cyanatic

January 18, 2016

I don't comment very often in the Critique forum per se. But I will wander through the gallery, or "recent member postings", and post comments that way. Like Wouter, I do not comment as frequently as I would like. I always felt that the fair thing to do was always keep my critique count higher than the number of comments on my own photos. Just a personal thing, but these numbers recently equaled each other and that tells me that I am not giving as much as I am receiving.

My critiques are usually fairly brief, not as substantive as I would like, but that takes a lot of time and thought. I wish I had more time to give but that is rarely the case.

January 18, 2016

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.

And Arthur, sorry if I misunderstood your use of "intelligence". I should have asked for more clarification, rather than gone off on an assumption.

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.

January 17, 2016

Julie H. 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).

The pig finds the truffles; the farmer gets to eat them. (Steve, I'm calling you a pig!)

No pig; no truffles.

</blockquote>

Phil S 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.

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 ).

</blockquote>

Arthur Plumpton 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.

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.

</blockquote>

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

January 16, 2016

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.

(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.)

Phil S. : Street Painting. There's the early influence of photography in Gustave Caillebotte's Paris Street, Rainy Day.

</blockquote>

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. )

Louis Meluso'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>

I was interested to see that Phil S 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>

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.

<a href="http://www.philipsweeck.com/gallery-i/apl0u68rfr2uuf4lt7m1vgs83vfnk8">http://www.philipsweeck.com/gallery-i/apl0u68rfr2uuf4lt7m1vgs83vfnk8</a>

Julie H – 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...

http://www.photo.net/photo/6917880&size=lg

Anders Hingel – 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.

<a href="/photo/17792307">http://www.photo.net/photo/17792307</a>

<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>

Lannie – 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.

<a href="/photo/17626809">http://www.photo.net/photo/17626809</a>

Brad – 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).

http://www.citysnaps.net/showkase/recent/

Sandy Vongries – 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:

http://www.photo.net/photo/18159495&size=lg

Arthur Plumpton – 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:

<a href="/photo/10193910">http://www.photo.net/photo/10193910</a>

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:

<a href="/photo/17988617&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/17988617&size=lg</a>

Fred G – 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):

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:

<a href="/photo/16071752">http://www.photo.net/photo/16071752</a>

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 (link 1) and his documentary work on Plowshare (link 2)

<a href="/photo/9573861">http://www.photo.net/photo/9573861</a>

<a href="http://www.fredgoldsmithphotography.com/gallery/PlowshareFarm/">http://www.fredgoldsmithphotography.com/gallery/PlowshareFarm/</a>

Jack McRitchie – 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'.

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.

<a href="/photo/18073209">http://www.photo.net/photo/18073209</a>

Carlos H – 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:

<a href="/photo/7575401">http://www.photo.net/photo/7575401</a>

Drew Bayless (!!!) -- 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.

<a href="/photo/18134273">http://www.photo.net/photo/18134273</a>

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.

Not all of these might be considered strictly “street” but they all have certain aesthetic qualities I appreciate. (In no particular order...)

Lex Jenkins – <a href="/photo/16767502">http://www.photo.net/photo/16767502</a>

Jeff Spirer – <a href="/photo/7303111">http://www.photo.net/photo/7303111</a>

Donna Pallotta – <a href="/photo/18061847">http://www.photo.net/photo/18061847</a>

Wouter Willems – <a href="/photo/17893037">http://www.photo.net/photo/17893037</a>

Marjolien M. – <a href="/photo/17708492">http://www.photo.net/photo/17708492</a>

Mario Azevedo – <a href="/photo/18100921">http://www.photo.net/photo/18100921</a>

Wolfgang Arnold – <a href="/photo/17875400">http://www.photo.net/photo/17875400</a>

Allan Herbert – <a href="/photo/17786451">http://www.photo.net/photo/17786451</a>

Marie H. – <a href="/photo/17686616">http://www.photo.net/photo/17686616</a>

Marc Todd – <a href="/photo/7626670">http://www.photo.net/photo/7626670</a>

Bulent Celasun – <a href="/photo/17966772">http://www.photo.net/photo/17966772</a>

Jane Cave – <a href="/photo/17595408">http://www.photo.net/photo/17595408</a>

Barry Fisher – <a href="/photo/11039645">http://www.photo.net/photo/11039645</a>

Sanford Edelstein – <a href="/photo/18143942">http://www.photo.net/photo/18143942</a>

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 simpatico, and they sometimes help me formulate and give direction to my musings. So, thank you.

January 14, 2016

Before I write anything else – Lannie, I am so sorry. I had no idea you had lost a wife of 30 years to cancer. I won't bore you with my personal history, but I only ended up in Chicago in 2008 because my wife contracted a rare form of cancer and required an intensive operation. Although I did not lose her (for which I am grateful beyond words), the thought of it, and the thought of what you may be going through…touch me very deeply. I wish I could say something better, but there are no words. I can only say I am sorry.

