Different cultures, different photography...

<p>Okay, to start this off I'm going to use some frightfull generalisations and simplifications. If one looks at photographic history and its best known forerunners, especially in the last century there are clear continental differences in style and approach. When for instance one compares the "French School" of (street)photography with the "New York School" there seems to be a definite schism.<br /> <br /> Perhaps as a result contemporary American street photography on the whole seems to be more confrontational, more "raw" and direct in your face while the European kind of street photography in general looks to be more "studied" more obvious composed. Asian, more specifically Japanese, photography on the other hand seems to be more "darker" as far as subject matter is concerned (Manga culture?). Is that the case and if so is that then the result of cultural influence. Or isn't it as simple as that?<br /> Do you consider yourself to be cultural influenced to such an extent that it affects your own kind of street photography? I consider this not so much a philosophical question as a practical one btw.</p>

<p>I'd enter a vote for generational.</p>

<p>Ton,<br>

This is a great topic and one that is very important for such a broad-based online forum.<br>

I'm a North American living in Brazil. The sense of personal space is different between the two countries. In fact, I live in South Brazil, which has many descendants of European immigrants. So, I should not even generalize Brazil as a whole. Even different regions have different cultures.<br>

Here in South Brazil people are more reserved. They generally take longer to make friendships, longer to trust. Until you gain someone's trust the relationship has certain cultural expectations. This is, in part, why I mainly shoot at events and festivals - people expect media to be present and expect photos to be taken. So, that is usually where I shoot.<br>

I went out with some other photographers one evening. One of the guys was on the curb near a stop light taking pictures of people inside their cars, zoom-panning and using his flash. So, I may not fully understand the cultural expectations. I don't, however, have enough confidence in my Portuguese language skills should a stunt like that upset someone.<br>

What I see of street photography in South Brazil is usually done from a longer range with zoom lenses. When I get prints made I sometimes get comments about my "style" of photography - I like close in head shot type portraits and most Brazilians just don't seem to shoot that way in South Brazil. Of course, I often get permission to take the shot or it is of people I already know.<br>

For the moment, that's how I would explain my experiences here in South Brazil.<br>

DS Meador</p><div></div>

<p>I definitely believe it is a question of culture and you, Ton, put your finger very precisely on especially the "schism" between the European (here "French school") and the American tradition (here the "New York School").<br>

The differences are genuine and by the way not only limited to street photography in my view.<br>

One could add to Ton's remark about European, American and Japanese (and Chinese) styles of photography that the Russian and East European schools of Photography have proven to be very profiled and highly innovative, which can be seen by just looking at the works here in PN. <br>

Generational differences exist of course also, although I have difficulty of identifying those.<br>

Personally I find myself in Ton's discription of a "French school" (more "studied", composed) than the American, "raw" and "confrontational". Actually most of Ton's photos fit maybe especially to the latter, as far as I see it, just as this very Forum seems to do.</p>

<p>Ton, I'd be curious to hear where you'd put your own work in this. I don't agree with Anders about your work, which I find much more in the European camp you're describing than the New York or American camp. Obviously, these camps have a lot of overlap and, while I do see your processing as sometimes confrontational (the high contrasts, the bold strokes), I don't often see your compositions and expressions that way. I get a more studied feel from your sense of composition, more located, grounded, a street full of confidence more than questioning, full of a found and even sometimes created sense of order or at least organization rather than haphazardness or disarray. By the way, I think each approach or school has much to recommend it and am not making a judgment here about which is preferable. I'm talking pretty objectively.</p>

<p>Frankly I was both surprised and pleasantly amused by Anders perception because I think my work in general is distinctly European (in this simplified context). I very much feel I'm what the French once so aptly called a "flaneur" as far as approach is concerned with a definite emphasis on composition which I think is the most important tool we have.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>By the way, I think each approach or school has much to recommend it and am not making a judgment here about which is preferable.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>it's good that you mentioned it despite the fact that I considered that to be a given. One can't be clear enough about these things.</p>

<p>Ton, I'm convinced that you are a "flaneur" just like I am, seeing your numerous shots from Paris, but I find many, but surely not all of your shot, in the straight line of "raw and provocative" in accordance with many of our American street photographers friends around here. You can surely also be a "flaneur" and be "studied and composing". <br>

I don't know why the concept of "more or less appreciable" comes up. Each cultural expression has it's value as an expression of a culture. I found your Thread here interesting exactly because it was not pronouncing a preference or value judgement. Let's keep it like that.</p>

<p>Thanks for getting back on this Anders. I always find pleasure (in the most positive way I may add) in the different perceptions of people be it in regard to someones, anybody's, body of work or a single photo.You're right of course they are not mutually exclusive.</p>

<p>As far as I'm concerned there is not and should not be any emphasis on preference or value. That's exactly why I simplified this into one alinea.</p>

<p>Ton, what I especially refer to in your photography that makes me describe as something more American than European is your attraction (again in some of your photos) to what can be described as the bizarre and marginal in the street.<br>

