Critiques of Intention in Street Photography

[Brad_]

>>> I'm not about to yield to your attempts to turn this into the Old Street Boy's Network, others need not

apply.<P>

 

Nice try, who suggested that? Go out and make some street photos. Any camera and pair of comfortable shoes

will do. It's a big city.<P>

 

<center>

.<P>

<img src= "http://www.citysnaps.net/2014%20Photos/Mission%20couple.jpg"><BR>

<i>

San Francisco • ©Brad Evans 2014

</i>

<P>

.<P>

</center>

[charleswood]

<p>Brad, I had said early on that my remarks on the street photography presented in this thread were my remarks as a viewer, were not the remarks of a photographer.</p>

<p>One thing I am getting out of all these varied contributions is a better sense of how I personally take in information. How I personally take in information does seem to account for my quick judgments about that information. Let's say I am like a pocket gopher. I handle information like a pocket gopher handles little rocks that fall into its hole. If I can't find a place for it, out it goes. Here I am: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTB93hwF22o">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTB93hwF22o</a> . I've got a wonderful world down there under the ground and if you want me take in information there had better be a reason, intent. Otherwise it's just another piece of information I have no reason to clutter my already full world with. When I said crass, all of it, that was the snap judgment of the pocket gopher who just wanted to unclutter his hole of something there wasn't any reason (intent) to have down in there. Does it make sense to blame a pocket gopher for being a pocket gopher not wanting more rocks? That's what I am.</p>

<p> </p>

[charleswood]

<p>Finally, Finally I have some closure and I can chuck this thread right out my hole.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p> "Let's say I am like a pocket gopher".Charles<br>

<br>

Funny.<br>

<br>

I would have thought a better analogy would have been of a little ostrich with its head stuck in the sand, its arse pointing at the world, passing wind. But did I notice one half eye sticking out? Ha, only joining in the fun of your little tale.<br /></p>

<p>Thanks everyone for the insights and the photos. Special thanks for the effort Brad has put into this post with his Art of Photography despite the insults and name calling from our little ostrich friend.</p>

[charleswood]

<p><a href="http://personalitycafe.com/myers-briggs-forum/121893-true-difference-judger-vs-perceiver.html">http://personalitycafe.com/myers-briggs-forum/121893-true-difference-judger-vs-perceiver.html</a></p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Judgers deal with their outside world first, so they can deal with their inside world. Perceivers deal with their inside world first so they can then deal with their outside world. <br /><br /> Example: J's clean a room in order to feel good, P's clean the room when they feel like it. <br /><br /> Thus J's move their decision making (Feeling or Thinking) to the forefront, before they deal with the perception of information, and a P would deal with the perception of the information before making a judgement on it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't spend a lot of time on the perception of information. That's why I rush to judgment. But the judgments stand on their own terms, are either good ones or bad ones on their own merit despite the personality that formed them.</p>

[cyanatic]

<p>Well, this went well...somewhat.</p>

<p>I appreciate everyone's thoughts in this thread, but as corny or "touchy-feely" as it sounds, this is how this thread strikes me on a personal level. I feel a little bit like someone who is with a group of friends -- all of whom I get along with -- but some of them don't seem to get along well with each other through misunderstandings. ("Oh no! This isn't going to turn into one of those <em>let's talk about our feelings</em> sessions is it!? No, not exactly.) </p>

<p>So, whether anyone reads this or not (Charles especially), I just wanted to make some brief observations. </p>

<p>On the seeming rift between Brad and Fred (particularly awkward to me because I respect both of you, and, though you're each somewhat different from each other, you each seem like people I would enjoy sharing a cup of coffee with, shooting the bull, maybe go out photographing together, etc.) -- When Brad references people who might understand better (I know I'm not quoting exactly, just trying to convey the sense of some of the statements) by experiencing the street more, I can see how that could be interpreted as a "you're not really part of the club, so you don't understand" kind of attitude. I don't think that's what Brad intended, but I can't speak for him. I think Fred is often very passionate and involved in discussions on PN. He explores, challenges, analyzes, and questions statements (and his own thoughts) and it sometimes can be interpreted as personal or, in some cases, rigid. But they can often arise in response to statements made by others that appear to exclude or diminish opposing (or different) points of view. It's a shame, I think, because I often get a lot out of what either one of them says and I sometimes read a thread and think, "No! That's no what he meant! Or, no! don't take it that way..." Seems a shame, but I can only give my thoughts on it -- which I don't think I've ever done before.</p>

