"When Will Street Photography Grow Up?"

[pixmedic2 1]

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?

no no no...
i dont want to destroy any term..
I dont shoot street, so i have no idea what "street" really is.
but my problem is... well, lets say that i wanted to shoot some street photography.
I see a great shot of a girl and just as im going to take the shot, she sees me with the camera and smiles for me. then click. great shot? maybe. staged? eh, maaaaybe. so is it not street now? doesn't count?
who gets to decide? if i call it a street shot, am i wrong?

its just such a complex genre with so many little "rules" you are supposed to know, yet all I ever hear around here is how artists arent supposed to follow the rules, as it stifles creativity.
so if I follow the rules, is it street but not art? and if I break the rules to get creative, is it art but not street?

this is why i dislike labels, unavoidable as they are. too much subjectivity.
really, im not trying to do anything with the "street" label except maybe try to understand the parameters a little better 'cause its got me confuzzeled as hell.

 

[fjrabon]

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?

no no no...
i dont want to destroy any term..
I dont shoot street, so i have no idea what "street" really is.
but my problem is... well, lets say that i wanted to shoot some street photography.
I see a great shot of a girl and just as im going to take the shot, she sees me with the camera and smiles for me. then click. great shot? maybe. staged? eh, maaaaybe. so is it not street now? doesn't count?
who gets to decide? if i call it a street shot, am i wrong?

its just such a complex genre with so many little "rules" you are supposed to know, yet all I ever hear around here is how artists arent supposed to follow the rules, as it stifles creativity.
so if I follow the rules, is it street but not art? and if I break the rules to get creative, is it art but not street?

this is why i dislike labels, unavoidable as they are. too much subjectivity.
really, im not trying to do anything with the "street" label except maybe try to understand the parameters a little better 'cause its got me confuzzeled as hell.

The scenario you described is usually called street portraiture. Yes, it's silly that it sub-divides and gets so complicated.

I don't think anybody is claiming that if you don't "stick to the rules" of street photography that your photograph is no longer art. It just becomes "photography" or maybe some other genre like "street portraiture" instead of "street."

It's like if I'm making vegetable stew and add in some beef, it becomes beef stew instead of vegetable stew. It doesn't cease to be food, or even stew, just a different kind of stew.

 

[Write Lighting]

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?

no no no...
i dont want to destroy any term..
I dont shoot street, so i have no idea what "street" really is.
but my problem is... well, lets say that i wanted to shoot some street photography.
I see a great shot of a girl and just as im going to take the shot, she sees me with the camera and smiles for me. then click. great shot? maybe. staged? eh, maaaaybe. so is it not street now? doesn't count?
who gets to decide? if i call it a street shot, am i wrong?

its just such a complex genre with so many little "rules" you are supposed to know, yet all I ever hear around here is how artists arent supposed to follow the rules, as it stifles creativity.
so if I follow the rules, is it street but not art? and if I break the rules to get creative, is it art but not street?

this is why i dislike labels, unavoidable as they are. too much subjectivity.
really, im not trying to do anything with the "street" label except maybe try to understand the parameters a little better 'cause its got me confuzzeled as hell.

The scenario you described is usually called street portraiture. Yes, it's silly that it sub-divides and gets so complicated.

I don't think anybody is claiming that if you don't "stick to the rules" of street photography that your photograph is no longer art. It just becomes "photography" or maybe some other genre like "street portraiture" instead of "street."

It's like if I'm making vegetable stew and add in some beef, it becomes beef stew instead of vegetable stew. It doesn't cease to be food, or even stew, just a different kind of stew.

Adding on to that, what if the artist freely admits to using some of the more unconventional methods that wouldn't be associated with the genre, like cloning and compositing? Can they then still use the term street photography if they're being upfront about it or can they no longer be allowed to use the term and have to describe it as something else entirely?

 

[pixmedic2 1]

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?

no no no...
i dont want to destroy any term..
I dont shoot street, so i have no idea what "street" really is.
but my problem is... well, lets say that i wanted to shoot some street photography.
I see a great shot of a girl and just as im going to take the shot, she sees me with the camera and smiles for me. then click. great shot? maybe. staged? eh, maaaaybe. so is it not street now? doesn't count?
who gets to decide? if i call it a street shot, am i wrong?

its just such a complex genre with so many little "rules" you are supposed to know, yet all I ever hear around here is how artists arent supposed to follow the rules, as it stifles creativity.
so if I follow the rules, is it street but not art? and if I break the rules to get creative, is it art but not street?

this is why i dislike labels, unavoidable as they are. too much subjectivity.
really, im not trying to do anything with the "street" label except maybe try to understand the parameters a little better 'cause its got me confuzzeled as hell.

