Different cultures, different photography...

saintelmo21 · February 10, 2011

I don't think that going out onto the street with the sole purpose of taking 'artistic' photographs of complete strangers while they are minding their own business, and having no expressed intention of being photographed can be considered 'normal' behavior in any culture. I think so-called street photographers are acting outside of any influence other than the pursuit of 'good' images. I think SP has produced it's own culture, just like baseliners or taggers.

I have travelled extensively in southeast Asia and in West Africa and I do not behave the same way on the street whereever I go. You have to be mindful of what is socially acceptable in regards to photography in the place you are in. Even in the US, street photography is on the fringe. I guess that is what makes it so appealing to many. I know what I like in a street photo and I always strive to produce good work. At least what pleases my eye if not someone else's.

What surprises me is the large following that 'street' photography has. People who don't dare to do it are fascinated by SP work. There is such a large following of this forum and other websites that I have a hard time grasping the numbers...what I'm getting at is that it is cross-cultural and the internet has given the genre a great uplift.

fi_rondo1 · February 10, 2011

Anders wrote: ...to a large degree, you can learn something from people that think differently, see differently and subsequently make photography and art differently.

Living and traveling abroad does key you into the subtle differences between cultures (I'm speaking of travel within the west, since those are the schools Ton mentioned), but my first travels, when I was 21, first opened my own eyes up to just how American I am, and only then could I really see the cultural differences you're implying. Since we're talking about culture and art, etc., I think I'm accurate in saying that the bridge has narrowed to the point of being a formality. If I was one of those funny American types in Bermuda shorts taking a bus tour of Europe, yeah... then the cultural differences would be enormous. But, let's leave them out of the equation for now...

To a certain degree, some multicultural societies have the privilege of at least partly living this diversity almost daily, but the American melting-pot might not be the most optimal conditions for it.

This is another question altogether and is based on the assumption that cultural diversity, in any form, is good and healthy for a society. In my opinion, it is the immigrant who has the urge to assimilate that benefits artistically. There's a tension between two worlds that can play itself out in a thousand different ways. 20th century American photography, art, literature, and music is rife with examples of the sons and daughters of immigrants who used that tension to create something that is, even today, considered staples of American culture. Just as the Europeans of old romanticized the Noble Savage, I think there's a similar romanticizing of a Multiculturalism. Before I'm accused of jingoism, I'm not promoting isolationism, or anything of the sort. Anyhow, America, if we have any virtue at all, historically we've been able to assimilate manifold cultures into the greater civic body. Not without it's ongoing struggles... (But what does this have to do with photography...)

More to the point, I'm with Elmo when it comes to the real equalizing factor... technology, what we're doing right here and right now. I address people all over the world without being totally, like, blown away by the ability to do so...

And, Elmo... yes, Street photography is a strange phenomenon that parks its car outside the city limits.

f_ph1 · February 10, 2011

"I've already got into trouble of this sort of thing a long time ago in what was my fourth post on this site (<a rel="nofollow" href="../philosophy-of-photography-forum/00JmlG">link</a>). My motives were questioned, among other things," Interesting comment. I once opened up a HUGE hornet's nest a couple of years ago by having the insensitivity to ask, on the lfphoto.info forum, whether anybody knew of any black (African American, for those who prefer the politcally correct terminology of the day) large format photographers. Instead of getting opinions directly responding to the question, I received a barrage of responses questioning what the color of a person's skin has to do with photography. Many of the responses called for a dismissal of the question. Most were laced with mean spirited humor. In the end, a moderator closed and deleted the entire thread, and informed me via email that I opened up a very volatile subject. I think the responses to such a question reveals a great deal about the respondents....

I am no longer a participant on that forum.

I asked the question because I could not (and cannot) help but notice that I find every mention of the "greats" in photography (on that forum in particular) to completely ignore the likes of De Carava, Vanderzee, Parks, and others. Reading various and sundry forums on the web, one might think that 99.9 percent of photographers whose work can be viewed as art, are white and male. The FACT that black photographers are generally ignored, is something that many, at least here in the states, would rather not acknowledge. I also noticed that the commentary (and whether there is any) with respect to my work changes, dependent upon whether I submit images of landscapes, or images of people in my immediate environment, which are often black.

