"When Will Street Photography Grow Up?"

[Write Lighting]

So I recently read an article by a street photographer named Marius Vieth titled "When will street photography grow up?". It's an interesting read about what makes street photography, street photography. To sum it up, Marius thinks that pigeonholing street photography into only using a subset of rules and conditions which were used by some of the photographic greats to create their art is too creatively stifling. He mentions how people get stuck on abiding by certain principles, like never using a long zoom or heavy-handed photoshop, which he thinks takes away from the possibilities that street photography has to be "anything it wants to be".

I'm not much of a street shooter myself, but I'm curious as to what you guys think about this. Does street photography have to abide by certain principles and rulesets otherwise it won't be "real" street photography? I've heard so many differing opinions and guidelines in the past. For example, you can't shoot with a DSLR in the streets, only use wide angle lenses, keep your photos candid or else they become "street portraits", cloning out objects and manipulating the scene destroys the integrity of the photo and so on. I'm not saying I necessarily agree or disagree with those statements, just that these are things I've heard passed down the grapevine.

 

[fjrabon]

I think street photography needs some sort of guidelines, otherwise it's not a genre, and is simply photography. And it's fine to mix and blend genres, but I think you should be honest if you're going to make use of labels.

Create the art you want to create and worry about what genre it gets lumped into later.

But the "can't use a DSLR" thing is silly. Personally I don't like doing street with a dSLR, but that's just a workflow preference thing, nothing to do with the nature of the genre.

Now what I definitely don't agree with is presenting a photograph as something it is not. That is, wanting to be thought of as traditional street while staging or using heavy cloning. There's nothing wrong with using those techniques per se, but if you want your art to be evaluated as a certain genre, that has certain expectations, then deviating from that is simply dishonest.

In my mind that isn't any different than an author who writes a fictitious memoir. The genre of memoir has certain implications of how the story was put together. Street photography has certain implications of how the photo was put together. If you buck those conventions, that's great, but you can't call it street. It's staged street, street portraiture or just plain old photography.

 

[pixmedic]

so...yea.
I think the "teenager" isn't street photography, but the writer of that article. sheesh.
a guy thats been doing street photography for <2 years is going to tell people what "true" street is?
the whole article read like he was trying to justify street photography as an art form to someone, or himself.
instead of railing against the municipality of photography rule-makers he should just go and take some pictures.

 

[Write Lighting]

I think street photography needs some sort of guidelines, otherwise it's not a genre, and is simply photography. And it's fine to mix and blend genres, but I think you should be honest if you're going to make use of labels.

Create the art you want to create and worry about what genre it gets lumped into later.

But the "can't use a DSLR" thing is silly. Personally I don't like doing street with a dSLR, but that's just a workflow preference thing, nothing to do with the nature of the genre.

Now what I definitely don't agree with is presenting a photograph as something it is not. That is, wanting to be thought of as traditional street while staging or using heavy cloning. There's nothing wrong with using those techniques per se, but if you want your art to be evaluated as a certain genre, that has certain expectations, then deviating from that is simply dishonest.

In my mind that isn't any different than an author who writes a fictitious memoir. The genre of memoir has certain implications of how the story was put together. Street photography has certain implications of how the photo was put together. If you buck those conventions, that's great, but you can't call it street. It's staged street, street portraiture or just plain old photography.

I agree with you for the most part and that's mainly what I took away from it as well. So do you think it's more of a perception issue with using a certain label for your work when there are much more appropriate genres that they could apply to. Like the example of calling the staged portraits on the streets "street photography" when they'd be better suited as "street portraiture" instead.

Also though, are the guidelines that define street photography so restrictive that it becomes near impossible to create a new and inventive take on your stylistic choices without copying the work of those that have come before you?

I can't say whether or not they do since I've never really concerned myself with labeling any of my street stuff as being traditional street photography.

