Is street photography fast becoming a thing of the past?

[mikeseb]

<p><i>If a van is ugly, exploit its ugliness. The size and trappings of SUV say a lot about the American

character.</i></p>

 

<p>Care to elaborate on this cryptic statement? Do you have much first-hand knowledge of American "character", or

have you simply engaged your mouth a bit prematurely?</p>

[joe_gallo]

Good enough point, Alex...

 

I should have added that if the SUV or other "trappings of ugliness" add to the picture, by all means, include it or even seek it out if you want to drive home a point... But, too often, they get in the way of a shot (the way I have envisioned it...). And, yes, the American character is monstrous! Evil! Distorted! Perverse! (and those are our positive qualities)...

 

I've lived overseas and I don't think the US has cornered the market here... But this is about street photography, not a referendum on the character of the good people of the United States of America... which I don't think was Alex's point.

 

Oh, and some of my best friends drive SUVs...

[debraj]

Response to Joe Gallo:

 

I agree that one can keep capturing a street over time and therefore understand the changes that have happened over time. However this is not what I was referring to. I think today street photography would be more interesting if we can capture the signs that mark the time that we are living in as they get reflected in the street - for example ads for call centre training posted on the wall, political graffiti, changing gender equations, etc. Of course some shots can also be brilliant just because of the composition itself.

[william l. palminteri]

Nope, not with me !!

Here's my latest shot, October 11, 2008. I am in the back seat of my friend's car, camera is out the side window, above the roof, moving. I can only "guess" at the angle, etc.(I do this quite a bit). As you can see, I'm doing a street shot of a photographer doing a 'street' shot! The location is "SoHo", downtown Manhattan.

 

Bill P.<div></div>

[orvillerobertson]

Good points, Joe. Street photographers and their subjects are a reflection of today's cultural changes. I am very put off by

the ugly and sloppy way too many people dress and do not photograph them. My instincts are drawn to certain faces,

expressions, modes of dress, without fail. It's something I cannot describe or really care to, since I'm not sure I understand

it or need to. I also think contemporary street photography is missing the active participation of women. Where are the

women? I know or know of several women street photographers such as Nitsa, Maria Szulc, Melanie Einzig, and Lara

Wechsler, but for such a large segment of the photographic population, why don't women show more interest in street

photography? Is it the perceived maleness of it, typified by the tough-talking irascible Winogrand? Is it the "danger" of

shooting openly out on the streets? Personally I try as often as possible to encourage my female photographer friends to do

street photography. I hope that sews some kind of seed because talented women photographers need to be encouraged.

[squareformat]

I think Jeff Spirer summed up the dichotomy of street photography rather well when he said, "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."

 

The way I see it, there are two types of street photography: the first where the photographer basically jumps in front of someone with a camera, often using flash, and blasts away right in their face and the second, practised by the likes of HCB, which was a more thoughtful, considered and, IMHO, more worthwhile approach. The fact that the art-loving public is still interested in the HCB "school", for want of a better word, whilst largely ignoring the "mugging with a camera" school, says it all for me.

 

Personally, I think Winogrand, far from representing a high-point for street photography, actually tipped the genre into a downward spiral from which it's yet to recover. In my opinion, he was of the mugging school who just happened to shoot so much that he occasionally got lucky.

[luisarguelles]

Last August I was speaking to the owner of "La Chambre Clair" in Paris, showing him my work on Paris (http://www.holos-

photo.com/parisweb/). He told me that it could be sold if: 1) the prints were at least 40x50cm and 2) they were all printed in

barited paper. I think there is a market for street photography, but it's really a niche market. Very very small.

[akochanowski]

Orville, you raise a good point about women participating in sp. They would very much bring a different perspective to the

genre. Look at Helen Levitt's work. Is there anyone quite so adept at capturing momentary body language, especially in a

child?<p>By the way, you may not be aware that Maria Szulc used to post here quite a bit, until some particularly vile

language was directed at her by a regular poster or two who had previously been banned on this forum. They came back

under pseudonyms known to most who posted here. I believe that some of the antipathy you may be noting here between

posters who have been here a while stems in part from that distasteful episode.

[joe_gallo]

In response to the topic Orville brought up regarding women street photographers... I know a lot of women who take pictures and enjoy street photography but they're too intimidated to take to the streets... and when they do shoot they usually rely on long lenses. Uniformly (from my sample pool) the genre seems too confrontational... if there are any women reading this, what do you think?

