”Yeah....but is it street photography?

<p>Don’t worry this isn’t another tirade...yet.</p>

<p>I’ve been spending some time on Brad’s <a href="http://www.citysnaps.net/blog/">CitySnaps</a> blog. And, after reading some of his thoughts on the current attitudes about so-called street photography, I just happened to surf through Banksy’s New York website: <a href="http://www.banksyny.com/">http://www.banksyny.com/</a></p>

<p>Now, Banksy are street artists of the highest caliber-no doubt about that. Much of their art is transitory in nature, and they have a clever solution to prove authenticity: They post shots of their exhibits in-situ along with the location. That way people know if the street art (the word ’grafitti’ doesn’t really describe it) is really theirs or not.</p>

<p>But, in addition to being hip, cool, and trendy; Banksy is also rarefied genius, and has many layers of creativity. I feel that quite a few of his authenticity shots were also passably good street photos albiet non-traditional (if there is such a thing as a ’traditional’ street photograph...sounds fairly dull if there is).</p>

<p>I thought that was really cool....or maybe I’m reading too much into it? Over the last few years on PN, I’ve gone from not knowing what SP was to where I am now....which is knowing, but not being uptight about the limits of genre. I think a good photo is a good photo and genrefication really isn’t necessary.</p>

<p>Here’s my question: Take a look at Bansky’s website, and weigh in on whether or not you think of it as street photography, and why or why not. Do you think it’s good SP?</p>

<p>BTW: I refer to Banksy in plural form because it is obvious that it has evolved from an individual into a very strong creative team. They are really talented and quite special.</p>

<p>E</p>

<p>After watching "Exit Through the Gift Shop" recently I'm inclined to re-dub him Pranksy.</p>

<p>I wouldn't argue against calling some of those street photography. They're definitely documentary photography of a street art project. Close enough for me.</p>

<p>Labels are often not that important but I do realize that sometimes they can actually be suggestive, so they're not always totally irrelevant.</p>

<p>I'd say not street. Lean more toward documentary. Something about the whole thing, though, strikes me as performance art. </p>

<p>Performance art, Fred? What do you mean? Do you think it's all rigged somehow?</p>

<p>Not at all. What does being "rigged" have to do with performance art?</p>

<p>I mean it's a collaborative effort of mediums where the photography becomes part of the street performance, which is a role I see the street art partaking in. In combination with the street art, the photos are dancing in the street. It's a well-conceived staging. It's also keenly self referential. Nothing rigged about it.</p>

<p>I meant it as a compliment.</p>

<p>He's a graphic artist using the street as his studio, a graffiti contemporary artist with a hint of political/social slant. And it maybe called performance art in the sense that he has to do his art in stealth...</p>

<p>What makes him a sp, has he actually taken up photography with a camera? </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>What makes him a sp, has he actually taken up photography with a camera?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I was asking what <strong><em>you</em></strong> thought about it. Did you look at their website?</p>

<p>Thanks, Fred.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I was asking what <strong><em>you</em></strong> thought about it. Did you look at their website?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The one you linked above? Yes, I looked, E. Photos of his work is photos of his work, not street photography imo...</p>

<p>And, you don't think any of the shots have value as sp? oops, we were typing at the same time!</p>

<p>E, to me, they are no sp. they are photos of his work. I could perhaps slightly squeeze them in doc maybe, but definitely not sp. Then again, personally, I have a high standard of sp...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"not street photography imo..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Really? None of them? Not <a href="http://d2hjf9a2dz967u.cloudfront.net/rich/rich_files/rich_files/29/full/phoneline-crop.jpg">this one</a>? Or <a href="http://d2hjf9a2dz967u.cloudfront.net/rich/rich_files/rich_files/30/full/ipadheartbanksy-177-1.jpg">this one</a>? And <a href="http://d2hjf9a2dz967u.cloudfront.net/rich/rich_files/rich_files/71/full/nazi-oil-window-v01-for-web-private.jpg">this one</a> may seem like a street photography cliche until you realize the context.</p>

<p>The photos and videos document the project. From that perspective the whole is successful even if none of the individual parts seems to puff its chest out and shout "Man, I am <em>street</em>. I am so <em>street</em> I'm beyond <em>street</em>. Photo.net doesn't even have a font for how <em>street</em> I am. Italics don't begin to describe it. You'd need to see me in <a href="http://d2hjf9a2dz967u.cloudfront.net/posts/main_images/10/original/day2.jpg?1381436654"><em><strong> my New York font</strong></em></a> to see how street I am."</p>

Then again, some consider all random

street pics to be sp. It is just a matter

of opinion really...

