posing or direction subjects in street or documentary

[Brad_]

<a href="http://artscenecal.com/ArticlesFile/Archive/Articles1997/Articles1097/

PdiCorciaA.html"><B>Philip-Lorca diCorcia</B> </a>

[Spearhead]

<i>I don't really care how many authorities can be cited who disagree or can "prove" another definition for street or documentary photography. These definitions and principles are mine.</I><p>

 

I thought we've been through this before - you can't just go arbitrarily making up definitions. "Street photography" has been around for years and both photographers and curators/writers have working definitions. You can choose what you want to like, but you can't choose a new definition, unless you are in a position to curate the next big show at MOMA.

[lex_jenkins]

Andrew, Jeff, I'm going to side with Boris on this debate. Adhere to the constricted view of a freshman textbook if you like. I gave my copy to my daughter when she was on the high school yearbook staff. She said it was boring. I agree.

 

You fellows sound like art critics of every era, desperately clinging to the past. You want to allow the practices of a bunch of dead photographers to dictate your practices and philosophies, that's your decision.

 

As for whether I can choose to redefine genres, I've already done it - for myself. Follow definitions or choose your own, as you prefer. I'm not looking to persuade any curators and I doubt they're looking for me.

 

In the end, it's moot. Philosophies, definitions and genres don't make photographs - we do. Others will assign those attributes as their biases dictate.

 

Gotta run... there's a weekend long street festival in town and I have to decide whether I'm a street, documentary or candid photographer so I'll know which camera and film to carry.

[mark_gatehouse]

"If the photographer starts posing or directing the subject it's no longer "street" photography. It's modeling photography using the street as the studio."

 

and

 

"Andrew, you've misstated my position. To qualify as "street" photography, it must be unposed, undirected... candid, if you prefer."

 

Presumably then, you wouldn't class Winogrand as a street photographer - as he sometimes did those things (and I guess would probably still do them today were he around)? Bruce Davidson isn't a street photographer either? Gene Richards isn't a street phototgrapher?

 

What causes you to decide on such a narrow definition? One which certainly has no real historic basis in the genre and one which doesn't seem so widely accepted today? It seem rather arbitary?

[lex_jenkins]

Mark, with all respect, I've repeatedly stated the case for my definitions and philosophy. To paraphrase your final sentence in the comments that initiated this thread, some of us do indeed believe "that we need to catch the 'pure' moment."

 

It's really simple and not at all arbitrary. My beliefs are my own and no one else need let themselves be constrained to mine anymore than I am to theirs.

 

As for Winogrand posing or directing some of his photos I don't see how that's relevant. He shot far more that were totally undirected. And the moment his subjects knew they were being photographed the dynamics changed.

 

"Street" photography, even by my definition, is a moving target. When the subject is completely unaware of us it's almost like hunting. When we pose them it's grocery shopping.

[Spearhead]

Lex, you can't say "it's moot" and at the same time say ". To qualify as "street" photography, it must be unposed, undirected." This feels like arguing on a junior high school playground, where you can say whatever you want and be able to justify it by saying the opposite.

 

Either it's moot or it must be something. One or the other. And you can't arbitrarily define things. Saying people sound like art critics of another era is a ridiculous statement, especially given your inability to sound like one person.

[andrew_somerset1]

This is hilarious. I've never called for the application of some rigid dogma. What I've promoted, instead, is a broad definition of documentary work (not clearly enunciated, but based on aims rather than methods) which recognizes that differing situations invoke differing ethical standards. But that's the power of the straw man: lies take on lives of their own.

 

I've pointed out that ethical standards change over time. What Smith did in 1955 or what Lange did in 1935 has to be considered in that context. Yet somehow I'm clinging to what photographers did in the past?

 

I cited Kobré simply because his book provides a clear discussion of one aspect -- ONE ASPECT -- of the problem, specifically that there is a sliding scale of control to which a single standard can't be applied. The response to this is, frankly, hilarious: I'm now presented as the lickspittle acolyte of a dogmatic author who promotes "a rigid and simplistic methodology" which leaves his students "utterly unprepared to deal with the complexities of the world."

 

Let's review, for the sake of functional illiterates and compulsively liars. The suggestion that differing situations within the broad documentary genre call for a more complex ethical model is somehow simplistic, rigid and dogmatic. But it's not in the least dogmatic, apparently, to say that staging a documentary photo is always wrong -- a statement that takes as its premise a rigid and narrow definition of documentary photography.

