AJHingel Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 <p>I'm far behind in the reading after a good nights sleep here across the ocean ! Especially after Steve's masterpiece above. We finally got to the centre of a discussion on aesthetics and photography. Photonet is on nightshift, seen from Europe :)</p> <p>While reflecting, maybe it is relevant to compare the process of painting with that of shooting street photography. This concept "this is a photography" or "this a a painting" is central to all artistic expressions. It is almost impossible to put your finger on the "why" but you feel it in your heart, in your guts, and shout out when it is there in front of your eyes. This also why going to art shows,to museums is such a wild experience: you are virtually surrounded by "this is a painting, photography, sculpture.. type of experience.<br> In my experience with painting (or sculpturing) it is always a long agonizing and engaging process of corrections and additions to a painting like <a href="http://www.saatchiart.com/art/Painting-Carmine-abstract-space/161286/2538435/view">this: Carmine abstract space</a><a href="http://www.saatchiart.com/art/Painting-Carmine-abstract-space/161286/2538435/view"> </a>, before suddenly a defining moment arrives it is there and nothing more is to be change without ruining it all. I can afterwards, llke any viewer go back and force analytical tools on it and then see that whatever color rules and compositional rules that we have out there, are present within the frame (or not) and that :"this is a painting", can be explained - but mostly not. My artistic eye have expressed itself - to better or worse.</p> <p>In photography and especially street photography things become somewhat more messy. It ends up in the quick impression that what you have in front of your eye, within the frame is a photography and the rest around is mess and noise. Or you see it in the postprocessing work when you come home, and very often long time after. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landrum Kelly Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 <blockquote> <p>Harry Callahan shot the street, but I don't think he did "street photography." --Julie H.</p> </blockquote> <p>Gotta love it. There's more:</p> <blockquote> <p>Compare Eggleston's work (he sometimes shoots in the street) ... to any street shooter. Eggleston is <em>not</em> a street photographer; look at the aesthetics of his pictures. Look at Friedlander trying <em>not</em> to do street work in <em>The Desert Seen</em>. He can't do it. He does the desert as if it's a street (social). LOL<br /> An aesthetics of the social assumes that it (the work; the depiction) is part of a (much) larger <em>binding</em> whole.</p> </blockquote> <p>Wow. This is why I don't try to talk about aesthetics. I don't see anything until you guys tell me what I just saw.</p> <p>Take Jack McRitchie, though. He cannot NOT do abstracts. Put him on the street and he comes back overwhelmingly with abstracts.</p> <p>I shoot the street at night, but since I don't know what I'm doing, I don't try to figure out what to call it. I just think it's <a href="/photo/15721012&size=lg"><em><strong>magic</strong></em></a>. I'm talking about the night, that is, not my photography. . .</p> <p>I just love to be outside, especially at night. Ultimately, I think I'm just a gearhead. Half of what I shoot is just another informal lens test. The <a href="/photo/17530236&size=lg"><em><strong>mountains at night</strong></em></a> are cool, but they aren't street photography. They are just more midnight magic.</p> <p>--Lannie</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aplumpton Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 <p>Not having given sufficient time to reading the posts in this OP (being semi-retired is supposed to allow lots of time, but that gap gets filled in so easily with many things) which is unfortunate as the discussion is very much good P of P stuff that we seem to find missing in that sleepy forum these days. When I finally noticed Steve's photo its strong effect was immediately evident and it reminded me of the importance of the choice in how subjects are pictured. I always liked the quote that someone provided concerning his desire to photograph things to see what they are or how they appear when reduced to the image frame.</p> <p>As Steve says, he works "instinctively" and realised later that his instinct was not a mistake. The emphasis on the costumes, tatoos and bodies of the couple certainly tells more than having shown the two persons fully where our attention might be less concentrated. Essential canbe a fuzzy or debatable term, as has been mentioned in previous OPs but the importance of Steve's photo for us is to see that he found essential aspects of the couple, and how it is important to find and concentrate on the essential of our subjects. Although he is not a street photographer and his minimalist approach may not suit everyone, Micheal Kenna has found ways to concentrate on what he finds to be the essential of his subjects, reducing landscape, architectural and other subjects to their essential. Gibson, in his way, did the same, without normally shooting streets. The Frank street image already shown is a classic model of simplicity and high implied meaning, and a jewel to find for any street photographer.