******************************************************************************************************

Because I failed to write out some of my responses yesterday, I'm faced with a monstrous thread, with many side avenues that I would like to explore.

There are now numerous photographs that have been linked to in this thread. I have looked at all of them, and I feel that they deserve some sort of comment and recognition, at least in regard to how they have helped contribute both to this discussion, and in illuminating each contributor's take, and approach, to aesthetics.

But I am like a dog with a bone and I cannot rest, or move on to other photos or comments that have been added to this thread, until I have at least attempted to grapple with the slippery angel/demon that is Julie's original question and statement regarding aesthetics and its relationship to street photography.

As brief as I will try to be, this is going to be a bit lengthy. I'm not stupid. I am aware that some people may look at the sea of words and say, "The hell with that! I don't have time to digest all of that." I can't say I blame you.

Arthur Plumpton: “I think this question first needs to be anchored in the meaning or definition of the word, then perhaps to see some examples or use in street photography.”

</blockquote>

Fred G: “I'm not sure there's a street photography aesthetic as much as different aesthetics that street photographers have...”

</blockquote>

Anders Hingel: “...needs to go beyond documenting the seen, it has to make the viewer see the unseen.”

</blockquote>

To Arthur's point, yes, ideally the question and discussion should be anchored in the meaning of “aesthetic” or “aesthetics”. But how? The definitions can be so varied, as we've seen in the various approaches previously made in this thread.

Fred, I agree with the distinction you make. I don't think we're talking about some kind of aesthetic unique to street photography, but rather the aesthetic (if it exists) that some street photographers or photographs may have.

Anders hits upon something which, to me, is at least one aspect of this vague and amorphous thing we call “aesthetics”. It is the “unseen”(as eventually revealed by the “seen”) in a street photograph which allows it to lay some claim to possessing an aesthetic value. (I am not saying that this is unique to street photography. It is not. Any photograph, from nearly any genre, may possess this quality.)

Julie saved me some time and verbiage by touching upon one of the problems often encountered when talking to street photographers about aesthetics :

"…a video that I have of Klein talking about a series of his contact sheets, he walks me through the progression of shots until he gets to the one he picked ... and all he says is "THAT's a photograph," in a very satisfied and triumphant voice. No explanation of why beyond his approaching patter about "see this" woman/person/whatever moving into or out of the frame as he moves into or out of the space. But why these things matter, he, and all the other variants in these books, just assume I will know or feel ... because the picture is good. Period. The picture makes the aesthetics by its rightness, and I can go with that, even though it entirely avoids answering the "what is the aesthetics of ... ?" question."

</blockquote>

Julie, this is exactly what I struggled with last night when I wanted to post some kind of response and definition. I am NOT satisfied with stopping at "THAT's a photograph." I feel I understand exactly what Klein is saying, because in the editing process I do exactly the same thing. I select and work a photo until it "feels" right. (To "work a photo" does not mean heavy-handed manipulation. The "rightness" of the image does not come from software buttons and sliders. But that is a separate discussion.). But, damn it, Julie's question has made me realize that I want to at least attempt to get at the "why" of a photo's "rightness".

One approach I hit on is similar to an approach I sometimes use for critiquing or attempting to understand a photograph. When I am making a serious effort at understanding a photograph, my first step is to describe it. (I have sometimes contributed critiques on PN that are not much more than a description.) The act of describing helps me to bring out some of the salient elements in it.

(As an aside, there is a book I bought years ago which I have been re-reading lately. "Criticizing Photographs" by Terry Barrett. Although it covers far more than just description, the book recommends beginning with that approach and gives examples of it in critical writing.)

After that, it starts to get a bit complicated because there are so many other factors and points of view from which to consider a photograph and its attending aesthetics. To name but a few: conceptual, windows & mirrors (in the way that John Szarkowksi used those terms), political, social, "the thing as it is", symbolism, allegory, punctum, etc.

One problem I ran into when I attempted to go beyond mere description was that I started to get "aesthetic" confused with "style". A whole other conundrum, but what is the place of style in relation to aesthetics? To serve the aesthetic? When is the style the aesthetic? Looking at some of my own work (black and white, toning, often grainy, sometimes tilted, sometimes lacking in sharpness, intentionally cutting off or putting subjects at the extreme edges of the frame, etc.) I started to get a bit lost. Then I thought about where I was photographing (the streets of Chicago) and what I wanted to say about that environment in comparison to what my photos might actually say about that environment. Some of the common elements (grain, tilt, movement, proximity or lack thereof to people) seemed to express both how I see and feel that environment and how I move through it with my camera. It is part of my style, but does my style, such as it is, also express something aesthetically about the city of Chicago?

Another consideration (again…damn you, Julie, this never ends!) – For argument sake let us say that my style is an aesthetic interpretation of the city of Chicago. If it is, it grew organically. I did not consciously set out to create a conceptual representation of Chicago in that manner. It grew that way over the last 8 years of wandering the streets of this city.

