Blend in, be anonymous...

[don_essedi]

"Having said all that, the real value of documentary photography, in my opinion, will precisely be the contamination by the photographer."

 

I really don't disagree. That's the point I made about GSV (it isn't a photographer). So, how do you resolve that, Luis, with "GSV has no equal"? What has been missed is the photographer-centrism of what I wrote.

 

Beyond the academic debating tropes, the "contamination" I'm concerned with, for example, is how to photograph cops. When I see work in which all the cop shots are taken from a low angle, I have to wonder whether the photographer is a cop groupie or an ultra-left anarchist, or just a newbie. I photograph cops straight-on. I don't attempt to express power and authority by shooting from a low angle. The same with the homeless, I don't shoot from a high angle to imbue them with pathos, weakness, or helplessness. That's the sort of "contamination" I avoid. Take it another way: I try to avoid doing hack work.

 

I learned this lesson years ago from a "documentary" on Kosovo, made right after the war (by a Frenchman, I believe). The Kosovar interviewees were filmed outdoors on a sunny day, young, lovely, and gracile, and speaking the King's English. The Serbs were filmed indoors in small rooms and narrow hallways. Large, but not unattractive, the Serbs spoke with 'thick Slavic accents', and were shot in near monotone from a low angle. The "contamination" made my teeth buzz hot.

 

It's the humanity of the photographer that GSV lacks. You are, once again, confusing "objectivity" with documentary. Until you overcome this confusion, what I write will remain opaque to you.

[cmitchell]

<p><a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056415/Stunning-images-1940s-cast-spotlight-New-York-Citys-Radical-Camera.html">Look at these fabulous photos of NYC in the 1940s</a>. This seems to be the essence of street / documentary photography to me. You don't really have to define it. You just know it when you see it.</p>

[don_essedi]

Julie, I don't know why certain members consider my concepts worth disputing. They seem entirely non-controversial. Street photography can be documentary, it can be art, or it can be both. Art gives the photographer the freedom of 'no rules rule'. But once the photographer decides the work at hand is documentary, they have to confront and resolve a number of issues during the work. They impose strict rules on their work if they are going to present it as documentary, each according to their understanding. There are technical, philosophical, and moral issues to be addressed. This has been the case since Vertov's writings in Kino-Eye in the 1920s to the present on photo.net in any discussion of street photography. I'm introducing nothing new or quirky.

 

Personally, I prefer to see and recognize rather than create. I'm not an artist, that way. Photography gets me outside my head and into the world. I like the world and like being alive in it. When I step outside, it all looks so good, I hardly know where to start. That's just me. It seems to offend some. I don't know why, unless they assume because their work is different, I am criticizing it and them.

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Don Essedi - "</strong>It's the humanity of the photographer that GSV lacks. You are, once again, confusing "objectivity" with documentary. Until you overcome this confusion, what I write will remain opaque to you."</p><p><br></p><p>Laughably arrogant, Don, but I am glad you are outing yourself and making these statements where they will be seen in the future for a very long time. <br></p><p><br></p><p><strong>Don E - </strong>"Personally, I prefer to see and recognize rather than create"</p><p><br></p><p>I had no idea they were mutually exclusive. Maybe you could explain where that line of demarcation lies.</p><p><br></p><p>BTW, unless someone speaks up, I don't think anyone is offended by your methodology let alone think of your dicta as criticism (!). Are you projecting? The orthodoxy regarding what is and isn't documentary work is what is being talked about here. <br></p><p><br></p><p> On GSV, there's nothing to resolve: GSV lacks certain things (it doesn't get into houses or other buildings, for example), but it is a resource almost beyond imagining for an historian. It was Don who talked about (the illusion of) minimizing the photographer, not me. GSV does that as no photographer can. Now Don has reversed his position to the photographer from being "minimized" to now being essential and his presence required. I suspect he means for others to do as he does (or says). I don't think GSV is objective or subjective any more than my computer or a ruler is. It has no mind. It's a friggin' <em>machine</em>. Those who pore over its imagery and mine it will furnish the human mind. <br></p><p><br></p><p>I am not advocating that GSV will replace the work of documentarians, but that it already is a monumental new independent addition to the resources available to present and future historians and hobbyists. It is curious to find a Docu photog so contemptuous of the very people (academicians) on whose behalf he is supposedly working.<br></p><p><br></p><p>Yes, there are many issues regarding Documentary work, but from everything I have read they are not monotonal<em></em>. Luckily for the field and its future, there's diversity in it, and as Don must know, some do not agree with his notions.<br></p><p><br></p><p>Don's concepts, as he practices them, are not in dispute. I have some idea of his agendas and story-telling methodology from his pictures and posts. Now, his edicts as to what is or isn't Documentary work are something else entirely. <br></p><p><br></p><p>For those who are interested in seeing a variety of current documentary work. Note how often they diverge from Don Essedi's ideas :</p><p><br></p><p>http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/c/contemporary-documentary-photographers/</p><p><br></p><p>http://vervephoto.wordpress.com/</p><p><br></p><p>http://tracesofthereal.com/2009/11/01/hello-world/</p><p><br></p><p>http://www.americansuburbx.com/?s=documentary&submit.x=8&submit.y=12</p><p><br></p><p><br></p>

