What is, and is not, street photography?

[Allen Herbert]

<p>At one stage in the past you had a disagreement with some other members and were going to leave the Philosophy forum, Louis. I was the member who suggested you stay as I thought your contributions were of value.</p>

[john_macpherson]

<p>Ok Martin I'l bite.</p>

<p>Because I'm interested in this whole topic of empowerment through photography, about what subjects feel and what photographers motivations and thought processes are. Because both are intimately linked to, and anavoidably a part of, the end result - the photograph.</p>

<p>What do you think is the relationship between your image and the quotes you have offered? </p>

<p>Being 'quotes' they would of necessity have had a context from which you lifted them, but they are now listed together in some other form which presumably makes some sense to you.(Or not? Maybe that is the point?)</p>

<p>These quotes are now in a new context, one which relies not just on the other words that previously surrounded them, but on the 'new words' and the image of yours, which I presume you carefully selected for a purpose.</p>

<p>Or am I to simply read the quotes, realte them to the image and take from this literally that you offer us:</p>

<p><strong><em>"A snap"</em></strong> that is without <em><strong>"permission" </strong></em>that is <em><strong>"unflattering"</strong></em> therefore represents <strong><em>"the truth"</em></strong> and which <em><strong>"respects the atmosphere around the human being"</strong></em> avoiding <em><strong>"the mere presence of the photographer"</strong></em> because your 'style as you've explained it is to take these images whilst 'driving by' out of your car, often through the window glass, and is unsharp because of this but thats ok because <strong><em>"sharpness is a bourgeois concept"</em></strong> and that this has <em><strong>"empowered [you] the individual to engage with others from the other side of town"</strong></em></p>

<p>I might be missing something because although it kind of makes some sense, only up to the last sentence. I dont think you've managed to achieve anything remotely like the concept implied by Bresson's final words.</p>

<p>Or am I reading too much into this?</p>

<p> </p>

[cmitchell]

<blockquote>

<p>Maybe it's me, but there seems to be more obsession with defining what is and what is not street photography than with any other type of photography.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I find this also to be true, and mostly brought up by people that don't do it, the OP being one exception. Not only an obsession in defining it, but an obsession in moralizing about it that I don't see in any other genre, which leads me to believe you would have to define street photography as candid shots on the street having people in it. Who gets into a red rage about photographing a mere street?</p>

<p>We are by nature judgmental beings so everyone will, and should, judge whether or not they like a particular photo. But with this genre, there is also judgement on whether or not you like the <em>photographer</em> based on the subject of the photograph.</p>

<p>What exactly is so sacred about a person's image that they should not be photographed on the street without posing? Is it that we are so used to putting on our masks in society that the mere thought of being caught without our masks on infuriates us? Not only that, but we also have a love/hate relationship with looking at others that are not wearing their own social masks? I think that is the root of the moralizing...fear that someone will see us as we are.</p>

 

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Christine Mitchell - "</strong>But with this genre, there is also judgement on whether or not you like the <em>photographer</em> based on the subject of the photograph."</p>

<p>You misunderstand. That is not the case here, Christine. In this case, it has nothing to do with the "sacredness" of a person's image or masks.<em> </em></p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>I like the term "urban photography" instead of street photography. Either are best described as having sociological or anthropological content more, if not exclusively, than other genre. I find urban photography more satisfying than any other. Principally it satisfies my interest in making art. My work runs the gamut of improvisational sketches and decorative riffs to serious examination of various aspects of life. Because it is my art, and a component of art is risk, I am free to obey or violate statutory or social taboos and my own rules toward that end. I would say to anyone who feels uncertain about wading into the bustle of the street that if they are normally accepted most places by others as an OK kind of guy they have nothing to worry about. You know how to do the right thing. Make what you do your kind of street photography. I heartily agree with others who have said that the result is about discovering how you see things.</p><div></div>

[luis_g]

<p>I detect more than a hint of Winogrand in Alan's response. GW preferred the term "photography", with no further subdivisions. I'm in agreement with Alan that to straitjacket oneself via -- or to -- a definition is to one's creative detriment, discounting things like abuses of subjects or their images, etc.</p>