</p> <p>Much street photography seems to me to be less focused and facile, and we come away thinking yes that is what streets and humans in streets look like, often in common but uninformative (for the viewer) ways of being, without showing more. Street photography shines when meaning is introduced by the good choice of scene and by photographer's approach (aesthetic if you like). Lannie's excellent choice is a Jack Ritchie photo that immediately seizes our interest by the road sign and by the person looking in the other direction while being on the opposite side of the road. Meaning can be a moment of humor like this or an observation on life as that of Frank's open hearse and little girl photo. Or the street photo can also provide a mirror for us of the artefacts surrounding our lives, as shown in many so-called "abstract" photos.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julie H Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 <p>Steve, in <em>Duo</em>, do you feel like the slight torso lean and the visual weight (with latent threat?) of the raised arm (upper left) of the man on the left puts you in the picture? It's like a tractor beam sort of probing my intent. Feeling for chemical bonds ...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landrum Kelly Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 <p>It's not about beauty, and Carlos H. calls it "America the strange," but it's a slice of Americana:</p> <p><a href="/photo/7070563"><em><strong>http://www.photo.net/photo/7070563</strong></em></a><br> <em><strong> </strong></em><br> --Lannie<em><strong><br /></strong></em></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julie H Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 <p>"Image making" is much too cerebral. Street photography is to do with the photographer's physicality and movement.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julie H Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 <p>Phil wrote: "If we can move beyond thinking of photographs as photographs ... " Can't do that until you've actually made the photograph. Then, whatever happens <em>after</em> the shooting, that's called "editing."</p> <p>Street <em>shooting</em> comes more from the gut and the gonads than the mind. And that, in my opinion, is exactly from where/why it gets its particular visceral power and flavor. The shoot brings in the raw ore; the mind <em>then</em> mines for the gold (in the edit, later).</p> <p>The pig finds the truffles; the farmer gets to eat them. (Steve, I'm calling you a pig!)</p> <p>No pig; no truffles.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julie H Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 <p>"putting one's head, one's eye, and one's heart on the same axis"</p> <p>I think Picasso did that, but I don't think HCB did. He got the above-the-neck parts (head and eye) but I don't find a lot of heart (and surely not gonads or gut) in his photos. (You won't be surprised to find that I don't particularly admire HCB's pictures.)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julie H Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 <p>Phil wrote: "But you can agree that HCB did street <em>shooting</em>, yes?" Yes and no (i.e. good question for me, Phil).<br /><br /><br> I think he is the farmer without the pig. He knows there are truffles; he knows where they are, but to my eye, he's very ... <em>clinical</em> in his approach. As the first (or one of the first) to sense the frame of a new kind of approach, it's entirely understandable that he wouldn't spring fully formed into street photography. But I also think it wasn't really in his nature to make a visceral kind of connection to his subjects; he strikes me as more of a mathematician than a poet (knowing full well that in there is poetry in the mind-workings of the best mathematicians).</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julie H Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 <p>I think Friedlander would not take kindly to your "formalist" accusation. Just because he doesn't have one big thing in the middle of the frame doesn't mean he's a formalist. He just sees the whole field when he's working the ball. Same for Levitt or DeCarava, etc.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aplumpton Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 <p>I think the qualification of visceral or gut approach misses the point in good street photography. I would ascribe more importance to the instinct and intelligence (intelligent preparation and knowledge of the subject, etc.) of the photographer. Instinct, because perception and decision have to be made quickly and opportunities rapidly seized upon before they are no more. As we often say in regard to scientific research (another creative activity that also includes the subset of engineering or applied science and invention), "success favors the prepared mind". Good street photography is like good fishing. You have to know where the fish are, what they do (behaviour) and how best to bring them in (fly or spoon, worm or whatever). Just going out and hoping the fish will discover you because you have a gut feeling they will is not going to be very successful in the long run.