Is street photography fast becoming a thing of the past?

Of course I could be wrong but I get a sense that street photography as an art has become something that not a lot

of people appreciate anymore, let alone gallery's. Although it's hardly representative here on PN it's something that

only a handful of people seem drawn to and work at. More importantly in the real world it's something you have to

look for real

hard. I'm not sure about the States but even over here in Paris, a city that can arguably be called the photography

capital

of

Europe, it's not something you're likely to find in great numbers, even in coherent series.

While documentary still thrives to a modest extent, although in a niche, street seems to be something that's close to

invisable. So has it

been marginalised and if so why?

I'm not talking about how saleable it is for that is obvious. It's more a question against the background of aesthetics

or what we perceive as such. Has there been a cultural shift?

It is possible that you are right. When I lived in NYC I carried around a 4 x 5 speed or crown Graphic every

week end. I never had a problem! About 25 years ago, I carried a Rollicord with me most of the time. I now

cary a compact auto-focus (35 mm Film) camera with me. I have read about the problems other photographers have

had trying to take photographs with anythin larger than a cell phone.

 

OT -

I have been cleaning out my darkroom and can almost reach my boxes of 4 x 5 negatives from 'way back'. I will

scan and upload a few of them with the hope that some photographers will try to duplicate them from the same

perceptive in the 21st century.

I'm suspecting that the rather feisty (and even a little touchy?) participants on this forum will let you know how wrong you are.

And why would that be? If you read my post I'm not talking about street photographers, let alone those here, but about a phenomena.

As I say, posters on this forum for some reason seem to be a little touchy.

i don't think that people are shooting less. they are shooting more with the great proliferation of cameras. it is just that they are shooting elsewhere and in many cases, they are getting their cases playing with more complex gadgets and photo manipulation software. sites like flickr have thousands of amateur street photography related shots. there is less of a professional or amateur enthusiasts interest in this type of photography these days. the paparazzi have also made the general public less sympathetic towards cameras.

JDM, I have a bit more confidence in people than you seem to have. Besides I post here as well and I'm hardly feisty

and only on occasion touchy. Also while doing street is often solitary it doesn't automatically follow that one is feisty

or touchy. More importantly though I really think that street photography has not lost in meaning (quite the contrary

in fact) but in appreciation, hence the low exposure it gets. I think my question was very clear.

<i>More importantly though I really think that street photography has not lost in meaning (quite the contrary in fact) but in appreciation, hence the low exposure it gets.</i>

<p>

The demise of appreciation starts with a mutual appreciation society. It is all too predictable who would say appreciative words about whose post and would get a pat on their back in return (in the same thread or as a pay back, on another). :)

Street photography has not really mattered in the art world for many years. I worry about this contantly each time I joyfully get

out there with a rangefinder fitted with a wideangle lens doing what for me comes naturally. In other words, you've got to do it for

the love and let history take care of the appreciation part.

On the other hand, look at the attention paid to such "beyond-street" photographers as Beat Streuli and Philip-Lorca diCorcia.

Good packaging always helps. They are both fine photographers but nothing that special in my opinion. The best street

photographers who regularly post here such as Joe Gallo, John Sidlo, John Mac, Ray, Brad, Michael S, Andy K (I know I'm not

mentioning some of you) are all better. And who knows? It's so easy to hide behind a pseudonym here that one of them, or

even me, might be diCorcia or Streuli. I could write an entire book about the manifold reasons why street photography is not a

hottie in the art world, but then again it does not matter to me in either my own personal appreciation and love of street

photography.

Orville wrote: >...you've got to do it for the love and let history take care of the appreciation part.<

 

I agree with that. Unless you consider yourself a commercial photographer who has to sync him/herself to markets (and I

sure don't intend any disdain of that, btw), the way to generate your best possible work is to throw yourself into doing

what you love.

 

And you know, the greater the work, the more it transcends categories. A great Cartier-Bresson or Doisneau doesn't

make me think Street Photography (although much of it is), it makes me think Art. If your best photos just _kill_, people

are not going to be calculating whether or not they will satisfy such and such existing market, they're going to be thinking

Wow, this is magical -- how do I get on board?.