[Julie H]

<p>*sigh*</p>

<p>Luis, his "edicts" are for himself. He's maybe not inserting all the endlessly required "in my opinion" or "it's my preference" or "this is just what I am trying to do" statements. Give the guy a break. The fact that he's trying to do something that is known to be difficult doesn't mean he should be sneered at for trying.</p>

<p>If secret agents can do it, why not Don E.?</p>

[alan_zinn]

<p><br />There is no way to be in the street and remain a disinterested observer. Its like trying not to be self-conscious. I've said this before and I know some of us here agree with the notion that we as photographers are players in the theater of the street as we do our thing. "All the world's a stage…" and all that. We are only acting the role of an omniscient observer - working toward that illusion which in itself is part, maybe the biggest, of what defines street photography.</p><div></div>

[don_essedi]

"Don E - "Personally, I prefer to see and recognize rather than create"

 

 

Luis: "I had no idea they were mutually exclusive. Maybe you could explain where that line of demarcation lies."N

 

Neither did I.Where did get the idea? You want to know where that line lies, as if there were a line other than my preference.

 

"Personally" I prefer to see and recognize rather than create. You have issues with that. Why, I cannot imagine. Rather than chat about it (if you were interested in it), you suffuse your post in ridicule and contempt. I've felt intellectual sadism before, and I recognize it. I remain opaque to you. You don't want to know. I guess it is more to your taste doing it this way.

 

I don't think I've experienced anything like the what I get from some here since maybe junior high.

 

I don't demean others approaches to photography, and I wouldn't demean yours if I had any evidence to go on -- which reminds me...

 

Luis: "Brad, as I've told you before, I will not post photos on PN."

 

Fine. Where else, then?

[don_essedi]

Julie: "He's maybe not inserting all the endlessly required "in my opinion"..."

 

Actually, I do. It doesn't matter. Whether its an "edict" or "IMO" doesn't matter to them. It's the fact of it, its presence -- rather like the 'kill it" reaction to being surprised by a spider. It's whack, whack. whack.

 

"Give the guy a break."

 

Thanks for the thought, but I'm at no disadvantage here.

[luis_g]

<p>Don, as per Julie's request, you get a break. Enjoy the last word.</p>

<p> </p>

[Julie H]

<p>"It's whack, whack. whack."</p>

<p>LOL!</p>

<p>[<em>I am so tempted to say something about whack, whack whacking apparently making one go deaf instead of blind -- but I won't; Luis might not hear me</em>. (Luis, that <<< was a <em>tweak</em>, not a <em>whack</em>.)]</p>

[Allen Herbert]

 

<p>"Isn't a good street photographer the most boring of individuals?"</p>

<p>No, we are obsevers and recorders of the world putting our own special take on it. How can that be boring when we are looking ,seeking, observing, and trying to understand what it is all about in our own way.</p>

 

