Street Shooting Observation

[kevin m.]

Eric Clapton analogies? Listening to his recent stuff, a good argument could be made for a retroactive youthful drug overdose.

 

 

In photography, and guitar playing, there's more to life than technical skill. Bravery, heart, daring and nerve - youthful or otherwise - play a bigger part, IMO. Out of focus? Out of tune? Underexposed? Tone deaf? Who gives a sh*t? Those technical flaws disappear, even become endearing, if you shoot and play with heart and love. I've been in clubs and seen it happen, and maybe you have, too. I've been to gallery shows and seen it there, as well. Tuneless singers and photographers who can't seem to master the knobs on their cameras, yet the work connects. Like E.M. Forster said, that's the only thing that matters.

[mike dixon]

<i>Tyros, LEARN and be ashamed of ignorance - but, as they

say "if a fool knew he is a fool, he'd stop being one".</i><P>

Actually, Bender, your foolishness has been pointed out and

explained to you on many occasions, but it's had no positive

effect. You still demonstrate poor reading comprehension, you

still happily misrepresent others' views to suit your purpose, you

still attribute other people's ability to appreciate a broader range

of work than you do to <i>their</i> ignorance and stupidity, and

you still think that condescencion and spite are evidence of

intellect and wisdom.

[Spearhead]

Amen MD.

 

Nothing like a one-note band that is out of tune.

[michael_bender]

John Van Rosendaal:<br>

Would be interested to discuss with you particular HCB photographs that you find weak, possibly in a separate thread. Of course not each and every one he produced is great. However, what we know as his published oevre is a result of careful selection by typically editors first and HCB second, and therefore they are supposed to be better, or convey something interesting.<br>

Let's talk and try to interpret those you feel are bad; I can do the same too.

<p>

Dixon:<br>

who's talking? Try reading closely, and reply with precise detail rather than in generalities, and probably you'll have less chance to complain about someone else's reading comprehension. <br>

To give you an example of talking about less general and better defined issues, let me ask you whether you are sniggering (a) because you are feeling protective about Wingrand and Friedlander, or (b) because you feel that beginners' writing off of HCB as insignificant is justified when rambling about "other people's ability to appreciate a broader range of work than (MB) do(es)"

[Spearhead]

<i> because you are feeling protective about Wingrand and Friedlander</i><p>

 

What is this, the Psychic Hotline?

[mike dixon]

<i>. . . let me ask you whether you are sniggering (a) because you are feeling protective about Wingrand and Friedlander, or (b) because you feel that beginners' writing off of HCB as insignificant is justified when rambling about "other people's ability to appreciate a broader range of work than (MB) do(es)"</i><P>

I'm not sniggering, though I do admit to rolling my eyes.<P>

Winogrand and Friedlander don't need my "protection." Whether their styles appeal to your tastes or not, each has a body of work that has earned him a place in photographic history. I was simply noting the irony of you accusing them and those who like their work of being ignorant and lacking accomplishment while offering up mediocre examples of your own work as the sort of artistry others should aspire to.<P>

I don't feel that beginners writing off HCB as insignificant is justified, but I haven't seen that happen around here. The worst that is typically said of HCB is that the reverence he frequently receives is a bit much.<p>

You are now welcome to get in the last word, including however many distortions of what I've said you like. I've been through this sort of game with you before, and I'd rather not make myself appear any more foolish by further indulging your need for endless nonsense.

[michael_bender]

I will gladly oblidge, mickey<br>

Mediocrity is your undisputable trait: uncapable to shoot well, you (a) use extreme chiaroscuro (i.e. stretching of tones) and (b) ornate frames as an additional decorative element to make them press on the eye harder.<br>

Examples:<br>

<a href=http://www.photocritique.net/g/s?zze=kn-p07231418> number one</a>

Poor composition/geometry, nothing interesting is happening, crowded formless evening shot, very ordinary, which you attempt to "save" using the abovementioned presentation techniques.<br>

<a href=http://www.photocritique.net/g/s?zzel4n-p07231418>example two, "smiling"</a> and <a href=http://www.photocritique.net/g/s?zzel3n-p07231418>example three, "not smiling"</a><br>

Tortured, stilted, posed, absolutely worn out as an artistic idea (girl against a wall).<br>

<a href=http://www.photocritique.net/g/s?zzewQn-p07231418>more of the posed and compositionally primitive unappealing posed stuff</a><br>

<a href=http://www.photocritique.net/g/s?zzexwn-p07231418> more of the mundane and mediocre</a><br>

I could continue ad infinitum Oh, no, cannot help myself:

<a href=http://www.photocritique.net/g/s?zzfJon-p07231418>

here is one more</a><br>

Oh, hell, I cannot miss<a href=http://www.photocritique.net/g/s?zzfDWn-p07231418>this one</a><p>

Sorry mickey, if I do not stop now, I'll have to hyperlink most of what you yourself published.<p>

Secondly, you seem to like talking about <i>" distortions of what I've said", "you still happily misrepresent others' views to suit your purpose"</i>

Who is bloody talking. Just re-read your own snivelling. Two illustrations to what I said in the form of my shots magically turn themselves into <i>"sort of artistry others should aspire to"</i>. But of course. Now it's Mike Dixon talking, and we do not apply our sniggering to ourselves, do we?

