What's a "Street" Shot? (round 2)

[MartinL]

This is my second post on this topic (1st was on the M8 forum). I'll start with a much stronger, more obvious, caveat here than that post: This is a matter of personal taste, judgement, and sense-making. I'm not trying to propose criteria for others, but I'd welcome responses, elaboration, disagreement.

I'm trying to solidify my 'developing' ideas on what distinguishes a street shot from all the other sorts of shots taken outdoors in urban environments (portraits, anything candid, architectural, anything in which the principal merit is mostly aesthetic such as pattern, texture, etc). The first thing that came to mind was that the photo (my photo--not yours) should evoke a narrative or story that sets the image as a moment that has a past and future.

I'm offering the photo posted here as an example of how that "moment" need not be a coherent action, but how it can evoke an historical or sociological narrative. This was taken along Sunset Blvd, in L.A. I think it says a lot about my city and probably me
Thanks for listening.
Martin

 

[Morca007]

In my mind, "street" photography is somewhat of a misnomer, as it can happen anywhere. I believe it encompasses any photography that seeks to capture a moment of human interaction, be it with another person, an animal, or nature. The key element differentiating it from other photography being that the subject is generally unaware, and uninfluenced, by the photographer.
Therefore, when I see a photo someone has taken after asking the person, even if they are strangers on the street, a 'spontaneous portrait' rather than a street photograph.

 

[hofrench@mac.co]

I think that Matt's definition works well, certainly for me.
I like to shoot the unaware, mostly unaware, but always unposed image.
I also like the challenge of doing so without being sneaky; without shooting from the hip.

 

[MartinL]

In my mind, "street" photography is somewhat of a misnomer, as it can happen anywhere. I believe it encompasses any photography that seeks to capture a moment of human interaction, be it with another person, an animal, or nature. The key element differentiating it from other photography being that the subject is generally unaware, and uninfluenced, by the photographer.
Therefore, when I see a photo someone has taken after asking the person, even if they are strangers on the street, a 'spontaneous portrait' rather than a street photograph.

That makes sense to me. I might be inclined to replace human interaction with the human condition, because it would allow me to keep my signs photo in the street catetgory. Have to think about that.

IMO, a distinguishing feature is that the moment doesn't stand alone, but ignites some sense-making in the viewer. And to raise the bar even more with a controversial view, diverse viewers will be more inclined than not to respond similarly.

I especially agree about the photographer's influence. To the degree that the photographer has staged or manipulated the image, the viewer can't entirely trust that he or she is not being manipulated by the photographer. OTOH, I can't get enthused about portraits even if they are entirely candid unless they (usually collectively) they help me understand why these faces are important. (Can't be because the face is "interesting" or "pretty." Lots of those around.

 

[MartinL]

I think that Matt's definition works well, certainly for me.
I like to shoot the unaware, mostly unaware, but always unposed image.
I also like the challenge of doing so without being sneaky; without shooting from the hip.

I've spent some time looking at your gallery. I already had it bookmarked. Truly amazing photos and thanks for sharing them.

Many of your shots I'd call, "portraits." Further, you say that they are "always unposed," but so many of your subjects appear to be looking at you squarely and at short distance----it's hard to believe that they don't have some awareness of themselves as subjects.

I think your work (and presentation) are a good example of how the nature of a photo changes as more context is provided. Taken individually, they are artfully captured individuals looking at you or going about their business. But it's when they are placed in a gallery (in Shanghai, for example) they become more than individuals. We all see many such individuals each day. IMO, it takes a photographer to make them characters in a story.
Martin

 

[Doug]

That makes sense to me. I might be inclined to replace human interaction with the human condition, because it would allow me to keep my signs photo in the street catetgory. Have to think about that.

The human condition is of course of major interest. The interaction raises your concern about staging and the issue of candidness. I do a lot of spontaneous portraits, many "environmental". None staged other than by my suggestion to just carry on with what they were doing.

But even staging a shot doesn't mean it conveys falsehood. The other day I saw a group of portraits of City Council members done by a well-known local studio in an environmental way. I'm sure there were additional lighting and assistants with reflectors and film holders, but the intent was clearly to show these people doing something meaningful in their lives and/or careers.

I'm not sure I could agree with your signs photo as "street photography" because it cannot stand alone, without explanation/location; not immediately evident (to me anyway) what it's about. I don't know... OTOH there's lots of photos that are aided by a title or short caption.

