Why street/documentary/journalism?

These are distinct genres but they share some common characteristics

that separate them from, for example, nature and landscape, glamour,

etc. They're concerned with the world around us, and usually take as

their subjects "ordinary" things that are deemed too commonplace to

photograph by some. The people who shoot street or documentary

photography often seem uninterested in doing other work. So what is

it that attracts us?

 

I found the following in Lauren Greenfield's intro to "25 under 25"

on the current Digital Journalist:

"A camera is a license to explore on your own terms. It provides a

shield of protection, a mandate, a reason for being at a place, for

looking, for participating. In normal life, you are not supposed to

talk to strangers, or get too close to them, or stare. The camera

affords freedom from social prohibitions, and is a passport for the

journey."

 

I found it particularly apt in explaining why I like to do this

work. There's a sense, for me, that the process is more important

than the product.

 

So, purely for fun, what's your reason?

From the time I got into photography with a Brownie at age 8, my favorite subjects were folks in my neighborhood. I guess that's where it started. I remember annoying only one person during that 5-year era of my personal development, a woman on a NYC train who barked at me to mind my own business. It was a good photo anyway.

 

Later I became a newspaper writer and photographer because it was exciting and I thought I could make a difference. Then I found out the main purpose of for-profit media outlets is to make money. Truth, depth of reporting, even accuracy were all secondary to selling papers. Well, I got the excitement part right. It's just that they wanted to excite the readers, not me.

 

As the reporter assigned to cover the police and fire beat (plenty of gritty photo ops there) and intruding into others' misery rather than simply observing it once too often, I quit.

 

However, I have tremendous respect for other reporters and photojournalists who are tough enough to stick with it. I don't criticize the paparazzi - their relationships with their subjects are symbiotic at worst. I'm more likely to criticize, say, CNN for wearing out sensationalistic stories like the grotesque humor of O.J. Simpson and the latest poor little white girl who's disappeared or been murdered (notice how seldom minorities are the recipients of such a media blitz?).

 

Photojournalism, documentary and even atopical street photography are essential elements to the chronicle of our times. Witnesses, authorities and reporters often get it wrong when recalling or reporting an event. But a single good photograph can correct an error and even dispell an entire fantasy.

 

However, just as I found with the print media other news outlets, photographers can also employ their personal biases to misrepresent situations.

 

For example, when we display yet another photo of a homeless person in the street, what does it mean out of context? I can tell you another perspective. My mom was a social worker, employed in various capacities with the MHMR system in North Central Texas. One problem she and her coworkers found frustrating was that some homeless persons, especially those with mental disorders, refused to accept help. They were paranoid and distrustful of offers to help them qualify for disability benefits, free medication, even of shelter for the night. So what does a photo of such a person mean, lacking informed context? Not much.

 

We have to be as skeptical of our own motivations and genres as we might be of any other media outlet.

Self disclosure is a risky business for most of us. It seems to raise questions more quickly than it provides answers. There is always some tension between the desire for honesty with one's self and the presentation of self to others. I think the question you ask is similar in a way to the previous thread about favorite quotes on the same subject. The quotes people chose are a little revealing of their own thought processes and preferences. And, the content of the quotes, while often perceptive, are often very fragmentary and only suggestive of a postion rather than definitive. I'll offer up a few of my own thoughts with the proviso that they be understood as a tentative first look at the subject, and I reserve the right to provide a completely contradictory viewpoint in the near future. <br>    For me, street photography has a certain predatory appeal. The pictures are trophies of the hunt. I like the challenge of moving through an environment that is not completely my own and capturing something of value which would not be voluntarily surrendered. Being on the street with a camera is for me not unlike hunting with a rifle. In the late '70s to early '80s I led a somewhat precarious existence beside the Snake River in southern Idaho. In the winter, I often hunted deer and rabbits for food, and I stalked coyotes for their pelts which were worth up to $100 each at the time. I didn't harbor any ill feelings toward the coyotes as I was not a rancher or a farmer with domestic stock to protect, and I always admired the coyotes for their intelligence and athletic grace. Still, I did feel a real sense of satisfaction and accomplishment when I succeeded in bringing one down. Of course, there was also a brief sense of regret at some point, but that was tempered by the feeling that I had met a difficult challenge that was somewhat beyond the reach of most people. Of course, there is more to it than that in regard to the photography, but it is undeniably part of what motivates me to get out to do it.

