”Yeah....but is it street photography?

[leslie_cheung]

<p>FWIW, "meh" for me doesn't translate to death of creativity. Like I said, some are good while his other works aren't all that. While I do admire his work/project ethic, his stuff is way over (monetary) valued, like most "high" art... </p>

[Carl Stone]

<p>This just in from the Since You Asked Dept.", Banksy photos posted on Banksy's website = self promotion of the art. That translates to street artist, not necessarily street photographer. </p>

[saintelmo21]

<p>No where does Bansksy claim to be a street photographer. I haven't tried to designate him as a street photographer. He is definitely advertising his street art on his website....but, if you put up crappy photos of your product, how well does it sell? The more craftsmanship he puts into his advertising photos/videos which are, by the nature of his artwork, in a 'street' environment; the more attention it gets....An interesting example is the toothless thug and his homies attempting to charge people to take photos and look at the beaver painting. It is candid street videography and very funny in a pathetic way. I find it artistic, about as non-traditional as you can get, and effective. I would go take a look at the beaver painting...but I wouldn't pay $20 to see it!</p>

<p>Nicely put, Lex.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I didn't mean "meh" on the art involved, only on the question of whether it is "street photography" or not.</p>

<p>Am I ignorant or apathetic about this? <br>

I don't know and I don't care.</p><div></div>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>JDM, righto. Totally misread you. I see now that you were talking about the question, not the work in question.</p>

<p>As to your photo . . . photo of a street, maybe even landscape, processed differently could be surrealist. Not, IMO, street photography.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Ok. I think some of them can function as urban street photographs, but I don't think that is their intent. This gets into post-modern thought which gets way too wordy. But his photos to me, seem more to be signifiers (or I guess he calls them authenticators). Its not so much about the photo, its is all about the concept or idea. The photo just becomes part of the art exhibit. I tend to in my middle aged befuddled mind, still think of "street photography and documentary" to be modernist, that is subject/object with the photograph itself being significant. I think he uses photographs in a different way.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Um, that picture posting was a visual rhetorical device, not an actual question, as I'm sure you all recognized :)<br /> JIC</p>

<p>Any of you from Classic Manual Cameras forum will also see another reason I posted it. :)</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>You mean a ?</p>

[dan_south]

<p>Life is too short to debate questions such as "is it street photography?" or "is it art?".</p>

<p>It is what it is. It's a photograph of something, framed in a particular way, lit in a particular way. It either interests/moves/inspires you, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, find something that does.</p>

 

[cyanatic]

<blockquote><strong>Brad -</strong> <em>a lot of visual pun photos, and layered color pix in nice light</em></blockquote>

<p> ;-) This really nails the prevailing aesthetic of the group Norman mentioned (I assume we're all talking about the same group). I was just there the other day and was struck by the preponderance of just those sorts of photos that Brad mentioned. The light is usually that patchy late afternoon type, reflected off the glass of a nearby building, while much of the rest of the street remains in shadow. </p>

<p>Banksy's photos -- To answer the OP, yes, I think some of them would qualify as sp (Lex made some interesting selections in that regard). To Fred's question, I'm not sure what I think of "Banksy" overall. I've seen it for years, it's interesting, but whatever quirky anarchic appeal it once had has long since disappeared into a "ho-hum, there's another one" feeling. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Steve, what "group" so you think Brad is talking about? I applied what he said to a good deal* of today's street photography on the whole.</p>

<p>A good deal. Definitely not all. And certainly not the better street stuff I see.</p>

[ray .]

Why think of it as "street photography," or "SP"-- a term by the way I've never seen other than here. How

about just "photography"- whatever the subject- a medium that someone uses to record their wonderment with the

world? Then interpret that as good or bad, useful or not, meaningful or unworthy, compelling or not, lasting or

trivial---- and focus on that?

[alicia_johnston]

<p>IMO, street photography has got to tell a story. Something that only happens once, and then forever is gone- something captured in a split second. IMO, a photo of a street does not equal street photography, because there is no story, no moment in time, no action really.</p>

[Carl Stone]

<p>And if that Street was a victim of hurricane Sandy? The first rule is that there are no rules, the photo is interesting, or it isn't. </p>

[agitater]

No. Not street photography. It's just copyright protection for street artists and grafitti vandals. Banksy is a business now.

[floyd_davidson]

<blockquote> look at Bansky’s website, and weigh in on whether or not you think of it as street photography, and why or why not. Do you think it’s good SP?</blockquote>

 

<p>

Heh, I clicked on the URL to start it loading, read this entire thread, and only then looked at the website. I fully expected something boring, and far from Street. I expect something along the lines of when people post portraits taken on the streets,

or as others here suggested about pictures of streets.

<p>

Before anything more, let me explain that I've been doing unconventional Street Photography for decades, and have a very well formed concept of the philosophy involved. I don't take offense at those who narrowly define Street (as perhaps Joel Meyerowitz sometimes has done) but I virtually agree in every way, and then go a bit further too, than Garry Winogrand. I like the way the London Festival of Photography tends to define it, which is to say very broadly.

<p>

Street Photography is a portrait of life. It is not about an object, but about the relationship between humanity and our surrroundings. Most of the foundations for Street were based in urban settings, and literally in the streets, but that need not be. There need not even be a person in the picture, nor a street for that matter.