</p> <p>Photojournalism and documentary theme photography are not unlike street photography in that regard. Instinct and intelligent preparation (which can include preparing by knowing your subject or milieu, even though you cannot predict what will occur within those boundaries at any one time) are more important I think than a romantic evocation of visceral or gut approach, which are sometimes important but much behind instinct and intelligence in my opinion.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyanatic Posted January 16, 2016 Author Share Posted January 16, 2016 <p>As if this thread were not already lengthy enough – I thought I would go through the work of some of the posters who have contributed to this thread and see if I could come up with the aesthetics I find in their work. Not all of them would likely be categorized as a documentary or street photographer, but I tried to describe some of the aesthetic elements I see in their full body of work, in a limited series of their photographs, or the aesthetic elements that I might perceive in a single photograph.</p> <p>(Quick aside to acknowledge Julie H poking me with the social aspect of street photography: I could see where a strong case could be made that ALL street photographs or photographers are social. I'm just not sure that I can think of any particular aesthetic which is unique ONLY to street photography, and which cannot be found in any other genre.)</p> <blockquote> <p>Phil S. : Street Painting. There's the early influence of photography in Gustave Caillebotte's Paris Street, Rainy Day.</p> </blockquote> <p>Yes! I have always thought that this painting by Caillebotte had a strong street photography feeling. (It is in the collection of the Chicago Art Institute, but has been off display for a few years while it undergoes some type of cataloging and restoration. As an aside, a few years ago I met up with PN photographer Louis Meluso who is/was employed by the Chicago Art Institute. He very kindly gave me a sort of behind the scenes tour of the CAI. In one of the photography studios used by the institute, I was startled to see this very painting as it was being photographed for restoration. )</p> <p><strong>Louis Meluso</strong>'s work seems mostly portrait oriented, but he also does some fine street work. This overhead photo shows a different view of one of my favorite Chicago haunts, Adams St.: <a href="/photo/17510147">http://www.photo.net/photo/17510147</a></p> <p>I was interested to see that <strong>Phil S</strong> has some Chicago based street photos on his website. Another interesting overhead view of a different Chicago St, Grand Ave, as seen, I believe, from the Michigan Ave overpass where Grand crosses underneath it. Sadly, the lovely old Reagle Beagle restaurant (sign at left in Phil's photograph) is no longer there. <a href="http://www.philipsweeck.com/iii/2016/1/10/e3r33umqekdfgrd4pcggg5kxouuh4c">http://www.philipsweeck.com/iii/2016/1/10/e3r33umqekdfgrd4pcggg5kxouuh4c</a><br> You should take a look at some other examples of Phil's work. There seems to be a slightly uneasy (in terms of its reflective, hazy, and sometimes amorphous nature) dreamlike, “otherness” quality to his work, expressed via reflections, haziness, and sometimes a certain graininess.<br> <a href="http://www.philipsweeck.com/gallery-i/apl0u68rfr2uuf4lt7m1vgs83vfnk8">http://www.philipsweeck.com/gallery-i/apl0u68rfr2uuf4lt7m1vgs83vfnk8</a></p> <p><strong>Julie H</strong> – I could be completely off here because I am out of my element in terms of trying to categorize or fully understand Julie's work. But I do sometimes sense a sort of playful, tongue-in-cheek, surreal approach to geometric spatial relationships as expressed via a faux naturalism. In this particular work, I get a strong sense of both foreboding and anticipation (in a “slouching toward Bethlehem” kind of way). The birds...<br> http://www.photo.net/photo/6917880&size=lg</p> <p><strong>Anders Hingel</strong> – I learned something new about Anders, that he is also an accomplished painter/sculptor! (After all these years on PN you'd think I would have known that, alas). I find a strong relationship of color, geometry, and patterns, between his paintings and some of his street work.<br> <a href="/photo/17792307">http://www.photo.net/photo/17792307</a><br> <a href="http://www.saatchiart.com/art/Printmaking-Geometricity-III-Limited-Edition-4-of-10/161286/1987682/view">http://www.saatchiart.com/art/Printmaking-Geometricity-III-Limited-Edition-4-of-10/161286/1987682/view</a></p> <p><strong>Lannie</strong> – Although he doesn't exclusively do street work, I find his photographs to be imbued with a certain emotional, wistful Romanticism. A lot of his night work (which he has said he favors) has a Hopperesque alienation and sadness to it.<br> <a href="/photo/17626809">http://www.photo.net/photo/17626809</a></p> <p><strong>Brad</strong> – Strong street portraiture, and frequently clean, sharp delineations of city life and energy, often with a strong sense of spatial relationships between urban subjects and their environment (particularly his more recent work).