<p>Charles W -- I hope I did not sound condescending to you (I don't know if he will come back to this thread so he may never see this, alas...). When I spoke of "literalists and objectifiers", it was not a veiled reference to you. You participate, you talk about what you see or don't see, and I appreciate it. I was thinking of people I sometimes see on PN who wander into a discussion that might involve a difficult work, or photographer, or the "art world", and they drop one or two snarky lines demeaning the thread or the discussion or the "art world" -- without ever offering anything else to the discussion. Why bother? If it's such BS, or distasteful to you, why bother? But, who knows, I may have been guilty of the same thing myself at times. It just seems that there are certain people who can be counted on to pop into such a discussion (none of them contributed to this thread, btw). So anyway, Charles, I also don't see you as a pocket gopher (I suspect you don't think so either) but your point is made. Why clutter up one's mind or world with things that don't seem to make sense or be of value. In that sense, I'm a bit of a pocket gopher myself (as are we all?), but just not about what was being discussed in this thread. You did not mock anything I said, or say it was ridiculous BS, but I could understand it if someone did in response to me talking about "feelings beyond words" or "mysteries" and "half-knowledge". </p>

<p>There is nothing wrong, or inferior, with wanting to take in information that has reason and intent behind it -- particularly as it relates to a photograph. I too look for these things (depending upon the image and the context), but in certain genres of photography I tend toward appreciating things that are a bit amorphous. I do not think you are "an ostrich". You just have a different outlook and approach (in some areas) than do I. I don't think I'm more insightful or attuned than you are. </p>

<p>So, thanks all. Not sure if this discussion will continue or not, but I have enjoyed it, despite the bumps in the road.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Steve, quote fragment - "but in certain genres of photography I tend toward appreciating things that are a bit amorphous."</p>

<p>That makes sense. If I take the time I do get something from just perceiving your photo, for example, hence my comment about the waves in it. Most of the time my extraverted feeling function wants to put a value on something [makes like or dislike statement with supportable reasons - feeling function is a rational function] and just be done with it. I just can't take much 'amorphous', that's just the way I am. What I do notice is that not everybody is like me in that regard.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Steve, thanks for your very sober and warm post. I take it to heart.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"your cryptic epigrams often throw me for a loop when it comes to understanding what you're really trying to say". Steve.</p>

<p>"Lost in the world of words...the magic of the photograph....."Allen</p>

<p>Okay, a work of Art/Photograph has its own language; a emotive response from the photographer and the viewer. Yes, we can analysis/determinate , put our thoughts into words...but the Art is talking to us from a different place. Words, are wonderful, and they can help explain the Art, and they are our practical tools of understanding. But they are only tools of understanding, the Art. The Art can be lost in in the deciphering of one language to another....hence the magic is lost in the world of words.</p>

<p>Just another thought.. to call someones photography as "crass" is just plain nasty. It would seem folk on this forum do not have a problem with someones work being called "crass". Indeed, they seem to "pretty up" to this person. I just wonder how they would feel if their photography was called "crass? Photographers/ Artists are proud of their work to have it called "crass" must be very hurtful.</p>

<p>Sad.</p>

[cyanatic]

<p>Fred -- thanks, you know I mean it.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Allen Herbert -- Okay, a work of Art/Photograph has its own language; a emotive response from the photographer and the viewer. Yes, we can analysis/determinate , put our thoughts into words...but the Art is talking to us from a different place. Words, are wonderful, and they can help explain the Art, and they are our practical tools of understanding. But they are only tools of understanding, the Art. The Art can be lost in in the deciphering of one language to another....hence the magic is lost in the world of words.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks, Allen. I agree completely. And you said in a lot fewer words one of the points I was trying to make.</p>

<p>Charles -- As much as I say I appreciate that which is amorphous, I would not want a steady diet of only that. And yes, some people want more or less of it...we are all different that way. And that's as it should be. </p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Some people find the light only if, like the candle, they are their own fuel, consuming themselves.</p>

[Brad_]

Thanks Charles, I appreciate that and liked your story and video.<P>

 

>>> When Brad references people who might understand better (I know I'm not quoting exactly, just trying to convey the sense of some of the statements) by

experiencing the street more, I can see how that could be interpreted as a "you're not really part of the club, so you don't understand" kind of attitude. I don't think that's

what Brad intended, but I can't speak for him.<P>

 

Thanks Steve. I would like to try and clarify what you said above, though.<P>

 

Charles insisted on knowing my intent when out shooting. I explained what it was, but that apparently was not good enough and/or not believed. He asked several more

times, along the way trying to put words in my mouth, misquoting, etc. I think he was looking for something like: <P>

 

"While shooting on the street I seek to explore relationships

between San Francisco's diverse sub-populations and their environment to help

raise awareness about the underserved who are not seen and marginalized by society as a

whole, and how class identities, postmodern discourse, and skateboard politics play a major roll”<P>

 

I believe he was confounded that my "intent" is to simply capture moments not seen on the street, and that I get jazzed being out there, talking to people, learning

something new about the street, raising money for at-risk kids, etc. Apparently that was still not good enough, and then asserting that he'd prefer my photos not be

shown as art. Ha! Rush me to the burn unit on that one!<P>

 

