Dogmatism

<p>I've recently been considering what allows a photographer, artist, or critic to appear somewhat restrictive or even absolutist in discussing photography and/or art. It seems to me a lot of artists and critics, because of a certain commitment and passion, might focus intently on what they're doing or what their approach is or what qualities they're emphasizing that they would more often than we would think come off as dogmatic or exclusionary. Very often, in creating and discovering a new kind of vision, there's a resounding rejecting of the visions of the past. I often feel I understand and can relate to such strong rejections made by artists even while I, myself, maintain an appreciation for some of those older schools and ways of seeing.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"It is high time that the stupidity and sham in pictorial photography be struck a solarplexus blow... Claims of art won't do. Let the photographer make a perfect photograph. And if he happens to be a lover of perfection and a seer, the resulting photograph will be straight and beautiful - a true photograph." </em>—Alfred Stieglitz</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p><em>“Any work of art that can be understood is the product of journalism. The rest, called literature, is a dossier of human imbecility for the guidance of future professors.”</em> ―Tristan Tzara</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Part of me actually likes it when an artist, critic, or philosopher is as firm and sure of himself as Stieglitz and Tzara are, even if I recognize there's so much more to it than what they're saying. I may well go on to broaden it beyond what they're saying, but I can appreciate such a strong statement, as if nothing else matters but how these individuals are seeing and what they are each striving for at the time.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"The essence of all beautiful art, all great art, is gratitude." </em>—Friedrich Nietzsche</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nietzsche is very single-minded here. There are so many other qualities to art besides gratitude, yet I find it worthwhile spending some time with the more restrictive notion that it all boils down to gratitude, or as John Schaefer says in talking about Ansel Adams, art boils down to substance and eloquence, or for Plato it's all representation.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"No one is an artist unless he carries his picture in his head before painting it, and is sure of his method and composition." </em>—Claude Monet</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm sure other painters would disagree with this, ones who allow the picture to develop without first seeing it and I'm sure many critics could talk about a lot of other ways to paint and many would fault a statement like Monet's for claiming to know what would exclude others as artists. Why not just speak for himself? But I'm kind of glad that Monet says it the way he does. It leads me to believe he's right there, sort of at one with his method of doing things.</p>

<p>So, please, without getting into a tired debate of the merits of Pictorialism or manipulated photos over more straight photography (that was just an important example!), I'd like to hear things you yourself are dogmatic about regarding your own likes and dislikes, regarding different schools of art and photography, and regarding how you approach your own photography. Also would like to hear some dogmatic yet insightful things you've read about photography and art. Do you ever feel blinded to alternatives (or at least heavily resistant to them) because you're so involved and passionate in a particular way of doing something at the time? How focused is your passion?</p>

<p>Add to Fred's quotes one from Ad Reinhardt: “Artists who peddle wiggly lines and colors as representing emotion,” he wrote, “should be run off the streets.”, where the guilty employ "dramatic gesturalism characteristic of many Abstract Expressionist paintings." (Quotes from MoMA here: <a href="http://www.moma.org/collection/object.php?object_id=78976">http://www.moma.org/collection/object.php?object_id=78976</a>.)</p>

<p>For me it's tough to take in new information from the external world. With that information I'm compelled to come to a judgment and be done with it and I become more and more irritated with each new piece of information, making coming to a judgment even more necessary. That's how my mind deals with new information coming at me from the external world and I'm sure I come off as dogmatic: that's because at some point I just want to cut off the inflow of external inputs and shut it all down. If can't place an idea or image within contexts I just don't want it. To make me want it, I need the context.</p>

<p>I've reversed a dogmatic assertion from the past. I used to believe that only a fully manual approach to making photographs was legitimate - that one must have known exactly what one was doing at every step of the workflow, imposing one's skill upon every detail of execution. But now I'm fairly old enough to know this has to be nonsense for me. My photography has evolved in a new and better direction, since employing the many facets of technology that are completely automated, thanks to engineering that is galaxies beyond my understanding in electronics, physics and more specifically, sensors, processors, and algorithms. I point the camera, compose, trip the shutter, and miracles seem to happen, in a childlike delightfulness. It's not my personal and private execution anymore. For this I'm grateful, since at age 65 after a mild stroke all of that past cognitive glory has faded. I am often forgetful or confused about details of settings. But I still seem to recognize a beautiful, or story-telling image.</p>