So, Julie, when I am editing, at least one of the elements that might cause me to stop and say, "THAT's a photo" is when it successfully contains some, or all, of the things which I have just described. That still doesn't cover it all, or fully explain the "THAT" moment, but it's a lot closer than I have ever come before, because I never tried to understand it before.

Other factors might be the light, or the combination of light and shadows. It might be the arrangement of subjects.

I used the term "organic", and that vaguely ties into the concept of "found vs conceptual". If there are aesthetic elements in my photographs, they are primarily found. I do not conceive of a look I want to photograph and then set forth in search of it. I am highly instinctual, but this also leads to a certain amount of sloppiness. My photographs are often what I would call "messy". I'm not consciously seeking to emulate a "snapshot" aesthetic, but a lot of the time that is what I end up with. This is not everyone's cup of tea and I realize that some people find it off putting. But, since I primarily work instinctually, that's how it is. Earlier in this thread, I think Fred did a nice job of looking at some of Anders photos and some of mine. Not critiques, not "this is better or that is better", but a simple comparison. Some of Anders photography appears to me to be a bit more conceptual than mine. If I am completely honest about it, some of his photographs appear to be constructed with more thought than mine. I am not being self-effacing, nor trying to subtly criticize by making myself appear to be more spontaneous. It's my honest assessment. I mention it because I think it shows Anders aesthetic as a little more conceptual by comparison. But categories break down because I don't know how Anders works and his work could just as easily be considered "found". (Maybe "found" vs "conceptual" is a false dichotomy?) There always seem to be more questions than answers.

Okay. This post is already ridiculously long, but I'm committed now, so here's another possible example of Klein's "rightness" of a photo, the "why" of a photo's "rightness", and how a so-called "mistake" can lead to a possible aesthetic element.

Years ago, when I first decided to try my hand at street photography (somewhere around 2004 or 2005, I think), I lived in the Hillcrest neighborhood of San Diego. There is a large gay population, and the San Diego Gay Pride parade is held in Hillcrest. Some of the major streets are blocked off and there is a wonderful street party held with various concession and informational booths.

I was using a Fujifilm hybrid camera at the time (an S9100, I think) that had an articulating LCD screen. Because it was less obtrusive, I started using the LCD screen and holding the camera at waist level to look down at the LCD screen (this is long before I ever heard of Vivian Maier, or the technique of a "hip shot"). One of the photographs I took was of a gay couple passing by as I walked down the middle of 5th Ave.

<a href="/photo/16486855">http://www.photo.net/photo/16486855</a>

When I looked at the photo later on, most of the couples heads were cut off by the top of the frame. I remember thinking, "Damn! This would have been a cool photo if only I had captured them in their entirety!" For a long time I would keep going back to this photo and realizing that I really liked it. It worked for me. But because it did not fit into the normal convention of what is considered a "good" photograph, and because it was a "mistake", I rarely shared it. Years later, I came back to it and realized that, for me, it was actually a good photo. But why!? Because cutting off their heads, and even including just a tiny bit of their faces, did a number of things that a full "good" version of them would not have accomplished. 1.) The absence of most their face created a certain tension. 2.) It forced the viewer to focus on their bodies, their choice of clothing, their tattoos, and most importantly it gave a sense of their relationship to one another. They almost look like they are holding hands, but not quite. Their forearms are very close to each other, possibly touching, and to me it gave me a strong sense of their relationship. 3.) The posture of their bodies (more evident in the absence of most of their face) also gives one a sense of their personalities, their ease and comfort with their bodies, each other, and their environment. The way one of them carries himself also seems to show a kind of pride and confidence. It would not surprise me if someone looked at the photo and saw none of that. That's okay. To be honest, I often think that very few people see in my photographs some of the things that I see in them. I can't force people to see in a certain way, but at the very least I hope to cause them to feel that they are, in some way, actually there, on that street, if only for a brief moment.

So this "mistake" that I stumbled across in 2004/2005, became in later years one of the techniques, or style elements, that I intentionally use in some of my photographs. It does not always work and I have far more instances where it did not work than where it did. Putting up one such photo (an intentional one) on a FB street photography group page elicited a comment that "You cut their heads off and need to learn how to frame better."

One last example:

Naming convention as style element, but also part of an aesthetic. Particularly for street photography, part of my personal aesthetic theory is that a street photograph is, at the same time, both a truth and a fiction. An "illusion of the literal" (Szarkowksi said something very similar in relation to Winogrand, but I find it to be true and used it as part of the title of a book of my street photography that I published in late 2014.). The photograph is an illusion of reality, but it is also a reality unto itself. What appears to be in a photograph may, or may not, have actually transpired and a viewer's interpretation (in "my" aesthetic) can, in many cases, be just as valid as my own interpretation. To enable a viewer to find this unique photographic reality on their own, I intentionally keep my titles as neutral as possible, sometimes not even referring to the human beings who appear in them, i.e., "Wabash and Adams, Chicago 2014". That title tells you absolutely nothing about the photograph except for its provenance. This is intentional, and also makes up part of my aesthetic that the viewer has to discover the "reality" of the photograph for themselves. (I do, on rare occasions, violate this convention, but it is true for the most part.)