 

[Write Lighting]

so...yea.
I think the "teenager" isn't street photography, but the writer of that article. sheesh.
a guy thats been doing street photography for <2 years is going to tell people what "true" street is?
the whole article read like he was trying to justify street photography as an art form to someone, or himself.
instead of railing against the municipality of photography rule-makers he should just go and take some pictures.

It did kind of seem like he was taking the tact that street photography is an art form and art forms aren't meant to be defined maaannn. Although I guess he was trying to say that you should just do what you want and not worry about whether it's right or wrong...maybe?

 

[pixmedic]

so...yea.
I think the "teenager" isn't street photography, but the writer of that article. sheesh.
a guy thats been doing street photography for <2 years is going to tell people what "true" street is?
the whole article read like he was trying to justify street photography as an art form to someone, or himself.
instead of railing against the municipality of photography rule-makers he should just go and take some pictures.

It did kind of seem like he was taking the tact that street photography is an art form and art forms aren't meant to be defined maaannn. Although I guess he was trying to say that you should just do what you want and not worry about whether it's right or wrong...maybe?

he could have summed up that entire article in less than a paragraph, and sounded a lot less pompous about it.
photography is like every other creative outlet genre. Art is, and always has been, simply what people make of it. no more, no less.

 

[runnah]

I've seen very few "street" photos that I would call good.

 

[limr]

I think street photography needs some sort of guidelines, otherwise it's not a genre, and is simply photography. And it's fine to mix and blend genres, but I think you should be honest if you're going to make use of labels.

Create the art you want to create and worry about what genre it gets lumped into later.

But the "can't use a DSLR" thing is silly. Personally I don't like doing street with a dSLR, but that's just a workflow preference thing, nothing to do with the nature of the genre.

Now what I definitely don't agree with is presenting a photograph as something it is not. That is, wanting to be thought of as traditional street while staging or using heavy cloning. There's nothing wrong with using those techniques per se, but if you want your art to be evaluated as a certain genre, that has certain expectations, then deviating from that is simply dishonest.

In my mind that isn't any different than an author who writes a fictitious memoir. The genre of memoir has certain implications of how the story was put together. Street photography has certain implications of how the photo was put together. If you buck those conventions, that's great, but you can't call it street. It's staged street, street portraiture or just plain old photography.

I agree. I think people use the cameras they feel comfortable with that can help them get the pictures they want. Supposedly, dSLRs are too big and conspicuous but that's only if you accept the premise that you have to be close to the subject, and I don't think that's true. What's important is the seeing, not the proximity to what you are seeing.

As for post, I also agree that too much feels disingenuous. It means (to me) that the street photographer didn't really see a moment, but saw something "close enough" and then "fixed" it in post. It dilutes the integrity of the photo. No, not all genres are about capturing reality exactly as it is (or as close as possible), but street photography is about reality and making a comment on reality. Don't distort the message by altering reality.

 

[pixmedic]

I think street photography needs some sort of guidelines, otherwise it's not a genre, and is simply photography. And it's fine to mix and blend genres, but I think you should be honest if you're going to make use of labels.

Create the art you want to create and worry about what genre it gets lumped into later.

But the "can't use a DSLR" thing is silly. Personally I don't like doing street with a dSLR, but that's just a workflow preference thing, nothing to do with the nature of the genre.

Now what I definitely don't agree with is presenting a photograph as something it is not. That is, wanting to be thought of as traditional street while staging or using heavy cloning. There's nothing wrong with using those techniques per se, but if you want your art to be evaluated as a certain genre, that has certain expectations, then deviating from that is simply dishonest.

In my mind that isn't any different than an author who writes a fictitious memoir. The genre of memoir has certain implications of how the story was put together. Street photography has certain implications of how the photo was put together. If you buck those conventions, that's great, but you can't call it street. It's staged street, street portraiture or just plain old photography.

I agree. I think people use the cameras they feel comfortable with that can help them get the pictures they want. Supposedly, dSLRs are too big and conspicuous but that's only if you accept the premise that you have to be close to the subject, and I don't think that's true. What's important is the seeing, not the proximity to what you are seeing.