 

Debraj: Each individual has their subject matter that may contain elements of what you're after, but too often political agendas (broadly speaking) produce some of the worst "art" imaginable. Bertolt Brecht would have been a great street photographer. He described his plays as "didactic art"... So maybe you can be the founder of a school called "Didactic Street Photography" and include progenitors such as Hine, Dorothea Lange, and other FSA photographers...

[orvillerobertson]

Andy, thanks for that bit of history. It's unfortunate but not surprising given the bravery some feel from behind their monitors

and keyboards. I remember back before the web became popular people used to rely on bulletin boards to post their often

contentious opinions. Sometimes if someone disagreed with you your telephone might stop working or your computer would be

remotely wiped clean. Maybe that's why I'm still intolerant of nasty posters. This place is nothing compared to those old days,

however. As relatively civil as it gets here, it's not the sort of environment most female photographers want to join. I would love

to have more of them here and see how the character of this and the Leica forum change. Women always find a way to

improve our lives, so I see it as a great thing.

[orvillerobertson]

Bruce, I do not agree with you about Garry Winogrand. It's too bad that his mental slide in late life has changed people's

perceptions of him. I've never met him but have spoken to several friends and photographers who knew him extensively.

Some liked him, some did not. Some liked his photography, a few did not. However, no one thought he was merely fortunate

because he shot so many rolls of film. My own study of his books gave me the strong impression that he was a very

precise photographer and knew exactly what he wanted. I've heard the argument several times that his quantity meant

occasional quality, and that would be true if he only had a few good images, but he had many fantastic images. No one is

that lucky. Also if you think street photography, or even contemporary street photography, does not matter to the public I

would invite you down to an opening at either the Domeischel or Sasha Wolf galleries in NYC. Great work is great work. In

fact I believe the public responds better to a Jeff Mermelstein opening than a Tilmans opening, not necessarily in terms of

headcount but certainly in "getting it". Where street photography is losing now is in terms of young and established collectors

choosing to support Tilmans or Lux and others. Look, even if you could care less about galleries and collectors and

museums, these professionals are the force behind this loss of favor with street photography, whose simple esthetic is not

compatible with theirs. One thing you are right about is that too many current street photographers, including some famous

disciples of his, merely ape his work without adding anything uniquely their own. That is what drains the blood out of it much

more than Winogrand.

[akochanowski]

I think women can handle their own....<div></div>

[johncrosley]

Ton,

 

This member's response, above, symbolizes much of why you may feel 'street photography' is a desert in Europe.

 

********'

 

'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.'

 

********

 

That's it in a nutshell.

 

I went to Mois du Photo two years ago and especially attended the giant exhibition at the Carousel du Louvre where the creme de la creme of European galleries and artists was exhibited and was astonished (then) that there was next to none (and no contemporary) street photography exhibited.

 

Then I began to reflect on the study of French and German law two members undertook for me regarding publishing and/or exhibiting photographic works that involved strangers who did not give their consent, and at the same time to recall certain posts here and elsewhere which emphasized that European publications will NOT publish photos involving recognizable strangers without those strangers granting release, even if in the US they would be called 'fair game' for publication because they were in 'public'.

 

Even many (or most) reputable US publications I understand now want releases for editorial (not commercial, but editorial) images, when in fact few honest street photographers can produce them. I have a close acquaintance who shot for major airlines in-flight magazine and she has told me of having to run after people, release in hand to get them to sign releases before her company would publish her work, even though it was not 'for advertising'. They were just 'being safe' -- fearful of defending an unmeritorious lawsuit which can be both expensive and cumbersome.

 

I have discovered through the aid of fellow Photo.net members that European privacy laws do NOT prevent one from TAKING photos in public places (though police and polizei often have that mistaken view), but they do prevent (as noted above) the publication and exhibition of such works.

 

So, when I attended the giant photo exhibition at the Carrousel du Louvre two years ago, the only 'street' seen was some very old Henri Cartier-Bresson and not even one Ronis or Doisneau (they might have been somewhere, but nowhere that I saw. However, just prior to that, by a half year, I encountered a crowd two blocks long near the Paris City Hall waiting to view an exhibition of photos by Willy Ronis, considered by many the living embodiment of Parisian street photographers.

 

Somehow, with his reputation and his older work, he managed to escape the broad brush of 'privacy' that has swept the continent, stifling photographers who would take interesting, telling photos.

 

I still shoot away in Paris and anywhere else I am, because I have no intention of publishing in Europe.