<p>I'd love to make a pithy and insightful post here (I think Charles and Howard already have, each in their own way), but I cannot think of anything related to art about which I am dogmatic. This is partly due to a lack of knowledge, or let us say deeply informed knowledge. Seven or eight years ago I might have been dogmatic in rejecting certain types of art (highly conceptual, appropriations, theoretical extremes such as a large canvas painted white, or a photograph of an empty and featureless sea), but a little bit of knowledge, and a desire for more, has tempered that considerably. Does this make me wishy-washy? I don't think so. A willingness to investigate and learn before condemning does not translate to a heartfelt appreciation. There are still works I dislike, but instead of being snarky about them I wonder what lies behind them (or if they just<em> lie</em>, which can sometimes be the case). If I'm interested enough, I will look into it.</p>

<p>Which leads me, perhaps to a bit of dogma about dogma: Only the truly ignorant or the truly brilliant can be dogmatic about art.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Doctrine: Our mutually agreeable standards, based on the irrefutable evidence that those who agree with us do indeed agree with us, thereby affirming our standards, and those who do not don't count.</p>

<p>Dogma: (1) Those sound standards, good values and erudite philosophical assertions upon which you, unaccountably, persist in disagreeing with me and furthermore have the audacity to publish same in journals of art, muddying the waters that I had just clarified in last quarter's edition of that same journal. (2) Two or more dogs barking at our ma, the loudest of whom wins the argument and gets the scraps leftover from her dinner entertaining artists.</p>

<p>Photographers are dogmatic, or opinionated, just like everyone else in every other endeavor in life. Canon vs. Nikon, film vs. digital, color vs. BW, HDR vs. no-HDR ink vs. platinum, etc. etc.. Street vs. landscape vs. portrait vs. whatever.</p>

<p>It's what keep the forums going.</p>

<p>My own story is I can be creative but I'm not original in what I do. I'm very stubborn in my beliefs and don't change very easily. I try to create the best I can do in the things I believe in.</p>

<p>This wasn't really your question, Fred, but when I do come across a dogmatic statement in a PN thread (particularly one with which I strongly disagree) I do tend to "participate" in that thread. I can understand your appreciation of significant artists or scholars who make dogmatic statements...but I still find myself in disagreement with them. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The aim of art is to represent not the outward appearance of things, but their inward significance.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Aristotle provinding another contender for a dogmatic truth on art; one that seems so true, and yet doesn't quite make it all the way.</p>

<p>If this question reveals me one thing to myself about myself, it is how incredibly inconsistent I am. My likes and dislikes in photography smell of a bad flavour of dogmas, yet I tend to dislike dogmas with passion.<br>

My problem with dogmas is that sooner or later, they tend to go wrong. They're claiming some sort of universal truth, but they're not. In the meanwhile, people fix themselves on this singolar beliefs, block an open-minded approach and close discussion. It's teaching a dog how to bark at ma (thanks, Lex), but not why, not when not to bark at all, or when to bark at other people. It's anti-creative in the sense that it stimulates cloning, not discovery. The way I see a dogma it's also not an opinion: it's repeating somebody else's opinion.<br>

That said, they have their use as a starting point, to get acquainted in a certain field. If you just start out photography, shooting landscapes at small apertures isn't a bad idea. After all the rule states for those who shoot 135 format to use f/11 or f/16 for this kind of work, so you'd better. As long as sooner or later you discover that sometimes it's not the most interesting choice; break the rules and shoot landscapes at f/2 - because it fits your vision.</p>

<p>Yet, I am inconsistent about a lot of it. What I want my own photos to be is in parts harder edged than probably is good for me. What is shot on colour film will never become B&W (in other words: "made a wrong choice, now live with it"). Some corrections I will not make because it offends a certain sense of integrity. And some corrections are all OK, while others will despise those edits. I guess it is part of building an idea and a vision where things slowly do get cast in (mental) stone, where some decisions become so deeply part of the style of working, the desired result and/or the 'look' one is after that they do become internally accepted facts, a sort of personal rulebook.<br>