This dimension of your shots is what I understand by "raw" and "provocative". For others it might just be normality. It might also be what some photographers find such scenes more photogenic than the ordinary street scenes around them. My photographic project, if I may call it like that, is much more attracted to street scenes that in my eyes "mark the place", whether provocative, or not. Mostly not at all.</p>

<p>I take provocative and raw to be more about expressions in photos, the kind of movement that is often made evident in street work, even a kind of threat that is often conveyed and perceived. I think Ton's work is more about a certain kind of interplay among elements. His people relate or are related to their place. Shadows relate to structure. Light relates to texture. In that integration of elements is something different from provocation and rawness. In the rare instances where I run up against the bizarre and marginal in Ton's work, they don't seem a threat and don't provoke me. If anything, they seem made to be accepted, to fit into. Ton's photographs seem right in many ways. They seem to make sense. As I said, there's a kind of organization, even a kind of visual logic to them, a well honed one at that.</p>

<p>although this was and is not a thread about mine or anyone elses photography specifically thanks for elaborating Anders. You may well be right although I don't think it's a really conscious quest as it were. I just see and shoot stuff that I feel attracted to for whatever reason, although I have been in some pretty strange places ;-)</p>

<p>It's a good point Stan you make about language barriers although I do think it also depends on your style of shooting and confidence overall.</p>

<p>Generational I think is hardly a factor compared to cultural or social influences. While it's true that photographic styles have evolved over the years and in fact still do I think these changes by and large have been more individually defined than they have geographically.</p>

<p>Fred, I missed your post while writing. To elaborate a bit further the way I meant raw and direct (or provocative) in this context was more towards Bruce Gilden's work. Mind you, I use this example only as the most extreme exponent of that style.</p>

<p>Ton I fully agree with your formulation:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I just see and shoot stuff that I feel attracted to for whatever reason</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I surely also do, as I'm sure everybody that are active in photography somewhat seriously, do. All of us around, I'm sure.<br>

I also agree on highlighting "language barriers" but these barriers are clearly also visual, and maybe mainly visual.<br>

Because of our cultural differences we simply do not only see reality differently, we shoot differently and we see scenes and photos differently. We even, as can be seen above, understand what is "raw" and provocative" shots differently.<br>

To believe that we are all equal and alike and our photos are part of the same thick and sleek porridge, is to close our eyes for cultural differences that are out there for all to see, if we open our eyes. I insist on these differences because I'm convinced of the creative force (in arts and elsewhere) of the peaceful confrontation between different cultures, and different ways of seeing reality. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>changes by and large have been more individually defined than they have geographically.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Individual changes are not that interesting, unless you are focusing on the person in question. But, what is the focus of our attention here is, and should continue to be, in my eyes, the changes in cultural specific expression which goes beyond the individual expression.</p>

 

<p>I've already got into trouble of this sort of thing a long time ago in what was my fourth post on this site (<a href="../philosophy-of-photography-forum/00JmlG">link</a>).<br /> My motives were questioned, among other things,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My guess at your motive was to satisfy your blood lust for controversy</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So I'll just note that I think that there are strong 'national'/cultural differences that relate to the way we were enculturated as children, but that there are also strong human universals, based on how our brains interpret our perceptions of the world.</p>

<p>In short, it's both nurture <em>and</em> nature.</p>

<p>JDM, I agree with you. The subject here, as I see it, is however, the cultural differences and not the human commonalities.</p>

<p>"Blood lust for controversy" ! ! ! ! </p>

<p>Why on Earth are differences between cultures always interpreted as something controversial and not as a wealth of humans?</p>

<p>I think there's a reasonable sensitivity to talking about cultural difference. Because often culture is used to encourage prejudice and generalization. It's a shame, because non-superficial people can, as in this thread, recognize cultural differences and how they manifest in the arts and make genuine and sincere and insightful observations about them. But because culture is so often used as a sledgehammer by those who have malicious intentions, people are very hesitant when it's talked about. There are a lot of bigots in this world and a lot of people who have very myopic views of people outside their own neighborhoods. We are often allowed to discuss our own cultures and the idiosyncracies and charms that go along with that. But people have an understandable, if not always justified, tendency to get uptight when one discusses others' cultures in those same terms. JDM, you've always been a pretty forthright and upstanding guy and it's too bad you had that early experience on PN.</p>

<p>Yes, Ton. It does have to do with my style of shooting and my sense of confidence (or lack thereof - my words not your intentions). I do think I am learning and improving in photography, but probably less so in street photography. I've got a lot to learn yet about composition.<br>

Brazil can be a dangerous place and so I don't do that much street work here. The Portuguese language skills that I have are pretty good - even day to day speak. However, street speak is different still.<br>

I'll know better whether this is my own cultural reaction to my location this time next year as I'll be back in the US for a while. We'll see if I shoot any differently when everyone around me speaks my mother tongue.<br>

DS Meador</p>

<p>It goes well beyond culture. Language affects how we see. As someone who speaks three languages, I've known this personally for a long time. And switching from one language to another automatically changes the way one sees, particularly in color. There's been a lot of research on this in the past few years.</p>