<p>There was a cabbie that also did drive-by pictures named David Bradford. I liked it so much that I purchased and still have his book and have recommended it to many people.</p>

<p>http://drivebyshootings.com/book.asp</p>

[martinangus]

<p>Perhaps we need to re-group a bit on this thread.</p>

<p>If you recall, I started off this thread with a caveat as follows: "Since someone has given the subject a title...or even a category, it follows that there are things that fall into that category and things that don't. Perhaps boundaries even - though I hate to throw limitations on subjects of art."</p>

<p>If we are going to "label" something...it warrants a definition simply so we know where to use that label or not. This is my curiosity about the definition or limitations of the subject.</p>

<p>Certainly, we could lose the terminology and call everything "photography"...but as in any organization where we refer to all employees as "workers"...there is infinite opportunities for inefficiencies of communication. There is merit in categorizing. There is also merit in defining the boundaries - however loosely.</p>

<p>It also occurs to me that there are vast emotionally charged differences as to what is acceptable candid photography and what is not...(this all assumes no one is crossing the legal baseline here). The moral, tasteful, etc argument was not intended to be part of this particular thread. I would love to participate in this rightous subject anytime with anyone...but not within this thread.</p>

<p>So, to summarize: The definition of the label "Street Photography" might be: <em><strong>Candid images of people on or in the viscinity of the urban street.</strong></em></p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>Martin, Why candid? If you had a big stack of photos to sort I don't think you would be off by much sorting the street out from the other using common and famliar usage. I can't recall any time where something was labeled street and was clearly something else. Event (fairs midways etc. )and urban landscape photos (windows, signage, buildings, usually no people) blend in close enough in most cases to offend only the most doctrinaire.<br>

<br /><br /></p>

[martinangus]

<p>If not candid, then it is staged, prepared...and somewhat false.</p>

<p>Like HCB says "The mere presence of the photographer and his camera affects the behavior of the “victim”."</p>

[luis_g]

<p>Alan, as others here alluded to or stated, Martin's upstart definition is righteous & self-justifying. Anyone with a passing knowledge of the history of street photography can see the shortcomings in that doctrinaire definition. We can all cite images made by famous street photographers that do not conform to it. </p>

<p>Martin Angus - "If not candid, then it is staged, prepared...and somewhat false."</p>

<p>Well, HCB didn't say <em>that. </em>Nor did he believe the original quote nearly as rigidly as Martin misinterprets, because he sure did make several famous pictures of people that weren't candid nor false.</p>

<p>http://www.google.com/imgres?q=henri+cartier+bresson+photographs&hl=en&sa=X&biw=761&bih=396&tbm=isch&tbnid=tu10vtYndNhhrM:&imgrefurl=http://www.dptips-central.com/henry-cartier-bresson.html&docid=-2xCKcPUS5IwAM&w=500&h=335&ei=V7I0Tt_hBoictweI_vSFDQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=244&vpy=89&dur=268&hovh=184&hovw=274&tx=129&ty=138&page=3&tbnh=83&tbnw=123&start=15&ndsp=10&ved=1t:429,r:7,s:15</p>

<p>http://www.google.com/imgres?q=henri+cartier+bresson+photographs&hl=en&sa=X&biw=761&bih=396&tbm=isch&tbnid=uIoskSurFseodM:&imgrefurl=http://robertforlini.blogspot.com/2010/04/henri-cartier-bresson-moma.html&docid=VfZ40PGnb5-yHM&w=640&h=434&ei=V7I0Tt_hBoictweI_vSFDQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=132&vpy=88&dur=8128&hovh=185&hovw=273&tx=56&ty=205&page=4&tbnh=105&tbnw=155&start=25&ndsp=6&ved=1t:429,r:3,s:25</p>