<p>

With that in mind these are some <b>fantastic</b> examples of (slightly unconventional) Street Photography. Part of what makes them so good is that while it is commonly thought that pictures of people on the street who are unaware they are being photographed are the "ideal" Street shot, these photographs are of the relationship of the photographer to surroundings and it is the photographer that seems unaware of the enormity of what each photograph is capturing (not that it wasn't absolutely noticed and it certainly is the reason for exhibiting the images on a web page). That in a way is a bit hilarious as a takeoff from Meyerowitz and others who relate Street as much to the emotional state of the photographer as to the resulting images. Meyerowitz associates that with the electricity of the life of people on the Street, with emphasis on the people rather than the surroundings; the Bansky photographs associate totally with the emotional impact of the surroundings on the photographer and totally absent other people.

<p>

It may not be "conventional", and it might break some new ground and push a few limits a little farther than had been done before... but folks, that <b>is</b> fabulous Street Photography.

[agitater]

<p>I agree with Floyd . . . to a point. Photographing anything - people, grafitti, scrap, architecture, social points, political points, funny points, dramatic points and so on - that we happen to come across while exploring the streets of a city is all street photography.<br>

The 'problem' with Banksy's site is that it's not populated with photos of anything other than the street painting and street sculpture and street installations that he creates for himself (or that he organizes with the help of a team of acolytes, sycophants, helpers, etc.). Banksy is a business every bit as much as he is a person. The photos on his site are only of his own work. He documents his own work so that he can blog about it, generate invitations for the creation of new installations, and generally promote his own interests and fortunes. Good on 'ya, mate! Banksy doesn't photographically document anyone else's work (except to riff on it), and that makes him a street artist not a street photographer.<br>

IMO, none of the photos on the Banksy web site are particularly interesting, in and of themselves, because Banksy (or whomever is doing the photography for his site) is trying to feature his street art only. He's not trying to convince viewers that he is a photographer too.<br>

My favourite photo on the Banksy site is the one of the small collection of quick canvases he painted, signed and sold for $60 each in a pop-up kiosk in New York. In the middle of the display there was a separate sign which read "This Is Not a Photo Opportunity" and clearly indicates to me that for all his touted street cred and sarcastic criticism of others, Banksy has learned the value of copyright retention and the fact that his signature on small pieces of throwaway artwork (that he can now do in his sleep most likely) is actually worth $60 a pop (or more). There's so much wrong with Banksy now that wasn't wrong with him ten years ago.<br>

Anyway, he is not a street photographer.</p>

 

[floyd_davidson]

<blockquote>Photographing anything - people, grafitti, scrap, architecture, social points, political points, funny points, dramatic points and so on - that we happen to come across while exploring the streets of a city is all street photography.</blockquote>

<p>

That is not true though! Street Photography doesn't even have to physically be on the street, and being on a street does not make it Street Photography. The classic example is the distinction between a Portrait of a person taken on the street, and a Street Photograph that includes the same person. Two very different photographic genres, each showing the same object but with an intentionally different subject. The Portait is composed to describe the person while the Street image is composed to describe the person's relationship with the surroundings. (Granted that it can be a very fuzzy line, where large components of both exist in the same photography.)

<p>

But even worse is the concept that you've clearly subscribed to where the reasons for taking a photograph are significant in defining it as Street Photography. Your entire list of what is wrong with the Banksy site is unrelated to Street Photography, and specifically the strange concept that since it documents only Banksy work the photography is not Street Photography. There simply is no such set of connects within any valid definition of Street Photography!

<p>

Granted that what you've listed may be the reasons you personally don't like the photographs, and you are entitled to like or dislike any photograph for any reason. But you probably should never decide that your taste is what globally defines any genre of photography!

<p>

Street photography is about the relationship between man and our environment. A portrait of a person, nor of a street scene as such, is not Street. The photograph has to show something about the relationship, not just a person or just the environment.

<p>

The Banksy photographs are unconvention in not showing any people at all. They are not the only such Street Photography, but it isn't typical. But my goodness do they ever show the relationship of people to their surroundings! None of them are absent that crutial aspect. They show how people interelate, through their surroundings, to each other.

<p>

You may not like that, or not like the way it is done... but that is a question of taste. You might also object to the quality of the photography or the value of it, on technical or artistic grounds. But that is not a question of which genre it is or if it is art, just a question of how good or bad it is.

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"In the middle of the display there was a separate sign which read "This Is Not a Photo Opportunity" and clearly indicates to me that for all his touted street cred and sarcastic criticism of others, Banksy has learned the value of copyright retention..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I assumed that sign was intended to be ironic. Goes to show how different our perceptions can be about the entire subject of street photography, documentary photography, culture jamming and just about everything, even when we use the same words.</p>

[floyd_davidson]

The photo showed that is clear was a photo op! How sarcastic could the possibly get!

 

Incidentally, absent that sign that picture just about couldn't be called Street Photography. But with that sign it is.

[Uhooru]

Hurts brain to decide if SP or not or whether it matters. the art pieces are definitely "street art" art made on the street. The photos? Maybe documentary, maybe street. I tend to agree with Fred's idea of the photos along with the art pieces forming a conceptual art project. Classification, if not edifying of the work, only tends to limit possible understanding of it.