Street photography and fine arts, I need to find some spot in between.

[ray .]

<i>...then they realize that a "pretty picture" is not enough to bring them any serious

recognition; and so they fall to the charm of the supposedly anti-aesthetic grittiness and

artiness that street photography exudes (BTW, this "grittiness" forms an aesthetic of its

own, thus contributing to the SP's downfall by not making it fundamentally different from

pretty-picture photography).<p>

 

After a while, they realize that SP... will not give them a ticket to the mainstream art

establishment they hoped it would.</i><p>

 

Sounds like a rant from some delusional fruitcake. Who is the nebulous "they" he's talking

about? I can only speak for myself, but I've gotten all the goodies and more than I ever

expected out of doing photography.

[akochanowski]

Brad, I have no idea what your post said.

[________1]

"Who is the nebulous "they" he's talking about?"<p>

 

The writer talking about his own experience? That's what people usually talk about.

[Allen Herbert]

This is all so funny.

 

Young Eugene (Wyatt) Sherbet has been given a cowboy costume, and a shiny new pearl handled colt six-gun, by his Mum. His Dad was so pleased he got through college; he bought him a Deputy Badge. So, it was time to put all that training, all that tin shooting into practise. So, with his faithful mate, Andy (Doc) Kay they headed to"Street City" It was going to be a tough dirty job, but someone had to do it.

 

 

It was nearly noon, and Orville was picking up his groceries, and minding his on business. He was unarmed, and just thinking about his daughter's birthday....

 

Chill out folks.....

[sprouty]

Ah, I was so hoping Allen would swing by.

[Brad_]

>>> Ray, this forum positively sucks for quality.

 

Andy, when was the last time you posted some photographs of yours on this forum that you

thought were good quality?

[akochanowski]

I am not comparing "mine" to anyone else's, nor is there a need for "my" photos to be better (though most are not) to anyone else's for me to hold an opinion that the stuff that is posted on this forum is in the large part derivative, tired dross.

[Brad_]

OK, that's what I thought Andy - certainly supports Ray's comment about your drive-by style

of "participation." Slam but offer nothing of your own - tired dross indeed...

[EricM]

i wish we could all meet at a pub and go shoot for a few hours.

[ray .]

I'd agree in general there's more going on right now on flickr, to some degree because some

people decided to pack up and leave here and post there exclusively. But there are some

decent posters here, and there's always a cycle to quality, and it could get better.

 

Most everything is derivative to one degree or another. Even Magnum has derivative stuff I

don't find worthy of my time.

[sprouty]

Yeah, I'm with Eric. So much of this would be laughed at in-person.

[spanky]

What a headache I have now that I've read through this. It seems like a lot of left brain thinking going on for what is essentially a right brained activity.

 

Nevertheless getting to Jia Pus' original question all I can say is that the remedy for any kind of block one runs up against (and we all do, it never ends, just ebbs and flows) is to simply keep working. The answers to questions one may have regarding a path to take in the future are found in the existing works. Only you can find what they are. It is certainly good to view the works of other photographers (I also greatly admire Orvilles' work), it can be very inspiring. However you run into danger when you start comparing your work to theirs. Unless you spend every minute with someone and shoot the same scenes they do at the same time, there is no point in comparing your work to any one elses. I've always loved cubism and as hard as I tried my paintings never looked like Picasso's'. Having accepted this fact, I then took comfort in knowing that Picasso, if he were alive, would never be able to paint a cubist image quite like mine. Of course he probably wouldn't want too lol, but you get my drift. Every artist must find a method of working that helps them achieve what they set out to do. What is it that they are setting out to do? They should be working on their work.

 

This brings me to another point: Art and artists. What loaded words these are. Who wants to think of themselves as artists or worse yet, be called one? I certainly don't. These are things that should be of concern only to those who have some sort of stake in the matter. Because such people have power and influence they can apply such labels to others and it can be blindly accepted by the masses who rather not think for themselves. This is why museums mount huge showings of work from people like Winogrand and Friedlander and very little space if any given to current work from unknowns.

