debraj

This is quite a good definition (by Nathan Craver)...However I would say that the focus of street

photography should be to capture the life that revolves in and around the street. I have a problem about

clubbing street and documentary together - documentary can be anything from a village fair to a rock

concert.

Response to Joe Gallo:

I agree that one can keep capturing a street over time and therefore understand the changes that have happened over time. However this is not what I was referring to. I think today street photography would be more interesting if we can capture the signs that mark the time that we are living in as they get reflected in the street - for example ads for call centre training posted on the wall, political graffiti, changing gender equations, etc. Of course some shots can also be brilliant just because of the composition itself.

Well...one of the problems is that street photography is an art form that does not have any commercial value and therefore I guess it is difficult for many photographers to keep pursuing the art form. Those who pursue the art form would have to perhaps live with the fact the fact that they would have less commercial success than glamour or wild life photographers.

It is also possible that street photographers are not able to capture the changing realities of the street - how it is reflecting globalisation, how flyovers and fast cars are destroying street life...in short, sometimes I feel that the street photographers need to take a look at their shots and ask the question as to whether the contemporary times are getting reflected in their photography or not.