<i>and the latest poor little white girl who's disappeared or been murdered (notice how seldom minorities are the recipients of such a media blitz?).</i><br><br>Notice how they always have to be pretty and good looking to boot? Its really quite sad how these are the only ones who recieve media attention. A much larger problem would be exposed if the media were to cover the dissappearance of people from all walks of life, as the majority of these cases do not involve young, attractive, white girls or celebrities.<br><br>--Dominic <p>

Actually the only thing that needs to be exposed is that stranger abductions of children, white, black, ugly or pretty are spectacularly rare. Only 200 to 300 a year in the entire country. The media fixates on whatever generates ratings. It's a sickness.

 

When I was a kid we went trick-or-treating door to door. Now they do it in the malls. Everyone "knows" this is because of people putting razor blades in apples. Except that there has never been a case of any such thing happening.

 

Remember all the publicity about the boy whose arm was bitten off by a shark in Pensacola, Florida and whose uncle dragged the shark ashore and pulled the arm out of its mouth? (This was during the so-called "summer of the shark," 2001, during which shark attack rates were exactly what they've always been). Well Pensacola was in the news again today, but on the back pages. It turns out that there have been 40 accidental downings in the Florida panhandle in the past three years. Somehow those didn't get quite the publicity that one shark attack got, though.

"Actually the only thing that needs to be exposed is that stranger abductions of children, white, black, ugly or pretty are spectacularly rare. Only 200 to 300 a year in the entire country."

 

Mark, here in Canada the CBC actually did run a story breaking down the number of kids reported missing one year, by cause. Over 30,000 total went missing, the majority being runaways, and only 3 were abducted by strangers. This, incidentally, was in connection to the widely reported abduction and murder of a young girl -- who happened to be not white, but asian.

 

But I'm more interested in people's reaction to the Lauren Greenfeld quote, and their own attraction to these genres, than in opinions on the sorry state of journalism in the US. Maybe I should find a media criticism forum where the off-topic chatter is about photography. ;-)

 

Mike, of the quotes in the quote thread my favorite is the Walker Evans "stare" quote. The aspect of the Greenfield quote that particularly appealed to me was the idea that the camera became a sort of license for curiosity. After all, we should die knowing something, right?

<p><i>Mark, here in Canada the CBC actually did run a story breaking down the number of kids reported missing one year, by cause. Over 30,000 total went missing, the majority being runaways, and only 3 were abducted by strangers.</i><br><br>And usually when they are abducted they make national news for days. What was unusual about Cecilia Zhang's case was the fact that it attracted the attention of the American media (America's Most Wanted did something on her). This might have to do with the fact that our population is quite low (smaller than California's).<br><br>Back On-Topic: I make street photos because it allows us a glace into the lives of the people we photograph, an expression, gesture or just their image. It also on occasion allows me to capture how spontanious life can be, those little humerous or interesting moments that might otherwise go unnoticed.<br><br>--Dominic</p>

>>> "A camera is a license to explore on your own terms. It

provides a shield of protection, a mandate, a reason for being at

a place, for looking, for participating. In normal life, you are not

supposed to talk to strangers, or get too close to them, or stare.

The camera affords freedom from social prohibitions, and is a

passport for the journey." <<<

 

This is a pretty generic quote. Levitt, Arbus, the chick from

Shutter Babe all said something similar to this. Is it gender

specific? I really don't see how a camera is a shield, protection

or some passport to some journey that one couldn't do without a

camera. A camera is just a camera nothing more or less.

Andrew:

 

I couldn't agree more with the statement, only I am not sure about "In normal life, you are not supposed to talk to strangers, or get too close to them, or stare." I thought that's what we do in our everyday's life. No?

 

But I do agree that, for me at least, photography is more about the process than the end result. I have that attitute most of the time when photographing people on the street. I always have better times when doing than later processing the images.