Thus, after expressing my intent (as did others who offered their nuanced views), as far as I know the only way for that to make sense to Charles is to actually get out

into an urban environment and see what it's really like first hand with camera in hand. No amount of arm-chair street photography theorizing, internet access to Winogrand

quotes, reading/quoting Szarkowski, etc will never convey what I and others experience and especially why a formalized intent is just not very damn important for many.<P>

 

It's hardly a club. As I said to Fred, any camera and decent pair of shoes works fine. I have a ton of respect for people that are actually out on the street, at all levels, seeing what it's

about and welcome everyone. It's easy to just walk out your door, maybe needing to get on a bus, and find a place to sample the street.<P>

 

 

>>> Just another thought.. to call someones photography as "crass" is just plain nasty.<P>

 

Agreed. Charles hides behind an emotionless dictionary definition. I think many people understand the power that lies beyond the word's definition, and Charles' real

intent. It's not the first time he's impulsively acted out so strongly towards me - it seems to happen after I challenge one of Fred's assertions, making me think he's acting

as Fred's spokesman or proxy.<P>

 

<center>

.<P>

<img src= "http://citysnaps.net/2014%20Photos/BruiserRikii.jpg"><BR>

<i>

Bruiser and Rikii • Tenderloin, San Francisco • ©Brad Evans 2014

</i> <BR>.</center>

<P>

[Uhooru]

<blockquote>

<p>Barry, if I understand you correctly, you don't think about much when you're in the moment of photographing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, I didn't mean to convey exactly that. Something is alway working, its not a mindless process, and I'm sure that's not what you meant. It just depends on the photograph you are taking.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Well, that's exactly how anyone can understand what Barry experiences who's not Barry.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is worse than that! I am Barry and I don't have a clue, or at least the language to understand much less articulate what I'm experiencing. But at least if you see enough of ones photographs you begin to see patterns as to what one is interested in.<br /> In terms of my photographs, if I look, I see I'm very interested in light, generally, sometimes, I am very thoughtful about abstract relationships in a photo, and then, a real curiosity about people. I like to almost like look at them under a microscope and catch a look, just to see what it is.<br /> When I see Jeff's photography, I see a love of the joy in humanity, a reveling in the pure audacity of how people like to present themselves and a love getting to meet and learning about folks.<br /> Similarly in Brad's photography, I see a similar sentiment as Jeff's and a real comfort of 2 way respect and humanity. Even when Brad is photographing someone who other's might thing is off the rails and on the marginalized side of life, Brad always transmits that feeling of equality of all people, he captures the humanity that shines out in everybody no matter how circumstances or choices have brought them in life. To me, Jeff and Brads photographs are the exact opposite of "crass" for those reasons. Besides, I like sexy people photographs.<br /> That's why I enjoy Jeff's and Brad's work so much, and they are both technically at the point where the major hurdles to getting a good photo are 2nd nature. Now, I hope I didn't embarrass you guys. <blush> But I know you are both tough enough to handle a compliment:)</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I don't have any problem with characterizing a photograph as crass, particularly if it doesn't appeal to popular sensibilities and sensitivities, any more than I do appending <em>bellissimo!</em> to a photo that is conventionally pleasing and pleasant and possibly really good and possibly merely forgettable. Either characterization may be accurate, adequate, vapid or simply lazy.</p>

<p>What I don't get is the repeated pattern of gratuitous belligerence in the guise of polemics to set up an argument, followed by a carefully nuanced commentary, followed by more bellicose posturing... lather, extra lather, rinse, repeat. I can't tell whether I'm reading an odd, abrasive but possibly valid form of criticism or merely watching someone riding a roller coaster that never ends while they scream "Thhhiiisss sssuuucksss!" followed by "Thhhiiisss isss grrreeeaattt!" depending on which part of the roller coaster they're on at the moment.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p><blockquote>I don't have any problem with characterizing a photograph as crass, particularly if it doesn't appeal to popular sensibilities and sensitivities, any more than I do appending <em>bellissimo!</em> to a photo that is conventionally pleasing and pleasant and possibly really good and possibly merely forgettable. Either characterization may be accurate, adequate, vapid or simply lazy.</blockquote></p><br><p>

I don't care so much what one calls it, I'm a little more interested as to why, not that it is any of my business really.</p>

[cyanatic]

<p>?</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Steve, the new account for "Best Clipping" was a spam bot using AI to create superficially relevant sounding text based on phrases harvested from the thread. It's just good enough to bypass some email spam filters and unmoderated comment sections, but sounds odd to a human reader. Probably just another spammer for a cheap photo editing service that specializes in clipping paths for image knockouts - tedious work that some commercial and stock photographers need done but don't want to pay for in the US or Europe.</p>

[david_nissen1]

<p>I find the implicit assumption that "intention" is "conscious" to be profoundly misleading. I believe that in action, we know much more than we are consciously aware of.<br>

<br />"you can't think and hit", Yogi Berra</p>