<p>http://www.google.com/imgres?q=henri+cartier+bresson+photographs&hl=en&sa=X&biw=761&bih=396&tbm=isch&tbnid=jIlsbTHjLNb80M:&imgrefurl=http://laurencemillergallery.com/levitt_hcb_sbs1.htm&docid=ZfYjwi0qimjgdM&w=585&h=402&ei=V7I0Tt_hBoictweI_vSFDQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=133&vpy=87&dur=4351&hovh=186&hovw=271&tx=99&ty=208&page=9&tbnh=105&tbnw=153&start=63&ndsp=6&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:63</p>

<p>Such a definition also declares as false the work of most PN Street Photographers. Of course, if it is an endemic definition, one of Martin for his own work, then that's a different thing. </p>

 

[martinangus]

<blockquote>

<p ><a name="00Z7Ko"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=977570">Luis G</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jul 30, 2011; 09:57 p.m. Alan, as others here alluded to or stated, Martin's upstart definition is righteous & self-justifying.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<p>What the hell are you talking about? Rather than your poison tongued criticism, perhaps you could offer up a definition? Maybe even contribute something semi-constructive to this conversation rather than perpetually exposing your obvious anger at the world? <br>

Feel free to note the words MIGHT BE in the following definition that I offered. "So, to summarize: The definition of the label "Street Photography" might be: <em><strong>Candid images of people on or in the viscinity of the urban street.</strong></em></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Martin Angus - "If not candid, then it is staged, prepared...and somewhat false." Well, HCB didn't say <em>that</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>You are right - hurray for stating the obvious! I said that...didn't say it was an HCB quote...<br>

Let me end this with a challenge to you Luis G, rather than sitting in the sidelines looking for opportunities to attack and distract from the reason for this thread, please let us all in on your infinitely superior wisdom and intellect. What is YOUR definition of street photography?</p>

<p><em> </em></p>

 

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Martin Angus - "</strong>What is YOUR definition of street photography?"<br>

Um...read through your own thread, Martin. Your 'challenge' was met long before you typed it, but you failed to read it. I already did offer a definition, and yes, it's on the loose side, more or less spanning a couple of posts. Read it.</p>

<p>I, as others have in this thread, continue to wonder just what the reason for this thread is, in spite of your OP. Asking is neither an attack nor anything negative.</p>

<p>I have concretely contributed to the thread, and am enjoying many of the other contributors' responses.<br>

Street photography has come a long, long way since HCB. And it didn't begin with him, either.</p>

[martinangus]

<p>Dealing with your annoying little shots is becoming very tiresome Luis.</p>

<p>The REASON for this thread is stated clearly in my initial posting. "I am curious as to what boundaries you have assumed when categorizing something as "street photography"?"</p>

<p>You say you have offered a definition, loosely, over several posts? Uh huh...humour me and recap will you? - in one post please.</p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>Luis,<br />glad you brought up "drive by" photography. I think it may fall into several genre. It is worthy of further discussion - maybe a new topic? I haven't examined the variants and implications of it and would like to hear some other views. Friedlander's <em>America by Car</em> might be a good starting point.</p><div></div>

[Brad_]

<img src= "http://citysnaps.net/2011%20photos/Street%20Scene.jpg"><P>

 

When interesting discussions like these come up, out of curiosity, I always look to see what kind of work is

discoverable from engaged participants. Martin, as an aside, you have an excellent body of work and

possess a keen eye. I totally understand your curiosity and asking questions about what street

photography is, and isn't. Good on ya Martin for stimulating a good discussion!<P>

 

When the subject of broadening definitions comes up, I look at work to see if those trying to broaden

the definition are doing so from a baseline understanding, or recognized reference, such as Bystander:

A history of Street Photography. Or are doing so for other reasons. Bystander is a good "start" covering a wide

range of recognized photographers over a period of time.<P>

 

Snagging good street photos is tough. In a years worth of shooting (a few or so thousand snaps), I

might get one that I consider excellent, a few that are really good, and perhaps a dozen or so that are

just good. Less than that aren't posted up for others to see. I also shoot a lot of "street

portraiture" of strangers, especially over the last year, but that's something else - not SP.<P>

 

There are quite a few flickr groups that are about street photography; even Hard Core Street