But there is a noticeable difference between having that internal rulebook, and proclaim it the yardstick for all photos to be judged against, or accepting it as a personal way of working, versus an open curiosity for what others do. And in all honestly, it is always a bit a mixture; staying curious and open-minded is something to actively do and pursuit, while accepting one's own beliefs and hold them for universally true is zero effort. And dogmatically I'd say most people adhere perfectly to Newton's law of inertia, so zero effort comes a whole lot easier.</p>

<p>A reactionary response is one of the benefits that accrue when the photographer encounters certain dogma. The dogma can aid us in finding our own approach. The f/64 group had its adherents, but when highest possible resolution (not sure f/64 even allowed that, even with wide diameter large format optics due to diffraction effects) from front to back becomes a goal or the goal, what other values may go unresolved or that may suffer? Debating is an iterative human process of possible clarification or resolution that sometimes allows the participants to further their notion of what is really important to them. Dogma has that characteristic of seldom going unchallenged. I for one welcome it. As we used to say in my ragtag research group in the UK (I cannot help being nostalgic at times....) "you have to have a wall to piss against" (reference also to the sanitary equipment at some pubs).</p>

<p>Fred, I'm inclined to distinguish between dogmatism and aesthetic/photographic arrogance. The latter is exhibited in a tired old tv commercial which states in part, "My dog's better than your dog." Dogmatism, on the other hand, may involve a set of parameters, standards, methods, theories, etc., without necessarily any accompanying attitudes towards competing sets. I see no harm in the statements from Stieglitz, Tzara, Nietzsche, and Monet you quoted in the OP until and unless one decides to use such statements as clubs by which to bash opposing viewpoints over the head.</p>

<p><strong>Charles</strong>, while I'm a big believer in the importance of context, probably context is more a matter of helping to shape and influence <em>understanding</em>. Sometimes, taking something completely out of context can be a joy. So, for example, there have been occasions where I've stumbled upon a photographer I'd never heard of, perhaps don't know the era in which that photographer shot, etc. More often it's happened with some music I've heard on the radio. Don't know when it was made, by whom, etc. Just looking, just listening, without any context to go by is a different sort of experience and one that can be quite profound, in a somewhat sensual, instantaneous, and free-floating way, often lacking in that greater understanding which can also add dimensions to the art experience.</p>

<p><strong>Howard</strong>, LOL. Dogmatic assertions about process run rampant in photography discussions. I generally take a pass, but I do understand that others have an investment in methodology and it's always fascinating to hear the passion behind those debates. They can border on bizarre at times, but I assume there's a reason why it's so important to the players. I'm glad you brought up an ability to change one's dogma, as that's probably a crucial mechanism for people. Certainly Stieglitz changed his at an important period in his own development and in the evolution (which he helped effect) of photography itself.</p>

<p><strong>Steve</strong>, I'm with you in thinking that <em>not</em> being dogmatic isn't necessarily wishy-washy, though it certainly can be in the right hands. Something worthwhile considering, for sure. I take away from your post that, to be dogmatic in a "successful" way (whatever that means) could require knowledge of the alternatives. It's when I suspect someone is being dogmatic without really knowing what they're talking about that I become skeptical. Obviously, most of those quoted, like Monet, Nietzsche, and Stieglitz, probably were pretty worldly about the subjects they were dogmatic about, which is all the more reason for me to give them a good listen. Nietzsche, for example, knew enough about all the other potential qualities of art, that if he asserts that it boils down to gratitude, it's worth a careful look at that position, to see just what he means by gratitude and to see in what way gratitude might be so far-reaching and might encompass all other qualities one could attribute to art (though I probably still wouldn't ultimately buy it).</p>