<br> http://www.citysnaps.net/showkase/recent/</p> <p><strong>Sandy Vongries</strong> – Not all his work is like this particular series of photographs, but to me this imparts a kind of Walker Evans sensibility with a dash of Hopper and Edgar Allan Poe:<br> http://www.photo.net/photo/18159495&size=lg</p> <p><strong>Arthur Plumpton</strong> – One of my favorite Plumpton photos would not be categorized as street, but I have always liked this image for its unique quality, as well as the depth (no pun intended) of its possible multiplicity of meanings beyond that which is simply seen. Elegant in its simplicity:<br> <a href="/photo/10193910">http://www.photo.net/photo/10193910</a><br> I had not seen this photo of Arthur's before, but to me it's a gem of geometry and humanism...certainly a strong potential narrative here:<br> <a href="/photo/17988617&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/17988617&size=lg</a></p> <p><strong>Fred G</strong> – I find Fred's body of work an interesting admixture of portraiture, documentary, with some examples that could fall into the category of street photography (though I am not sure whether he would agree or not):<br> This portrait of Andy is certainly not street photography, but in his great use of light and empathic interpretation, the character of Andy (or maybe a viewer's perception of Andy) comes through very forcefully:<br> <a href="/photo/16071752">http://www.photo.net/photo/16071752</a><br> Now that I have used the word “empathic” (would empathetic be more grammatically correct?), I just realized that I would use it to describe something that could be considered a salient feature of Fred's “aesthetic” because I find it in various places. Examples being a portrait of his father (<strong>link 1</strong>) and his documentary work on Plowshare (<strong>link 2</strong>)</p> <p><a href="/photo/9573861">http://www.photo.net/photo/9573861</a></p> <p><a href="http://www.fredgoldsmithphotography.com/gallery/PlowshareFarm/">http://www.fredgoldsmithphotography.com/gallery/PlowshareFarm/</a></p> <p><strong>Jack McRitchie</strong> – Abstracts and Osaka street life. Jack's abstracts of inanimate objects often have a comical anthropomorphic quality to them. As if Jack's photography (particularly his abstracts) have been infused with a strong dose of surreal anime'.<br> Although this photograph does not express that anime' quality that Jack does so well, it certainly qualifies as a strong “street” example, and is an interesting echo of Walker Evans' surreptitious subway series photographs.<br> <a href="/photo/18073209">http://www.photo.net/photo/18073209</a></p> <p><strong>Carlos H</strong> – An underrated PN photographer, I feel (based upon the lack of deserving mentions he seems to get in discussions like this one). Some of his work possesses a Robert Frank/Lee Friedlander, On The Road sensibility. One of my all time favorites:<br> <a href="/photo/7575401">http://www.photo.net/photo/7575401</a></p> <p><strong>Drew Bayless</strong> (!!!) -- Another photographer who I don't think is mentioned anywhere near as much as he deserves. His abstracts have a different quality than Jack McRitchie's, but they have a quirky, surprise quality to them. Showing us juxtapositions which, as we walk by them, we rarely take photographic notice of. This particular photo also puts me in mind of Lee Friedlander.<br> <a href="/photo/18134273">http://www.photo.net/photo/18134273</a></p> <p>I'm running out of time, but there are a number of other PN photographers (some who participate in threads like this one, and many who do not) whose street work is worthy of consideration and mention. (John Crosley, a long time street and documentary veteran, has already been mentioned in this thread.) I'm not trying to make this an all-inclusive survey, and I can't possibly cover every single one, so if there is someone I have missed (there are many, I am sure) it is not because their work does not deserve mention.<br> Not all of these might be considered strictly “street” but they all have certain aesthetic qualities I appreciate. (In no particular order...)</p> <p>Lex Jenkins – <a href="/photo/16767502">http://www.photo.net/photo/16767502</a></p> <p>Jeff Spirer – <a href="/photo/7303111">http://www.photo.net/photo/7303111</a></p> <p>Donna Pallotta – <a href="/photo/18061847">http://www.photo.net/photo/18061847</a></p> <p>Wouter Willems – <a href="/photo/17893037">http://www.photo.net/photo/17893037</a></p> <p>Marjolien M. – <a href="/photo/17708492">http://www.photo.net/photo/17708492</a></p> <p>Mario Azevedo – <a href="/photo/18100921">http://www.photo.net/photo/18100921</a></p> <p>Wolfgang Arnold – <a href="/photo/17875400">http://www.photo.net/photo/17875400</a></p> <p>Allan Herbert – <a href="/photo/17786451">http://www.photo.net/photo/17786451</a></p> <p>Marie H. – <a href="/photo/17686616">http://www.photo.net/photo/17686616</a></p> <p>Marc Todd – <a href="/photo/7626670">http://www.photo.net/photo/7626670</a></p> <p>Bulent Celasun – <a href="/photo/17966772">http://www.photo.net/photo/17966772</a></p> <p>Jane Cave – <a href="/photo/17595408">http://www.photo.net/photo/17595408</a></p> <p>Barry Fisher – <a href="/photo/11039645">http://www.photo.net/photo/11039645</a></p> <p>Sanford Edelstein – <a href="/photo/18143942">http://www.photo.net/photo/18143942</a></p> <p>Lastly, to Julie H (who, along with Anders, started us down this road): The quick, drop in blurbs of quotes that you put into this thread (and have put in other threads) are always helpful and stimulating to me. I don't know how, exactly, but you seem to know which quotes will resonate with me, with which I will be <em>simpatico,</em> and they sometimes help me formulate and give direction to my musings. So, thank you.