Photography. That's really funny because good street photography has nothing to do with being hard

core, guerilla, aggressive, in your face, tough, taking risks, etc - it's about finesse. Many shots are snuck, or shot from long distances with long lenses - hard core indeed... <P>

 

Much suffers from not being well-composed, and/or having nothing to stimulate a response from the

viewer; such as irony, humor, mystery, ambiguity, releasing narrative, form, drama, juxtaposition, shadow/lightness,

timing, gravitas, etc. Photos with all the answers supplied, rather than posing

questions are not interesting. Without a hook to draw a viewer in and keep their attention for more than

a second, it's just a person on the street. Why would a viewer care about that? Couple that with photos shot in harsh light and you have some real doozies.<P>

 

Many times I wonder if people trying to broaden the "definition" do so because really good SP is in fact

difficult. And broadening makes it easier to snag a pic that meets that widened criteria.<P>

 

For myself, I'll stick with: candids (ie, where permission is not asked) of people, or the evidence of

people, in urban environments. But, I know as soon as I say that, there will be some in the back of the

room squirming in their seat with hands jutting in the air, getting all frothy, "Yeah, yeah, but,

HCB/GW/Daido/etc shot a photo of this or that, so there!" But that's expected. People are always

trying to disprove what intentionally is laid out as a generalization, held by many who practice, with a

couple isolated instances to try and knock it down. Rather than soaking in the larger notion for a better

understanding. That's life...

 

<P>

 

<img src= "http://citysnaps.net/2011%20photos/NYStreet.jpg">

[luis_g]

<p>Alan, definitely a new topic.</p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>Brad,<br />I fully agree with your comments about the need for hooks of the sort you describe. Alas, even with a hook viewers seldom know how to really look at pictures. Pictures shouldn't require decoding but they must be sophisticated enough to challenge the photographer and viewer. <br>

What is the point of taking a stovepipe view of individual pictures to maintain a rigorous definition of SP? A body of work should simply cohere. I suspect experienced photographers add to a series of images, consciously or not, that as a group conform to their unique expression of SP. My own MO is to be conscious of adjacencies, sequences, and sets. That bit of alliteration works quite well visually too! <br>

I understand the theory of candidness with regards to photography but don't see why it matters one way or the other with regard to SP. I think it is a irrelevant that people are aware of the photographer. The guy with a camera may become part of the moment the same as the other actors. The notion of candidness also plays into the myth of photographic truthiness.</p><div></div>

[Brad_]

<img src= "http://citysnaps.net/2011%20photos/StreetGuys.jpg"><P>

>>> What is the point of taking a stovepipe view of individual pictures to maintain a rigorous definition of SP?<P>

 

Because without boundaries, everything shot on the street becomes "street photography." Vacation snaps, news

photos, etc. Everyone then becomes a street photographer. It's respect for the genre. Please, get a copy and read

the above mentioned Bystander for getting a better appreciation and respect for what SP is about. I like the fact

that it's a difficult genre to master. And that photographers who practice with a degree of seriousness, being aware

of the energy and rhythm of the street, have strong views about what is and is not street photography. <P>

 

>>> Alas, even with a hook viewers seldom know how to really look at pictures. <P>

 

Not wanting to be dismissive to viewers, I disagree with that and give them far more credit being able to separate

the ho-hum from, from photos that have the ability to release narrative and stimulate imagination.<P>

 

>>> I understand the theory of candidness with regards to photography but don't see why it matters one way or

the other with regard to SP.<P>

 

Which is why I qualified candid up above with not seeking permission. That speaks to the situation of shooting where

subjects become aware of your presence at some point in the act. My photo up above is a good example, being

shot with a 35mm (on a FF cam) from a few feet away as I walked through the group of guys and raised the camera to my eye. Other situations occur when I hang around an area for a period of time shooting, and subjects become aware of what I'm doing because I shoot in the open relatively close with a 35mm. Again it's not seeking permission.<P>

 

The photo below, is a "street portrait" of a stranger I stopped, posed, and bs-ed with for my Tenderloin project.