Oddly enough, there is a forum whose members seem to be primarily European; I cannot say that these conditions predominate there...

I think it has a great deal to do with the fact that differences, in the U.S., usually, whether intended or not, carry the connotation of superiority/inferiority.

All that being said, I am glad I found this particular sub-forum on photo.net. From the start, I have noticed a civility that I thought was not present on any photography related forum.

I do not submit this statement in order to change the direction of the discussion; I simply wish to applaud the fact that it is taking place. Again, the responses here, in my opinion, say a great deal about the respondents.

AJHingel · February 10, 2011

Without going in any details, the question of cultural diversity and the process of world-wide integration due to the enhanced exchange of information and communication, or due to increased mobility, or the general development of globalization etc creating the global village, the global market - has not created the global melting-pot according to all information and analysis that we have on our table.

The European Union integration is maybe the best example of such processes. Cultural diversity in Europe is increasing due to the need of countries and regions to preserve their identity. The same can be observed in the muslim world, in India as well as in East Asian countries. There is therefor no signs that these developments create a homogenized cultural world where all is alike - no observable "equalizing" factor is at play.

Cultural differences in artistic expression, read photography, is therefor likely to continue and may even be reinforced because of these developments.

You will notice Egyptians eating American style fast-food or looking at Hollywood films and American televisions shows, but it is still very much Egyptians doing it - just to take the example of the day.

fi_rondo1 · February 10, 2011

F. Ph... I doubt if many photographers look at race, nationality or gender when looking at photographs or talking about the nature of photography. If you find that certain female photographers, or black or green or red photographers are being overlooked, then inject their names into the dialogue. Not because of their race, but because of the content of their photography.

After all, it's the work that counts, and if you can draw more attention to work that lies outside of the Major Arcana, that can only be a plus.

fi_rondo1 · February 10, 2011

Anders, I didn't see your post until now... when you're talking about music, literature, or painting, etc., it seems that there is more opportunity to notice cultural differences. The problem may be particular to our medium. 99% of all photographers don't create anything. The world is our subject matter and there are only so many ways of capturing it... so the idea of 'sameness' is inherent in the medium.

Many photographers (like Man Ray) try to go beyond the medium, or extend the language of it... but, you have to admit that most photography deals with what is in front of the camera. A painter starts out with a blank canvas, a composer projects sound upon the silence... Far different from what photographers do.

AJHingel · February 10, 2011

Fi, I am as far as can be from agreeing with you that because we all shoot the same world and "what is in front of our cameras" there is no place for creativity in photography. Not two photographers shooting the Statue of Liberty, to stay in your world, will shoot it identically.

Photos are as different as individuals - all marked by their cultural affinities. This is not reserved to the 1 pro-cent you cautiously reserve for it. It is the case for all photographers whether they are aware of it or not. All photos are interpretation of what is in front of the camera - unless we are talking about some scientific photography - which is another story.

f_ph1 · February 10, 2011

Fi:

I will inject whatever I like whenever I like. It is not for you to decide what is relevant with respect to someone else's view. There is no possible way that you can know what my experiences have been.

If the subject is something you are not comfortable with, you have the option of ignoring it.

And please... green... that is such an old, tired expression. Quite frankly, it is a cop out that I am sick and tired of. Rather than confront the issue, pretend it does not exist, and subtly reprimand the person who has the balls to refer to it. It is just this type of misdirection from a legitimate topic that I was alluding to.

But again, my intention was not to highjack the thread.

f_ph1 · February 10, 2011

Fi:

I will inject whatever I like whenever I like. It is not for you to decide what is relevant with respect to someone else's view. There is no possible way that you can know what my experiences have been.

If the subject is something you are not comfortable with, you have the option of ignoring it.

And please... green... that is such an old, tired expression. Quite frankly, it is a cop out that I am sick and tired of. Rather than confront the issue, pretend it does not exist, and subtly reprimand the person who has the balls to refer to it. It is just this type of misdirection from a legitimate topic that I was alluding to.