<p><strong>Lex</strong>, like Wouter said, your post reminds me that I do get more upset (perhaps unfairly so) with dogmatists I disagree with. So the quote Charles supplied about Expressionism ticked me off on first read, because it's such crap (intentionally dogmatic on my part). Yet, I have to step back from that and give the guy a break, assuming he knows something about Expressionism and has formed his dogma authentically. I'm also allowed to turn around, allow him his dogma, and say <em>"His loss!"</em></p>

<p><strong>Alan</strong>, your post reminded me of a favorite quote by Picasso: <em>"Taste is the enemy of creativity."</em></p>

<p><strong>Wouter</strong>, Aristotle had it easy, because there weren't as many great thinkers that came before him as his successors in later centuries had to contend with. His dogmas didn't have all that much competition! LOL. Another favorite quote of mine is from Avedon: <em>"My photographs don’t go below the surface. They don’t go below anything. They’re </em><em>readings of the surface. I have great faith in surfaces. A good one is full of clues."</em> At first blush, it might seem the opposite of what Aristotle is saying, but where, after all, do the clues lead us? Probably beyond the surface to a place not far from Aristotle's inward significance. And yet, I prefer Avedon's statement, because it includes both the inner and the outer. But, something to consider is that Aristotle, with his seeming dismissal of the outer appearance, is reacting to Plato, who thought that's all art was, a mere representation of the surface and not worth very much. It's interesting to note, as with Stieglitz, that some of the more dogmatic positions in history come as a <em>reaction</em> to dogma of a previous thinker, school, or generation. <br /> <br /> <strong>Arthur</strong>, very interesting that you would bring up the notion of challenging dogma, which probably does make for the evolution of ideas. It's those who express dogma and then are surprised by the vehement challenges they face that are a puzzlement.<br /> <br /> <strong>Michael</strong>, I don't know. Wittgenstein, Nietzsche, Stieglitz, certainly Tzara and the Dadaists, I think, did have a negative accompanying attitude toward alternative positions. That was part of their juice, IMO. Arrogance, yes. But, to me, it is often part of the dogma though I agree with you that it can be separate. Not all dogma has to be arrogantly stated but there may be an inherent arrogance in stating an ideology that is supposedly incontrovertible, a word I associate with dogmatism.</p>

<p>"Inherent arrogance:" Fred, I like how you used this in making your point about dogma. Yet I think there may be a fine line between arguing for one's position as if it's incontrovertible and doing so arrogantly. I can't help but think of the scene in "Young Frankenstein" in which Frankenstein states quite emphatically, "My father's theories were doodoo." </p>

<p>Michael, from your first post, in my 'reading' is dogma is exactly the club to hit others over the head with. Before that, it is just an opinion, often a common shared one. The second it gets elevated to being universally true and hence used to indicate others are wrong, it becomes a dogma. But I admit, I might be completely wrong in the way I read the word.<br>

Fred, somehow I figured you would oppose Avedon's statement against Aristotle - and rightfully so. Between the two of them, they do capture a lot worth considering. And I think, as you point out indirectly, is considering the context of these dogmatic statements - historic, who's the author and so on. Possibly also some of these quotes are taken out of a context and sound more absolute than they would have within their original context.</p>

<p>The point in question to me seems to be more the tendency of (some) people to accept any of these statements as a singular truth, and dismiss anything that contradicts it, or seems to contradict it. It is pure arrogance: it is the inherent unwillingness to consider alternative views.<br>

The dogma in itself isn't necessarily a problem; it may be stated too absolute, and that might rub the wrong way. But often enough, they also contain something of value, something to consider and ponder about. Even the simplest photographic dogmas (Rule of Thirds, Landscapes at f/22, portraits must be shot with a 85 f/1.4, lensbaby isn't a serious tool, and so on) have a certain value. In my experience, breaking the rules tends to work better if it is a deliberate action, otherwise, those rules are more foolproof. Dogmas as starting point for a discovery trip isn't the worst of things - but it already implies that you do not hold them universally true, and hence they're just ideas, not dogmas anymore.</p>

<p>So I keep coming back to what I expressed earlier: doesn't it much come down to the preference of many to seek the simple and warm comfort of a single belief without the complexities of questioning it? Reduce the effort needed and accept blindly, enter your comfort zone and stay there, rather than understand, challenge and seek? Or am I too cynical?</p>