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Julie - </strong>Perhaps your recommendation was whack, but I'm glad I took it for other reasons. Besides, I already wear glasses. I hear, but listening is something else, or so I hear. Tweak? Whack? Whatever you say. [Crickets chirping]</p>

 

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Chill out, Louis. No need to upset yourself.</p>

 

[luis_g]

<p> I take back my first post in this thread: Sanford, I apologize. You were right, and I now see where you got the idea.</p>

[Sanford]

<p>Louis, although I've been trying to read all the responses, I haven't been able to figure out what the hell you guys are talking about after about 50. I think I should get a free membership though for creating so much traffic.</p>

[don_essedi]

"Blend in, be anonymous...Isn't a good street photographer the most boring of individuals?"

 

Sanford, I came into the discussion late and didn't respond to the OP. "Boring" refers to demeanor, not personality? I don't think it necessary, nor is it possible for some photographers. One downside to being "boring" would be not getting eye-contact often enough to suit me. I think it was Vertov who wrote about the moment when the subject first notices the photographer. I think eye-contact adds 'life' and character to street photos in many instances.

[tonmestrom]

<p>famous first question when entering a photo club:<br /> "What camera do you shoot with?"</p>

<p>The answer to that question is just as unimportant to the endresult as wich categorie ones works fits in notwithstanding that some might care more about it a lot more it than others seem to do. It's also nice btw to see that the number of used or referred to cliches in this thread is as abundant as anyone has a right to expect. Predictability can be rather fun.</p>

<p>there is a big difference between categorisation and defining which, on the whole, seems to be understood by most who've entered here. Still, the problem that often occurs with written down discussions like the one in this thread is that both pretty fast tend to end up as nothing more than mere, quite polorarised and useless, labels. Also the context of such definitions is often overlooked.<br /> Personally I would suggest that the difference in viewpoints here or the gap between them on the whole is less real than any neutral reader might conclude.</p>

<p>It's virtually impossible to give an absolute definition of street photography because it's fluid by its very nature. Its practitioners and their highly individual approaches are as varied as their results. As such the field of wedding photography for instance is much more defined/confined. Apart from that the definition of street photography, such as it is, has changed over the years. In that sense the definition on wiki is as valid as any anyone of you might provide.The only real variable is merely the degree of importance anyone cares to project into such definition(s).</p>

<p>Speaking of which, wiki, generally speaking, is just like any encyclopedia; nothing more or less than a starting point. I very much agree with Fred that indepth knowledge requires cross referencing (amongst other things). Jeff pointed out "Bystander" by Westerbeck and Meyerowitz which<strong> is</strong> in fact a valuable book but it is indeed hardly a definitive bible on street photography nor was it ever intended that way.<br /> Personally I often use <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Encyclopedia-Twentieth-Century-Photography-3-Volumes/dp/1579583938"><strong>this one</strong></a> as a starting point. But also hardly definitive.</p>

<p>As for the topic of staging you might consider these two examples. Both<strong> <a href="http://www.masters-of-photography.com/images/full/doisneau/doisneau_kiss.jpg">this one</a></strong> and <a href="http://blog.eyeem.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/capa_thefallingsoldier.jpg"><strong>this one</strong></a> have long since been exposed as "staged". The truth of the matter is that both long before had become iconic and higly valued images (not only in a monetary sense) so it is very debatable if the influence of staging is really that important. For some it is, true, but only if they know or find out that it is. So in the end:<br /> <em><strong>"...I believe because it has something to say. It doesn't matter how it got there, it documents a specific activity that is real. I"</strong></em><br /> isn't this the only thing that really matters?</p>

<p> </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>The truth of the matter is that both long before had become iconic and higly valued images (not only in a monetary sense) so it is very debatable if the influence of staging is really that important.</em></p>

<p>Right, but if I'm correct they first were presented as "true" and not staged images, then become famous, and finally were exposed as staged. If Capa's image had been presented with accurate information about the circumstances, it might not even have been published as a news image and I believe a lot of people believed Doisneau's shot to be of a real (candid) moment until the actors came out and revealed that they were paid to do it. It <em>does </em>matter to (many) people whether the moment was real or staged. A lot of people feel cheated when such a fraud is revealed. If people didn't care, the information about the moment not being authentic wouldn't even be published since no one cares.</p>

