What is street photography?

Though a bit dated, this is pretty damn funny. Such drama!

Yeah, that seems to be a big weight to carry, being the arbiter of what is "street photography". In-Public, including Nick Trupin has a lot of cool photography on it, but I always thought it was a bit of an overreach to bill itself as "the home of street photography" only to self-destruct because they don't have a clear consensus of what that is or means. It is kinda funny.

It is not unprecedented, however.

 

I've been on P.net for a long time; and in that time, I've learned that some people who do 'street photography'

 

have very strong opinions about what it is

and also are not shy about expressing their opinions.

 

Such drama!

 

and how. :cool:

I’m thinking of some of the greats who formed and then left the f64 group, which began with very distinct and restrictive notions of what photography was or should be. Restrictions aren’t necessarily a problem, especially when accompanied by thoughtfulness, passion and talent. And then what so often happens is a bit of contentiousness and people move on. Even the richest groups disband, sometimes with heapfuls of temperament.

 

Drama queens? Hmmm ... Van Gogh, Tchaikovsky. Hey, even some of my best friends are. I think I may even have dabbled in it once or twice. No one else here?

Not quite following this thread. Is it a comment on street photography or an attempt to flush out drama queens?

 

It is not unprecedented, however.

 

I've been on P.net for a long time; and in that time, I've learned that some people who do 'street photography'

 

have very strong opinions about what it is

and also are not shy about expressing their opinions.

 

 

Opinions are what make forums interesting.

Not quite following this thread. Is it a comment on street photography or an attempt to flush out drama queens?

 

Seems like it's both. Kind of like a Certs being a candy mint AND a breath mint. I will say it (I-P, Turpin, etc) has been kind of entertaining over the years.

Edited April 11, 2019 by Brad_

Is it a comment on street photography or an attempt to flush out drama queens?

Maybe a nothingburger ... unless you’re into gossip.

 

Like I said, there might be some substantive issues here as well, like looking at all the content and stylistic “rules” or practices photographers often follow even while standing by the cliché that “there are no rules.”

 

First, it’s worth noting again that such practices as Turpin and Jorgensen insist on have an important place in photographic history. Why shouldn’t there be a group dedicated to this particular approach to street photography? Our own Monday in Nature group is quite strict about what can qualify as Nature (a Friday thread was added for those who didn’t like the restrictions). At first, I was put off by the Monday rules, until I realized how certain self-imposed restrictions can actually develop a kind of discipline and eye that can inspire and foster creativity. Members of a specific group are free to start another group when the rules or practices of the first group no longer work for them, just like was done in forming the Friday Nature group and just like was done as people left the f64 group.

 

Second, what sometimes is said and what photos show can be very different, and it’s always good to be a little more self aware in evolving as a photographer, if evolving is what we want. Why is the author of a given photo often easy to recognize? Because there are particular content and stylistic choices that seem to recur, sometimes with uncanny lack of deviation. Those might not be such overt practices as Turpin and Jorgensen are insisting on. But they can sometimes be more insidious than what Turpin and Jorgensen are doing with more self awareness. In short, the kinds of out-in-the-open and consciously-adhered-to rules being observed by Turpin and Jorgensen seem less of an issue to me than the kinds of unconscious and habitual practices many photographers fall into without ever realizing it ...

WGAF

WGAF: about street photography, the concept of street photography or drama queens? I certainly GAF about all 3.

certain self-imposed restrictions can actually develop a kind of discipline and eye that can inspire and foster creativity.

This idea has been discussed in previous threads on this forum. See "Does street photography need a street?". Perhaps I fall into the Turpin and Jorgensen camp - I like the idea of deliberate paramenters being put around a genre - otherwise what is the point of having dedicated forums such as this one or labels of portrait, landscape, conceptual etc etc. All forums would merge into one. There are many images that appear in this forum that don't match what I have in my head as meeting the paramenters of street photography but I'm certainly not the arbiter of all things in this space.

