William Klein...

<h1 >10 Lessons William Klein Has Taught Me About Street Photography</h1>

<p>http://is.gd/zmQPWv</p>

<p>William Klein created an interesting document of his time – I have no difficulty in recognising this, although I personally do not care for his photography at all. If anyone were to behave in the same way today, this would be a surefire recipe for being knifed, beaten, robbed and accused of paedophilia and/or infringement of human rights (whether a basis in law exists or not) if the photographer in question should attempt to exploit his/her work commercially in any way whatsoever.</p>

<p>I like Vivian Meier's work much better and frankly her approach to it as well. I'm not sure what Klein is actually trying to do. <br /><br />Rick H.</p>

<p>According to Klein's own comments about his work, it was about his individual experience of living in NY at the time. He approached it from a very personal angle which may have differed from many other photographers at the time. It may not be to everyones liking but highly personalized work never is because it breaks away from comfortable, established norms and because of this such work remains significant across the passage of time. If Klein lived in a small city in the midwest would his approach have been the same? I doubt it. People tend to forget that what an artist creates has a lot to do with not only their individual personality but also their environment and how this shapes some of that personality. I recently read he's been doing some color photography lately, so we'll see if he can still create edgy original work as he did back in the mid 50's with "Life is Good and Good For You in NY."</p>

I really dislike the current internet meme of the form "10 things I have learned about..." or "10 things you need to know

about..." lists that are so prevalent online today. They're simplistic in a Cliff Notes sort of way and nuance-stripping

when trying to gain real insight. When used dozens of times as they're employed by some sites they end up being just more internet noise.

 

 

That said, William Klein is one of the living greats of street shooting, being able to easily engage people on the street. His work is an

outstanding example of "street photography" not needing to be candid or shot unseen to be powerful and revealing. I

suspect there are many "hard core" street photographers who cling to the narrow view of sp needing to be candid and

unseen while simultaneously holding Klein out as one of the best. Odd.

 

 

>>> If anyone were to behave in the same way today, this would be a surefire recipe for being knifed, beaten, robbed

and accused of paedophilia and/or infringement of human rights (whether a basis in law exists or not) if the photographer

in question should attempt to exploit his/her work commercially in any way whatsoever.

 

Little sense is made from parsing the above comment. If you are suggesting a photographer today cannot engage and

photograph people on the street as Klein did with his camera without being knifed, beaten, robbed, etc, I could not

disagree more. If you're saying that such violence would occur months/years after capture if the resulting photographs

were then used for commercial purposes, that makes little sense as courts are available to handle such matters. Also,

why even bring commercial use into play here? As far as I know, Klein has not used to his work to promote products

commercially.

<p>"did with his camera without being knifed, beaten, robbed, etc, I could not disagree more"<br>

<br /> Its all about you the photographer.</p><div></div>

<p>Smile and the world smiles with you.</p>

<p>Not sure if I prefer the colour version of the photo...</p><div></div>

<p>BW</p>

<p>"I really dislike the current internet meme of the form "10 things I have learned about..." or "10 things you need to know about..." lists that are so prevalent online today"</p>

<p>10 things I have learned...BS.</p>

<p>You learn by being out there and doing it...you learn yourself......and no, street photography is not for everyone neither is performing open heart surgery.</p>

<p>Quote from<br>

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/photography-william-klein-1178874.html<br>

... in Klein's New York people press themselves up against the lens, dancing around the photographer, pulling faces, pretending to shoot each other, or the photographer, with toy guns. <strong>It is the kind of photography that is impossible to do today</strong>: people are no longer delighted to be snapped in the street, do not dance or horse around in Harlem on Easter Sunday for a photographer. <br>

<em>If you're saying that such violence would occur months/years after capture if the resulting photographs were then used for commercial purposes,</em><br>

Basic inability to understand English here. What I said was<br>

... accused of paedophilia and/or infringement of human rights (whether a basis in law exists or not) if the photographer in question should attempt to exploit his/her work commercially in any way whatsoever.<br>

In other words, if a photographer TODAY were to exploit street photography commercially, his subjects would hire lawyers and try to enforce preposterous demands for infringement of human rights. Klein did nor attempt any such exploitation - his street photography was an (in my view laughable) ploy to establish some gritty street cred, which he THEN exploited mercilessly in his other work. To me all his street photography says is "Look at me! Look at me! I'm in your face and I don't give a f***! Aren't I great?"</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It is the kind of photography that is impossible to do today: people are no longer delighted to be snapped in the street, do not dance or horse around in Harlem on Easter Sunday for a photographer. </p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

