Googorama -- a critique of street photography?

<p>Thanks to <a href="http://www.monochrom.at/english/2007/07/googorama.htm"

>monochrom</a>, I stumbled upon <a href="http://suwud.com/googorama/">this

slideshow</a> of street images captured with Google Street View, and thought

it was a cool thing to share.</p>

 

<p>Take it as a flamebait if you will, but in my view it reaffirms my

suspicions that street photography is getting more and more banal -- first

with digital, then with cameraphones, now with Google Street View. It always

relied on the photographer "being there," and now this is not necessary

anymore. Perhaps now is the time to embrace other forms of documentary.</p>

Banality is a perfectly respectable subject for art.

 

But Street photography does not have to deal with that, so your suspicions are in error.

I agree with Jacob on banality as a subject.

 

I completely disagree that equipment has anything to do with what photos are showing. It's been at least five years since I saw a street fight in San Francisco. I haven't seen any major arguments on the street. The "bad" areas that were interesting have been homogenized into bland modern landscapes with anything other than walking moved into the interiors. I used to feel an edge that gave me a creative burn while walking certain neighborhoods in big cities, but not I just feel placid. This is why I have increasingly moved into shooting indoors.

<< ... It's been at least five years since I saw a street fight in San Francisco. I haven't seen any major arguments on the street. ... >>

 

This is because all Bay Area residents are in basic agreement ... on everything. Can't move there unless you agree. :-)

 

But in seriousness, I don't think that if one finds the photos dull, the cameras are to blame.

 

This much I'll say: with more and more people out photographing and "publishing" (on photo sites, facebook and similar places, and via email, etc.) there are far more photos out there -- more dull ones, but lots of good ones, too. So the challenge is to find the photos that interest you.

I can't say I agree with much of what is being suggested here. Google Street View is not photography - it is documentation. It's a set of cameras mounted on top of a truck driving down the street capturing everything it sees. There is no thought involved, no consideration for composition, and no ambition for artistic quality of attempt to make a statement. I find it strange that it is being considered as 'photography'.

As a comparison, is a dictionary a form of literature? Should it be compared to great novels? Should it reflect banality upon genuine attempts at literature?

Give me a break.

When did someone say there has to be thought, consideration, or ambition for photography? I've never seen any definition that says that. A lot of street photography is idle snapping while hanging around, it's the editing that usually makes it work.

<p><i>Banality is a perfectly respectable subject for art.</i></p>

 

<p>Jacob, that is indeed correct. But I was not saying that street

photography is becoming banal because its subject is Banal. I was

saying that -- I suspect -- street photography is becoming banal

because it became incredibly more pervasive than it once was --

*not* because it is "showing Banal". It think this is similar to the

advent

of 35mm film, when snapshot photography became incredibly more

pervasive, and --

possibly, just possibly -- pushed back the acceptance of photography

as an art form.</p>

 

<p>Again, please do not misunderstand me by saying that I claim that

everyday snapshots cannot be art (or that snapshot aesthetic cannot

be used to make art). That's exactly what Joachim Schmid or Wolfgang

Tillmans are doing, and I do not say it is not possible. My claim is

that the aesthetic that relies on photographer "being there" (which

is commonly found in street photography) is becoming more banal,

because cameras are now everywhere.</p>

 

<br/>

 

<p><i>I completely disagree that equipment has anything to do with

what photos are showing.</i></p>

 

<p>Jeff, that is true of course as long as you -- the artist -- are

free to choose any equipment you like. But technology is a part of

our everyday life and it unavoidably influences it. Because everyday

life is a subject of your photographs, it turns out that technology

also influences your decisions of what to shoot and when, no matter

what you're shooting with.</p>

<p>Google Street View is not photography - it is documentation...

There is no thought involved</p>

 

<p>Mike, did you look at at the link I posted? <a

href="http://suwud.com/googorama/">Here it is again</a>. True, there

is no thought Google's lens, but this photographer, using careful

cropping and "magpie-like attitude" (in a good sense) has put

together a better portfolio than I see among many street

photographers.</p>

<i>Google Street View is not photography - it is documentation...

There is no thought involved</i>

<br/><br/>

Mike, did you look at at the link I posted? Here it is again. True,

there is no thought behind Google's lens, but this photographer,

using careful cropping and "magpie-like attitude" (in a good sense)

has put together a better portfolio than I see among many street

photographers.

Dammit, I forgot how to post HTML.

Jeff, the subject here is the suggestion of banality in street photography and a link to a series of Google Street View images as the only supporting document for this statement.<br>

Google Street View is banal by definition and by method. I can't imagine anyone seriously suggesting it be considered for anything other than what it is, simple and obviously banal documentation. Akin to a telephone book. Tell me, should a telephone book be placed in the same category as Stephen King? Shakespeake?<br>

To answer your comment and to back up my own statement I did some quick googlesearching for you, and I learned that it was Ansel Adams that said "You don't take a photograph, you make it." This requires conscious thought. Even the most idle of "snapping while hanging around" involves thought and (hopefully) vision. Driving around in a truck with a computer snapping the shutter at everything it sees is a different category altogether.<br>

My humblest of opinions =)

Sorry for the double post,<br>

Eugene, yes I looked at the link and yes I find the images to be very interesting, but the person that sat behind his computer and put these images together into a gallery shouldn't be called a photographer for it.

I could googlesearch a whole bunch of Luis Royo's art, slap them into a gallery and be called an artist?<br>

guys, come on...