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Vongries Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 <p>Steve G.-- Far too generous -- many think of me as a P.I.T.A. You seem to be a nice guy who got stuck with the job of herding cats. My newest street stuff would be in Reading Mkt, One face, and some yet to come. Thanks for your efforts! S.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyanatic Posted January 17, 2016 Author Share Posted January 17, 2016 <blockquote> <p ><strong>Julie H.</strong> <em>Street shooting comes more from the gut and the gonads than the mind. And that, in my opinion, is exactly from where/why it gets its particular visceral power and flavor. The shoot brings in the raw ore; the mind then mines for the gold (in the edit, later).</em></p> <p > <em>The pig finds the truffles; the farmer gets to eat them. (Steve, I'm calling you a pig!)</em></p> <p ><em> </em><em>No pig; no truffles.</em><em><br /></em></p> </blockquote> <p ><em> </em></p> <blockquote> <p ><em> </em></p> <p ><strong>Phil S</strong> <em>HCB's aesthetic is that of the formalist. He considered himself a surrealist also, more than a documentary photographer. Many of the large format new color photographers like Joel Meyorowitz can be seen as having a formalist aesthetic in their street work ( I'd also consider Lee Friedlander a formalist, his photographs being largely about photography itself ). On the other side of the spectrum there's the expressionist aesthetic, Daido Moriyama for example.</em></p> <p ><em>It doesn't have to be either / or. There can be a blend between the two modes. My older street work is more expressionistic than my recent street work. I moved away from too much expressionism, so as to make myself as the photographer everywhere felt, but nowhere to be seen in the image ( the Walker Evans approach ).</em></p> </blockquote> <p ><em> </em></p> <p ><em> </em></p> <blockquote> <p ><strong>Arthur Plumpton</strong> <em>I think the qualification of visceral or gut approach misses the point in good street photography. I would ascribe more importance to the instinct and intelligence (intelligent preparation and knowledge of the subject, etc.) of the photographer. Instinct, because perception and decision have to be made quickly and opportunities rapidly seized upon before they are no more.</em></p> <p ><em> </em></p> <p ><em>You have to know where the fish are, what they do (behaviour) and how best to bring them in (fly or spoon, worm or whatever). Just going out and hoping the fish will discover you because you have a gut feeling they will is not going to be very successful in the long run.</em></p> </blockquote> <p > </p> <p > </p> <p > </p> <p >I am not sure I could make a clear distinction between visceral/gut and instinct. Are they not the same, or certainly very similar? “This feels right” is visceral, it is gut, and it is instinct. They all require the mind to take action (in selecting the particular photograph which “feels” right), but they do not come from the conscious, rational part of the mind. Intelligence (“knowing where the fish are”) would allow for such things as: waiting in front of a large window display to obtain one of those “little human/large display” juxtapositions, or knowing where, and at what time of day, the sun reflects down from skyscraper windows and into the street so one can obtain one of those “subject illuminated but surrounded by shadows” type of image. The internet is filled with these sorts of street photographs and they are considered by some to be of a more accomplished nature because of these very qualities. They are striking on the surface, but after a while they become terribly cliché. Intelligence, used in this manner, most often yields predictable results. Predictability is all well and good for science, but it is the road to mediocrity for the street photographer.</p> <p > </p> <p >Julie speaks of pigs and truffles. I agree that the “gold” comes in the edit. And sometimes the gold should be a surprise. Intelligence (and I may be misinterpreting how Arthur intended that term to be understood in the context of street photography) in one sense implies that the photographer visualizes and knows what they are going to come away with, or at least what they would like to come away with. (“This is a salmon stream, it is late May, and so I am going to use an X lb test leader, and a Y fly, and cast into Z locations. This will give me the best chances of catching a salmon.”) I am not going to speak for all street photographers, but I never know what I'm going to come away with. Certainly I have to apply some intelligence (I'm going to go into a populated part of Chicago, not a two lane country road 10 miles outside of Rockford.) And I may even apply some intelligence to my choice of a specific location (Macy's on State St has a big fashion poster in the window this month, or the light coming through the El tracks on Wabash will create some interesting lighting after 4 pm in the spring, etc.), but that's about as far as it goes. I know that it runs counter to the school of photographic thought which highly prizes pre-visualization, but I want to come home and be surprised by at least one or two photographs. Sure, there are photo outings where I know at the time of taking a particular photograph that I probably have a good one, but it is often the “surprises”, the truffles I do not know I am taking at the time, which yield the greatest personal artistic and aesthetic satisfaction. What Fred G. referred to as an “accident” as opposed to a mistake (I like Fred's distinction in this context).