 

To the photographer above who complained that he was seen or identified as a probable 'child molester' because he had a camera (presumably a very good one), that is a hysteria that he swept both the US and France -- and more so the USA. I have heard these words: 'You got a pretty expensive rig there; that's gotta be for child molesting; I'm gonna call the cops' from a 450 pound 6'10' man who had the IQ of a carrot.

 

Some people you cannot reason with and those horrible people, the child molesters, have made it worse because a few of them (including one prominent one in California) have flaunted their freedoms by hanging around playgrounds then publishing provocative images on the Internet, taunting parents.

 

No wonder the parents are 'up in arms'. If only they used some good judgment.

 

In Ukraine where I sometimes reside, if I point a camera at a child, and a parent sees it, the parent is most likely to be very proud that I consider the child worthy of a photo with professional looking gear -- their kids (in their minds at least) are, as in all Garrison Keillor's stories, 'better (looking) than average' at the very least.

 

I shoot away in Paris or other European cities I happen to be in, but I have no confusion that my work will ever be publishable or salable on the continent because of privacy issues. One only has to look at the Paris Metro work published in my portfolio to understand why.

 

[that being said, I often on the Paris Metro or elsewhere am passed by individual flics and even phalanxes of flics who are on the lookout for bad behavior, and although I've been snapping happily away and they've seen me, they've never once stopped me. A word of caution, though: The flics at Gare de l'Est have an entirely different view,and if they even see a professional looking camera they'll chase you away under threat of arrest -- this has happened a number of times to me]

 

It isn't the actual photography that appears to be illegal in European countries, as the publication and/or exhibition. So, Ton, to the extent you draw your conclusions about what you see published in the EU and in galleries in the EU, it's gonna be skewed by preventive laws.

 

Nevertheless the points made above about shooting in the US are well made, as well.

 

However, I am a little surprised at the assertion above, that Henri Cartier-Bresson was possibly NOT a street photographer because he also was an artist and his works were composed with care -- since when does shooting 'street' and having 'good composition' with artistic sensibilities have to be mutually exclusive?

 

I'll be in Europe soon again, shooting away. I've been told by flics in a famous and very large Eastern European city maybe I shouldn't take photos of their world famous Metro with the chandeliers, but as they were trying to make their point with me, I also was taking their photo of them trying to explain to me why I should not be taking photos as shutter sounds could not be heard above the roar of Metro trains sometimes at that time. A 'street photographer' sometimes has to be bold, but caution also must be exercised -- an engaging smile can work wonders as Winogrand often showed, as he worked crowds, smiling and shaking hands.

 

And, later I learned that there is no prohibition against doing what I was doing in that large Eastern Capital; just some idea held by nosy cops.

 

I was in New York City two days ago, on public property and a young cop stopped me and wanted to know if I had a photography permit, since i was on public property taking a photo of private property (a completely nonsensical point of view under any view of the law).

 

I looked him in the eye and said to him 'are you out of the loop? All the restrictions on photography have been rescinded. Didn't you read the Mayor Bloomberg's new rules, which invite photographers to photograph in New York City; and besides you only stopped me because my cameras are more expensive looking, because while we're talking about 25 people with smaller cameras have been shooting.

 

I thanked him for his interest, reminded him to look up the law, then took a couple of more shots to finish my task, then just walked away, leaving this young cop quite confused.

 

I acted with authority and civility - and certainly acted as though I knew what I was talking about.

 

I had been similarly accosted in Munchen's Flughafen by a polizei who told me I couldn't take photos, and just lectured him back that he didn't know German law, that I had had it looked up and that it did not prevent me from TAKING the photos, but only from exhibiting them.

 

He backed off. It pays to be well informed and authoritative sometimes (not always). Sometimes it's best to beat a tactical retreat.

 

Street photography always has an element of risk to it; Cartier-Bresson never wanted to be publicly identified -- he felt it jeopardized his life, and he probably was correct, as he moved around the world through changing cultures especially in the Far East where he often was in the middle of cultural turmoil.

 

There are always going to be people who object to 'street photography' -- perhaps mistaking their privacy rights (in the US especially, where such rights are largely truncated in public), foolishly mistaking (sometimes intentionally so, I think) the photographer for child molester, without any evidence or reason at all other than their own innate fears, and from people who seek to protect public 'propriety' from having things they don't want recorded end up in a photograph.

 

In some countries if somebody does something local citizens regard as 'not pretty' or 'demeaning' to their country', the photographer may find someone standing in front of his lens as he goes to record that act, or a hand blocking his lens's view, etc.