That's way more than enough out of me. My apologies if it seems egocentric to have gone on so long about my own process and talk about my own photographs. Quite to the contrary, it is actually uncomfortable and I hope I do not regret it. Laying all of this out there is laying myself open to being mocked, ridiculed, or thought a fool. Even if no one says it directly. None of this means that I consider myself to be brilliant or more talented than anyone else in this thread. I have tried to cover some of the possible aesthetic elements in street photography by way of my own work. I cannot speak for how anyone else works, or why they present the photographs they do, in the way that they do. If anyone else wants to talk about their approach to their work and how they see the place of aesthetics in it (although some of you have already done that), I'll be happy to read it.

January 14, 2016

Thanks Dave.

Vivian has the look of one who is haunted. If not haunted, than hurt. From what I have learned of her history, that look is well justified. Little do people realize what damage can be done to others even unintentionally. We would all do well to consider the karmic implications of our thoughts and actions...........so it has been said.

Namaste, Vivian, and thank you for your gift.

</blockquote>

Well said and true, Stephen Thomason.

January 14, 2016

<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=586046">Thomas K.</a>, Jan 14, 2016; 10:49 a.m.

Steve: I'm looking at first sample image you posted: "Sample 1 Man at Foster Ave Beach" What makes it specifically "urban" or "documentary"? Aren't all photographs "documentary" to certain degree even if not intended to?

</blockquote>

I am actually in the middle of trying to write a response to Julie's original statement and question. The amount of time it is taking me tells you something about how difficult this is. There is also work and personal life events going on -- it's not like I have been spending every hour since yesterday grappling with it. But there's been a lot of commentary and photographs added to this thread and I would like to at least attempt to do justice to them.

That said, I saw this post by Thomas K. and thought it a good question. Yes, documentary could apply to almost any photograph, though that is not what I meant. To be honest, my use of "Urban Documentary" in the title of this thread was a sad and bad mistake on my part. Fortunately, most of the posters in this thread are using a more inclusive and broad interpretation, which is what I actually intended. I should have used the term "street photography", but used it in its most catholic sense. ("catholic" as in broad-based, liberal, inclusive, etc.).

In response to someone else who brought up my unfortunate use of the term "documentary", Sandy Vongries had this to say about individual photographs being "documentary":

Sandy Vongries: "the individual situations in themselves compelling

</blockquote>

For the purposes of this discussion, I am using "street photography" or "documentary" in the broader senses that I, or Sandy, described. This is about the aesthetics which may be involved in such photographs, not really about what category or genre this, or that, photograph, should be called or plugged into.

Discuss as you will, but that's my intention. Hope that helps, at least a little.

Back to wrestling with the angel/demon that Julie and Anders let loose....

;-)

January 13, 2016

I think Steve better define this himself.

</blockquote>

Thanks a lot, Julie. ("Steve! I think you should go poke that bear with a stick and see what happens!")

You, Sandy, and Steve J have all given me some starting points. I will have to continue this when I get home this evening. I do like Hariman's remarks and Steve's "feeling and fascination". And lines of sight as channels of meaning... hmm.

January 13, 2016

<blockquote>Fred -- Steve, I'm sorry if I offended you. If you read my posts again, realizing that I mistook gender-blending for gender-bending, you might find something of value in terms of substance. But again, did not mean to offend by consciously turning something tongue-in-cheek into something that could be substantive. It might be the fact that it's not unusual on PN to hear almost anything written about photography or art referred to as pretentious and poked fun at, but I know you have a pretty even-handed approach to that, so I guess I could have just taken it in the spirit it was meant and not try to make an actual aesthetic and photographic point about it.</blockquote>

Fred -- Oh sure! Take the moral high ground and make me look like a total a**hole! ;-)

No worries. I don't think offended is quite the word to describe what I felt -- I think I was initially annoyed and frustrated that an admittedly shallow piece of ridicule was taken so seriously -- which therefore seemed to ascribe opinions and attitudes to me that were not the case.

You're a clever SOB, Fred. Now you've drawn me into a more serious explanation than I had any intention of making, to wit: The individual topics the article brought up, in and of themselves, make for interesting considerations for photography. Any one is worth a considered discussion. My ridicule was not aimed at the concepts, per se, but rather at the notion that one should incorporate them as part of some kind of orthodox formula for success and attention in 2016. Taking the writer's fashion analogy, the article struck me as something akin to "visual haikus and the messy visceral are the new black". "Heed the trends are find yourself de trop upon the runway of imagery."

