saintelmo21

<p> </p><div></div>

<p><img src="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00c/00ceFf-549100084.jpg" alt="" width="699" height="630" /></p> <p><strong>Bamboo Study </strong>Mamiya 6MF Tmax 100/rodinal/v700</p>

<p>Nice shot Ray!!</p>

<p>Don’t worry this isn’t another tirade...yet.</p> <p>I’ve been spending some time on Brad’s <a href="http://www.citysnaps.net/blog/">CitySnaps</a> blog. And, after reading some of his thoughts on the current attitudes about so-called street photography, I just happened to surf through Banksy’s New York website: <a href="http://www.banksyny.com/">http://www.banksyny.com/</a></p> <p>Now, Banksy are street artists of the highest caliber-no doubt about that. Much of their art is transitory in nature, and they have a clever solution to prove authenticity: They post shots of their exhibits in-situ along with the location. That way people know if the street art (the word ’grafitti’ doesn’t really describe it) is really theirs or not.</p> <p>But, in addition to being hip, cool, and trendy; Banksy is also rarefied genius, and has many layers of creativity. I feel that quite a few of his authenticity shots were also passably good street photos albiet non-traditional (if there is such a thing as a ’traditional’ street photograph...sounds fairly dull if there is).</p> <p>I thought that was really cool....or maybe I’m reading too much into it? Over the last few years on PN, I’ve gone from not knowing what SP was to where I am now....which is knowing, but not being uptight about the limits of genre. I think a good photo is a good photo and genrefication really isn’t necessary.</p> <p>Here’s my question: Take a look at Bansky’s website, and weigh in on whether or not you think of it as street photography, and why or why not. Do you think it’s good SP?</p> <p>BTW: I refer to Banksy in plural form because it is obvious that it has evolved from an individual into a very strong creative team. They are really talented and quite special.</p> <p>E</p>