As for post, I also agree that too much feels disingenuous. It means (to me) that the street photographer didn't really see a moment, but saw something "close enough" and then "fixed" it in post. It dilutes the integrity of the photo. No, not all genres are about capturing reality exactly as it is (or as close as possible), but street photography is about reality and making a comment on reality. Don't distort the message by altering reality.

is cropping or fixing color and WB "altering reality"?
sometimes the post work IS making the picture as close as possible to reality.

 

[fjrabon]

I think street photography needs some sort of guidelines, otherwise it's not a genre, and is simply photography. And it's fine to mix and blend genres, but I think you should be honest if you're going to make use of labels.

Create the art you want to create and worry about what genre it gets lumped into later.

But the "can't use a DSLR" thing is silly. Personally I don't like doing street with a dSLR, but that's just a workflow preference thing, nothing to do with the nature of the genre.

Now what I definitely don't agree with is presenting a photograph as something it is not. That is, wanting to be thought of as traditional street while staging or using heavy cloning. There's nothing wrong with using those techniques per se, but if you want your art to be evaluated as a certain genre, that has certain expectations, then deviating from that is simply dishonest.

In my mind that isn't any different than an author who writes a fictitious memoir. The genre of memoir has certain implications of how the story was put together. Street photography has certain implications of how the photo was put together. If you buck those conventions, that's great, but you can't call it street. It's staged street, street portraiture or just plain old photography.

I agree. I think people use the cameras they feel comfortable with that can help them get the pictures they want. Supposedly, dSLRs are too big and conspicuous but that's only if you accept the premise that you have to be close to the subject, and I don't think that's true. What's important is the seeing, not the proximity to what you are seeing.

As for post, I also agree that too much feels disingenuous. It means (to me) that the street photographer didn't really see a moment, but saw something "close enough" and then "fixed" it in post. It dilutes the integrity of the photo. No, not all genres are about capturing reality exactly as it is (or as close as possible), but street photography is about reality and making a comment on reality. Don't distort the message by altering reality.

is cropping or fixing color and WB "altering reality"?
sometimes the post work IS making the picture as close as possible to reality.

I think the article the OP was talking about was about using heavy PS, like cloning, composites, etc.

I don't think anybody questions the validity of things like white balance, contrast, black and white conversion, dodging, burning, sharpness, etc. in street.

 

[pixmedic]

I think street photography needs some sort of guidelines, otherwise it's not a genre, and is simply photography. And it's fine to mix and blend genres, but I think you should be honest if you're going to make use of labels.

Create the art you want to create and worry about what genre it gets lumped into later.

But the "can't use a DSLR" thing is silly. Personally I don't like doing street with a dSLR, but that's just a workflow preference thing, nothing to do with the nature of the genre.

Now what I definitely don't agree with is presenting a photograph as something it is not. That is, wanting to be thought of as traditional street while staging or using heavy cloning. There's nothing wrong with using those techniques per se, but if you want your art to be evaluated as a certain genre, that has certain expectations, then deviating from that is simply dishonest.

In my mind that isn't any different than an author who writes a fictitious memoir. The genre of memoir has certain implications of how the story was put together. Street photography has certain implications of how the photo was put together. If you buck those conventions, that's great, but you can't call it street. It's staged street, street portraiture or just plain old photography.

I agree. I think people use the cameras they feel comfortable with that can help them get the pictures they want. Supposedly, dSLRs are too big and conspicuous but that's only if you accept the premise that you have to be close to the subject, and I don't think that's true. What's important is the seeing, not the proximity to what you are seeing.

As for post, I also agree that too much feels disingenuous. It means (to me) that the street photographer didn't really see a moment, but saw something "close enough" and then "fixed" it in post. It dilutes the integrity of the photo. No, not all genres are about capturing reality exactly as it is (or as close as possible), but street photography is about reality and making a comment on reality. Don't distort the message by altering reality.

is cropping or fixing color and WB "altering reality"?
sometimes the post work IS making the picture as close as possible to reality.