Just what in either of my statements had anything to do with "confidence in people"? [this is a rhetorical question and does not actually require you to answer]

 

I understood what you were saying and felt that your initial premise was incorrect. I will say I expected more people to say just that, but either way I don't see there being much of a problem.

 

Your responses seem to prove my point about being some people here being touchy.

 

touchy |ˈtə ch ē|

adjective ( touchier , touchiest )

(of a person) oversensitive and irritable.

Ton,

 

I suppose what attracts people to the street as a location is that it carries a constant stream of human life in public view. I don't believe that human interest in humanity will ever wane. But there are more cameras out there than ever before, yet (IMHO) there seem to be fewer quality street photographs.

 

Personally, I find two things wanting in a lot of work by contemporary 'street' photographers. First, an obvious feeling for humanity (whether it be empathy, compassion, anger, joy, admiration, or disgust). Ton, you have some very likeable examples in your portfolio that buck this trend. All too often the subject is shot as though they were a trophy, something to hunt and 'bag'. Second, artistic skill in composition, that inner recognition of what is 'right' and the extra little shift of the camera to achieve it. In this respect, HCB set a very, very long bench-mark.

Adolphius, I would love to see some of the photos! When you're ready, please post them in this forum as a new thread so

those of us interested don't miss them.

Street photography is primarily of interest to other street photographers. There is very little public interest in street photography save a few, probably Winogrand being the most prominent example. Many people often called street photographers, including HCB, took a much more documentary approach, and their photos present a much stronger picture of some aspect of life beyond happening to be taken on the street.

In my opinion, whether or not HCB was a street photographer or not, he had the eye of an artist. He composed images

that hang together as wholes, like an artist does. And he had a rare sensitivity to his fellow humans. A street

photographer who develops those sides of their work will make photos that reach an audience beyond any category. The

average viewer (beyond the "fans" of a particular genre) won't care if you have a social agenda, a documentation agenda,

or whatever -- not if they're transfixed by an image.

 

In another field, consider the Beatles. They were trying to make pop/rock music. But their sensitivity and artistry reached

far beyond those categories. My mother would be 89 if she were alive today, and she adored the Beatles. Everyone from

Bing Crosby and Sinatra thru to the as yet unknown artists of tomorrow, have or will cover Beatles songs, because they

transcend their category.

 

I guess I'm simply saying what I tell myself: don't worry so much about our favorite genre. Worry about expressing in

photography the universal connections between all people. If you build it, they will come. :^D

it all depends on what the story is. people will always fascinated with new lines of stories. no one wants to read the same story over and over.

A bit slow guys... During the film days ( and still so ), street photography developed within itself by attempts of many photographers so it took a very long time for us to see frontiers which are just a few. Although the technique in photographic era did not change significantly, the equipment did. Digital century changed many things (the access to a camera became more easy I think) so number of the unqualified photographers (like me), increased ,as the qualified ones stood same accordingly.

I believe that-of course this is my idea- when ordinary photographers increased, although this should make contrast with valuable ones and make them more valuable, it didn't happen so. The high trend of digital PS camera using made street photography so ordinary that, the decreasing attention to this category made the superior samples seem to be invaluable too. This may seem to be a raw idea but, when it comes to public opinion , it may become true. For example, when I showed my father the GW's works, he revealed them excellent although he has no idea what street photography is, but when I presented him today's ordinary samples mixed into today's frontier samples of street photography, he saw no difference , likely all of them were bad. ? MF

<i>Digital century changed many things (the access to a camera became more easy I think)</i><P>The access to <i>images</i> became more easy. There's never been a shortage of boring street photography, we just didn't have places to see most of it.

It's mostly all the will of the wave. I know many museum and gallery people who love street photography and many who

abhore it or think it's merely retro. The secret word is trend. The young curators who are now in grad school or undergoing

museum fellowships are more attuned to so-called intellectual work, especially if it's also supported by the commercial

galleries. It's not always snobbism; it many times reflects the artistic culture that they have adopted. Museums also need

money from huge crowds seeing major works by hot artists. More and more often the commercial gallery system is driving

what gets shown in museums. It's a cash thing rather than anything personal for the most part. This filtered down to the

universities as well. Everyone wants to discover the next hot artist or movement. It's both money and personal enrichment.