<p>

<i>I don't feel that beginners writing off HCB as insignificant is justified, but I haven't seen that happen around here. The worst that is typically said of HCB is that the reverence he frequently receives is a bit much.</i> <br>

Well, how's your reading comprehension? People on this forum do not seem to mince their words about HCB - they just so often state that now his work would be very average, as above in this thread, or that much of his photography is just crap. They are pretty clear about their meaning. Now Dixon who chooses to use evasion. reason? - but we are interested in putting that Bender down at the moment, so we can dispose of accuracy.

<p>

And right, after I did what you asked me to, replied that is, we can just say that's enough. So if you do not like my opinions (pretty well argued and even if you do not like their tone, completely valid) - just skip them.

[leanne_newton]

Michael, I understand your passion for HCB,

and I admire passion in anybody.

 

But I have to defend the ( to you) more primitive

forms of photography.

I must admit I`ve learnt a lot about street

photography since lurking regularly here

on the Leica Forum.

Never really studied forms of photography before,

I`ve always been encouraged to shoot as frankly

and

directly as I am able...I still find that hard.

While I understand the talent required to sense a moment

about to happen, which is basically being ready with

your camera while

your mind and eye idly wander,

ready to capture the decisive moment on film,

which would be that moment before the tableau

breaks up never to repeat itself.

 

 

But don`t trash Mike, or me.

We are committed to a different form,

and we live in different times than HCB.

Our world requires a different language,

yes it may seem more primitive to you,

but maybe if you tried it, you would

discover that the apparent simplicity

is misleading...

My curiosity about all kinds of photography is what keeps me

hanging around Photo.net.

The possibilities could be endless,

if we would just perhaps let rip a bit,

and not be so rigid in following so many rules,

particularly those of another generation

but also those of our

times.

 

 

If we can shoot from the heart that which truly

fascinates us,

applying the technique of the medium we choose

to employ,

how can we ,

and those who see our work, not be inspired

and enriched by the experience ?

 

 

Guys, I LOVE the results of tha Street Shootout !

Such fun, and GREAT PICTURES.

Original, personal and fascinating slices of life

from all over.

My kind of thing.

Messages from the heart in the universal language

of photography.

I would like to add this appeal to all:

don`t feel insecure about what you post.

If you like it, it is good.

If you shot it with your eye and heart and mind

in the right place, it is great.

Thanks everyone.

[michael_bender]

L.N.:<br>

the way you sound it makes it difficult to want to attack you. You are are someone who is interested in photography and a non-combatant and lack interest in personal biting and back-biting.<br>

Of course HCB is not the last word - but what he did cannot be ignored. So one should build on top of his achievements, rather than disregarding them out of ignorance.<br>

To give you one example, there are a bunch of now active photographers who work with colour in a similar and interesting way: Alex Webb, Alan Harvey, Constantine Manos. They compose differently from the HCB generation, for example, using wider lenses. But they all USE what HCB generation formulated, as far as timing and composition PRINCIPLES are concerned, they all are well-versed in the expressive devices of the visual language, which HCB first systematically explored.<br>

What difference between those and the formless who I whack here in the forum so often lacking any understanding of the expressive means of photography.

<br>

[michael_bradigan]

Honestly, honestly, honestly, I am not trying to start any wars with you Mr. Bender. I am just curious to hear more of your opinion. With the order out of chaos pics posted above, specifically number one...were they examples from you, or examples from others illustrating your point? And, if they are yours, could you explain to me why they are representative of "order out of chaos" and not snapshots of a guy on a bench with a newborn? I really am trying to keep an open mind about this, and I thought maybe you could tell me what I am missing. (I know that sounds condescending...I don't want it to...I really admit the possibility that I might be missing something.) If they are not yours, but the latter, kindly ignore this post. Thank you, Michael D. Bradigan.

[Allen Herbert]

So one should build on top of his achievements.

 

Sorry, i disagree. I would rather build on top of my own achievments. Again, why would i want to copy someone else?

 

Originality never comes from copying others work. To be honest i would rather not be influenced by anyone!

 

My vision, my work. Thanks.

[mike dixon]

Just a simple point of fact: The "more of the posed and compositionally primitive unappealing posed stuff" photo was a completely candid shot from the hip taken while she was stepping along a low wall.

[Allen Herbert]

Michael Bender, you really need to escape from the 'HCB' shoe box. At best, which i doubt, you may emulate him. Be your own man, develop your own style; if nothing else you will enjoy yourself more.

 

Stop slagging off other folks work, it's there work, there vision...what the hell has it got to do with you. If you are capable of being constructive, add your thoughts; otherwise shut the up. No bad intentions, intended.