 

[MartinL]

I'm not sure I could agree with your signs photo as "street photography" because it cannot stand alone, without explanation/location; not immediately evident (to me anyway) what it's about. I don't know... OTOH there's lots of photos that are aided by a title or short caption.

Yes, the signs photo. Good point.

The photo meets , perhaps, my criteria, but it depends too much on in-your-face irony. In this case, hawking access to stardom that is inherently and legally inaccessable. It's a Hollywood thing.

In other words, it's a street shot---just not a great one. Absent purely visual merit, it may not transport well without an explanation. In which case, who needs the photo?

Irony is a common element in street shots. Catching opposites or contradictions----but it works best when the mismatched elements seem somehow more pleasing, satisfying, confirming-- than what we assumed to be the natural order. I've no problem with captions and titles, but part of the attraction of irony in photography and elsewhere is that the observer gets it on his own and doesn't need to be helped along.

Interesting.
Martin

 

[colinh]

I too would go with Matt's definition and Howard's photos as good examples.

Now, everyone is free to do what they want here (photographically, philosophically etc.), but my initial impression was "who cares?", or to put it more politely, why is a definition important or necessary? Why not just take pictures that appeal to you, choose what you consider to be the "best", and see what people say?

Maybe they would all have something in common and could be classified as something or other, but what if not? Surely you wouldn't walk around saying "Oh, that would have been a good shot, but I'm not sure it meets the RFF criteria for Street Photography, so I'll leave it."?

Now, what constitutes a "good" photograph, and whether one cares if apparently *everyone* else is totally indifferent to them, are an entirely different matter.

This was my impression - I may have missed something.

colin

 

[MartinL]

. . . . more politely, why is a definition important or necessary? Why not just take pictures that appeal to you, choose what you consider to be the "best", and see what people say?. . . .

Clearly, you describe one preferred way of "growing" as a photographer. I'm looking for something in addition to, "I know what I like," and "if it feels good, do it (snap it)." Likewise, when responding to others' photos, I try to offer something more than, "Whatever you like is right for you." Or to offer "encouragement" without substance. Not that these responses are untrue, but they are limited.

Analogies are a slippery slope, but I see my "Street" questions and musings as equivalant to a lifetime of asking questions such as "What distinguishes Italian food from other food?" Why do you prefer this restaurant? "What am I missing when so many people rave about this dish, and I don't get it"? "Why do you prefer 10% robusta in your espresso blend?" In asking, I'm not trying to tell others how to eat or establish rules and definitions for my own eating.

Maybe you consider discussions of "growth" and criteria within an art form as something too contrived and schoolish. But I also think that probing into these matters might interest you more than you let on. You are, after all, asking questions and have given some thought to matters in this thread (even if you prefer others' contributions more than mine).
Martin

 

[back alley]

...The first thing that came to mind was that the photo (my photo--not yours) should evoke a narrative or story that sets the image as a moment that has a past and future...

this sounds more like a documentary photo than a street shot.
to me, street shooting is more about the single moment captured rather than being part of a narrative.

 

[Finder]

Why do you have to apply the term "street" to your work? Does it add to its value? Unfortunately, "street" has no intristic meaning.

 

[MartinL]

...The first thing that came to mind was that the photo (my photo--not yours) should evoke a narrative or story that sets the image as a moment that has a past and future...

this sounds more like a documentary photo than a street shot.
to me, street shooting is more about the single moment captured rather than being part of a narrative.

Yes, I'm increasingly seeing the notions of "street" and "documentary" as overlapping----both benefitting from elements of the other. Documentary, which I do daily-to-weekly also depends heavily on that "single moment captured." However, documentary typically has a structure, a theme, or a statement to be made by which several images may "add up" to more than the sum of the individual moments. In this sense the shot is, as you say, "part of a narrative."

IMO, rather that being part of a narrative imposed by the guiding intent of the documentary, street shots need to create a narrative on their own. Your Flicker gallery "Hip Shot" accomplishes this for me. I see the subject sitting in a public outdoor space perhaps adjacent to a school yard. Such spaces are created for recreation and comfort, but on this cold day there's no comfort to be found. There's so much more here than a single momemt, but the narrative is mine even though the image is yours.

So, identifying "Street" as "a single moment," and letting it go at that, simply states the obvious. I could be even more precise (and sarcastic, I suppose) and say that it is 1/30 or 1/125 of a moment. I'm curious to hear what else people think it is.

Martin

 

[mfunnell]

The trouble I have with definitions of street photography is that so often they're offered not so much as guidance (artistic or otherwise) but in order to exclude "disfavoured" photos or photographic approaches. (I'm not talking about this particular discussion. Rather, I'm noting why I'm prone to checking for a hidden agenda whenever these kinds of definitional discussions arise.)