 

A quick thanks to Robert M Johnson for the link. Interesting read. I've always thought that the only people who really enjoy street photography are other street shooters. The general public just doesn't "get it" unless of course as mentioned above they are in a museum and therefore are assured they are looking at art even if it doesn't make sense to them and they think "Gee I could take pictures like these".

 

At work we have a company wide photo contest every year, and every year my co-workers ask me if I'm going to enter. Most of my co-workers have at one time or another seen what I have uploaded here. So when they ask this question I'm always a bit suspicious. The fact is that year after year the photos that win are the usual cutesy, warm and fuzzy photos. Cute kids and smiling babies, lots of close ups of dog and cat faces, and many many scenics many also with sunsets. Last years grand prize winner was a barn in a field. Or maybe it was the year before? This years which was came out on Fri. in our newsletter was a rowboat tied to a pier. So I get suspicious and wonder if my co-workers really looked at my work or if they really looked at the winning photos since the difference is like night and day. Entrants have to have names and address for all identifiable people in their entry,

so this eliminates just about all of my photographs for eligibility but even if this weren't the case it's obvious that the judges (whoever they are) are going for the blandest, most non-offensive photos they can find. I cannot possibly enter something political from one of the war protests or someone from one of the gay pride parades. Of course the fact that I might be offended at such trite photos winning what amounts to some pretty good money, is also irrelevant and certainly not a concern of the judges. Nor is it a concern of mine either. I've always said that the work should always be just about that: the work and seeing it through.

[________1]

God save us from obnoxious self-important people with fancy websites.

[ray .]

<center><a href="

title="Untitled by Chaospress, on Flickr"><img

src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2379/2205316651_e0028e4ce9_o.jpg" width="900"

height="600" alt="" /></a></center>

[Allen Herbert]

I always enjoy the photos posted on this forum. I think in general the quality of work is very good. Perhaps i have low standards, but methinks not.

 

Some are starters and on a learning curve, those I find the most interesting, as i enjoy watching them progress.

 

I suppose we could all just talk about who has the best gear.....

 

 

I started trying street photography several months ago?

 

Just do what comes natural to you. Enjoy, and develop in your own way rather than trying to be something.

[orvillerobertson]

OK, enough talk, let's put away the keyboards and go out shooting.

[robert_m_johnson]

Ray - "I can only speak for myself, but I've gotten all the goodies and more than I ever expected out of doing photography."

 

I met my wife who was a very recent graduate with a degree in art, one look at my stuff and she was putty in my hands! :-) That and the fact that I really was cute! :-) If you guys think I am that overloaded with photography here, imagine being her? :-)

 

 

BTW, when she saw my fruit pic above she shook her head and smiled!

[ray .]

yeah, fer shur Robert, I know what you speak of.. wink wink.

[Uhooru]

Wow, Ray, that dude with the camera was really getting down there...

[photobycate]

Street photography can contain the people who live and walk on the streets or the stores, homes, schools, churches, trains, buses, whatever that depict a story for the viewer. Steet photography is about telling a social story. And maybe that is why you are finding it difficult to get into. If you don't want to tell a story think of the images that you are shooting as abstracts. That might add some more fun to your street photography. By the way the photos are great.

[j_sevigny]

Jia,

 

I think you're looking too hard for a style or a "genre." The thing to do is to get out and shoot and not worry about what anyone else says or does. With a lot of time invested, you'll get to a point at which you know what you're looking for when you shoot, and that will become the only thing that matters. Following the rules of "street" "landscape" or "portrait" photography will only get you pictures that look like pictures that have already been taken. Get out there and shoot. A lot.

 

Good luck!

[Uhooru]

Concur w/J Sevigny..

[autismkid]

Damn, this is definitely not one of *those* photography forums. Saw lots of characters in this

thread. Pleasure to meet you all. :-)

 

J Sevigny,

Somehow you words freed me a bit. I start to realize that myself this a couple of days.

[eugene_scherba]

<p>I had a really nice rest of the weekend, and had to do my day job the entire Monday...

