From the Hip: My First Attempt at Street Photography

[amolitor]

In my opinion street photography isn't defined by one thing or as if there is one right way and wrong way to do it.

I'm on the fence about statements like this, the phrase "street photography" currently exists in a grey area. If you had said this 40 years ago, I would have laughed at you and explained that your opinion doesn't matter because the phrase actually has a well defined meaning. It would have been like having an opinion about what eggs are.

Nowadays, largely because lots of people no longer know what street photography is (was), the usage is becoming vague and subject to opinions. This is unfortunate, perhaps, but it's how language works. The result is that the phrase "street photography" is evolving into a phrase that means nothing whatsoever.

 

[rexbobcat]

I'm on the fence about statements like this, the phrase "street photography" currently exists in a grey area. If you had said this 40 years ago, I would have laughed at you and explained that your opinion doesn't matter because the phrase actually has a well defined meaning. It would have been like having an opinion about what eggs are.

Nowadays, largely because lots of people no longer know what street photography is (was), the usage is becoming vague and subject to opinions. This is unfortunate, perhaps, but it's how language works. The result is that the phrase "street photography" is evolving into a phrase that means nothing whatsoever.

The definition of street photography is as vague now as the definition of art. Hence the reason I don't practice it often.

My (rather short) background has been in photojournalism to his point so I guess that's the way I was looking for potentially interesting photos.

I'm not great at picking out abstract forms or hidden juxtapositions.

If I were ever to get heavily into street photography, my photos would probably be "in the style" of John Free.

Whether that's...real...street photography or not, I don't know.

 

[sashbar]

If I were ever to get heavily into street photography, my photos would probably be "in the style" of John Free.

Whether that's...real...street photography or not, I don't know.

In case you have not seen it:

​

 

[sashbar]

If I were ever to get heavily into street photography, my photos would probably be "in the style" of John Free.

Whether that's...real...street photography or not, I don't know.

In case you have not seen it:

 

[DanOstergren]

I didn't say these weren't street shots; I said they weren't good street shots.

Perhaps I worded myself wrong. I disagree with you that they are bad shots. Art is subjective and I am of the opinion that there is no one defined way to do something correctly. That's just my opinion.

 

[DanOstergren]

In my opinion street photography isn't defined by one thing or as if there is one right way and wrong way to do it.

I'm on the fence about statements like this, the phrase "street photography" currently exists in a grey area. If you had said this 40 years ago, I would have laughed at you and explained that your opinion doesn't matter because the phrase actually has a well defined meaning. It would have been like having an opinion about what eggs are.

Nowadays, largely because lots of people no longer know what street photography is (was), the usage is becoming vague and subject to opinions. This is unfortunate, perhaps, but it's how language works. The result is that the phrase "street photography" is evolving into a phrase that means nothing whatsoever.

Has it not always been subject to opinions, like all things? From your perspective, how would you define street photography?

 

[amolitor]

The point is that, once upon a time (for a brief period, really) the phrase "street photography" had a pretty specific definition. You could certainly opine about it, many of us live in free countries. You can opine now about what an egg is, really, but since that word is pretty well defined your opinion about what an egg really is isn't very interesting.

I'll try to dig up some resources on what it was, um, time permitting.

It has something to do with a sense of narrative, and something to do with ambiguity, and something to do with design/composition. In the old sense, a street photograph has excellent composition, gives a sense of a narrative in progress, and may or may not explicitly reveal it, but -- and this is the really important bit -- leaves much of what's going on unclear. What is clear is that there's something going on, but what it is should be ambiguous and open. This lets the viewer speculate and fill in details. It's ideally a bit like a Zen koan, which unpacks and reveals the viewer much more than the scene itself.

 

[DanOstergren]

The point is that, once upon a time (for a brief period, really) the phrase "street photography" had a pretty specific definition. You could certainly opine about it, many of us live in free countries. You can opine now about what an egg is, really, but since that word is pretty well defined your opinion about what an egg really is isn't very interesting.

I'll try to dig up some resources on what it was, um, time permitting.

It has something to do with a sense of narrative, and something to do with ambiguity, and something to do with design/composition. In the old sense, a street photograph has excellent composition, gives a sense of a narrative in progress, and may or may not explicitly reveal it, but -- and this is the really important bit -- leaves much of what's going on unclear. What is clear is that there's something going on, but what it is should be ambiguous and open. This lets the viewer speculate and fill in details. It's ideally a bit like a Zen koan, which unpacks and reveals the viewer much more than the scene itself.

An egg is simply an egg. I don't see how this is a good comparison to an art form, which has always been something highly subjective.

I did a bit of very quick research as well, and it didn't take me long to find some information. Forgive me for copying and pasting a small piece of information from wikipedia, but this is the "definition" I found: "Street photography is a genre of photography that features subjects in candid situations within public places and does not necessitate the presence of a street or even the urban environment. 'Street' simply refers to a place where human activity can be seen, a place to observe and capture social interaction. The subject can even be absent of any people and can be that of object or environment where an object projects a human character or an environment is decidedly human." The article continues to explain that framing and timing is key, and while this artist did not particularly hold the viewfinder to his eye he did eliminate that moment of hesitation in order to capture the perfect moment as he saw it by shooting from the hip. Further down in the article it also explains how shooting from the hip as this artist did is actually one of the techniques used in street photography.

These photos were unplanned, and the subjects weren't influenced by the photographer, however he did see these scenes and captured them as he saw them in turn creating images depicting a narrative of candid human activity in a public urban atmosphere from his own perspective. This to me would most certainly count as street photography. It's all subjective opinion though.

 

[sashbar]

In the past a "street photograper" was someone who solicited strangers, offering to take a portrait for a fee. In the fufure "street photography" will be an activity where strangers will solicit photographers, offering a fee for not taking their portraits in the street. These days it is somewhere in between.