January 13, 2016

Sandy Vongries -- Thanks. Yes, a very good book I think. He does an excellent job of discussing, and providing examples of, the very earliest occurrences of what later came to be called street photography. Although, I was trying to generate a discussion along the lines of what was suggested by Julie and Anders. Which will require participation from other photographers.

(Amazon link for anyone who is not familiar with this book:

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Bystander-A-History-Street-Photography/dp/0821217550">http://www.amazon.com/Bystander-A-History-Street-Photography/dp/0821217550</a> )

And ...

Examples of the work of other urban documentary photographers in which I find some aesthetic value.

I still haven't said a damn thing, hardly, about Julie's original topic. Certainly not in detail or with much meat on its bones...hopefully later. And hopefully others will join in.

[And a question: Does saturation in the historical period in which it is created diminish the aesthetic value of a given photograph?]

Ishimoto

<a href="http://41.media.tumblr.com/8b60c4f6685da498ffece4e08600e09e/tumblr_mgnmwoPL0p1qcglluo1_1280.jpg">http://41.media.tumblr.com/8b60c4f6685da498ffece4e08600e09e/tumblr_mgnmwoPL0p1qcglluo1_1280.jpg</a>

Klein

<a href="http://images.artnet.com/artwork_images_425932208_714017_william-klein.jpg">http://images.artnet.com/artwork_images_425932208_714017_william-klein.jpg</a>

Frank

<a href="http://blog.ricecracker.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/ntm5-1-16.jpeg">http://blog.ricecracker.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/ntm5-1-16.jpeg</a>

January 13, 2016

Sample 3

Perhaps I am sensitive to misunderstandings, but I'm going to try to make this crystal clear: These are some recent samples of my work. They have some aesthetic value to me at this point in time. I do not apologize for them, but I also do not put them up here as examples of great work.

January 13, 2016

Sample 2<div>

00dgb2-560220584.jpg.f826453503d2a14c3983b99cea486c5b.jpg

</div>

January 13, 2016

This may be more suitable for the Philosophy of Photography Forum, but I think it can justifiably be part of a Casual forum as well. And, to be honest, I think that some PN members find the POP forum a bit off-putting and might not participate if I placed it there. If does not belong here, well, my mistake.

The notion for the discussion arose in another thread which shall remain nameless for now. ;-)

Julie H.: I'd love to see a thread where you "urban documentary" photographers discuss your feelings about the place of aesthetics in your work (I'm not being sarcastic; I mean that sincerely).

</blockquote>

Anders Hingel: I agree with Julie about a thread "where you "urban documentary" photographers discuss..... the place of aesthetics in your work". Maybe someone should start such a threat here or over there.

</blockquote>

I'm trying to quickly cobble this together during my lunch break, so I can only start with some general notes to give this some direction. I hope Julie or Anders might help channel this in desired direction should I not hit any of the points they were thinking of.

"urban documentary" photographers discuss your feelings about the place of aesthetics in your work"

"My work". I'd prefer to begin with a rough overview of the historical place of aesthetics in this type of photography.

Although there are "urban documentary" photographs and photographers which predate it, I think John Szarkowski's "New Documents" show at MoMA in 1967 was a watershed moment in terms of acknowledging the place of aesthetics in the genre. Yes, an argument can be made that Steiglitz (with the streets of New York), Evans (with clandestine subway photographs long before 1967), and others came long before that, but I am choosing 1967 as a defining moment.

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Documents">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Documents</a>

But what are those "aesthetics"? Have they descended into sad parodies in the endless stream of "street photography" we now see all over the internet?

What are my feelings about their place in my own work?

Real rough because I have to go: I can only speak for myself -- A good deal, though not all, of the aesthetics I find are a kind of "found" aesthetic. Instinct leads one to a particular corner, or a street, to a particular light, or person, and one depresses the shutter button. For me, the aesthetics may be "felt" in the moment, but often do not reveal themselves until the editing process occurs later on.

Now comes the real hard part: what, exactly, are those aesthetics? (Damn you, Julie!) How can I even begin to talk about without explaining what the aesthetics are? Again, only for me, it initially comes more from the gut than the mind, and it involves a feeling. A sense of, "Ooh. Wow. This gets to me." This applies to my own work as well as the work of other photographers. Then, on further examination, different signifiers may come into play -- symbolism, social significance, surrealism, beauty of the light or what is revealed and what is hidden.

I will attempt to put up some examples, but I really, really do not want to use this as a way of showing my own work. I am comfortable having my work viewed, but not in the circumstance of a thread like this one because this is not about me, this is not an excuse to get exposure or critiques. I'll try to put up photos which, at this point in time (because it changes) have some significance for me. Whether they possess "aesthetic" elements (which I have poorly defined anyway) is another matter. I think they do, but what I call "aesthetic" may not seem so to someone else. Bla, bla, bla. In short, they are examples only, not the objects which are intended to be the sole point of discussion or example in this thread.