This statement comes, first of all, from a totally US-centric view. It's quite easy to do this in some countries. I've done it in Mexico. People are not paranoid like Americans. Secondly, this statement comes from a view of the world as random. It's not clear that the world was random for Klein. A lot of street photographers work in specific areas or milieus and people are in fact "delighted to be snapped in the street" in some of those milieus. I often work around specific "sub-cultures" in San Francisco, particularly with young people, and they do exactly what they did for Klein around me. And, as Allen says, it's about the photographer.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>if a photographer TODAY were to exploit street photography commercially</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

It's not clear why this is the least bit relevant. Klein didn't use his street photography commercially, he had a whole other career where he did that and it didn't involve street shots. The statement could be true about any photography of people that is not done with releases signed, etc. A non-issue.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>To me all his street photography says is "Look at me! Look at me! I'm in your face and I don't give a f***! Aren't I great?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

To me, it says he was comfortable on the street and the subjects were comfortable with him. I've seen most of what he has published and shown publicly, so I think I have a pretty good handle on his work.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>He approached it from a very personal angle which may have differed from many other photographers at the time. It may not be to everyones liking but highly personalized work never is because it breaks away from comfortable, established norms and because of this such work remains significant across the passage of time.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Marc, this is really well said. The only thing that gets a little murky is that there are plenty of photographers who break away from comfortable, established norms but sometimes do it either badly, cynically, or with intentions merely to break norms for its own sake. There will often be disagreement about those who do it. <br>

<br>

I try to avoid second-guessing other photographers' motives and try to stick to what the photos are showing or telling me. If they show or tell me something significant, I tend to like them. If not, I tend not to. Klein's work seems legitimate to me. It seems significant to me. I like some of it and don't like some of it.</p>

<p>I don't know how one establishes that his work was a <em>"ploy to establish some gritty street cred . . ."</em> It's possible this is the case but I'd need to be shown some biographical information that would confirm this.</p>

 

>>> Basic inability to understand English here.

 

Juvenile snark.

 

>>> It is the kind of photography that is impossible to do today:...

 

I'm assuming it is likely impossible for you; not necessarily so, however, for others who are comfortable making photographs

around people in the street. Question: Just so I understand where you're coming from with respect to context, do you regularly engage in street photography?

 

>>> In other words, if a photographer TODAY were to exploit street photography commercially, his

subjects would hire lawyers and try to enforce preposterous demands for infringement of human rights.

 

Infringement of human rights? Is that a new tort? Or are you referring to one of the privacy torts? If so, I'm guessing it is appropriation. With respect to exploiting

street photography commercially, I'm wondering why that issue was even brought up. Since that seems to be a reasonable outcome in your mind, can you name a

half dozen well known street photographers who have exploited their work commercially?

 

>>> his street photography was an (in my view laughable) ploy to establish some gritty street cred,

which he THEN exploited mercilessly in his other work.

 

Really. After establishing that "gritty street cred," how was that exploited mercilessly and what work are

you speaking of that benefited as a result?

<p><em>>>> Basic inability to understand English here. ... Juvenile snark.</em><br>

Then let me express myself slightly differently - basic tendency to twist words, quote selectively and ignore anything you don't like.<br>

<em>>>> It is the kind of photography that is impossible to do today:... I'm assuming it is likely impossible for you ...</em><br>

You assume quite a lot! If you look at my portfolio here on PN, you will see numerous pictures in a photojournalistic style. You will also see that these are quite old - I resolved over 20 years ago not to continue to work in this style, not least because of the Doisneau/"Kiss At The Town Hall" shambles:<br>

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/keyword/robert-doisneau<br>

When I say "impossible", I mean (as a professional) impossible to do in any way in which you can make unrestricted commercial use of the results. Anyone can actually photograph on the street, by assuming a friendly manner you may well strike a rapport with subjects, and with basic street smarts you can avoid danger, but only to keep the pix at home, not able to do anything with them?<br>

Which brings us to this:<br>

<em> In other words, if a photographer TODAY were to exploit street photography commercially, his subjects would hire lawyers and try to enforce preposterous demands for infringement of human rights.</em><br>

Too bad you chose to ignore the next words: (whether a basis in law exists or not)<br>