<p><i>but the person that sat behind his computer and put these images together into a

gallery shouldn't be called a photographer for it</i></p>

 

<p>Why not, Mike?</p>

 

<p><i>I could googlesearch a whole bunch of Luis Royo's art, slap them into a gallery

and be called an artist?</i></p>

 

<p>Yes, you could be called an artist if you reinterpret Luis Royo's work, which is

precisely what happens in the link I posted, where the photographer repurposes and

reinterprets Google Street View imagery.</p>

<p>Again, this definition that the photographer "has to be there", has to "take" the picture

literally is getting old and boring.</p>

 

<p>I could hack into the security camera over in Times Square, NYC and take excellent

photography with it without lifting my behind from the computer chair where I'm sitting right

now.</p>

 

<p>How does it differ from what the photographer in question is doing? He just has a little

bit less control, that's all. </p>

<p>Look up this guy for example: <a href="http://images.google.com/images?

client=safari&rls=en&q=joachim+schmid&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi"?

>Joachim Schmid</a>. You may not like what he's doing, but it cannot be argued that it is

not art.</p>

<p><i>should a telephone book be placed in the same category as Stephen King?</i></p>

 

<p>Actually some telephone directories are the finest examples of typographic art of

modern

age, so you might just be wrong on that.</p>

Darn it all, Eugene, I wish I had some backup here =)<br>

I don't know. I don't claim to know everything but I also don't think the views I'm expressing here are out of the ordinary.<br>

Look, the gallery in question is a database of images, most of which are throwaway shots that Google funded and that someone independently sorted though and posted the ones found that were interesting. Maybe the answer is in the way we define 'photographer'. For me that means being there, holding a camera, seeing something you feel is worthy, thinking about what you are doing, and pressing the shutter.

"Photographer" does not mean sorting through images as described above, that would be the job of, say, a digital artist or a database manager but certainly not a photographer.<br>

Now, if it was someone's conscious thought to mount their camera on the top of their van, drive around snapping millions of pictures and then sort through to find the "good" ones, then I suppose I have to concede that, yes, that would be a form of photography, wouldn't it. Heck, we've all done blocking or bracketing haven't we? Just not to such an extent.<br>

Personally I just don't find this to be such a case as the intent to do so was never there and the person who put this gallery together wasn't there and didn't hold the camera. I also don't think that Goole Street View reflects on the genre of street photography as a whole.<br>

That said, I'm going to run away now =) Good luck in your quest and thank you, sincerely, for an interesting topic to think about.

". "Photographer" does not mean sorting through images as described above, that would be the job of, say, a digital artist or a database manager but certainly not a photographer."

 

Perhaps "curator" is the word you are looking for? Curator of Google found views?

the problem is the definition:<br>

Joachim Schmid's work (from what I read) is not photography, but certainly can be considered an art form. Also I wonder about it's relevance to the debate at hand.<br>

Whether you are in control of a camera half a world away, or you have a nice, long lens, then you are "there" and you are taking the picture, aren't you? Google Database does not offer this kind of power, does it?<br>

Again, in the definition, typographic art is not to be lumped into the same category as a Stephen King novel or a Shakespearean play.

<p><i>Curator of Google found views?</i></p>

 

<p>Nope. Curator sorts through artists, not through images per se.</p>

 

<p><i>Joachim Schmid's work (from what I read) is not photography</i></p>

 

<p>Well, it deals with photography doesn't it?</p>

People often seem to have trouble with the definition of 'artist'. I think in the art world it is generally accepted that the older definition which included an exposition of skill and the act of creating something is no longer exclusively held. Artists like Duchamp and Jeff Coons (who is more like a project manager than a craftsman) probably finished that one off. So using the skill or craft of photography is probably not a requirement for calling oneself a photographer any more. In that case collating images from other sources (found photos, security cameras, web pages, whatever) does probably qualify an artist as a photographer.

 

 

Who knows!

Somebody sorted through a bunch of banal images and found a few real winners--nothing

new there. Seems to me mostly what separates boring street from good street is editing.

 

Is "1964" a great book because Garry got a winner every time, or because Trudy Wilner-

Stack is a great editor? I mean, I love Winogrand, but my money's on her.

 

"Art" is about creating something awesome that wasn't there before. If your raw material is

a bunch of random Google shots, so be it.

<p><i>Somebody sorted through a bunch of banal images and found a

few real winners--nothing new there</i></p>

 

<p>You did not bother to study the subject before posting, did

you?</p>

<p><i>"Art" is about creating something awesome that wasn't there

before.</i></p>

 

<p>Please let us stop with defining what art is and get back to the

subject. Being smart is also art in a sense, and smart people do not

discuss a subject like this without doing some homework.</p>

I guess it really comes down to the rule of math. The more pictures taken the more likely an extraordinary image will occur. At least that is what it appears to be. If this is true, we may be seeing some great stuff coming out of London since AFAIK there are now cameras on just about every street corner. Maybe some of us here should offer to serve as a panel of sorts and sift through it all searching for these extraordinary images (however we may define such an image).

 

Remember several weeks ago in the news there was that story of the young woman somewhere in the Mid-West or back east who was stabbed at a gas station and she walked into the mini-mart and collapsed on the floor in front of the counter? The security camera showed how people just went about their business and stepping over her to get to the counter as she bled to death. One person actually took a cell phone picture and later uploaded to some website. I wonder what kind of person would do that. Then I wonder if society has always been like this or if this is just a sign of the times and if so how much more worse it's going to get.