Are there recognizable [artistic] periods in street photography?

[razvan_peteanu]

<p>In most visual or musical arts, one can tell when they were composed - certain artistic trends or techniques developed or became popular during a period that is thus recognizable. Sometimes these trends are major: entire genres came into being. At others, the differences are less dramatic but still have enough individuality. For instance, many pop songs from the 80s have a specific sound because the synthesizers were popular. There was a large range of expression in the musicians' work but this particular trait is a giveaway.<br>

I wonder if the same applies to street photography. Of course, the image itself (primarily the very subject: streetscape, clothes, activities and so on but also some technical qualities such as resolution or grain) gives a hint about when it was created, but let's suppose, for discussion purposes, that we talk about images that do not. Are our photos <em>that</em> timeless that cannot be pinned down to certain art periods? Or to isolate the artistic approach towards an image from its content is overly artificial and makes little sense for street photo?<br>

The interest is not purely academic. I do street photography (more, recently, having realized that blogging brings discipline) but I don't look to get a certain <em>look</em> of an image that would be a "post-2000 look" (if there is anything like that). Perhaps I would try if I knew what that look was, but then I would have partially answered my own question...<br>

Curious to hear others' opinions,<br>

Razvan</p>

[john tonai]

<p>1970's The filed away negative carrier to give the rough rebate edge-proof it was printed full frame<br>

Also same time period-looser composition as done by Gary Winogrand</p>

[colin carron]

<p>I think it depends on how closely you are looking. You may be able to distinguish trends styles down to individual photographers and even periods within their work. For me with a more distant perpective I see changes in street photography dictated mostly by equipment.<br>

I would see it like this :The earliest period is 1840 - 1880 when street photography was done with wet plates and required long exposures. Subjects needed to be fairly static. Hill and Adamson's pictures of Scottish fisherfolk might typify that period.</p>

<p>Later you get faster dry plates and early roll-film. This period is a transition to the rollfilm period 1900 onwards. This was more given by the portability of the camera - no need for tripods etc. The earlier work of Lartique in France might typify this though you could choose many more.</p>

<p>The next major development was fast lenses in the 1920's typified maybe by the Ernemann Ernostar used by such people as Erich Salomon to take candid shots of Nazi leaders etc.</p>

<p>Then you get the Leica era typified by Henri Cartier-Bresson. Here the miniature camera format (35mm was considered miniature in those days) allowed a quantum jump in portability which is still more or less where we are today.</p>

<p>Later developments have been mostly down to faster media and lenses. There have been many artistic variations around the freedom perimted by the 35mm format icluding the huge leap in war photography during WW2 and the Vietnam war. Since then there has been a widening of what is coonsidered acceptable and printanle in all areas of photography with consequent shifts n areas of interrest.</p>

<p>That is my takke on it. Looking at the braod picture I don't see any great developments of late but you with your closer interest may be able to detect them.</p>

 

[razvan_peteanu]

<p><strong>Colin</strong> , good point about the faster lenses (and, to add, more sensitive sensors, we are now into 5-digit ISOs)- I wouldn't be surprised if there will be more low-light photography that is less about shadows and brings details similar to those seen in daylight photography.</p>

[ferensen]

<p>There are two periods in street photography:<br>

1 Pre-Robert Frank.<br>

2 Post-Robert Frank.</p>

[alan_ginman]

<p>I would split Colin's post HCB era up a bit. More and more colour work is done, particularly since press type colour negative films appeared, and of course in the digital era. For me using black and white nowadays isn't 21st century photography, but harks back to a previous era. Robert Frank was one of many milestones in photography. Certainly his grainy, low tech approach was very successful at the time but would look very dated if someone tried it now. I love his work, BTW.</p>

<p>Regards</p>

<p>Alan</p>