January 13, 2016

But I do like Julie and Anders suggestion of a thread on the place of aesthetics in urban documentary photography. The question is: Casual? Or POP? I think it belongs more in POP, but I know a lot of people have developed a negative opinion of that forum. This is unfortunate, in my opinion, because a lot of good discussions have occurred there.

January 13, 2016

Wow. The PN zeitgeist is seriously lacking in a sense of humor, or so it seems to me judging by some of the responses.

1.) It is gender-blending, not "bending". The term was taken from the article itself, I didn't coin it.

2.) Yes, they were referring to commercial photography.

3.) My comments were entirely facetious.

My mocking of the article had to do with what I took to be its tone of, "Here are the hot trendy POV's you will need to consider in order to be popular/successful in 2016." I could well use a break from the same old same old and try to see and work a little differently, but I am not about to take my cue from some pretentious faux hipster social media advice offered by an imagery guru from Getty Images. But I am not a commercial photographer.

If I do make a change for 2016 it will probably be to save my light-hearted comments for social media venues other than PN. I have made that mistake in the past and will endeavor not to repeat it. "...why such a tongue-in-cheek attitude..?" Why such seriousness in the face of facetiousness? Is there no room or tolerance for someone reading an article like that, finding it pretentious, and poking fun at it? Were my remarks brilliant satire or exceptionally witty? No. They were intended as a bit of light-hearted fun and that's about the size of it. There's plenty of room for a serious discussion on some of the article's points, but that was not the intention of my post. Casual is the key word here.

And why was "gender-blending" the primary focal point for some of you? I simply went down the article's list and tried to include all the major factors they listed as important.

will henceforth seek out only examples of surreal and divine expanded personhood (gender-blended, of course), in the messy, sweaty visceral, and express them as a visual haiku which allows my viewers ample room to breathe and reconnect

The fact that I even have to explain any of this is...disappointing.

January 12, 2016

Thank goodness for the Anna Wintour of imagery!

Effective immediately, I am abandoning my black & white urban documentary aesthetic and will henceforth seek out only examples of surreal and divine expanded personhood (gender-blended, of course), in the messy, sweaty visceral, and express them as a visual haiku which allows my viewers ample room to breathe and reconnect in a cluttered marketplace.

Why didn't I think of this before?

<a href="http://stories.gettyimages.com/visual-trends-team-makes-2016-predictions/">http://stories.gettyimages.com/visual-trends-team-makes-2016-predictions/</a>

January 12, 2016

Chicago, 2016<div>

00dgSm-560204084.jpg.8e32ebd9624d64e86f4a95cf61a020b2.jpg

</div>

January 11, 2016

I import from my card using PS Elements after each photo outing. I am admittedly lazy and it pops up when I plug my camera in. I am used to the way it imports so I have stuck with it for years.

I it set to custom name and have a file folder created utilizing the date, and sometimes a short description. Example: January 9 2016 - Chicago. The individual files retain that as the naming convention with a number automatically appended. The file is created inside a master folder I create in advance, simply named with the year. This is saved to a large (2TB currently) external drive which I back up to another large external drive (nowhere near as frequently as I should, btw). When I go to edit my photos, I open LR 5 and navigate to the file. It has worked for me for years. I should probably import through LR 5 but just haven't bothered.

The files that I edit and want to share, or put up on my website, are themselves sent to a different folder (which also gets backed up). I save them in jpg and tiff format. Depending on what the photo is, I might put it in a folder called "Best Chicago Photos 2016" or "Best Landscapes 2016", etc. Best, in this case, is best to me. Not necessarily anyone else, of course! ;-)

October 11, 2015

Anders Hingel "...yearning for something beyond the image" which surely is relevant for many different photographical approaches, Woodman's being one. Even straight photography, which I mostly shoot, has this element of yearning which most often can be described in sociological, historical and political terms.

</blockquote>

Yes! Beyond the image is exactly what I meant. I probably used "words" since that was how I was trying to describe it. And, no, I did not think you were saying that feminism was the key, or only, concept of Woodman's work.

And it is interesting that you mention "yearning" in relation to straight photography. That is often where I find it, and because it is "straight" photography (meaning a two-dimensional representation of that which actually appeared in front of the camera lens) it strikes me even more powerfully when a photographer is able to capture and convey it. "There, in that instant, when photographer X was actually at that particular place and time, the yearning, the ineffable, whatever... was right there." Powerful and almost magical when you discern it.

October 11, 2015

Anders Hingel: Her photos did indeed play an indisputable role in the feminist movement especially in the 80s and 90s, so, yes, Woodman's photos are feminist like Renoir's paintings are impressionist. Whether Francesca was "a feminist" is not that important. My guess would be she would have said No ! if asked, like she would refute any categorization of her, like her father confirms. But does it matter? Her photos can indeed be political, and militantly freedom searching feminist if that is the message viewers bring home.