Lex, I didn't see the couple you linked

for some reason. Are they from E's

link?

And don't get me wrong, lex. I don't

dislike banksy. Though I don't think his

photography is good, his art is better

than 90% of sp out there... Not that

they can really be compared tho.

<p>That site loads slowly so it's easy to overlook some of the photos.</p>

<p>I think Lex is onto something. There's definitely a danger, when being strict about the confines of any genre, of sticking only to the visual guidelines that have been established before us. What starts to happen is that a lot of so-called street work starts to look boringly the same because it simply adheres to the traditions already explored. That happens in any genre and any medium when there are certain accepted rules within which one must stay in order to be part of the (street) gang. It tends, though, to be antithetical to personal vision, creativity, and human interest. It's probably a point or two in its favor that it's not fully cooperating with the "street" model. A lot of kids on the block are going to join the gang. One or two won't, but might still be in the neighborhood.</p>

I agree. I think having a well perceived concept of what a genre is all about is a good & a bad thing. As an example, there is a

street pg group on flickr that is heavily curated and applies its selection criteria with an almost religous fervour. The

upside of this is the quality of the images; many of which are superb. The downside is that it is necessarily restrictive in

its attitude towards creativity. Try posting a b&w pic for review or, god forbid, an image produced using Art Filters™.

<p>Norman +1, of course. It is true for just about anything...Now, does here anyone think the banksy links are good sp?</p>

<p> </p>

>>> The upside of this is the quality of the images; many of which are superb.

 

I find that to be true there for a very narrow range of photographs within "sp," - a lot of visual pun photos,

and layered color pix in nice light. It is rare, though, coming away from that site with a feeling of the

street or connection with subjects. OTOH, that's just what *I* happen to be looking for and am interested in, and may not be

important to others. It's all good.

 

>>> The downside is that it is necessarily restrictive in its attitude towards creativity.

 

My feelings as well...

<p><em>"Now, does here anyone think the banksy links are good sp?"</em></p>

<p>That seems a question framed for debate and might help one avoid the material itself.</p>

<p>A different question to ask is, "What do you think about the banksy stuff?" That's already been answered but more could certainly be said. Any thoughts on the work itself, Leslie?</p>

>>> Now, does here anyone think the banksy links are <b>good</b> sp?<P>

 

 

That's a much more interesting question (with my emphasis on "good"), than "are the photos sp?" And that's

not restricted to just the photos of Banksy's art...

<p>Well, Fred, this is a street photography thread and forum. But to answer you...Personally, I haven't gone thru his work comprehensively, though I like many while disliking others...<br>

<br>

If you want to discuss certain specific pieces, go ahead...</p>

<p>I usually stay away from purists and would-be purists on any forums, but<br>

in regard to this post I don't honestly know that I can say anything more or less than</p>

<p>Meh.</p>

<p>Meh sums it up pretty well, JDM.</p>

<p>Honestly, the "mehs" are relatively insignificant to me, whether uttered by me or others. What is compelling is that it has the nature of a conceived project, shows dedication to it, and does push some boundaries, like it or not. I'd rather be in the presence of this kind of "meh" work than yet another stunningly converted, "what beautiful tones!", "nice shot, dude" photo on top of a pile of its lookalike brethren, even if it has all the hallmark signs of accepted greatness as opposed to what might be meh. It's why taste can be so problematic at times, problematic enough that Picasso quipped about taste being <em>"the enemy of creativity."</em></p>