<p>Not too cynical at all, Wouter. I lived and moved with people like that, every day for a whole career. I'm a retired minister!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The point in question to me seems to be more the tendency of (some) people to accept any of these statements as a singular truth, and dismiss anything that contradicts it, or seems to contradict it. <br>

. . . doesn't it much come down to the preference of many to seek the simple and warm comfort of a single belief without the complexities of questioning it? Reduce the effort needed and accept blindly, enter your comfort zone and stay there, rather than understand, challenge and seek?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wouter, I think your observation would apply mostly to those who accept or follow (especially blindly or unthinkingly) someone else's dogma. The folks I mentioned in the OP are ones who certainly never sought the comfort of non-questioning. I think they adopted their dogmatic stances after much exploration and discovery. So I tend to give their dogmatic approaches much more weight than those who simply espouse something they've read that sounded good or easy or simple to them. So, when in the OP I say I like the kind of dogma I'm citing, it's not that I like dogma <em>per se</em> but rather a certain subset of dogma where I respect the way it's been achieved and understand the passion, purpose, and focus that's behind it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Alan</strong>, your post reminded me of a favorite quote by Picasso: <em>"Taste is the enemy of creativity."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ah. But I have <em>good</em> taste.<em><br /></em></p>

<p>The strength of a message or statement depends a lot on the method of delivery. If I'm passionate about stating the sky is purple and not blue with whatever passion and charisma I can muster up, over time I may succeed is having some people doubt their own eyes. I mean there are still some people who think the earth is flat.</p>

<p>Now as to art, what it really boils down to is that we all want to be right. It's human nature to want to be correct in our choices because it gives us a (false) sense of control over our lives. We like to be right and we like our choices validated. However, when we make choices, they are often hardly the result of careful research and consideration. For example, I've stated a number of times that I think contemporary street photography today is lacking in content, depth and form, all ingredients I think are necessary for a good street photograph. However, I also mention that I'm no expert...because I'm not. I arrive at this conclusion based on my own individual bias which is the result of my upbringing, my culture, and many other influences, just like everyone else. Now does that mean I think all of today's street photography is bad? Of course not, because I don't have the time to go through all the many, many websites devoted to street photography and consider each and every picture that gets uploaded every day. So I'm looking through a very narrow window through a prism unique to myself. Whatever I spout off after this takes place is just an opinion. Anyone who takes it as Gospel is delusional. You know what they say about opinions - opinions are like a@#holes, everyone has one and they usually stink.</p>

<p>Wouter: As I've come to expect, your post is well reasoned. There's one point you made which bears further discussion in my opinion. </p>

<p>You state: "Michael, from your first post, in my 'reading' is dogma is exactly the club to hit others over the head with. Before that, it is just an opinion, often a common shared one. The second it gets elevated to being universally true and hence used to indicate others are wrong, it becomes a dogma." My first post states: "Dogmatism, on the other hand, may involve a set of parameters, standards, methods, theories, etc., without necessarily any accompanying attitudes towards competing sets. I see no harm in the statements from Stieglitz, Tzara, Nietzsche, and Monet you quoted in the OP until and unless one decides to use such statements as clubs by which to bash opposing viewpoints over the head." You then assert that my second post involves moving to dogmatism in the form of universal truth. That's where the mistake lies, in my opinion. I didn't say that at all. Insisting that one's theory of X is incontrovertible isn't equivalent to stating that it's universally true. It's simply stating that no opposing theory so far has been successful in refuting - and then supplanting - X. </p>

<p>Besides, I make no claims to know what is universally true. Such a claim would be both arrogant and dogmatic.<br>

<br>

<br>

<br>

</p>

<p>Fred, then my niggling background itch that we were talking different things turned out true.... Yes, it matters a lot who expresses the statement, and understanding how they reach their statement makes a world of difference too. I think overall, we agree and it's more interpretation of words that seem to set us apart. To me, the way you describe your approach to it, is already a sign that you do not treat any of these dogmas as a dogma, but as an opinion (of which you thoroughly validate how well-informed the opinion is, enabling to take the best from it, and leave the parts that smell wrong). Calling them dogmatic stances is a much clearer sign still :-) Much like what Marc described, except maybe the sources are more famous than any of us here, so their words carry further. The line where a strongly-worded opinion ends and a dogmatic stance begins to me sounds like a very grey area.<br /> And I guess somewhere is those grey areas and the non-dogmatic uses of the word dogma, I got a bit on a different track.</p>