 

Anyway, i going back to sort out my 'moth man' photo out, part of my personnel vision, something you do not comprehend..or allow in your straight jacket version of the universe. Regards Allen

[james_megargee]

Interesting thread - The eternal debate - how relavent is the work done

yesterday to todays.

I remember sitting in a lecture/discussion at a national SPE conference some

years ago on the subject of "The New Document". It was billed as an over

view of current work being done in documentary photography at the time

(around 1980-81) much of which was "reconstructed moments". It was led by

a young women, who I can only guess, had recently received her MFA from

some Fine Art program. The idea she exposed was (in a nut shell) that the

New Document was more relevant than anything that had come before and in

fact made all older work irrevelant. She lumped together photographers such

as: Gene Smith, HCB, Winogrand, etc. as examples of older irrelevant

photographers.

Personaly this attitude saddened me a bit, that with one fell swoop someone

would wipe away the importance of these photographers work without

crediting its influence upon the very work that was being raised up to be the

"New". Now I may be misreading some of the above threads but they seem

to take on some of this attitude. I have always felt that it is more than difficult to

form a valid opinion on what is being done today and its "newness" without

understanding what has come before. Which includes placing it within the

context of the time in which the work was produced. Would some of HCB's

images be considered as important as they are if they were shot today? No

they wouldnt. But they were not shot today. They were made at a time when

nothing else like them existed. The same can be said for Friedlander or

Winogrand for that matter.

[Allen Herbert]

their..don't want folks to think i'm illiterate or something. Should have taken a degree in Physics...it would have made me a better person;). Hey, we all still love you Mr Bender. Not sure about Mike Dixon, though.

 

He does not look too happy.<div></div>

[Allen Herbert]

without crediting its influence upon the very work that was being raised up to be the "New".

 

Please help me to escape influence. I really don't want to be a re-run of a re-run. It maybe the way to success; but it is also the way to boredom.

[Allen Herbert]

Hey, his photos were just like HCB'S....sad or what.

[james_megargee]

Alan,

My statement ".....without crediting its influence upon the very work that was

being raised up to be the "New". .... Was not to suggest that old work be

rerun. Only that , within the discussion, its importance in the visual

development of the medium should not be deminished just because there is

something "new" being done. With that said, it would be hard to convince me

that anyone that makes photographs (pro or no) is not influenced by what has

come before.

[._._z]

<i>your undisputable trait: uncapable to shoot well</i>

 

<p>"Me fail English? That's unpossible!" </p>

-- Ralph Wiggum, <u>The Simpsons</u></p>

[leanne_newton]

Thanks, Michael. Those are photographers worth studying...

 

Don't ever lose your sense of humour, Allen .

[Allen Herbert]

Only that , within the discussion, its importance in the visual development of the medium should not be deminished just because there is something "new" being done

 

Sadly, there is very little 'new' being done. Why, because those who control are from the old school. Of course this has always been the case. Most creative artists are usually a old bag of bones before their work is recognised. Unless of course they are lucky enough to have a rich sponser.

 

You have only to read this forum to realize that most folk talk about yesterdays men. Rarely will there be any talk of new innotive photographers. I suppose that is the way of the world. Sort of sad really.

[Allen Herbert]

Well, i hate to see a decent photographer being slagged off. Dispite my ups and downs with them. So, i will take a liberty.<div></div>

[james_megargee]

"You have only to read this forum to realize that most folk talk about

yesterdays men. Rarely will there be any talk of new innotive photographers. I

suppose that is the way of the world. Sort of sad really."

 

I have wondered about this myself. Rarely in discussions here (or on other

forums for that matter) will I see anyone expressing an interest in new work. I

do see alot of moaning about what might be showing in this or that gallery

and its lack of quality or the politics of the gallery scene. But compaired to

what? Usually compared to "...yesterdays men...". And at the same time a lot

of talk about "breaking the rules", "not following the rules", "being innovative"

when speaking of their own photography. Yet when viewing most of this work

one sees the same old themes or attempts at these themes. It's rather simple

to call oneself an artist or photographer by virtue of just performing the act. Its

quite another issue altogether to actually become one. Being an artist or

photographer is a matter of life style not ocassional performance.

[leanne_newton]

I`m beginning to think that it really

doesn`t matter what you shoot in the beginning,

it is mostly practice and learning of technique,

although I also think that natural instincts and

vision present in the very early stages

are also very indicative.

 

Sometimes I find it interesting to look back

at the very first pictures I ever took.

From there, the learning curve takes over,

and initially the originality of vision can

get mislaid ,

while the rules are studied...

 

 

Anyway, yes, it all takes a long time.

Given the choice I would encourage

development of vision,

technique will follow with experience.

Someone always used to tell me,

`if you can frame it, you can shoot it.`

So maybe studying the past should

come as a later step,

After all it`s not as if it`s simple

for a beginner to achieve those kind of results.

[michael_bradigan]

still kinda want to hear that description of your above photos Mr. Bender. If you check this, I'd love to hear your opinion. MDB