<p><em><strong>it documents a specific activity that is real. I"</strong></em><br /><em> isn't this the only thing that really matters?</em></p>

<p>No, it is not. Means are important to many people.</p>

<p><em>Why does the photograph have to reflect their personality?</em></p>

<p>Because I want it to. (Isn't this thread all about what people want of their own street / documentary / portrait / etc. photography i.e. what is important to them? I think a lot of people assume here that people are trying to force something on other photographers while I doubt anyone has had such an intention.)</p>

 

[don_essedi]

Ton: "famous first question when entering a photo club:

"What camera do you shoot with?"

 

The answer to that question is just as unimportant to the endresult..."

 

The club question is just socializing. It is chat and unlikely to be a trenchant inquiry going to the heart of one's photography. It is unimportant to the end result because it bears no relation to it at all. But in reading the rest of your post, I think you are also implying re photography 'nothing is important but the end result".

 

Do I read you correctly?

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Sanford - "</strong>Louis, although I've been trying to read all the responses, I haven't been able to figure out what the hell you guys are talking about after about 50. I think I should get a free membership though for creating so much traffic."</p>

<p>You deserve a halo for reading 50+ posts. Don't worry, there were others who couldn't figure it out.<br>

________________________________________________________________</p>

<p><strong>Ton - </strong>In agreement here. There are liberating definitions, and then there's enslaving ones. One sign that SP (and Documentary) is alive is that it easily eludes those who would try to cram it into a small cage, which some apparently prefer. One size does not fit all.</p>

<p>As you point out, there's a distinction between truth-telling and literality. This is lost on many. I am not saying the means don't matter, but they're not everything.<br>

________________________________________________________________</p>

<p> </p>

[don_essedi]

'Staging' and "faking' don't mean the same thing to me; they are not synonymous. Faking connotes something wrong in a legal, moral, or ethical sense. Before calling something a 'fake', I'd like to know why it's tagged with that negative connotation.

[User_4136860]

<p>Wait until you get old like me you become invisible.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>'Staging' and "faking' don't mean the same thing to me; they are not synonymous. </em></p>

<p>What I mean is that an image is staged (i.e. stuff is moved in to make the picture more effective, people / models are told what to do for the picture) but presented in publication like it were of a real event exposed at the time of the event at the location of the event.</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Ben Myerson - "</strong>Wait until you get old like me you become invisible."</p>

<p>I am there, Ben. First you think you are invisible to any woman under 40, but then you realize you aren't. You're just an inoffensive obstacle.</p>

 

<p><a name="pagebottom"></a><br>

<a>_______________________________________________________________________<br /></a></p>

<p><strong>Ilkka - </strong>Something to consider about the two images that Ton linked to are their temporal coordinates. At the time, concerns about staging weren't as troubling to these two legendary photographers and many others as they are to today's far more 'sensitive' critics. Bill Brandt routinely staged war pictures using his friends, neighbors and relatives in photogenic bombed-out locations, including many who posed as dead. They were easier to pose than what Matthew Brady's photographers had to deal with, I imagine. These pictures were published as illustrations in magazines and newspapers of the day and are valued today as documents. Shall we downgrade these photographers or their work? Pretend that staging doesn't have a long-standing tradition among the very best-ever photographers? I'm not.</p>

<p>Should photographs have "Authenticity warning labels?". Should we trust the photographer to tell us the truth?</p>

<p>This topic has been discussed on PN before</p>

 

 

<p>http://www.photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/008OgK</p>

 

<p><a name="pagebottom"></a></p>

<p> </p>

[don_essedi]

Ilkka, I agree with you that it is in presentation where the issue of fake and fraud resides, not the photograph, which is unchanged, except perhaps in our perception, no matter that we who are viewing it think it "real" or "fake".

 

It may inform us of something about a photographer or an editor, but it is of little consequence to -- let's say the

'worthiness' of the photo. I wish the effect on our perception when these things come to light did not occur. It is a good reason for a photographer to be forthcoming on the matter from the gitgo.