But again, my intention was not to highjack the thread.

tonmestrom · February 10, 2011

Well JDM motives, intentions and what not are questioned all the time, you know that. Some lack the intelligence, a sense of civility, basic knowledge about what they are talking about, historic perspective and the list goes on. Some just like to stir the pot for whatever petty reason. They are easily neglected because they don't understand the fundamental rules of debate. Besides, as a rule they tend to demask themselves quite easily.

Your argument which I freely translate into "you are what you eat" certainly is apt.

Why on Earth are differences between cultures always interpreted as something controversial and not as a wealth of humans?

</blockquote>

I think you gave a perfect answer to Anders question Fred.

You're right Stan, it's not what I meant. Besides, all of us are still learning. It never stops.

Language affects how we see

</blockquote>

that's a interesting statement Luis but as someone who grew up and still lives very close to two borders and speaks a few languages fluently I have to say I'm very doubtfull.

the "New York School" could be said to have been founded by a guy from Switzerland who settled in the States, and a guy from New York who settled in Paris

</blockquote>

Yes Fi, that could be said. Still, the "New York School" , placed between 1936 and 1963 seems to have been far more influenced by HCB. But then his influence was notable at both sides of the ocean.

But, even so, having traveled throughout Europe and having lived in Poland, the real problem I see is that there is a lack of diversity.

</blockquote>

if you mean by that cultural diversity I think you are wrong Fi. The cultural diversity even within the USA, which is profound, is even more divers in Europe. I like to think that it's this cultural diversity that translates (at least in part) into different photographic styles. The way I see it (again, it's a generalisation) West-European (street)photography seems more formalistic while in America it seems to be more dynamic. Neither is better, just different. I think some of this can also be seen in this forum.

many French photographers had very in your face photos, even HCB

</blockquote>

true Barry, but even then a lot of them seem more deliberate than their counterparts. Like I said above, more formal and less dynamic.

However, by the end of the day, when we have enumerated all the facts and fictions that seem to falsify an assertion of the existence of distinct cultural differences between "schools" of art, here of photography, the differences are still out there to appreciate for all that make the effort and open their eyes. Each and single photo cannot illustrate these differences, but flows of photos can in my eyes

</blockquote>

yes Anders, I agree

When we shoot in a location where we have no language barriers we may take more risks. However, the stakes go up, at least in my mind, when we cannot readily communicate with the people around us should a misunderstanding arise

</blockquote>

I don't think anyone would disagree with that Stan.

what I'm getting at is that it is cross-cultural and the internet has given the genre a great uplift

</blockquote>

yes Elmo the act is but the results differ and they seem to be culturally defined, at least to some extent.

I'm speaking of travel within the west, since those are the schools Ton mentioned

</blockquote>

I had to Fi because I'm less knowledgeable about Eastern European photography at the moment than I like.

I think I'm accurate in saying that the bridge has narrowed to the point of being a formality

</blockquote>

frankly I think different Fi. The world may have become a global village in many respects but it doesn't affect everythjing to the same extent.

and informed me via email that I opened up a very volatile subject

</blockquote>

what I see more often is not a topic at hand is volatile but whats projected into it by some people. Furthermore political correctness if taken too far, as it often is, tends to do more harm than good.

I asked the question because I could not (and cannot) help but notice that I find every mention of the "greats" in photography (on that forum in particular) to completely ignore the likes of De Carava, Vanderzee, Parks, and others.

</blockquote>

I think it's fair to say that, outside that forum which I know nothing about, it's these three in particular that weren't ignored. Nevertheless, <a href="http://www.newyorkstreetphotography.com/Web_Site/Publicity.html">this link</a> might be of interest to you. It's located on the site of <a href="http://www.newyorkstreetphotography.com/Web_Site/Home.html">Orville Robertson</a>, once a regular here and a damned good photographer by any standard.

F. Ph... I doubt if many photographers look at race, nationality or gender when looking at photographs or talking about the nature of photography.

</blockquote>

I doubt that too.

It is not for you to decide what is relevant with respect to someone else's view.

</blockquote>

I think you misunderstood Fi because I read it differently. I don't think Fi questioned your view but simply evaluates it a bit differently. That's not the same thing.

chansonbleu · February 10, 2011

DS: I understand what you mean. But for me language has little to do with risk taking. For instance, in American culture photographing children one does not know, can create confrontation. That being said, I take that risk since I view children as a part of the world I live in.