</blockquote>

Arthur Plumpton: Perhaps Woodman's images simply reflect her inner state or her artistic sensibilities and perceptions, without being messengers of a feminist agenda or otherwise connected to a larger aesthetic.

</blockquote>

Marc Todd: I'm just pointing out something we all know - interpretations are based on personal bias. ...When it comes to the Humanities I judge the work based on the merits itself, not the gender, or sexual orientation, or the life history of the maker.

</blockquote>

I did not intend for so much of this thread (and of my comments) to be taken up by a discussion of feminism in Francesca Woodman's work. I brought it up primarily because I have read a number of discussions where feminism is mentioned in relation to her work, and also because I was familiar with a group of female self-portraitist photographers on flickr (loosely centered around Natalie Dybisz who is probably the most well-known of the group) who apparently look to Woodman's work as a starting point for expressing female concerns via photography.

In the book "Criticizing Photographs" by Terry Barrett ( http://www.amazon.com/Criticizing-Photographs-Terry-Barrett/dp/0073526533 ) the critic Kay Larson is quoted as saying: "you keep wanting to rush back in with judgements and opinions, but you've got to push yourself back and be with the work. Once you've had the encounter, you can try to figure out how to explain it, and there are many ways to take off --- through sociology, history, theory, standard criticism, or description."

I would agree with Larson (and I think that is at least partly what Marc and Arthur are saying). Feminism is only one way (and certainly not the most significant way) in which to consider Woodman's body of work. But as Anders points out, her photographs played a role of sorts in the feminist movement. I lean toward the school of criticism that says an artist should primarily be considered for their work itself, but I part ways with that school when it becomes absolutist in its rejection of biographical, sociological, or historical considerations. Too much can be made of her suicide. And too much can be made of her being embraced by feminists. But I don't think it hurts to consider an artist in the light of those areas provided that the work is kept foremost in any consideration.

Fred -- I like your comments about Woodman's second photograph. An example of a simple but incisive discussion of the work itself.

And before we run past it, I wanted to acknowledge Allen Herbert's remarks:

Allen Herbert -- But there was more, deeper...the playful a ruse. A grasping for the undefined; a seeking unfulfilled...without the patience of time a needful wish for the now...which was too distance to grasp and became a never ending loss of being. A loss beyond the ability to comprehend and accept....a great sadness of the soul and a departing..

</blockquote>

I like this, and it touches upon something that might be worth discussing in and of itself. I don't know if I am misinterpreting what you said, Allen, but that "grasping for the undefined" speaks to me not only in relation to Woodman's photography, but to the work of other photographers, including myself. When I see (or feel in my own work) that yearning for something beyond words, that tension or ache that exists in the interstices of meaning, or of photographic elements in a given work... it's like a peek behind a veil, as if you felt, more than saw, a glimpse of something deeply significant that transcends (or perhaps could illuminate) mundane existence, existence as we perceive it on a daily basis. Like a vaguely remembered dream that leaves you awakening with an ache and an emotion you don't even have a name for. (I've used this analogy before to describe this sensation -- I don't know how else to put it because it is so difficult to describe.)

October 11, 2015

Marc Todd -- I suppose if someone approaches a photograph (or some other artwork) and looks for things like these then they will find it regardless of of how much of leap it takes; kind of like that old saying if you all you have is a hammer then everything looks like a nail to you.

</blockquote>

Steve Gubin -- I also find certain aspects of her work – alienation, confusion, anxiety, call it what you will – to be universal and asexual. Many of her images speak to me as a human being, regardless of any differences in age, era, or gender.

</blockquote>

Marc -- I don't know that anyone in this thread has claimed that her photos were overtly and intentionally Feminist (with a capital "F") in the way that we might think of Germaine Greer or Gloria Steinem as feminist. And whether or not we think so, or whether or not Francesca Woodman herself thought so, there are apparently certain aspects of her work that seem feminist enough in theme to have caused a number of contemporary female artists and commentators to think so. The fact that you do not see any "feminist undertones" therefore means that those who do are fabricating them? That a female artist chose to use herself as the primary subject for most of her work is enough of a de facto feminism for some. You don't need a class in feminism (I never took one) to know where to begin to look for it. You look for it where there are women. And a woman who goes her own way and makes the conscious choice to create some very unique and artistic photographs with herself as the subject can be considered, without too great a stretch of the imagination, as somewhat feminist (small "f").

You might be interested in this article from The Telegraph, where at one point, Woodman's father comments upon one critic's claim to have found feminist "urges" in her work:

Woodman’s early champions in the mid-Eighties, such as the American critic Rosalind Krauss, now a professor at Columbia University in New York, seized upon this tendency to “camouflage” herself as a feminist urge: by almost dissolving into the fabric of the house on Rhode Island, they argued, Woodman was consciously resisting the “male gaze” and shunning preconceived gender roles in which femininity equalled domesticity.