 

Well, one thing is clear, at least: some photographers certainly do have a problem with honesty.

[boris_chan1]

"This is hilarious."

 

Great. I'm always pleased to bring entertainment in to the lives of

others.

 

"What I've promoted........is a broad definition of documentary

work....."

 

No you haven't. What you've actually done is try to include the

example of "environmental portraiture" - clearly not what the

discussion was about - to justify your earlier ill-considered

comments.

 

"I've pointed out that ethical standards change over time........Yet

somehow I'm clinging to.......the past?"

 

You can obviously write but you seem to have problems with

reading, I've never suggested that you're clinging to the past. I've

simply asserted that ethical standards haven't changed the way

you imagine they have, the old Life/Picture Post style set-ups are

alive and well in the magazines in your local store.

 

"But it's not in the least dogmatic, apparently, to say that

staging.....is always wrong -- a statement that takes as it's

premise a rigid and narrow definition of documentary

photography."

 

I have no objection to you characterizing as dogmatic my

assertion that staging in documentary photography is wrong -

just because a position is simple it doesn't automatically follow

that it's simplistic. However, it's absurd to characterize my

definitions as narrow because I don't consider "environmental

portraiture" as documentary.

 

"Well, one thing is clear, at least: some photographers certainly

do have a problem with honesty."

 

I seem to be the one having the problem with reading now, I've

no idea what this is a reference to. Never mind though Andrew, I

may not understand you, but I feel your pain........

[lex_jenkins]

"Lex, you can't say "it's moot" and at the same time say ". To qualify as "street" photography, it must be unposed, undirected." "

 

Sure I can. What's the problem, unless we're going to debate the definition of moot? It's moot because I'm acknowledging that you and others will have one opinion about the issue I and others have another. Regardless, photographers make photographs, not genres, definitions and, thank God, not art critics.

 

"This feels like arguing on a junior high school playground, where you can say whatever you want and be able to justify it by saying the opposite."

 

I'm sorry you feel that way. I thought we were engaging in a reasonable debate, however polarized our viewpoints may be. Perhaps you have more of an investment in the issue than I have and are therefore more easily frustrated by differences of opinion.

 

"Saying people sound like art critics of another era is a ridiculous statement, especially given your inability to sound like one person."

 

I'm not sure what you mean by the latter half of that statement. But it's inarguable that every challenge to the status quo of an era in the arts provokes ire from at least some critics and even other artists engaged in the same medium. I could cite specific examples related to Impressionist painting, etc., but those are already pretty familiar.

 

Let's leave aside documentary photography - I don't think we disagree on that genre.

 

But is there something wrong with distinguishing between "pure" street photography and street portraiture (or environmental portraiture, per Boris's apt suggestion), or whatever would be an appropriate term for posing or directing subjects in public areas? Other than endlessly repeating "Because it doesn't fit the current definition." That position doesn't serve to further the conundrum Mark has set up and leads to nothing more interesting than unanimity and conformity.

 

I suppose a firm definition could be useful in one respect: Frequently a newbie will begin a question by saying "I want to be a street photographer..." and proceed to ask what sort of film, camera or shabby trenchcoat he needs to get the job.

 

Is it possible that some of us are more interested in defending our job descriptions than in doing the job?

 

Anyway, while I'd be gratified if someone found my documentary photography coherent I'm not sure what I'd make of a statement such as "Hey, that's street photography!" upon seeing some of my street photography. I'm not sure whether I'm supposed to be equally gratified because someone recognized a genre.

[tim_atherton9]

"But is there something wrong with distinguishing between "pure" street

photography and street portraiture (or environmental portraiture, per Boris's

apt suggestion)"

 

So, maybe a new thread, but does street photography need people in it?

 

:-)

 

my vote goes to - not necessarily

[boris_chan1]

"So, maybe a new thread, but does street photography need

people in it?"

 

No it doesn't need people in it, but, as you suggest, that is a new

thread, so why not give your views on the current thread?

[matt_deviney]

Hi, I'm new here and this is my first post. I hope you don't all hate it.

 

Personally, I don't pose anyone, ever. I tell myself that life is too ephemeral and it will never be half the photograph should I re-enact it. I don't neccesarrily believe this, but it makes me more aware when I am shooting, and that CAN'T be a bad thing.

 

I'm willing to lose some photos now so I can get to the point where I capture almost anything that presents itself to me in the future.