</p> <p > </p> <p >What I mean by a “surprise” in street photography is also roughly related to Garry Winogrand's oft quoted remark: “I photograph to find out what something will look like photographed.” I used to take this comment with a large grain of salt and figured Winogrand was probably being a bit of a smart ass and having some fun with his listeners. But now I think it actually makes a lot of sense, at least in terms of street photography.</p> <p > </p> <p >Besides location and time of day, intelligence can also come into play in terms of technical knowledge. Different situations require different techniques. Will I raise the camera to my eye and use auto-focus and aperture priority with a shallow or deep depth of field? Will I use a hip-shot technique and manually preset a 1/320 shutter speed and zone focus for a certain distance at a more forgiving DOF of f11? Knowing what to use and when to use it comes with experience and the application of rational intelligence. The rest, for me at least, is almost all “guts and gonads”: using my pig nose to seek out those truffles for the farmer I become when I get home and begin the editing process. The act of depressing the shutter button is mindful only in the sense of an awareness that “this might be interesting...shoot...NOW!”, but it is primarily a “no mind” state which takes over in such moments. It owes more to zen than it does to orthodox pre-visualization or application of conscious intelligence.</p> <p > </p> <p >In this sense, like Julie, I find HCB to be “clinical” and a “mathematician”. Bresson is a veritable god to many, and this evaluation of his aesthetic would be found heretical or “sour grapes” in some street photography circles. There's no way of knowing how he worked, but the “look” of his work appears clinical to me. Absent of the “raw gut look and feel” that Phil S referred to. But this comes down to preference and taste, does it not? As a general rule, I derive more aesthetic pleasure and satisfaction from the likes of Klein, Winogrand, and Moriyama than I do from Bresson. But my preference does not invalidate a more cerebral approach to street photography, nor make such an approach inferior.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norma Desmond Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 <p>Steve, I'd add a place where intelligence comes in that is in addition to setting up the shot in advance, in addition to knowing where the light will be good, in addition to waiting in front of a billboard or window display, in addition to knowing what you're going to come away with, in addition to choosing location, in addition to knowing your camera and how to use it. You allude to it in your emphasis on the editing process but it doesn't limit itself to only that part of the process. And you're experiencing it right here in this thread. When you edit, when you go through your photos and decide what is right or intuit what is right, your intelligence is at work or at least also at work, choosing certain things, rejecting certain things, finding out what works for you. You don't only DO the editing. You LEARN FROM the editing. Same here in this thread. You're learning right now. This will affect your instincts and what you are open to being surprised by in the future. Same when you created your book. You used intelligence in writing your introduction, in putting together the pages, in re-cropping the images to fit those pages, in deciding what would work together side by side. All this helped hone those shooting instincts you will use at a future date and it was a great use of your intelligence to do that. Intelligence and instinct or gut or feeling seem to me to work together and don't seem at all at odds.</p> <blockquote> <p>But this comes down to preference and taste, does it not?</p> </blockquote> <p>No, I don't think it does. Preference and taste determine whether or not you like HCB and whether or not you think he's a god. But that he's more formal than other street shooters is not a matter of preference or taste. It's an intelligently deduced description and it's right there in the photos. Referring to it as "clinical" probably puts a value judgment on it with which I happen to agree and if you're trying to describe his work more neutrally I think referring to it as formal and often geometrically-oriented is perhaps a little less of a value judgment and more a non-preferential and non-taste-oriented observation. While there will, of course, be some people who will disagree with describing HCB as formal, I don't think seeing it as formal is a matter of preference and taste.