I think the article the OP was talking about was about using heavy PS, like cloning, composites, etc.

I don't think anybody questions the validity of things like white balance, contrast, black and white conversion, dodging, burning, sharpness, etc. in street.

well, and there's another issue.
why is heavily modified pictures not street?
what is the processing maximum allowance to be considered street?
some people say anything staged at all is not street.
who makes the rules? who decides?

i say photography is photography...
call it whatever you want and let whoever sees it decide for themselves.

 

[fjrabon]

I think street photography needs some sort of guidelines, otherwise it's not a genre, and is simply photography. And it's fine to mix and blend genres, but I think you should be honest if you're going to make use of labels.

Create the art you want to create and worry about what genre it gets lumped into later.

But the "can't use a DSLR" thing is silly. Personally I don't like doing street with a dSLR, but that's just a workflow preference thing, nothing to do with the nature of the genre.

Now what I definitely don't agree with is presenting a photograph as something it is not. That is, wanting to be thought of as traditional street while staging or using heavy cloning. There's nothing wrong with using those techniques per se, but if you want your art to be evaluated as a certain genre, that has certain expectations, then deviating from that is simply dishonest.

In my mind that isn't any different than an author who writes a fictitious memoir. The genre of memoir has certain implications of how the story was put together. Street photography has certain implications of how the photo was put together. If you buck those conventions, that's great, but you can't call it street. It's staged street, street portraiture or just plain old photography.

I agree. I think people use the cameras they feel comfortable with that can help them get the pictures they want. Supposedly, dSLRs are too big and conspicuous but that's only if you accept the premise that you have to be close to the subject, and I don't think that's true. What's important is the seeing, not the proximity to what you are seeing.

As for post, I also agree that too much feels disingenuous. It means (to me) that the street photographer didn't really see a moment, but saw something "close enough" and then "fixed" it in post. It dilutes the integrity of the photo. No, not all genres are about capturing reality exactly as it is (or as close as possible), but street photography is about reality and making a comment on reality. Don't distort the message by altering reality.

is cropping or fixing color and WB "altering reality"?
sometimes the post work IS making the picture as close as possible to reality.

I think the article the OP was talking about was about using heavy PS, like cloning, composites, etc.

I don't think anybody questions the validity of things like white balance, contrast, black and white conversion, dodging, burning, sharpness, etc. in street.

well, and there's another issue.
why is heavily modified pictures not street?
what is the processing maximum allowance to be considered street?
some people say anything staged at all is not street.
who makes the rules? who decides?

i say photography is photography...
call it whatever you want and let whoever sees it decide for themselves.

I agree with you, just like I agree that literature is literature. However, if you decide to label your photography street photography, then you are **choosing** to apply such labels. If you divert from the conventions that those labels imply, then you're simply being dishonest. People who buck those conventions without being straightforward about it are using the beliefs people have about street (not staged, not cloned or composited) so their work will be viewed under those assumptions without actually having to adhere to those assumptions.

What do you think of an author who writes a brilliant memoir that turns out to mostly be fiction? Isn't literature just literature?

Don't want to adhere to the commonly held conventions of street? That's great. Then just call it photography.

I don't insist that people refer to my chili as apple pie.

 

[Overread]

The author needs to go try a few more genres because what he describes is in no way unique to street photography. Heck its not even unique to photography as an artistic medium. Convention and conformity as much a part of art as "creative chaos". Indeed much conformity is simply repetition of what was once chaos; and these things go in cycles == esp for those heavily invested into a genre who quickly grow bored of the current "trends" and branch out more so. They try new things and get new ideas and thus end up potentially creating or at least laying the foundations of the new conformity and style(s) that will dominate for a while.

Indeed we are in a totally free artist age at present - gone are the days when you HAD to go to the right uni to get recognised as an artist. GONE are the days when you had to use only certain mediums - styles- methods to be recognised as an artist.