<em>Infringement of human rights? Is that a new tort?</em><br>

The words of a smart-ass lawyer. Human rights law is pretty nebulous, particularly with regard to pictures taken 50 or more years ago, but there is no shortage of no-win-no-fee lawyers who will take up cases of people who have been photographed by PJs in cases where the picture became famous. The couple in Doisneau's pic were paid models, the case was thrown out, but until this happened Doisneau had 3 years of his life ruined. Similarly, the dispute over Dorothea Lange's "Migrant Mother" left a bad taste in the mouth.<br>

<em>... gritty street cred ... Really. After establishing that "gritty street cred," how was that exploited mercilessly and what work are you speaking of that benefited as a result?</em><br>

Klein made numerous documentary films - do you really think he pitched and funded these on the back of his fashion photography?<br>

<em>can you name a half dozen well known street photographers who have exploited their work commercially?</em><br>

Brad, I can't think of ONE well known street photographer who to my knowledge refused a paid publication or other commercial exploitation of their work if an opportunity presented itself! Just think of Cartier-Bresson, Brassai, Diosneau, Willi Ronis, Margaret Bourke-White, Capa - the list goes on forever!</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>In other words, if a photographer TODAY were to exploit street photography commercially, his subjects would hire lawyers and try to enforce preposterous demands for infringement of human rights.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry, but what exactly do you mean by exploit street photography commercially? Because I have a sense that maybe you are confusing concepts.<br>

As to Klein, I think he's brilliant, creative, energetic and his body of work really remarkable. I'm not sure I care to have someone else summarize a person, his career, his perspectives and beliefs in a bullet point format that really doesn't do anything but regurgitate other's thoughts. I'd rather read Klein's own words and other text that may be shall we say, more informed.<br>

<em> </em></p>

<p><em>Sorry, but what exactly do you mean by exploit street photography commercially? Because I have a sense that maybe you are confusing concepts.</em><br>

I am aware of a distinction between the "classic" photojournalists of the past (whom I regard as street photographers insofar as they worked on the street) and the alternative concept of street or documentary photography which has grown up in recent years and is practised by amateur enthusiasts primarily for its own sake, without immediate (or any) prospect of payment. As I have made clear, I have no interest in this latter genre, not least because of the legal minefield resulting from the current public paranoia concerning terrorists, paedophiles, pornographers, infringement of rights to privacy, entitlement to modelling fees, et cetera.<br>

<em>As to Klein, I think he's brilliant, creative, energetic and his body of work really remarkable.</em><br>

And why not? I don't personally like Klein's work, but I'm certainly not telling anybody else what to think.</p>

<i>>>> You assume quite a lot! If you look at my portfolio here on PN, you will see numerous pictures in a

photojournalistic style. You will also see that these are quite old - I resolved over 20 years ago not to

continue to work in this style, not least because of the Doisneau/"Kiss At The Town Hall" shambles:</I><P>

 

Before posting my first comment I did view your photonet gallery and dd not come away viewing them as

photojournalistic, with perhaps the exception of one standalone image. Many are very nice photographs, though. That’s why I asked right at the

beginning if you engaged in street photography.<P>

 

<i>>>> When I say "impossible", I mean (as a professional) impossible to do in any way in which you can

make unrestricted commercial use of the results. </I>

<P>

Well, it seems you are now changing the parameters from you original post at the top of the page (“... if

the photographer in question should attempt to exploit his/her work commercially in any way

whatsoever.”). Under privacy law, commercial use comes into play under the tort of appropriation; i.e.

using a person's likeness without permission for the purpose of selling goods and services. Examples

would include using someone's image without permission on a can of coffee or other product, or on a

highway billboard to sell services, or as marketing material for goods or services. <P>

 

That does not include editorial use and publications. An exception might be if an un-permissioned image

of a person was used on the cover of a publication; i.e., it could be viewed as promoting the publication it is on.<P>

 

<i>>>> Anyone can actually photograph on the street, by assuming a friendly manner you may well strike a

rapport with subjects, and with basic street smarts you can avoid danger, but only to keep the pix at

home, not able to do anything with them?</I><P>

 

Wait a minute… Your first comment at the top of the post said: "If anyone were to behave in the same

way today, this would be a surefire recipe for being knifed, beaten, robbed and accused of paedophilia

and/or infringement of human rights (whether a basis in law exists or not) if the photographer in question

should attempt to exploit his/her work commercially in any way whatsoever."<P>

 