</p> We didn't need dialogue. We had faces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aplumpton Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 <p>Steve, some very good points that illustrate differing approaches to street photography and by inference also to documentary and photojournalism that are for me the siblings of street photography. By mentioning instinct and intelligence and also the fish analogy I was not referring as you give by example of conditions of light or time of day or particular angles or the capture a popular store advertisement, reflections and so on, in the predictable scenarios you refer to. The instinct and intelligence (information, how it is treated, creative ability) of the photographer that I refer to is mostly related to the subject or subjects of street photography. If you think of instinct and intelligence as being related to the ability of the photographer to react to a situation and his knowledge of what he is photographing (that type of intelligence) you would be closer to what I was suggesting.</p> <p>I am more familiar with Klein and Winogrand and Gibson than with Moriyama, but also have seen a bit of Sam Tata and John Max (a from the gut photographer), two street photographers from my own area and from about the same period as the former two. They are all unique photographers in their own way. I have seen some Winogrand at an exhibition (I think it was in Paris but not sure. it was 5 or 10 years ago) that left me cold (photos of a group quite heavily into drugs), primarily because the photographs were all too similar in type and for me just skated the surface of an interesting subject. My eyes glazed over a bit after seeing ten or so images. They may not have been typical of his overall work and, happily, they were not frames from a roll that he had not seen himself (which seems to be a risk of the selection of images from the many undeveloped films).</p> <p>As for Bresson, I don't think of him as king and not at all mathematical and cold and find that he was as human in his subject matter interpretation as any other, and more so than many. He was as anchored to his own society and what he perceived was no doubt partly influenced by those characteristic everyday values of his time and place (although he photographed extensively around the world) as also was Gary Winogrand. His instincts and ability to analyze and decide on the the essential of street scenes was of high order, although he did not have the same desire to photograph the stark, edgier or darker sides of humanity as did Brassai, or the directorial or staging nature of some of Doisneau's work. I understand he was often like a fly on the wall but a restless one and also moved about the scene continuously without the subjects being fully aware. His photos of people in China undergoing the change from Kuomintang to Mao's regime made an informative and likely avant garde booof the time (but with less than great photo reproduction or I had an inferior copy).</p> <p>I guess Julie would find the gentle Edouard Boubat and his human outlook a bit ho-hum, but if there is a thing like lyricism in street photography he and perhaps Bresson and Frank probably define it as well as any others. From that I mean that it is not essential that street photography be simply edgy, mildly shocking, stark or a sort of reality-in-your-face to have an effect. Like good photojournalism, it really needs to inform us, to show us a part of our world that we know little of, or that we pass by without really seeing in our everyday life. There is beauty in that, I think.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aplumpton Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 <p>Regrets for an orthographic anomaly, 6 lines from the end of my post:</p> <p>"....avant garde booof the time..." should have read ...avant garde book of the time...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJHingel Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 <p>Cartier-Bresson might not have considered printing as an essential act of him as photographer, although I doubt the accuracy of the telling, but he most certainly cared about preserving the legacy of his original prints and expositions made under his direction. <br /> The scandal of the destruction of some 551 original prints of Cartier-Bresson tells a story of a photographer who consider his prints as national treasures. All these original prints were lost by water and incompetence of the French National Library and the National Centre of Contemporary Art (CNAC) who only in the 80s began to consider photographies as works of art. These many lost original prints were all the prints of his first exposition in Louvre in 1955 and of another exposition, "En France".<br> In 1970. Cartier-Bresson created his own foundation, <a href="http://www.henricartierbresson.org/">La Fondation Henri Cartier-Bresson </a>together with his wife <a href="http://www.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?VP3=CMS3&VF=MAGO31_10_VForm&ERID=24KL535XVA">Martine Franc</a>, a Belgian photographer from Magnum and his second wife, in order to protect what was left of his original prints and promote photography.<br> <br /> See article in French <a href="http://www.lemonde.fr/culture/article/2009/07/08/des-cartier-bresson-a-la-poubelle_1216613_3246.html">here</a>.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJHingel Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 <p>A mix-up above; The Cartier-Bresson Foundation opened in 2003 and the "En France" exposition took place in 1970...