That's not street photography. <P>

 

I really do understand why many want to widen up what SP is. I and others who who like the

challenges will continue to impose limits, even though it means I may only get a few really good street

photographs a year.<P>

<img src= "http://citysnaps.net/2011%20photos/Mark.jpg">

[kevin_omura]

<p>I suppose another aspect of the question is 'How has 'street' photography changed in the past decade'.</p>

<p>My intent with that comment is based on the change we seem to have undertaken in North America where someone's privacy seems to have been redefined in some manner. Not sure if that was well worded but my feeling is that as 'street' photographers am I correct in my assumption from the debate that the issue of privacy has become a major stumbling block?</p>

<p>For example the works of Doisneau, Ronis, Bresson et al. How might they have been affected by the way people view photographers today or do you think they would still be able to work unfettered by the public and the police?</p>

<p>And I suppose on a more personal standpoint, do we really care or even need to have some sort of verbal explanation of the genre in the first place. Did Garry Winogrand fret about what is and what is not considered 'street photography' each morning when he set out with his camera? Most likely not, do we need to always put a nice tidy little definition in place when looking at someone's work? Why do photographs need to be defined and perhaps hamstrung by words anyway? ;^)</p>

[dan_south]

<p>Martin, in order the I might understand more about your photographic vision, could you please tell me what your photo "A Reality" signifies? I've not been able to decipher it. Further, the bottom of the photo is occupied by a large, blank concrete slab. Would the image possibly convey a different message if you cropped out that section?</p>

[luis_g]

<p>Brad, you are making a grave mistake talking down to Alan. He's a lot more experienced and knowledgeable than you imagine.</p>

<p>Some of the earlier famous SP images <em>were</em> used as features/human interest shots in magazines and newspapers. They still are, and it's got nothing to do with respect -- or the lack of -- for SP. Some of the most famous images in SP were done on vacation, too, though one could debate whether SPers really ever go on vacation only.</p>

<p> The definition of SP was expanded and revised by HCB's work, and immediately again with Robert Frank, and so forth, to this day (see Kevin's post above). This has nothing whatsoever to do with respect or anyone's personal capabilities or agenda(s). It is simply a consequence of a healthy creative human enterprise as it broadened, expanded and evolved.</p>

<p>There are no distinct cookie-cutter boundaries, but gray areas, slippery slopes, fuzzy edges, etc. It is obvious that the interest voiced here in strictly limiting SP serves those who would dictate who is and is not an SPer. It is a dogmatic position, that if adopted, would result in even more stunted and static work than we have now. At the center, where the constellation of signifiers is dense, the definition is much clearer. And as Alan and Kevin observed, for most people, the every day definitions (I supplied several in an earlier response) suffice.</p>

<p>As we can clearly see, there are many people still doing candid and/or posed pictures of the disenfranchised today. The kind that would fit the definition of SP five decades ago. Some will read that as "classical", others as "cliche". The world has changed, and SP with it in the last 50+ years. Those who straitjacket themselves into a moment in time, specially in a defensive position, risk becoming dinosaurs compared to those that are progressive. Lay people, who are largely unaware of the history of SP, can't tell the difference between cliche's and leading edge work, and tend to prefer outdated, simpler work (just as in painting, people currently prefer Impressionism). I say this out of personal experience, and before the usual wag asks when I took the poll, there wasn't one. Only decades of personal experience.</p>

<p>The entire spectrum of SP is, of course, valid.</p>

<p> </p>

[Brad_]

<img src= "http://citysnaps.net/2011%20photos/Communication.jpg"><P>

>>> Brad, you are making a grave mistake talking down to Alan.<P>

 

A grave mistake? Talking down to Alan? I beg your pardon. I'm offering personal observations from

direct experience; that has nothing to do with Alan. Please try and not be so defensive. Thank you again for acting on his behalf.<P>

 

>>> ...Those who straitjacket themselves into a moment in time, specially in a defensive position, risk

becoming dinosaurs compared to those that are progressive. Lay people, who are largely unaware of

the history of SP, can't tell the difference between cliche's and leading edge work, and tend to prefer

outdated, simpler work (just as in painting, people currently prefer Impressionism). ... ... ...