The scenario you described is usually called street portraiture. Yes, it's silly that it sub-divides and gets so complicated.

I don't think anybody is claiming that if you don't "stick to the rules" of street photography that your photograph is no longer art. It just becomes "photography" or maybe some other genre like "street portraiture" instead of "street."

It's like if I'm making vegetable stew and add in some beef, it becomes beef stew instead of vegetable stew. It doesn't cease to be food, or even stew, just a different kind of stew.

this is why i stick to formal portraits.
crap...
i guess that's just a subcategory of portraiture?
$^@*#&$^ damn it...
I cant escape.

 

[fjrabon]

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?

no no no...
i dont want to destroy any term..
I dont shoot street, so i have no idea what "street" really is.
but my problem is... well, lets say that i wanted to shoot some street photography.
I see a great shot of a girl and just as im going to take the shot, she sees me with the camera and smiles for me. then click. great shot? maybe. staged? eh, maaaaybe. so is it not street now? doesn't count?
who gets to decide? if i call it a street shot, am i wrong?

its just such a complex genre with so many little "rules" you are supposed to know, yet all I ever hear around here is how artists arent supposed to follow the rules, as it stifles creativity.
so if I follow the rules, is it street but not art? and if I break the rules to get creative, is it art but not street?

this is why i dislike labels, unavoidable as they are. too much subjectivity.
really, im not trying to do anything with the "street" label except maybe try to understand the parameters a little better 'cause its got me confuzzeled as hell.

The scenario you described is usually called street portraiture. Yes, it's silly that it sub-divides and gets so complicated.

I don't think anybody is claiming that if you don't "stick to the rules" of street photography that your photograph is no longer art. It just becomes "photography" or maybe some other genre like "street portraiture" instead of "street."

It's like if I'm making vegetable stew and add in some beef, it becomes beef stew instead of vegetable stew. It doesn't cease to be food, or even stew, just a different kind of stew.

Adding on to that, what if the artist freely admits to using some of the more unconventional methods that wouldn't be associated with the genre, like cloning and compositing? Can they then still use the term street photography if they're being upfront about it or can they no longer be allowed to use the term and have to describe it as something else entirely?

I'd say sure, if they're very upfront, but the artist should realize that the majority of people in the field, both as viewers and practicing artists will disagree. At that point the artist is essentially making an argument for changing the definition of the genre, whether they're successful or not, who knows? At that point the artist is also probably making it more about genre definitions than it is about his or her art, which I find distasteful, but w/e. I tend to prefer when definitions fluidly, naturally, change over time, not when some individual with a "vision" sets out to intentionally change it

 

[Write Lighting]

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?

no no no...
i dont want to destroy any term..
I dont shoot street, so i have no idea what "street" really is.
but my problem is... well, lets say that i wanted to shoot some street photography.
I see a great shot of a girl and just as im going to take the shot, she sees me with the camera and smiles for me. then click. great shot? maybe. staged? eh, maaaaybe. so is it not street now? doesn't count?
who gets to decide? if i call it a street shot, am i wrong?

its just such a complex genre with so many little "rules" you are supposed to know, yet all I ever hear around here is how artists arent supposed to follow the rules, as it stifles creativity.
so if I follow the rules, is it street but not art? and if I break the rules to get creative, is it art but not street?

this is why i dislike labels, unavoidable as they are. too much subjectivity.
really, im not trying to do anything with the "street" label except maybe try to understand the parameters a little better 'cause its got me confuzzeled as hell.

The scenario you described is usually called street portraiture. Yes, it's silly that it sub-divides and gets so complicated.

I don't think anybody is claiming that if you don't "stick to the rules" of street photography that your photograph is no longer art. It just becomes "photography" or maybe some other genre like "street portraiture" instead of "street."

It's like if I'm making vegetable stew and add in some beef, it becomes beef stew instead of vegetable stew. It doesn't cease to be food, or even stew, just a different kind of stew.

Adding on to that, what if the artist freely admits to using some of the more unconventional methods that wouldn't be associated with the genre, like cloning and compositing? Can they then still use the term street photography if they're being upfront about it or can they no longer be allowed to use the term and have to describe it as something else entirely?