I think some photographers create narrow definitions to best serve how and what they like to shoot, and more importantly, what they feel comfortable shooting. Narrow definitions of "candid" come to mind, the meaning of which is different across different people.

It isn’t about chasing visual puns that last as long as it takes one to “like” and then forget about it on Instagram. It's an amalgam of meaning, not a distillation of superficial serendipitous facts.

 

Spot on! Visual puns seem to be very popular, though for me they quickly became hackneyed a couple decades ago lacking any depth.

Edited April 12, 2019 by Brad_

the intersection of drama queen and street photography ...

I think some photographers create narrow definitions to best serve how and what they like to shoot, and more importantly, what they feel comfortable shooting. Narrow definitions of "candid" come to mind, the meaning of which is different across different people.

I think there can be more to it when it’s practiced by someone wanting to explore rather than feel comfort. Limiting oneself, for instance, by shooting with only an iPhone for a period of time, doesn’t have to mean resting in a comfort zone, though it might.

 

The f64 group wasn’t formed for comfort, mostly the opposite. It was a reaction to what Weston and other photographers considered the disguise of Pictorialism that photography had been wearing and grown comfortable with. Their self-imposed rules arose out of thoughtfulness, commitment, aesthetics and passion, not the desire for comfort.

I think there can be more to it when it’s practiced by someone wanting to explore rather than feel comfort. Limiting oneself, for instance, by shooting with only an iPhone for a period of time, doesn’t have to mean resting in a comfort zone, though it might.

 

You missed my point regarding comfort, not having anything to do with one's camera choice.

You missed my point regarding comfort, not having anything to do with one's camera choice.

I don’t think I did miss your point. Choice of camera was not my only example, but it’s something to think about when judging others as restricting photographic practices and approaches for themselves to be doing it out of a desire for comfort.

 

Why would we arbitrarily exclude restrictive temporary choices of camera from the discussion?

Let’s look at it this way, Brad, so as not to be obtuse for others reading who aren’t familiar with your prior writing. You introduced this discussion by laughing at two photographers who created drama by insisting on particular restrictions for a group and then you went on to suggest that such restrictions are made out of a desire for comfort. I presented examples of cases where your suggested motivation doesn’t hold. One of my examples points directly at your own often talked about restrictive use of a cell phone camera for a period of time. Now, you want to arbitrarily eliminate what you’ve chosen as your own restriction from the discussion and don’t even address the motivations of an important historical photographic group. These undermine what you claim is the motivation for restrictions.

FWIW,I think 'Street photography' means whatever it means to individual photographers. The only common element is that 'street photographers' take photos (outdoors) of whatever attracts their attention. I find most 'street photos' cliched and boring but occasionally I find some that I like.

 

Given (as in any other genre ) the wide range of 'street photographers' (qua knowledge, experience() it seems to me to be impossible to answer the OP's question. It's a very fuzzy boundary.

The rules of f64 weren’t self-imposed but recognized as being naturally imposed by the medium of photography

Hahaha. Doublespeak. They were obviously not naturally imposed since photography existed through Pictorialism long before these supposedly natural rules were recognized and exists long after the f64 rules became a memory.

 

What the f64 group recognized was that photography didn’t have to mimic painting to be a legitimate art form and they did think it was a less artificial and more natural way to use a camera. They weren’t right or wrong. It was a belief that motivated some great photography. Not much about using a camera is natural so I don’t buy theories of what’s more natural in photography or art. Manipulation is manipulation and it’s quite natural for humans to practice it in art. There’s nothing more inherently natural about practicing straight or manipulated photography. The f64 group came up with an approach to photography based on a passionate set of beliefs (not truths) just as the Pictorialists who they were reacting to. Neither way is more naturally imposed by the medium of photography.

The only common element is that 'street photographers' take photos (outdoors)

There’s plenty of great street photos taken inside restaurants, shops, churches ...