Now before I go to a place like Guatemala, I learn the culture. In their culture photographing children is viewed more suspect than in my culture. For good reason. Children are kidnaped for adoption, sex trade, and culling organs. Tourists have been mobbed and killed (one I know of) for photographing kids. Again, I am willing to take the risk as long as I can determine how safe a situation is. By reading faces, and body language. Everything I photograph here, I will photograph there. As long as I am sensitive to others feelings it works. Someone can tell you they don't want to be photographed or they don't want you around without saying a word.

Steve

Uhooru · February 10, 2011

I don't know Ton, can you give me examples? Yes, HCB is well composed as that is at the heart of his photography. I mean, I think I look at and into photos enough to see and understand nuance, but I've never had it strike me that "there's that cultural schism again". I do agree that in order to approach that thesis you have to oversimplify and work from broad generalizations. Do you think that HCB's composition is any more thoughtfully composed than let's say Salgado or Eugene Smith. Nope, not buying it.

fi_rondo1 · February 10, 2011

Anders, I think you misunderstood what I was trying to get at... I was talking about photography as a medium that has an inherent set of limitations to it. A painter has far more freedom. As photographers we can only do so much with a camera. That's why it's a hell of a lot more difficult

Everyone who shoots the Statue of Liberty will come away with a different version of it... of course. But they're still shooting the Statue of Liberty. Most photography is representational and I don't see a radical cultural take on this. There are subtle differences, for sure, but it's not as radical a departure as, say, Chinese opera is from classical European opera... But, I do agree with you--although within this sameness--that there is a cultural tint to the final print.

Ton, you're right about diversity in the States. But, still, photographic expression among different ethnic groups is not radically different than anyone else's. Subject matter may differ, but the photo (for the most part) remains the same... There are differences but are they really that different? (I'm sticking to Western photographers here...)

F Ph.... you gave me a good laugh, there... not because your reaction was funny but because it was so contrary to reality... Sorry to disappoint you but photographers don't really give a damn who's black or French or who was born with a spindle up their butt. f this offends you, then you deserve to be offended...

Actually, Ph... (can I call you Ph?) Ton got it right.

jodys · February 11, 2011

Two points: without any data whatsoever to back this up, I am going to say nevertheless that there are more photographers active today than have existed in the entire history of photography pre-2000 (what with the population curve, affordability of daily shooting with digital, and popularity of candid shots on social networking sites on the 'net). I don't think one can generalize anymore about cultures or generational styles; there is so much more variation today even within relatively homogenous cultures and cohorts, simply from individuals attempting to create their own style or following their own vision. What we perceive as cultural differences may be more due to each of us singling out photographs in styles that we personally find interesting, or following forums where certain types of photos are posted, etc. We find niches, both as shooters and for our viewing pleasure.

Notwithstanding point 1 above, certain cultures simply do not permit some styles of photography. I can illustrate from my personal experience: in my late teens, I had a chance to travel to Kinshasa, in then- Zaire. I brought 2 cameras. I was informed by my hosts, upon arrival, that if I was caught taking any photos, I would be dragged into the street and beaten to death. This was not an idle threat, this happened to people pretty much daily, for various offences (notably for hitting a pedestrian with a car, no matter whose fault it was). The Europeans I was staying with obliged me to some degree, the photos I now have posted on my page here were almost all taken from a moving vehicle, usually at some speed, and always using the following method: the camera was kept hidden on my lap underneath something, and only when we were travelling too fast for rock-throwers, and had a clear line of escape, I would quickly raise the camera to my eye and take a snapshot. Most were out of focus, most have motion blur. But that was the best I could do; on the couple of occasions I got careless, I heard shouts of alarm and anger from passersby when my camera was spotted, and we had to get out of the neighborhood fast. That's not to say other styles were not possible; just not without an armed entourage, or some means of making contact that was culturally accepted. I do have better (non- 'street') shots of the people I worked with.

alan_zinn · February 11, 2011

A painter has far more freedom. As photographers we can only do so much with a camera. That's why it's a hell of a lot more difficult