<p>Howard, could it be we're both cynical? But yes, I see it a lot and I'm still having an active career (or something that resembles it, well, work of sorts); it's not just an age thing. So many young people (much younger than me anyway) without this curiosity, that little nagging inner voice asking all the time "really? Are you sure?"... all the thoughts aren't always a blessing, but I'm happy to have a bit a critical mind and always happy to ask more questions.</p>

<p>Michael, I just see your post and can just about edit this one. I did not mean that as a rebuttal to you, or as contesting what you wrote, and my apologies if it seemed that way. You are right in distinguishing between 'universal true' versus 'no contradicting theory proved better' - and possibly that also goes back perfectly to what Fred replied. Those making the dogmatic statements, as in the OP, are most likely wise enough to know that it is a case of "no contradicting theory proved better", and be well aware of the limits of their statements.<br /> Those who (without thought and much deliberation) follow those statements and assume them as their dogmas, are a different matter. I think there the difference between universally true and theory with limits is a another grey area, to say it mildly.</p>

<p>Wouter, although I appreciate the sincerity of your last post, no apology is unnecessary.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I lived and moved with people like that, every day for a whole career. I'm a retired minister!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Howard, it's interesting to consider religion, and there's certainly plenty of dogma to go around in religious circles. Here again, I make a distinction, knowing many very religious people and having had a lot of religious training and exposure in my youth. I have little use for those who toss around Bible verses as if they were Cheerios especially when they use those verses to judge others. They reek of unconsidered dogma and often appear to me as mindless sheep. On the other hand, there are very religious people who've studied, prayed, learned, and internalized a lot of religious thinking and dogma who I have much more respect for, because they've walked the walk and arrived somewhere with the help of others but also by being on the path themselves.</p>

<p>This is one reason why originality of thinking isn't always necessary to an evolved and thoughtful mind. One can come to the same conclusions as others and adopt similar thoughts to others and still be very genuine and authentic in one's thinking. </p>

<p>As I read through this discussion my mind kept wandering off towards thoughts provoked by it, mainly because dogmas in the arts are always changing - which, in essence, means that they can't quite really be dogmas. </p>

<p>The process by which art dogmas change or are changed is particularly interesting, each new generation somehow manages to subvert the previous generation's values either by calling it dogma, exaggerating those values to the point that they become ludicrous or use a technique that converts a past "good" into a present "bad".</p>

<p>Architects are fabulous practitioners in this area. Sometime back now, the agreed criteria for art gallery design concentrated on providing spaces that optimised the possibility that all or any art would be able to be shown without being subjected to undue pressure from architecture. But as cities decided to "upgrade" their art galleries the architects started to get the idea that "really wild" buildings would excite the clients more than functional ones! </p>

<p>The way they got their message across was to bundle the old dogma up into the expression "white cube", which actually sounds quite reasonable and desirable, but the architects would add inflections to it to make it sound, boring, old fashioned, static, restricting and something you really wouldn't want - turning "good" in to "bad" seems a very effective technique!!!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"...dogmas in the arts are always changing - which, in essence, means that they can't quite really be dogmas."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure the most dogged dogmas do change.<br>

<br>

The familiar variations on the "golden section" rules for composition keep popping up, no matter how <a href="http://naturography.com/the-golden-section-hypothesis-a-critical-look/">thoroughly and persuasively refuted</a>. While composition theories can be interesting and useful for understanding art, some folk are uncomfortable living life in the free-floating existence of free will and choice, without rules or guidelines. That's why coloring books continue to sell even though most kids would do fine with blank paper and crayons.</p>