 

These are risks of the trade; it requires a special sort of personality to record street.

 

I started on the streets of NYC and at a time when there were race riots, campus riots and being in public even without a camera was pretty dangerous, then went to Viet Nam with a camera, so these things seem rather tame to me. I've always seen worse.

 

The only time it did get really personally dangerous, and I got shot, I had a camera next to me -- and no film.

 

That was the worst ignominy.

 

Ton, whether or not 'street photography' is gaining or losing in popularity, it will always have value -- but often times the value is not recognized for one or more generations.

 

When Henri Cartier-Bresson as he retired in 1969 brought his giant exhibition to San Francisco to a famous museum there, I could have bought any of his prints for $100 to $200, but I only earned $145 a week, so I had to pass up the chance of a lifetime.

 

Look at the prices now. He was famous but the prices of his works did not reflect that fame.

 

Maybe few collect 'street photography' now, but in years hence, there may be lots of collectors and few genuinely great collections . . . .and I'd like to see the prices on a few great collections when they become collectible . . . in the future.

 

Frankly, you wondered if street photographers would be 'touchy' about this subject''; I'm not the least touchy. I just shoot for the fun of it and the thrill of a good capture (and the ability to show it here or elsewhere.)

 

Anything else is pure gravy.

 

I don't think street photography is 'becoming a thing of the past' except that the worth of today's street photos often is not recognized until the past is upon us.

 

John (Crosley)

[peteradownunder]

The past way of making and relating to all forms of photography is changing as it always will.

[Uhooru]

It's up to photographers to evolve photographic forms that have resonance. Really, the question of whether its a thing of the past is really sort of a non-question. It really doesn't matter. I'm not what is meant by the term "street photogaphy". It almost sounds like its used as some sort of religious sect.

[Uhooru]

sorry, should be "I'm not sure what is ment...."

[burnedred1]

I find my self fiddling in the computer trying to adjust raw files insted of takting pictures.

[carlwakefield]

John that was very interesting and informative. The thread is worth reading.

[sam_motskin]

It's up to photographers to evolve photographic forms that have resonance.

I'm not sure what is ment..by the term "street photogaphy.."

 

I remember looking at Rembrandt's portrait of the Clothmakers Guild cyndics in Amsterdam and thinking is this a

perfect candid photograph ? (Ton, don't get offended, I love Rembrandt). This is one of his most celebrated

paintings and is invaluable today. May be if he lived today he would be a phographer. And if HCB lived in 17th

century he could have been a painter and his paintings would sell for millions today. May be it's just a matter of

technical skills and how deep the content is, no matter how we label it?

[tonmestrom]

John,

 

thanks for that extensive reply. French law didn't change until quite recently and yes it's become quite difficult since

then. It seems paranoia is contagious. (I don't think though that German law requires a release) Nevertheless, until

not so long ago street photography could be found in some of the many galleries in Paris.

 

'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.' Of course that's true. Still, the important role photography once played socially and

culturally has profoundly changed. That was my point. More than the speed with which images reach us it's the

sheer and ongoing bombardment with images that has desensitised us as a society. Do you really think HCB would

be regarded as highly as a contemorary photographer? I for one am rather doubtfull.

 

As for exhibiting street work, I have (had) no problems in our country. Dutch law is a bit more liberal it seems. In the

last year I've been to London, Berlin, Milan, Antwerp and a few times to Paris. Maybe I'm just lucky but I've never

been hassled by police or guards, not even at Gare de l'Est (I was there on my way to the Canal St. Martin, you

should really go there) . Although I have to say I believe what some here say, namely that it's mostly attitude. That's

not questioning yours of course although you shouldn't be surprised to be adressed at an airport, especially in

Germany.

Is doing street photography a risk? Sure, just as life is a risk. You may get clobbered at some point but that can also

happen just walking down the street without a camera. Or in your words: "...it requires a special sort of personality to

record street" Maybe that's why there are relative few women who do street, although it's anybody's guess.

 

John, it certainly wasn't me who suggested that the photographers here are feisty and touchy.

 

"I don't think street photography is 'becoming a thing of the past' except that the worth of today's street photos often

is not recognized until the past is upon us"

Let us just hope that's true.

[tonmestrom]

Sam, it takes quit a lot to offend me. You're right on the Nightwatch though, it was refused by the Guild because they expected a formal portrait.

[Allen Herbert]

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.