It's similar to the whole investment banker explosion or the dotcom popularity from the 80s and 90s. Some great art still gets

created, but too much of it seemed like a money grab. But, like my hero Underdog always said "There's no need to fear!"

You have to first produce interesting work and then find an audience. There are still many quality venues all over the world

for street photography. The dedication is not just in the making but also the marketing. Also there are plenty of top quality

street photographers who could care less about showing their work to any gallery or museum and to whom this discussion

does not apply. I love showing my work in galleries and museums, but bottomline, it's all about my obsession.

Paris is an especially unlikely place to see street photography in a gallery, in France it's effectively illegal to exhibit or

publish most of what we think of as street.

 

But really, a lot of what is now canonical art was derided and ignored in the era it was produced. We may all be famous once

we're dead.

Galleries and museums have nothing to do with it.

 

The public, the people who are usually the intended audience for images, is not particularly interested in street photography. They are interested in photography, it's easy to see that. But street photography doesn't have much appeal outside the community of street photographers.

Street Photography is not alone in being "invisible"... A friend of mine is a classical composer. Talk about disappointment. You can hardly fill Symphony Hall with Mozart or Beethoven let alone a smaller hall with people willing to shell out a few bucks to listen to an unknown composer. But he writes music because he has to. He's compelled to. I think that's the best reason to take pictures... meaning, it's really no reason (or it's the only reason. Or both...).

 

Years ago I read a quote attributed to Stieglitz (which I've just tried to Google, unsuccessfully): "The worst thing that has happened to photography is the proliferation of the camera."

 

Answer to Ton's original question, Street Photography had a vogue but it was also in tune with the times. There are more mediums and distractions today that never existed in the 20s or the 60s (etc.) and maybe static images just don't do it for a lot of folks out there... And, then Stieglitz (along with a few posters here) just might have a point.<div></div>

Joe, thanks for your reply because in many ways your example is a perfect metaphor. We've become a society of

fastfood rather than quality food. Street photography has never been en vogue, at least not in the context used. It has

had however a profound impact on our culture which it now lacks. Nowadays we are inundated with images each and

every day and as a result we (i.e. the public) have become desensitised. Therefore I don't believe for a minute that

good photography always will stand out, it's not that simple.

 

Digital has indeed nothing to do with it. It only means that more people are taking photo's not that there are more

photographers. Mediocrity rules, as you can clearly see on this site and all other photography related ones. Fastfood

instead of quality food.

 

Orville, maybe on your side of the pond it's different but over here (contemporary) street photography is not

something that many galleries will show. Come november the annual "Mois de la Photo" will start in Paris

 

http://www.parisvoice.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=542&Itemid=27

 

but I don´t think much contemporary street work will be on display. That has less to do with French law as it has with

saleability. And since HCB´s name has been dropped, I don´t think his work would get the same recognition these

days.

 

Street photography can be very telling of a society in a lot of ways and maybe one of it´s primary functions has

always been that of critical observant but since most of them have lost a healthy sense of selfreflection it´s not

valued anymore.

 

So Joe, coming back to your composer friend. It´s the Hans Zimmer´s and Klaus Badelt´s who make a living as film

composers that are on top these days. Like I said, an appropiate metaphor.

 

 

`All too often the subject is shot as though they were a trophy, something to hunt and 'bag'`

Jonathan, it´s an interesting observation but wouldn´t that mean that by extension this is true of all photo´s.

Ton, we actually do agree. It's very hard on both sides of the pond to show street photography, but it's not impossible here in

the USA. I've done quite well in the recent past with shows at galleries and museums. There's no reason why anyone with good

work could not do the same in the US. In fact in the US there's sometimes more interest in the European perspective than the

American perspective. I have mostly been concentrating on shooting rather than showing my work over the past 5 years, yet

next year I will have Spring exhibitions in NYC and Philadelphia, both on street photography. I can't believe how negative this is

getting. My very ordinary non-artsy friends all love excellent street photography. If it's not that compelling then of course no one

will bother. Finding a venue for your work is not easy, but it isn't the impossible dream. If I can do it, working full time and with an

active social and married life, why can't any of you? Ton, if you can't find venues in France, contact places in the States. I'll

even point out possible places if you email me, but never decide it's not worth it. Then you, and only you, lose.