<p>The ghost of St. Ansel continues to haunt many photographers who carry bits of him around in mental reliquaries. His dogma is misquoted and misapplied almost as often as religious books among fanatics. Note the persistent myth about light meters calibrated to 18% gray (the ISO standard is closer to 12%). A credible anecdote indicates Adams even contributed to his own mythology, reportedly camping out in an office at Kodak until his protests were heard and obeyed to not change the 18% gray card standard. And while Adams' prints were hardly the product of "straight" photography, the f/64 group dogma was taken to such an extreme that Adams depicted William Mortensen as the devil incarnate for his fanciful photo/fauxteaux creations and "gamma infinity" voodoo.</p>

<p>A Facebook group I follow has codified "pure" street photography, citing <a href="http://finkstreetphotography.com/?p=188">Larry Fink's fine essay</a> on the subject as if it were gospel. The group's guidelines disdain "snapshots", preferring "well thought out complex imagery. Images that tell a story, images that evoke". While I don't disagree with the latter, I'm not persuaded that evocative visual narratives and the physical action of the "snap shot" are mutually exclusive. Disdaining the snap shot is akin to a boxer disdaining the left jab. The ability to react instantaneously to capture a perceived moment or opportunity is a basic skill, not something to be disdained merely because some folks happen to be able to snap a shot like a Muhammad Ali jab.</p>

<p>Still others in the street genre are doggedly dogmatic. They disdain the human touch - a moment of contact or engagement between the photographer and "subject", however brief. They prefer the sniper, the hip shooter, the disengaged, alienated, uninvolved, fly-on-the-pavement approach as the only pure street photography. Never mind that ubiquitous surveillance cameras have effectively made that form almost obsolete. When <a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17857809-lg.jpg">Google Street View cameras can emulate HCB's classic "decisive moment" photo</a>, it's time for photographers to up their game and reconsider the dogma about the detached, uninvolved, disengaged street photograph.</p>

<p>So much food for thought. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Clive --The way they got their message across was to bundle the old dogma up into the expression "white cube", which actually sounds quite reasonable and desirable, but the architects would add inflections to it to make it sound, boring, old fashioned, static, restricting and something you really wouldn't want - turning "good" in to "bad" seems a very effective technique!!!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have not followed the aesthetics of contemporary architecture, but in regard to what you say I have only to think of Gehry and Bilbao to see the evidence of its truth. I applaud imagination, experimentation, and the breaking of rules, but sometimes form <em>should </em>ever follow function. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Lex: A Facebook group I follow has codified "pure" street photography, citing <a href="http://finkstreetphotography.com/?p=188" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Larry Fink's fine essay</a> on the subject as if it were gospel. The group's guidelines disdain "snapshots", preferring "well thought out complex imagery. Images that tell a story, images that evoke". While I don't disagree with the latter, I'm not persuaded that evocative visual narratives and the physical action of the "snap shot" are mutually exclusive.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hmmm, I wonder what group that is. I read the Fink essay you linked to and I cannot fathom how they derived "well thought out complex imagery" dogma from it. And outside of the frozen mid-stride levitation aspect of it, I see little else to compare that google photo to "Behind the Gare St. Lazare". I don't think anyone should lose any sleep over surveillance cameras rendering any type of photography obsolete. We have been seeing amazing "up close and personal" nature scenes from unmanned cameras for years now. That doesn't seem to have dampened the enthusiasm of the "tack-sharp osprey with a fish in its talons" school of photography in the least. To get back to your point about dogma in street photography, however, it just doesn't make sense to me to favor only one approach and eschew all others. Different situations require different approaches and techniques depending upon the desired effect. I guess I'm dogmatic in that I prize the end result, be it well thought out and composed, alienated and disengaged, philanthropically engaged, or taken from a google street view camera. Point me toward that FB group so I may give them a sound thrashing and free them from their aesthetic straight-jackets! ;-) </p>

<p>[EDIT -- Off topic, but I found the group, Lex. Nowhere near as bad as I thought. I don't know how often they cull out what does not meet their definition but I saw a lot of photos that I would not consider very good examples of street. Did see one I liked that a chap put up for critique and one of the group critiquers made what I thought was a valid and helpful point.]</p>