</blockquote>

I presume you mean painters have an easier time inventing the meaning in their pictures. Not painting is easy. Yes, if they can think it they can paint it. Photographers on the other hand, must chance upon an image that resonates with their feelings and conceptions about the world. Or to put it in a more creative way - an image that resolves some thoughts that need resolving. Photography can be like poetry - the words between the words. Tell me THAT can't be cultural, about race or about class and gender! Some photographers live inside their head - they can work with anything anywhere. Rather than wait to stumble over an image they build it. They, like a poet gazing at a the clouds, find some equivalent emotion. Others need to be out of their familiar space and be jarred into wondrous contemplation.

Perhaps the overall feelings and styles of street photography is more similar than not among different nationalities because it is, if not by nature but in practice, a more cosmopolitan pursuit. Offices in New York, Paris, London, and Hong Kong.

Most photography is representational

</blockquote>

Most bad photography! Unless you mean it's all documentation or decoration. You need to not use the word "most" so much.

tonmestrom · February 11, 2011

Do you think that HCB's composition is any more thoughtfully composed than let's say Salgado or Eugene Smith. Nope, not buying it.

</blockquote>

Just for the record, that's not what I said Barry. I said formal as oppsed to dynamic. That deals with style rather than composition.

There are differences but are they really that different?

</blockquote>

yes, I think so generally speaking. However subtle, I think there are differences. But as Fred already said there is a lot of overlap as well.

that there are more photographers active today than have existed in the entire history of photography pre-2000

</blockquote>

I'm going to answer that with a challenging observation Jody. What I think is happening is that there are more people shooting photographs rather than more photographers. That's by no means intended as an elitist criterium but the simple fact is that technological advances have made it easier to create adequate photos. That doesn't automatically lead to better photography.

I was talking about photography as a medium that has an inherent set of limitations to it. A painter has far more freedom. As photographers we can only do so much with a camera. That's why it's a hell of a lot more difficult

</blockquote>

True but I think it's also fair to say that good (street) photographers are able to create a surreal twist (however you want to define that) to their best photos.

Norma Desmond · February 11, 2011

"A painter has far more freedom"

</blockquote>

I don't find this to be true at all. Representation is the very beginning of a photograph. The freedom comes either in what you do with that or in how you go beyond it. Limitations do not stand in the way of freedom. Every medium has its limitations. How you work with those makes you radically free. Human beings are limited, by bodies, by death, by genetics, by culture. We can use those as excuses or we can exercise unlimited choices even considering those states of affairs. The attachment to the world and the literalness of photographic dependencies on that world is where the freedom of the photographer gains its foothold.

It is very hard to talk about photography per se. There are many different kinds of photography and many different purposes to photographs, even among street photographs. Many street photographs I see and take tend to be documents. They represent something that happened, often showing some kind of irony or individual perspective, etc. Then there are street photographs that, as Ton seems to be suggesting, go way beyond what they are representing and make me think, not about the strangeness of what occurred, but about something that did not occur, about SOMETHING THAT IS, ONLY IN THE PHOTOGRAPH.

Uhooru · February 11, 2011

more "studied" more obvious composed.

Maybe that's why I was confused. Question still stands, do think HCB's photographs were more studied or obviously composed than Salgado, Smith and several other non-Europeon photogs. I just think when you actually start looking at the broad range of street and documentary photography what initially sounds plausible breaks down under scrutiny. But that's fine we can schisim away. One proceeds on ones experience as that is perceived.

fi_rondo1 · February 11, 2011

Fred and Alan, thanks for your observations... even if I'm inclined to agree with you guys, I still agree with myself on this:

As for painting... I just mean that a painter can reconstruct the world according to his whims... or even deconstruct it, abstract it, etc. Whereas even when we put that surreal twist in there (to use Ton's phrase), we're still dealing with something that's of the real world... and no matter how far this can be extended or however creatively we approach it, our subject matter is still limited by what the eye can see and what the camera can record. And, yes, Fred, freedom does come from

This doesn't discount the poetry or sublimity of the photograph, it doesn't abolish individuality, it doesn't negate ingenuity. Quite the opposite... to do this even marginally well is an exercise in both...