 

Have people ever really appreciated street photography? To the majority of people what is interesting about some

photos of folk wandering about the streets….and let’s be really honest a lot of street photography is just about

photos of people wandering about the streets…there does not seem to be any rhyme or reason why they were taken in

the first place. So, I don’t really think it does any harm for someone to point out these facts and encourage the

wannabe street photographers to raise their game.

 

Critique is equally important as encouragement.

 

It seems to me that too many photographers are more interested in where the nearest gallery is ,being told how

wonderful they are, and why they have not been recognised as the second coming of Henri.

[vivek iyer]

<i>Peter A , Oct 19, 2008; 10:03 p.m.

<p>

The past way of making and relating to all forms of photography is changing as it always will.</i>

<p>

Good point! :)

[mikeseb]

Allen has touched on the essential issue, in my opinion: much of the photography being done these days,

regardless of genre, is simply awful, either artistically, technically, or in many cases, BOTH. If you don't

believe it, pick any genre here on photo.net and browse.

 

This is not the fault of digital per se; digital simply removes all cost barriers to mediocrity, making the

marginal cost of yet one more poorly-composed, poorly-executed image next to nothing.

 

I'd maintain that best "street photography" has something to say, and say artfully, about the human condition;

the same is true about any other genre. Problem is, the vast majority of images being made say nothing except

"check out my new automatic camera with these f/stop thingies!"

 

Curmudgeon out.

[dd_toth]

Wow, what a great thread! In response to, where are the women?

 

For me, I’m not a street photographer. I did a bit of it back in college

during a couple of my black and white photography courses. For certain assignments I would take my camera and

walk downtown and look for photos. I love to observe human interaction. I really enjoyed that time in my life,

and that was my first introduction to photography as an art form. I went to England after college for 3 months,

and did a couple weeks backpacking in Europe. During that entire time I did the touristy shots and some street

photography. After that time I took an artistic hiatus for a few years and it’s only been the last two years that

I have picked up a paint brush and my camera, and began to express myself again.

 

I have thought many times about taking my camera back to the streets and wandering around downtown snapping

photos, like I did back in college. However, for me, it is the safety factor that is stopping me from doing it.

I’m not

as naïve as I was back then and now, I’m living in a bigger city with a lot more crime. Even though I’m always

smart when I go out and make sure I don’t put myself in stupid situations, I still am very leery to go out on my

own. I wanted to go out and scout locations downtown for a shoot recently and chose not to and went with the

easiest and safest choice instead. Also it’s my own silly reservations of photographing strangers and being

worried about a negative reaction I might get from one of them.

 

The one thing that draws me to street photography is the story or the honest interaction between people, whether

it’s one of love, disgust, indifference, etc…I find there are only a select few that speak to me. Others I view

to be more of a documentation nature, like random shots of billboards, storefronts, someone walking their dog, or

reading a newspaper. They can be interesting to look at but they tend not to engage me as much. If it was a pic

of someone reading a newspaper on a bus, while the person next to them is glancing over trying to

read it over their shoulder without the other noticing, that type of interaction speaks to me because the

photographer managed to capture a moment in time that we all can relate to…I think when it comes to street

photography we all look at it and ask, How do I relate to this image? Does it draw an emotion from me? Those

images that answer those questions and allow us to become a part of it, are the most successful ones at keeping

our interest.

 

I agree with John that a photo’s true worth is not recognized until the past is upon us. I love looking at old

photos and viewing the history in it, the effect time has on ours lives. To me, that tells a story and the photos

that I now view to be more of a documentation nature, change into story telling ones, as time goes by. Strange

how that is…

 

And touching on what Debraj said, I do know that I am guilty of trying to get a shot that doesn’t have a cell

tower in it, or electrical lines cutting through a field, an SUV, or trying to shoot a popular landmark without

any distractions in it, etc…However, I imagine 60 yrs from now we will look back at those photos, say of a 20

something woman, covered in designer labels from head to toe, heaving herself into her large SUV, while talking

on her cell phone…and be intrigued and

thankful that those shots were taken of something stereotypical and even comical of that time, instead of the

overly abundant common shots of landmarks.

 

I do also feel that in our times, there is a huge emphasis and interest put on “famous” people, or the latest

fad. If we see a photo of a random person, some may think, what’s my connection with this person, why should I

care, and what is their significance, and if they can’t relate to that photo they move on. However if it was

someone “famous” they’d stop and spend more time viewing it. It’s sad really, but I think that affects the

“average” persons’ mentality and appreciation towards street photography, as well.