I had my say about this here, some time ago, so won't go on about that too much more - except to reiterate that often this shows up in the context of a contest or some other circumstance where there's something of value on offer. The reasoning seeming to be that if I can define your photo as "out" while mine is "in" then I have more chance of collecting whatever value is on offer (even if its just recognition rather than a direct payment or prize). In other words, I suspect definitions are often used as a way of excluding so as to prevent comparison on strictly photographic merits.

I'm more of the view that "I know it when I see it" even as I realise that others views may not match mine, leaving the category of "street photography" rather fuzzy and subjective. That's OK by me, as I can live with fuzzy and subjective.

...Mike

 

[40oz]

Why do you have to apply the term "street" to your work? Does it add to its value? Unfortunately, "street" has no intristic meaning.

I tend to think of "street" to imply a lack of a formal set-up.

Similar to street skating, street biking, etc., vs. skating and biking using fabricated fixtures placed in an arena for a performance. In other disciplines, one might use the term "freestyle" instead of "street." When one talks about "street prices," one is referring to the natural variations inherent in a relatively open market. Essentially, the term "street" is used to indicate a less formal structure, a reflection of the social environment rather than a depiction of a formal, imposed structure.

Someone bunny-hopping a curb, kick-flipping down a stairs, or a photograph of a businesswoman buying flowers from a street vendor are all examples of "street." A flair on a quarterpipe, grinding the top of a halfpipe, or a portrait of a model under a spotlight are not "street."

In essence, "street" is using the environment created by man as a living space to create art, without adding in elements that wouldn't naturally occur. Repurposing a sidewalk as a natural light portait studio, without posing the models or even expecting them to care what you are doing, is "street." Candid photos at an outdoor wedding reception in a farmyard are arguably "street." One could argue the only difference between "street" and "documentary" is the intent of the photographer - one is making no effort at presenting an informative work in the first case, while the second case that is the underlying structure of the work. In that case, the term "street" applied by the shooter is useful and informative, letting the viewer know that the images should not be taken as an accurate whole but rather viewed as independent scenes.

There's plenty of room for gray areas, and it would be fine to use "street" as a catch-all term for anything not fitting clearly under another genre. I understand what someone is trying to say with the term "street," but fail to see any objection to it. It "adds value" in the sense that it helps explain your intention as an artist. If I'm looking for formal portraits for my wall, I might best avoid the "street" category. If I am interested in the interaction of people with each other and their environment, I might find the "street" appellation useful.

 

[MartinL]

I tend to think of "street" to imply a lack of a formal set-up.

Similar to street skating, street biking, etc., vs. skating and biking using fabricated fixtures placed in an arena for a performance. In other disciplines, one might use the term "freestyle" instead of "street." When one talks about "street prices," one is referring to the natural variations inherent in a relatively open market. Essentially, the term "street" is used to indicate a less formal structure, a reflection of the social environment rather than a depiction of a formal, imposed structure.

Someone bunny-hopping a curb, kick-flipping down a stairs, or a photograph of a businesswoman buying flowers from a street vendor are all examples of "street." A flair on a quarterpipe, grinding the top of a halfpipe, or a portrait of a model under a spotlight are not "street."

In essence, "street" is using the environment created by man as a living space to create art, without adding in elements that wouldn't naturally occur. Repurposing a sidewalk as a natural light portait studio, without posing the models or even expecting them to care what you are doing, is "street." Candid photos at an outdoor wedding reception in a farmyard are arguably "street." One could argue the only difference between "street" and "documentary" is the intent of the photographer - one is making no effort at presenting an informative work in the first case, while the second case that is the underlying structure of the work. In that case, the term "street" applied by the shooter is useful and informative, letting the viewer know that the images should not be taken as an accurate whole but rather viewed as independent scenes.

There's plenty of room for gray areas, and it would be fine to use "street" as a catch-all term for anything not fitting clearly under another genre. I understand what someone is trying to say with the term "street," but fail to see any objection to it. It "adds value" in the sense that it helps explain your intention as an artist. If I'm looking for formal portraits for my wall, I might best avoid the "street" category. If I am interested in the interaction of people with each other and their environment, I might find the "street" appellation useful.

Thanks. Many good points and nicely said. I've learned a lot from this thread.

I've got another question brewing, but can't quite formulate it. Please watch for 'Round 3'

Martin