“That’s what I call over-criticism – taking a work of art and using it to project your own story,” George Woodman says. “Rosalind Krauss is a very important and profound critic, but she can over-interpret things. Francesca did not see herself as a feminist.”

</blockquote>

While I would agree that seeing Francesca Woodman's "camouflage" as "resisting the male gaze" is a stretch, I would argue with George Woodman that one does not have to see oneself as a feminist to, in a sense, be one. He is missing the type of feminism that some contemporary female artists find in his daughter's work. Were Camille Claudel, George Sand, and Jane Austen feminists? If you see nothing feminist in their accomplishments in a male dominated world and time, then I can understand why you think the rest of us are running around with hammers looking for nails to pound. It comes down, as many differences of opinion often do, to a matter of definition.

October 10, 2015

Fred G: I don't think feminism has to take the guise of being intentionally political or social.

</blockquote>

Fred, I completely agree. Any feminist concerns or "messages" (and I would actually prefer to use the term "female concerns") are expressed organically through her work. They come forth naturally, unforced. As opposed to bludgeoning the viewer with a visual hammer: "Here! This is what a patriarchal society does to women” or “This is how women are undervalued, misrepresented, misunderstood, or oppressed in our society". As an example of what I mean, look at Renee Cox' HOT-EN-TOT:

https://artintheblackdiaspora.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/17-_hott-en-tot_-1994-40_x60_-silvergelatin.jpg

Although it was intended more to represent European colonial attitudes toward “ the Other” and so-called “primitive sexual appetites”, it also stands as an example of the exaggerated sexual objectification of women.

This is not to imply that Cox, in this instance, is any less of a photographic artist than Woodman, or that photographs which deliver an unequivocal message are inferior to those which are more subtle. I just mean that I find the feminism in Woodman's photographs to be multi-dimensional and, just as you said, Fred, not intentionally political or social. I also find certain aspects of her work – alienation, confusion, anxiety, call it what you will – to be universal and asexual. Many of her images speak to me as a human being, regardless of any differences in age, era, or gender.

Arthur Plumpton -- ...they also are in some ways I think playful (display of ideas and visual symbols)

</blockquote>

Arthur, thanks for pointing that out. I think that is another aspect of Woodman's photography that appeals to me, but I couldn't quite put it into words until I read what you wrote. Although I may find echoes of my own feelings toward bleakness, alienation, and anxiety in her work, the various means by which she chooses to express it is playful indeed, and I find a certain exhiliration in the aesthetic execution of it.

October 10, 2015

I have not looked closely at Woodman's work for a while and this discussion made me go back to review some of it again. Fred, I think I was a bit off when I used the term "feminist expression". At least in the limited sense of "feminist" implying a feminist political, or social, agenda. Her work was intensely personal, and although it frequently made use of her own body, it was a body that happened to be female. Though I may be wrong, my impression is that whatever it was she was communicating, it related to her as Francesca Woodman, not to women in general as represented by Franscesca Woodman "Everywoman".

And what is it that is being communicated? Nudity as vulnerability? Bleak tumbledown rooms as interior landscapes, or the way she saw the world in which she lived? Blurred movement as alienation and confusion? Her poses always seem tortured, or tired, whether covered by wallpaper, or curled around a porcelain basin containing a snake. In one photo, her bark-wrapped hands reach toward the sky, while in another she hangs from a doorjamb in a pose reminiscent of Christ's crucifixion. There is always oddity, or dis-ease, and things seem off kilter. Her experimentation (for the time) showed promise but it was of a disturbed nature.

October 8, 2015

Interesting choice, Fred. I've seen a fair number of Woodman's photographs but not Self Portrait at Thirteen. I appreciate her work, but over time I seem to find a certain sameness to a lot of it. Black Silver makes an interesting comment regarding what Woodman might have done if she were growing up today. But I think her work rises well above simple "selfie" level and if she got her start in this century I think she would have produced more than just another poorly lit "duck lips" photo in a bathroom mirror. Of course, we'll never know.

I have sometimes considered Woodman's work in relation to contemporary female photographers like "Miss Aniela" (Natalie Dybisz) and other similar female self-portraitists who use Photoshop to create surreal, angst-ridden works like The Smothering:

https://calliegarp.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/the-smothering-2008.jpg

It causes me to appreciate Woodman more by comparison. Her work does have a strong surrealist element to it, but I think it is only the vehicle for feminist expression.

October 7, 2015

I'm off to work so cannot spend a lot of time, but a quick thought. This discussion could probably benefit from a few more specific examples. I have seen statements which support Tim and Steve and Robin. And Ihave seen statements which would support Anders, Fred, and me in our belief that sometimes a statement is beneficial. Yes, you can decide for yourself about a particular work, or body of work, but a statement can help point someone in a different direction. Like looking at painting (cannot think of who its by,a Renn master?) called "Vanity". The docent explained some of the shapes and symbolism in what appeared to be a straightforward portrait of a woman. Understanding what the docent said gave more understa;nind.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by cyanatic