Let’s look at it this way, Brad, so as not to be obtuse for others reading who aren’t familiar with your prior writing. You introduced this discussion by laughing at two photographers who created drama by insisting on particular restrictions for a group and then you went on to suggest that such restrictions are made out of a desire for comfort. I presented examples of cases where your suggested motivation doesn’t hold. One of my examples points directly at your own often talked about restrictive use of a cell phone camera for a period of time. Now, you want to arbitrarily eliminate what you’ve chosen as your own restriction from the discussion and don’t even address the motivations of an important historical photographic group. These undermine what you claim is the motivation for restrictions.

 

Shadow, you're still not getting it, intentionally so I suspect.

 

My "restrictive use" (as you put it) had nothing to do with SP or any other type of photography I engage in. Being a phone and in my pocket it's simply handy and works well enough for me for the photos I like to make. Seems you want to make something more out that, which is not surprising. But really, there is no there, there. It's just a camera. And that's still the only camera I use today.

 

Please...feel free to blather on and ascribe all sorts of noise about why I use a phone cam. I can't wait to see what you come up with!

 

BW, I am kind of amused you hold my "prior writing" so dear. That does seem a little weird.

I think 'Street photography' means whatever it means to individual photographers

Isn’t that ultimately what Ian is probably asking. I took him to be asking to get personal input from each of us. He’s not writing the Street Photographer’s Bible. He’s seeking out fellow photographers’ thoughts. It’s not impossible to answer the OP. Just talk about your own impression of street photography. By doing that and looking at the work of others and hearing the thoughts of others maybe your own thinking about street photography will be affected.

I am kind of amused you hold my "prior writing" so dear.

You get amused often. It’s how you started the thread and you return to it often. But it’s really condescension in a not very good disguise.

 

Anyway, some of the more self-impressed and vocal street photographers on PN, even ones with good eyes and street photo instincts, show repeated content-oriented and aesthetic restrictions in their very unchanging bodies of work. Those may be cases where your suggestion of comfort as the raison d’etre of restriction in street photography could apply. On the other hand, there have been and still are street photographers on PN (I’m remembering Billy K. very fondly and I think Phil’s street work is a good example of this) who seem committed to and empowered by their own visions without falling into aesthetic and visual traps and habits.

Edited April 12, 2019 by The Shadow

You get amused often. It’s how you started the thread and you return to it often. But it’s really condescension in a not very good disguise.

 

Anyway, some of the more self-impressed and vocal street photographers on PN, even ones with good eyes and street photo instincts, show repeated content-oriented and aesthetic restrictions in their very unchanging bodies of work. Those may be cases where your suggestion of comfort as the raison d’etre of restriction in street photography could apply. On the other hand, there have been and still are street photographers on PN (I’m remembering Billy K. very fondly) who seem committed to and empowered by their own visions without falling into aesthetic and visual traps and habits.

 

Well, ok...If you want to equate "twice" with "often," please be my guest.

 

Seriously though, my previous writings having such a strong impression on you, while totally missing my motivation for using a phone camera (of all things and a genuine nothingburger), did rise to the level of a genuine hoot. I'm pleased you recognized the condescension that accompanied.

I'm pleased you recognized the condescension that accompanied.

You’re not hard to read, Brad.

Well, ok...If you want to equate "twice" with "often," please be my guest.

As you have noticed, I’m talking about your writings beyond this thread. So it ought to be obvious “often” wasn’t based on this thread alone. It was based on my having read many of your posts over the years.

BW, I am kind of amused you hold my "prior writing" so dear. That does seem a little weird.

I didn’t say I hold them dear, but I do read and digest what you say. We’ve sparred enough over the last several years and I’ve often read you carefully as an aid in formulating opposing thoughts, which I often have. Not agreeing with you doesn’t lead to my not paying attention to you and none of this should translate to my holding your thoughts dear, though I understand that characterization is just another means of snark condescension.

 

In any case your condescension hasn’t actually addressed my points about restriction in street photography not primarily being due to wanting a comfort zone, but I just assume you shot from the hip on saying that and have no intellectual justification for it other than, of course, condescension, the seeming comfort zone you, yourself, have settled into.