Which is it? If <b>anyone</b> were to behave in the same way today, this would be a surefire recipe for being

knifed, beaten, robbed and accused of paedophilia? Or, something <b>anyone</b> can do by assuming a

friendly manner and striking a rapport with subjects.<P>

 

Your two views are at odds with each other. <P>

 

<i>>>> <B> It is the kind of photography that is impossible to do today</b>: people are no longer delighted

to be snapped in the street, do not dance or horse around in Harlem on Easter Sunday for a

photographer. </I><P>

 

Again, why is it impossible? <P>

 

<i>>>> Brad, I can't think of ONE well known street photographer who to my knowledge refused a paid

publication or other commercial exploitation of their work if an opportunity presented itself! Just think of

Cartier-Bresson, Brassai, Diosneau, Willi Ronis, Margaret Bourke-White, Capa - the list goes on forever!</I>

<P>

 

Photographers working in a photojournalistic manner, including street photographers, sell prints, and produce/sell publications. Those

activities being editorial/fine art in nature are not covered under the tort of appropriation and commercial

use. All well-known and many many not very well-known street photographers sell prints and publications. That’s hardly news. Commercial use under the law would come into play if their photos were

used to advertise/promote/sell goods or services; examples might be of a photograph of a person printed on a purse, or, on a billboard or in a magazine advertising camera equipment.<P>

 

<i>>>> Human rights law is pretty nebulous, particularly with regard to pictures taken 50 or more years

ago, but there is no shortage of no-win-no-fee lawyers who will take up cases of people who have been

photographed by PJs in cases where the picture became famous. </I>

<P>

Tell me more about this “human rights law,” with some specifics, and how it has encumbered the

activities, work and publications of the endless list of street photographers you referenced

above.<P>

<blockquote>

<p>Brad, I can't think of ONE well known street photographer who to my knowledge refused a paid publication or other commercial exploitation of their work if an opportunity presented itself! Just think of Cartier-Bresson, Brassai, Diosneau, Willi Ronis, Margaret Bourke-White, Capa - the list goes on forever!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dave, you seem to be implying, and correct me if I'm wrong, that there is some inherent evil imbedded in the words, "commercial exploitation of their work". If you are suggesting that selling their photograph or getting paid to do "street photography" is wrong, or somehow illegal, I'm not sure you are aware of what non-commercial use of photography means. Or is you imply some moral standard of artistic purity, than what do you base that on? I'm just hearing a lot of pronouncements about legal problems involved in taking photos on the streets. I've been doing this for several years now, and have not been sued or had any legal action threatened ever, well maybe once. I think your worries and concerns are valid too you, but many of us seem to get through life taking photos, talking to people, sometimes getting to pose and publishing their photos all over the place, even sometimes getting paid for them without being hassled by cops, accused of pedophilia etc. One of the interesting facets of this type of photography out in public is that people often reflect what one is projecting. Don't know if that helps.</p>

<p>This thread may be coming to the end of its natural life, but there are a couple of points worth making:<br /> ... inherent evil ... No! I've been a freelance creative since 1976, mainly as a writer, with 7 years as a pro photographer before this. I am always happy when my work is used for payment!<br /> street photography possible/not possible. As others have remarked and I have also said, you can still take street photographs with the right attitude and approach. My somewhat tongue-in-cheek remark about being knifed, beaten, robbed ... relates to the deliberately confrontational style which Klein apparently used - the public's tolerance for this has fallen drastically in recent years. What is absolutely beyond doubt is that today no picture agency will accept pictures with recognisable people in them without a model release - which for me is the end of the story but may not bother someone who is taking pictures for his/her own pleasure.<br /> As regards accusations of paedophilia -- you Brad were kind enough to view my PN portfolio - this includes a picture entitled "Weston Sands":<br /> http://www.photo.net/photo/17991595<br /> Americans may have a hard time believing this, but pictures like this one have led to numerous cases of hysterics on the part of parents and accusations of perverted intentions - there have been no convictions, but this is way more excitement than I am looking for.<br /> human rights - the position in Europe appears to be that in theory everyone has the right not to be photographed in public without their permission. In practice enforcement is rare and inconsistent, but I say again - the Doisneau case shows just how messy the results can be when things go wrong.</p>