At is free and it seems that in this freedom its got a large number who not only wish to keep it free, but bathe in the chaos of being so free as to have no boundaries at all. That, of course, ends up with some truly inspiring and awesome works; and a heckload of trash

 

[pixmedic]

I think street photography needs some sort of guidelines, otherwise it's not a genre, and is simply photography. And it's fine to mix and blend genres, but I think you should be honest if you're going to make use of labels.

Create the art you want to create and worry about what genre it gets lumped into later.

But the "can't use a DSLR" thing is silly. Personally I don't like doing street with a dSLR, but that's just a workflow preference thing, nothing to do with the nature of the genre.

Now what I definitely don't agree with is presenting a photograph as something it is not. That is, wanting to be thought of as traditional street while staging or using heavy cloning. There's nothing wrong with using those techniques per se, but if you want your art to be evaluated as a certain genre, that has certain expectations, then deviating from that is simply dishonest.

In my mind that isn't any different than an author who writes a fictitious memoir. The genre of memoir has certain implications of how the story was put together. Street photography has certain implications of how the photo was put together. If you buck those conventions, that's great, but you can't call it street. It's staged street, street portraiture or just plain old photography.

I agree. I think people use the cameras they feel comfortable with that can help them get the pictures they want. Supposedly, dSLRs are too big and conspicuous but that's only if you accept the premise that you have to be close to the subject, and I don't think that's true. What's important is the seeing, not the proximity to what you are seeing.

As for post, I also agree that too much feels disingenuous. It means (to me) that the street photographer didn't really see a moment, but saw something "close enough" and then "fixed" it in post. It dilutes the integrity of the photo. No, not all genres are about capturing reality exactly as it is (or as close as possible), but street photography is about reality and making a comment on reality. Don't distort the message by altering reality.

is cropping or fixing color and WB "altering reality"?
sometimes the post work IS making the picture as close as possible to reality.

I think the article the OP was talking about was about using heavy PS, like cloning, composites, etc.

I don't think anybody questions the validity of things like white balance, contrast, black and white conversion, dodging, burning, sharpness, etc. in street.

well, and there's another issue.
why is heavily modified pictures not street?
what is the processing maximum allowance to be considered street?
some people say anything staged at all is not street.
who makes the rules? who decides?

i say photography is photography...
call it whatever you want and let whoever sees it decide for themselves.

I agree with you, just like I agree that literature is literature. However, if you decide to label your photography street photography, then you are **choosing** to apply such labels. If you divert from the conventions that those labels imply, then you're simply being dishonest. People who buck those conventions without being straightforward about it are using the beliefs people have about street (not staged, not cloned or composited) so their work will be viewed under those assumptions without actually having to adhere to those assumptions.

What do you think of an author who writes a brilliant memoir that turns out to mostly be fiction? Isn't literature just literature?

Don't want to adhere to the commonly held conventions of street? That's great. Then just call it photography.

I don't insist that people refer to my chili as apple pie.

sure, but...
who makes these rules?
literature has fairly well defined rules. fiction, non-fiction, etc etc...
the publishing companies decide the genre if they publish it. if you do it on your own you can call it whatever you want. what category does the Bible fall under? I think some people might disagree on that as well.
who decides what is street and what is not? who makes the rules? what are the rules?
who decided that staged shots werent street", and to what degree does it have to be staged to fall out of the street category? how much processing is allowed? who makes that call? and who picks apart every photo to figure out exactly what was done?
theres just too much subjectivity involved with something like that. might as well define art and be done with it.

 

[fjrabon]

I think street photography needs some sort of guidelines, otherwise it's not a genre, and is simply photography. And it's fine to mix and blend genres, but I think you should be honest if you're going to make use of labels.

Create the art you want to create and worry about what genre it gets lumped into later.

But the "can't use a DSLR" thing is silly. Personally I don't like doing street with a dSLR, but that's just a workflow preference thing, nothing to do with the nature of the genre.