Alan, I was talking mainly about SP since this is the forum and what Ton brought up. "Art" photography (for lack of a better word) is another animal... There are also those who tried to play with light or create unusual and beautiful images that are unique to the medium... Man Ray and Maholy Nagy immediately come to mind...

Alan, just between you and me, the word "most" is the last name of the woman I love, and she reads these posts... (subliminal and sublime... see you tonight, Sara...)

alan_zinn · February 11, 2011

Lucky you Fi! Valentine's day is Monday - hope you got Miss. Most something nice! I don't make any distinctions among types regarding what's art and what isn't. I calls them as I sees them. The street can be sureal sometimes too.

AJHingel · February 12, 2011

But that's fine we can schisim away. One proceeds on ones experience as that is perceived.

</blockquote>

Surely, Barry, no-one expects to change the world by these discussions. Whatever is said, Barry will go on believing that what he believed yesterday, he will also believe tomorrow. You can change the name at ease into for example Anders, and the sentences might still be right.

I think we are discussion different things and on different levels, as usual around here. But, some of us never get used to it.

It seems to be right that when you look into the great photographers of last century to a large degree we would have the greatest difficulty of identifying something specifically American or European, for example about most of them.

Take Weston and his <a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_kkocnhKsKso/TGbIB1cb38I/AAAAAAAABJs/CKkLSzGGs8U/s1600/tina+on+the+roof+weston.jpg">nudes</a>, <a href="http://www.anat-perez.com/ANAT/PASSIONS/photographes-EU-US/weston.jpg">abstracts</a> <a href="http://blog.madame.lefigaro.fr/stehli/weston_pepper_number30.jpg">and</a> <a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_hwb0KkKdu0k/TQSCTpeHX_I/AAAAAAAAA5k/igzu7hI_tGU/s1600/Edward-Weston.jpg">plants</a>, <a href="http://www.masters-of-photography.com/images/full/weston/weston_nahui_olin.jpg">portraits</a> and they come out as very fine examples of something that have been done or could have been done by others, for example a European photographer.

Take Avedon's <a href="http://marigaz.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/avedon_44.jpg">portraits</a> or <a href="http://www.nikohk.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/veruschka-dress-by-bill-blass-new-york-january-1967-richard-avedon.jpg">fashion</a> shots and my eye starts waking up and I ask myself wether this is not more, dare I say it, American. It is very composed, I admit, but it is often also somewhat "raw".

Take Minor White, and his <a href="http://images.artnet.com/artwork_images_89028_427180_minor-white.jpg">street</a> <a href="http://www.fnordinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/minor_white-warehouse_area_1949.jpg">photos</a>, <a href="http://images.artnet.com/artwork_images_89028_427192_minor-white.jpg">nudes</a>, or his <a href="http://www.sfmoma.org/images/artwork/large/2000.616_01_b02.jpg">abstract</a> <a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_MgQ5mHQZkhA/Sl9GooKQFfI/AAAAAAAADNs/tYVt7mEMOgE/s400/img114.jpg">nature</a> shots or <a href="http://alexwaterhousehayward.com/blog/uploaded_images/Lauri-Infrared-version-1-772542.jpg">portraits</a> I'm seem to be back in the Weston problematic.

Take a European Photographer like the German Karl Blossfeldt and his <a href="http://teenangster.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/karl_blossfeldt_04.jpg">plant abstracts</a> and we could be anywhere among very skilled photographers - in America for example, just like if you take Josef Sudek, the Czech photographer and his <a href="http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kwrc2w0Sup1qaa5epo2_500.jpg">portraits</a> or <a href="http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kwrc2w0Sup1qaa5epo2_500.jpg">streets</a> and <a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_DDBT-_3KiRk/SZ61RHMuoJI/AAAAAAAAAeM/gyEauNbF5gg/s400/img_exposicion_70.jpg">night shots</a> and we are in the same tradition as many 20 century photographers.

I would have the greatest difficulties of identifying a genuine American or European photograph and still if you take the time to read issues of <a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/Camera_Work_cover.jpg">Camera Work</a>, edited by Stieglitz, it all started with very distinct differences between photographers of the two continents although they both published in the various issues of Camera Work.

