

We are all free to photograph in our own ways, but it annoys me when certain photographers feel the need to exalt their way of seeing above all others and also heap vitriol and invective on other forms and styles of photography - be it, say, contemporary photographers like Gursky or Photoshop.

Right, because expressing an opinion on why one doesn't like the particular photographs exhibited is heaping vitriol and invective on them? Of course, referring to 100+ years of straight-up photography as an anachronism and it's purveyors as anachronists pursuing a dead form of photography is alright, since it's coming from you right?

To those who disparaged this competition, you do yourself an injustice if you close your eyes to the wider practice of photography outside of your own. You don’t have to like these photographers, but to insult them is small minded...

That's a bit hypocritical based on some of the other things you've said. People are allowed to express opinions on forms of photography they don't care for. You just don't like it because you fall into that group.

Guess what? Master degree, mentorship or not, while your arguments presented are clearly worded and thought out - results matter.