Now what I definitely don't agree with is presenting a photograph as something it is not. That is, wanting to be thought of as traditional street while staging or using heavy cloning. There's nothing wrong with using those techniques per se, but if you want your art to be evaluated as a certain genre, that has certain expectations, then deviating from that is simply dishonest.

In my mind that isn't any different than an author who writes a fictitious memoir. The genre of memoir has certain implications of how the story was put together. Street photography has certain implications of how the photo was put together. If you buck those conventions, that's great, but you can't call it street. It's staged street, street portraiture or just plain old photography.

I agree. I think people use the cameras they feel comfortable with that can help them get the pictures they want. Supposedly, dSLRs are too big and conspicuous but that's only if you accept the premise that you have to be close to the subject, and I don't think that's true. What's important is the seeing, not the proximity to what you are seeing.

As for post, I also agree that too much feels disingenuous. It means (to me) that the street photographer didn't really see a moment, but saw something "close enough" and then "fixed" it in post. It dilutes the integrity of the photo. No, not all genres are about capturing reality exactly as it is (or as close as possible), but street photography is about reality and making a comment on reality. Don't distort the message by altering reality.

is cropping or fixing color and WB "altering reality"?
sometimes the post work IS making the picture as close as possible to reality.

I think the article the OP was talking about was about using heavy PS, like cloning, composites, etc.

I don't think anybody questions the validity of things like white balance, contrast, black and white conversion, dodging, burning, sharpness, etc. in street.

well, and there's another issue.
why is heavily modified pictures not street?
what is the processing maximum allowance to be considered street?
some people say anything staged at all is not street.
who makes the rules? who decides?

i say photography is photography...
call it whatever you want and let whoever sees it decide for themselves.

I agree with you, just like I agree that literature is literature. However, if you decide to label your photography street photography, then you are **choosing** to apply such labels. If you divert from the conventions that those labels imply, then you're simply being dishonest. People who buck those conventions without being straightforward about it are using the beliefs people have about street (not staged, not cloned or composited) so their work will be viewed under those assumptions without actually having to adhere to those assumptions.

What do you think of an author who writes a brilliant memoir that turns out to mostly be fiction? Isn't literature just literature?

Don't want to adhere to the commonly held conventions of street? That's great. Then just call it photography.

I don't insist that people refer to my chili as apple pie.

sure, but...
who makes these rules?
literature has fairly well defined rules. fiction, non-fiction, etc etc...
the publishing companies decide the genre if they publish it. if you do it on your own you can call it whatever you want. what category does the Bible fall under? I think some people might disagree on that as well.
who decides what is street and what is not? who makes the rules? what are the rules?
who decided that staged shots werent street", and to what degree does it have to be staged to fall out of the street category? how much processing is allowed? who makes that call? and who picks apart every photo to figure out exactly what was done?
theres just too much subjectivity involved with something like that. might as well define art and be done with it.

The community makes the rules. Some aspects are difficult to define, but what the article in the OP is talking about isn't. Most everybody who does street does adhere to the idea that it shouldn't be staged, it shouldn't have lots of cloning and it shouldn't be composited without being very upfront about that.

In my experience the problem with artists like the one linked in the OP is that they very much want those conventions applied to their work by viewers. They want viewers to think their work didn't involve cloning, staging and compositing. They're super reluctant to admit that they used any of those techniques. Viewers judge art differently based upon certain notions of how it was produced. They give artists some leeway if they know if the artist limited themselves to certain restrictions. What would be judged as mediocre fiction is often judged as fantastic memoir.

Again, I totally agree that artists should be free to do whatever they want in creating their art.

The problem lies in the only reason you'd ever use a label like "street photography" is that you want people to believe that it conforms to the general standards of the genre (whoever decides them).

It seems like you want to destroy the term "street photography." That's a reasonable position. The artist in the OP doesn't. The artist in the OP wants to keep the term, and all the assumptions viewers make about it, whether they realize it or not, but not actually be limited by those conventions.

There's a lot of leeway in what constitutes chili. Does that mean that I can make an apple pie and call it chili?