<br> Sorry !</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aplumpton Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 <p>Anders, Phil, Steve and others: it is interesting how photography was not considered by many as an art before about the 1980s and how in France the state or state subsidised agencies were cavalier in regard to the photo collections that were donated to them in the prior years, inciting Cartier-Bresson and his second wife to create a private foundation in 2003, a year before his death, in order to preserve what was left.</p> <p>Photography has come a long way since then and we can be thankful that many of the works of world photographers, street photographers and others, have been preserved. When did that become important? Does that awareness stem from the actions of photographic societies (like the RPS in UK), of Alfred Stieglitz, of the post Great Depression documentation in the US, of MOMA (probably later), of the pressure from art collectors, or what? HCB printed only at the start of his career. I wonder what happened to HCB's negatives such as those from the two exhibitions in 1955 and 1970? He would no doubt be amazed that one of his early 1930s photos (that with the bicycle at Hyères) sold more recently for more than a quarter of a million dollars. And the CNAC threw his later around the world exhibition photos into a garbage can.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJHingel Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 <p>It is a fact that Cartier-Bresson only during his very early days he made the effort of printing his photos, mostly with bad results. Very rapidly he left it to professionals to prints his photos, not because the act of printing was not important, but because he admitted simply not to master the printing process.<br> Concerning his negatives, although he had the bad habit often to destroy the films after having selcted the keepers, they were considered the main capital of photographers. When the Magnum Photo agency was created by him, Capa and Seymour in 1947, negatives were considered the real personal property of photographers and only printing rights were transferred to the agency one by one or by series.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aplumpton Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 <p>Thanks Anders. I'll have to return to Montparnasse and his gallery sometime as the last time I was there and at a B&B nearby the work was travelling. Nearby, there is a fine museum (gallery and memorial) to the resistance fighters of WW2, specifically Jean Moulin and General Leclerc (23, allée de la 2e D.B. - Jardin Atlantique - Above Montparnasse Train Station) and the images are probably also of interest to street photographers visiting Paris. http://parismusees.paris.fr/en/museum-general-leclerc-and-paris-liberation-jean-moulin-museum</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyanatic Posted January 18, 2016 Author Share Posted January 18, 2016 <p>You learn something new every day. Considering the contribution of French photographers to the rough genre of Documentary/Street (to say nothing of French contributions to the visual arts in general, from painting to cinema!), I am stunned that they could both jettison photographs, and not consider photography an art until the 1980's. Szarkowski's "New Documents" was at MOMA in 1967. It just surprises me.</p> <p>And Arthur, sorry if I misunderstood your use of "intelligence". I should have asked for more clarification, rather than gone off on an assumption.</p> <p>Fred -- Thanks. Yes, I understand what you are saying. And I have, in fact, learned a lot, just from this thread alone. This is one of PN's greatest attractions for me -- the exchange of ideas and knowledge that goes beyond the technical, and the inspiration I sometimes derive from deeper consideration of my own work, and of the work of other photographers.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJHingel Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 <p>Well Steve the 1955 exposition in Louvre museum does in fact show that photos of Cartier-Bresson were taken serious as art and documentary. However, yes the prints were not considered as important to preserve as other forms of art works. This also, I would think, why Magnum worked on printing rights and the photographers kept property of the negatives. In the 80's original prints began to be preserved as art works to be preserved. <br> Arthur, you are right, that the Foundation and the Jean Moulin museum are certainly worth coming back to (5 minutes walk between the two). Especially the Foundation has frequently changing expositions. An exposition of photos of the Italian photographer Ugo Mulas has just opened. <a href="http://www.henricartierbresson.org/en/exhibitions/">See here</a> (even in English).</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 <p>You have put a lot of time and effort in this post, Steve. Your photographs, and links, to my mind are classic examples of the best of street/documentry. <br> You obviously have a deep understanding of your craft; and these few thoughts are just a thank you for your post.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now