<p>Here's one:</p>

<p>http://www.boingboing.net/2010/06/27/seeing-languages-dif.html</p>

<p>DS: I am not sure if language plays very much of a role in street shooting. Understanding the culture is more important to me. I only know a few words in Spanish, but while photographing in Guatemala.it did not change my style or the way I see. It seems to me body language and facial expressions are more important than verbal skills. Perhaps thats just me.</p>

<p>Steve</p>

<p>Funny that the "New York School" could be said to have been founded by a guy from Switzerland who settled in the States, and a guy from New York who settled in Paris... Frank and Klein, respectively... Here's the thread of in-your-face, raw, and uncompromising shots that can be traced to the man folks love to hate... Bruce Gilden. (simplified theory)... and let's not forget the Austrian born Arthur Fellig (WeeGee) who more than typifies the raw and the provocative.<br>

<br />Makes you wonder if New York's energy could only be summed up in this style. Or if it was something like a meme let loose upon the photographic landscape. Anyhow, I find my sympathies are with the New World, since I am of it and in it...</p>

<p>But, even so, having traveled throughout Europe and having lived in Poland, the real problem I see is that there is a lack of diversity. There's a sameness that spreads across the Western world and the differences are more subtle than jarring. There's been so much cross-pollination in all of the arts that artistic expression has brought us closer together in spirit, if not in technique, equipment, and intent. A true culture can only forge its identity in isolation and we, in the West, have ceased to be isolated from each other.</p>

<p>This is not to deny that there are cultural forces at work, however, we;re bound to find them more in the written word than in the pictorial presentations we find on this site and others like it.</p>

<p> </p>

<p><strong>Steve - </strong>You misunderstand. The language thing is not about being able to communicate with others, but the language in your head changing the way you see (not the way you see people speaking a different language).</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Luis: Thanks for straightening me out. I understand what you are saying, but I will have to try it out to be certain. Its been many years since I thought in my second language, so some intense imersion is in order.<br>

Thanks Steve</p>

<p>Think that was more true in the 50's and 60's Ton. Not sure bout now. Besides, many French photographers had very in your face photos, even HCB. Maybe not like Klein, but no one except Gilden is that aggressive.</p>

<p>Fi, you are right in your observations. Yes, indeed we are living in a world of intense exchange that homogenize many previous differences between continents, countries and regions. Yes, many of the artist that we would refer to that "made" the "New York school" or the "European school", came from elsewhere. And yet, the cultural differences remain and are even nurtured and reinforced as far as I see it.</p>

<p>It is in fact one of the wonders of exchange between cultures that there is a reason behind, when it is not merely taken over by ideologies of markets and multinationals. If we bother looking at what happens elsewhere, it is not because photography is not practized where-ever you happen to be living, but because, to a large degree, you can learn something from people that think differently, see differently and subsequently make photography and art differently. Cultural diversity is out there for all to appreciate, if one makes the effort of moving (intellectually, virtually and physically). To a certain degree, some multicultural societies have the privilege of at least partly living this diversity almost daily, but the American melting-pot might not be the most optimal conditions for it. </p>

<p>This leads to the second point, that of foreigners marking national "schools". Surely, many European artist were forced to leave the continent because of wars and prosecutions and some of these chose to stay there even after the war, helping to open doors for what became "the New York School" (bad term, but I use it here for the continuity of the thread). In photography, surely, you are right, that the mere physical outlines of the city marked the specific mainly black and white photos of most. But, still I think the "raw" and "confrontational" might be good terms for what became of it.</p>

<p>In Europe, the same happened, of course. Americans like Man Ray, or Asiatic artist like for example Foujita and especially East Europeans like the Hungarians André Kertész and Brassaï for example, came to the city and integrated permanently or for longer time. They again were part of movements that became the "European school" (again a bad term because surely there are many distinct "European schools" - French, German, Italian, Spanish, Scandinavian schools to mention some few). </p>

<p>However, by the end of the day, when we have enumerated all the facts and fictions that seem to falsify an assertion of the existence of distinct cultural differences between "schools" of art, here of photography, the differences are still out there to appreciate for all that make the effort and open their eyes. Each and single photo cannot illustrate these differences, but flows of photos can in my eyes. It is one of the reasons why stay around here on PN. </p>

 

<p>Steve,<br>

My initial comments about language were in reference to a very brash technique I saw a Brazilian photographer using for night street photography. I would not attempt to imitate what he did here because he was definitely acting outside the cultural norms of this region of Brazil. My reason for bringing language into the discussion was that acting outside cultural norms can lead to confrontation and I don't speak enough street Portuguese for a conflict of that nature.<br>

So, while language and culture are closely tied together, that was not my point nor my purpose in bringing it into the discussion.<br>

When we shoot in a location where we have no language barriers we may take more risks. However, the stakes go up, at least in my mind, when we cannot readily communicate with the people around us should a misunderstanding arise. And, again, this may have more to do with the fact that some places are also more violent than others.<br>

As for there being less diversity now than in the past in the arts - we have instant access to almost all expressions of art now. People try to copy what they like - generally speaking. In the olden days one might not see the work of another street photographer and his or her style until seeing it in a published book or magazine.<br>

So, technology impacts culture and the arts.</p>