<P>

Wow! Now who is talking down? ! <P>

 

>>> I say this out of personal experience, and before the usual wag asks when I took the poll, there

wasn't one. Only decades of personal experience.<P>

 

I am very happy for your decades of personal experience with respect to street photography. Might you

have a small body of street photography that can be viewed? With your strong views and years of

experience, I would really enjoy viewing it. I'm saying that in all sincerity.

[Brad_]

>>> Did Garry Winogrand fret about what is and what is not considered 'street photography' each morning

when he set out with his camera? Most likely not, do we need to always put a nice tidy little definition in

place when looking at someone's work? Why do photographs need to be defined and perhaps hamstrung

by words anyway?

 

Of course he didn't. But this thread is about a question posed by the OP. What is, and is not, street

photography? A reference was offered as a baseline, a place to *start* from.

 

OTOH, I suppose some would answer the question as, "Anything you want."

[john_macpherson]

<blockquote>

<p><a name="00Z7cE"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=6574021">Kevin Omura</a> , Jul 31, 2011; 09:38 p.m.</p>

<p>For example the works of Doisneau, Ronis, Bresson et al. How might they have been affected by the way people view photographers today or do you think they would still be able to work unfettered by the public and the police?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Kevin - I suspect that they would have been unaffected. Yes thats me making a huge assumption. But its an assumption based on a degree of evidence - they were committed to their craft and they approached their work with a degree of 'compassion' (for want of a better word) and respect for telling the stories of their subjects which I think would (today) still transcend any perceived boundaries we currently impose as a consequence of fears of invasions of privacy, or misinterpretations of our motives. Lots of photographers posting in this thread work without a concern for the actions or responses of either the public or the police.</p>

<p>As an aside, I find it quite intriguing that, speaking in the most general of terms, 'street' subject matter for many photographers revolves around images of the homeless, the desperate or the unfortunate. Why do we see so few (relatively speaking) business men or women with briefcases and smart coats? Do they say less about our society than a bunch of bums?</p>

<p>I'd suggest that the actions of our governing elite are responsible for far more damage to society than any number of shabby men or women with plastic bags and a hangover.</p>

<p>Given the range of subject matter available, whats NOT photographed regularly may offer valuable insight into the perceived 'boundaries' we're currently trying to pin down. Or maybe not?</p>

[cmitchell]

<p>Because without boundaries, everything shot on the street becomes "street photography." Vacation snaps, news photos, etc. Everyone then becomes a street photographer. It's respect for the genre.<br>

+1 for Brad.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The photo below, is a "street portrait" of a stranger I stopped, posed, and bs-ed with for my Tenderloin project. That's not street photography.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>+1 for Brad again.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I really do understand why many want to widen up what SP is. I and others who who like the challenges will continue to impose limits, even though it means I may only get a few really good street photographs a year.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agreed. I think your points are spot on.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There are no distinct cookie-cutter boundaries, but gray areas, slippery slopes, fuzzy edges, etc. It is obvious that the interest voiced here in strictly limiting SP serves those who would dictate who is and is not an SPer. It is a dogmatic position, that if adopted, would result in even more stunted and static work than we have now.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's not gray for me. I think there are two, and only two, distinct boundaries for SP. SP must have people in it (otherwise it's a landscape). SP must be un-posed (otherwise it's a portrait). It most definitely doesn't have to be urban (could be on a farm or a beach) or on a literal street (could be in a cafe or a church or in an airplane) but it does need to have un-posed people in it just living their lives. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>As an aside, I find it quite intriguing that, speaking in the most general of terms, 'street' subject matter for many photographers revolves around images of the homeless, the desperate or the unfortunate. Why do we see so few (relatively speaking) business men or women with briefcases and smart coats? Do they say less about our society than a bunch of bums?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Perhaps that's because they don't live their lives on the street. They are on the street in passing and not as available as subjects in many areas. Where I live, business people park in underground garages, take the elevators up to work, then reverse that at the end of the day. They don't mingle with the locals. Some place like NYC would be a good place to photograph business people walking to and from work, or maybe having lunch outside on a nice day. When you do street photography, you shoot what's there.</p>