Now I'm back, for better or worse.</p>

 

<p>@SP:</p>

 

<p>I certainly have been to the Public House in Brookline. I will see about March 14-16 in

Philly -- thanks!</p>

 

<p>@Barry:</p>

 

<p>> <i>Actually, I've never talked about [self-exploration] here ever except this one

time...</i></p>

 

<p>Alright, I take that back. On your part, please stay close to content and reduce the

amount of bitching and meta-commenting -- this thread is long enough already.</p>

 

<p>> <i>And your HDR photos are not about self-exploration at all. They were you

trying to learn a technique, which is good, but don't confuse the two.</i></p>

 

<p>How in the world do you know what my photos were about? And why are you rushing

to separate technique from self all of a sudden? What is self? </p>

 

<p>> <i>Why not...self-exploration doesn't happen or live in a vacuum. If you were

serious about yours, you would understand that.</i></p>

 

<p>I concur, but my question was rhetorical, and you seem unwilling to get that...</p>

 

<p>> <i>I don't do regular portfolio view, but I have seen photographer friends

portfolios when looking to get into various photography schools and a couple of fashion

photographers and commercial guys looking for gigs.</i></p>

 

<p>These don't count. Read below why.</p>

 

<p>> <i>A website is not a portfolio generally.</i></p>

 

<p>It depends.</p>

 

<p>> <i>an establish artist/photographer, does not sell out of a portfolio, but every

"established" professional sells their work, these days usually off a website. I'm surprised

you didn't know that.</i></p>

 

<p>Why did the word "professional" appear in your comment all of a sudden? Nobody was

talking about commercial photographers. We were talking about artists and art business,

remember? Established artists. NOT established professionals. Professionals are hard-

working people struggling to make a living and critiquing them has very little impact

culturally. Artists are either filthy-rich and don't have to work or unemployed and

starved.</p>

 

<p>So, here's lesson number one in art business. NEVER price your works on your site,

especially when it comes to photographic prints. All photographic prints that artists sell

are limited editions. You can't make more than 20, or you can't make more than 50, or

whatever. Better yet, don't have a website -- have your dealers manage it. I am not joking

here. None of the big guns in today's art photography have a website. Why? Because not

having a website brings about an air of exclusivity. Collectors like to be pampered and they

get very unhappy seeing that any dork can buy a copy of a print they own for whatever

price is indicated on some puny shyite in interwebs.</p>

[Uhooru]

Eugene, never said price your prints on-line, but virtually every "established" artist/photographer either their own website, or a dedicated site for them by their reps. All of them have a link for "enquiry", that means sale. they all sell online.

 

Couple of examples: Gibson(hah, he even sells cameras on his site and its priced), Eggleston, just the first two I looked at contact for enquiries (read by a book or print or folio). but point taken, don't price your work. Ok, if you say so. But then again, you are the one who needs to see themselves as an "artist". I say sell the crap on em, give unit price breaks. Its all just a commodity, its not sacred.

 

But more interesting is your intial comment in this whole thread. What an interesting comment. From what youv'e seen here or anywhere, what makes you think any one doing this got into this type of photography to get "serious recognition" by which I assume you mean the established "Art WorldD" I should ask is that what you mean? If so, what an amazing assumption and yes,(for Andy) until he supports that with some substance, it is not an observation.

 

And then the conclusion that an aesthetic" = pretty = downfall. Why is that? How so. Is it possible that what you really mean is that gritty photographs have become derivative and thus trivialized?

 

In other words, when as Andy discussed or rather mentioned, Moriyama and others, influenced by Klein and others (including HCB and Atget ) developed his "anti-photographs" or "anti-asthtic" as it were, they were important because he looked at things differently and altered peoples perception about beauty or rather recreated an idea in some people of what was beauty. So, in Marcusian fashion (stop me when you're ready to fall asleep) this style has been assimilated into mainstream photography and turned into a commodity, a recognizable aesthetic that can be emulated and copied. Is that what your bitch about gritty style street photo is about?

 

If any of that makes sense to you, then the next question is, what makes you think that is what so called and much over used and in my opinion fading in usefulness term, "street photographers" are doing?