<p>Who's to say Klein didn't ruffle some feathers as he produced the photographs that became his book "New York?" Perhaps he did and it was never something he spoke about. Likewise for Winogrand. I once read somewhere that when somebody would ask him "Did you just take my picture?" he would reply "No I just took MY picture."</p>

<p>I have no idea what life was like in the 50's and 60's because I wasn't there. Times change. Shooting in public comes with risks and everyone needs to decide if those risks are worth taking. Anyone who flips out because a photographer took a picture of them in public is reacting out of fear and it's best to just let the person calm down and decompress. If they physically try to harm the photographer then they are open to an assault charge.</p>

<p>Most listicles could be titled "Top Ten Things I Learned About Driving Traffic to My Website":</p>

<ul>

<li>1. Post Top Ten lists.</li>

<li>2-10. Lather, rinse, repeat.</li>

</ul>

<p>But in fairness to Eric, most of his listicles go far beyond the usual superficial buzz-type listicles. In fact, most of his articles are more essays than listicles, so choosing the "Top Ten" format appears to presume that his intended reader demographic have a short attention span but can be lured into reading if the essay is broken down into organized, repeated modules. And he may be right.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"If anyone were to behave in the same way today, this would be a surefire recipe for being knifed, beaten, robbed and accused of paedophilia and/or infringement of human rights..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My impression is exactly the opposite. Most folks I encounter are far less suspicious now about candid photography in public than when I first started doing this as a kid in the 1960s. Back then you just didn't see folks carrying cameras everywhere in large towns and cities. Even when I visited NYC as a kid (I lived about 15 minutes to the north as the train flies, until the early 1970s), I didn't see street photographers on every block. I saw tourists taking touristy snapshots of families and friends posed in front of NYC landmarks.</p>

<p>Nowadays cameras and camera phones are ubiquitous. Folks hardly give me a second look in downtown Fort Worth, which is hardly a mecca of street photography. The few times anyone has asked what I'm doing it's always from a perspective of constructive curiosity. In my rundown, low income neighborhood I'm probably considered the local eccentric, but so many folks have watched me wandering around with a camera for so many years that only once has anyone declined to have a photo taken (I usually chat with folks in my neighborhood before snapping photos).</p>

<p>The wild accusations of YIKES, PEDOS!!! seems to be unique to the UK influenced nations, presumably the result of paranoid propaganda perpetrated by the gummint and news media. I've seen several news reports of such accusations being used recklessly in England. That doesn't seem to happen often in the U.S., although about 10 years ago I stopped photographing school sports and events for family members after the Texas legislature passed an idiotic law that gave law enforcement wide berth to interpret prurient interest. That law has since been rescinded. But I wouldn't bother photographing school sports or events now because so many parents are doing that themselves, with very affordable and capable entry level dSLRs. </p>

<p>But even that stupid law didn't stop me from continuing with street photography in public places. Even when I've photographed kids the parents just nodded and smiled. I suppose the photographer's attitude, intent and approach have some influence. I smile, nod, wave and chatter a bit while I'm out snapping pix. Seems to put folks at ease.</p>

<p>One further small point which is worth making with specific reference the UK is this - a small minority of people in receipt of various government benefits, such as unemployment or disability benefit, illegally work in the "black" economy at the same time. The authorities have made considerable use of photographic surveillance as a means of catching these people. I am not aware of exact numbers, but cases are publicised prominently in the press, creating the impression that surveillance is common practice. Any attempt to photograph people of this kind (who may be working as street traders, taxi drivers, window cleaners, builders, etc.) is very apt to generate a violent reaction!<br>

Lex makes the very valid point that much of what I have said is specific to the UK, but this of course is the environment in which I personally am working (or in the case of street photography, choose not to work).</p>

<p>David, to make this a little more substantive about Klein's photos themselves and what we see and/or experience when we view them, can you answer what it is in Klein's photos that leads you to say he is (laughably) trying to establish gritty street cred, and how you move from what you see to knowing what he is trying to do, or if you have biographical information that suggests this to you or quotes by him that support this, can you point me in the direction of those? Thanks. </p>

<p>Lex, I generally find Eric's articles to be pretty much all the same. Eric himself is a really nice guy who loves what he's doing and fair play for being able to have his work support a life style he wants. But personally I find the articles sophomoric. That's just my personal opinion. But he shoots and his work keeps improving and I do believe his experience will end up being a bigger teacher to him then anything else.</p>