We would surely have the greatest difficulty of validating a hypothesis of a genuine and consistent difference between American and European photographers. They seem to be somewhat of the same family, and look, to a large degree, alike. And still, few would fail when running through the works of any of them to put your finger on the right side of the Atlantic if you were forced to pronounce yourself on their origin of work and inspiration. When it comes to Japanese photography the differences are clearly (even) more pronounced.

However, where I found the question of Ton interesting was in fact less a question of the great masters and their pronounced style, but more a question of whether our modest photos here on PN could be said to illustrate "different cultures", "different photography". Here I think the answer is a timid: "YES probably!" and I believe it is right that terms like "raw", "confrontational", "studied", "reflective", "composed" etc are all a good starting point for pinpointing such differences. Take for example the practice of color (over-) saturation and you will find yourself mainly on one side of the Ocean.

tonmestrom · February 12, 2011

you're right Barry, this had to be discussed in the broadest of terms which of course it's what makes it a bit flawed under scrutiny. Then again:

"And still, few would fail when running through the works of any of them to put your finger on the right side of the Atlantic if you were forced to pronounce yourself on their origin of work and inspiration"

Anders has put it very nicely I think. The timid "YES probably" was also something I mentioned earlier although it has to be said this is made diffuclt if for no other reasons that by now we're maybe a bit too familiar with eachhothers work.

AJHingel · February 12, 2011

Sorry, by the way, the Portrait example of Sudek is <a href="http://www.frantisekslama.com/upload//fotografie/sudek-ars-munclinger/sudek-posloucha-ars.jpg">here</a>. There is a repetition in the mail above.

Uhooru · February 12, 2011

Whatever is said, Barry will go on believing that what he believed yesterday, he will also believe tomorrow.

</blockquote>

Not sure that's true, I just don't believe in sweeping generalizations unless of course, I'm making them. I do however agree that due to complex factors Japanese photography of a certain period does stand out. The question is why and how.

Maybe the discussion could be enlivened if there was consideration of those photographer that lived on both sides of the water like Model, Kertesz, Koudulka, Klein (lived several years in france) Robert Capa and Cornell and maybe Frank, who though he learned the craft in Swizterland seemed to have developed the style he became know for in the states, so I,m not sure he fits neatly into that discussion. Oh you would have to add Gutman as well. Maybe consideration of how those individual works evolved would be an interesting way of looking at the influence of culture on the creation of photographic styles. If you really wanted to explore it, what you are talking about is no less than cultural anthropology and applying it to a very narrow medium that has "grown" up generally in a pan-cultural environment. Meaning that as a medium, photography by nature was, at least from the latter half of the 20th century, propagated first through print and then electronic media and thus was accessible in many places beyond the confines of where it was created or by whom. This would of course, bring styles, viewpoints and technique to a generally wide audiance, especially in the west. With that I still I think you do develop like minded photographers that may share a photographic viewpoint or style in a broad sense because of the ability to share work so quickly. Also, and maybe this might relate to what Ton had started, you can't discount that different places look differently. The light in Los Angeles can pose unique circumstances here as different from New York as can the overall layout of the greater metro area. For me, I shoot in LA, I don't know if my photos say "L.A." when I went to New York, you could see the look of that city in the work. Paris and european cities have different architecture all of which interact in the photos though it seems that city centers everywhere are, with globalization becoming all too much the same. Sometimes it's easier to share and discuss photos with those of the same language. It seems on Flickr, for instance fotografi di Strada is basically Italian street photography. I find the work there very homogenous in style, but if it weren't for the carnival masks and other factors, it could be photographs taken in New York or Paris. So I guess to form the question, I would ask this, what is the stronger influence in the development of individual visual style in photography, local influence and culture, or extended global communication and sharing of photographs by like minded individuals.

Uhooru · February 12, 2011

It looks like the street photo group I mentioned above has become more that just italian photographers. It never required you to be Italian to join, but it seemed the great majority of work was by photographers from Italy mostly in B/W. Now it seems to be more pan European, have a lot more color photography and much more international. It may be worth a look see for those interested.

Sign In

Different cultures, different photography...

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in