I'd say sure, if they're very upfront, but the artist should realize that the majority of people in the field, both as viewers and practicing artists will disagree. At that point the artist is essentially making an argument for changing the definition of the genre, whether they're successful or not, who knows? At that point the artist is also probably making it more about genre definitions than it is about his or her art, which I find distasteful, but w/e. I tend to prefer when definitions fluidly, naturally, change over time, not when some individual with a "vision" sets out to intentionally change it

I agree with you on that one. It's similar to when an artist creates a genre label just to describe their art instead of focusing on just making art. The focus then gets pulled into, "I'm a visionary genius" so it becomes more about them than their work.

 

[Overread19 7]

sure, but...
who makes these rules?.

And there is another element. Art in itself used to have rules. They were very strictly defined; indeed that is part of the reason why some (oft considered childish) artworks of the past by great masters of their day are so highly prized today. Because they went against the established flow; which wasn't just as it is today; but actually going against the "gatekeepers" who defined art.

In today's world there are no universal gate-keepers (one can argue that in the real world there are nearly no universal ones for anything; but there are degrees of laxity and strictness) for art. As such what you have instead is a vast multitude of sub-gate-keepers each operating within their own niche.

So its as much for the photographer to choose.

 

[runnah]

All I know is the greatest density of pretentious dicks are found in the "street" photography group.

"Oh my shot of a guy siting on a bench drinking coffee is profound art!"

 

[sashbar]

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

The "problem" is exactly the opposite: Street Photography as a genre is oversaturated with great, great recent work of thousands and thousands of good street shooters.
There are thousands of excellent street photos here:

http://www.urbanpicnic-streetphotography.com/street-photography/#!prettyphoto [gallery]/16/
... and these are just uknown shooters.

And if you want to explore the pinnacle of the genre, the true masters, Alex Webb books is not a bad place to start
Alex Webb Rebecca Norris Webb Photographs

 

[fjrabon]

All I know is the greatest density of pretentious dicks are found in the "street" photography group.

"Oh my shot of a guy siting on a bench drinking coffee is profound art!"

Street photographers are by and large people pointing their cameras at certain types of things and processing their photos in certain types of ways.

Not sure why there is a need to belittle people's character based on what they point their cameras at and what buttons they push in Photoshop.

 

[sashbar]

To me personally street photography is anything that depicts people living in the environment that they themselves have created.
People have created a lot of weird stuff on this planet: square houses, trousers, concrete cities, pipes, glasses, airplanes, tables, cigarettes and chairs, never mind cars, garbage, electricity, posters, casual sex and toothbrushes.
Anyone who would be brought here from the happy days of Mother Nature, clean rivers and dynosaurs would be shell shocked. So there is a lot to explore and it would be silly to strangle this genre with strict rules and principles.
So my advice to anyone who wants to be a good street shooter - keep your dynosaur mentality intact. Forget all that pseudo-clever stuff, this is for teenagers. This way street shooting will give you a lot of intellectual pleasure.
I hope I was clear enough. He he.

Yes, and to the OP - street photography is a VERY mature genre these days with many aestetic schools within it. If someone does not know or undertand it, he/she may educate him/herself a little. It is easy, everything is on the net.

 

[runnah]

All I know is the greatest density of pretentious dicks are found in the "street" photography group.

"Oh my shot of a guy siting on a bench drinking coffee is profound art!"

Street photographers are by and large people pointing their cameras at certain types of things and processing their photos in certain types of ways.

Not sure why there is a need to belittle people's character based on what they point their cameras at and what buttons they push in Photoshop.

We've had a few examples here of boring shots that were nothing more than snapshots only to have the photography go on and on about how their photo was a masterpiece and us non "street" people didn't "get" it.

That is what bothers me about the genre.

 

[runnah]

And if you want to explore the pinnacle of the genre, the true masters, Alex Webb books is not a bad place to start
Alex Webb Rebecca Norris Webb Photographs

Some really great ones in there that were very well composed. Some not so much. Like this one: Alex Webb Rebecca Norris Webb Photographs (image 5) I see nothing about this that is remarkable. Poor composition, no real subject. blurry people.

 

[limr33 3]

First of all, I logged back in to find 13 notifications that my post was quoted. Yikes, what's going on??

I think basic post processing is fine, but more than that, as fjrabon has been arguing, then brings the photo into the realm of Something Else.

Personally, I consider street photography to be the subgenre, not the genre. I would consider it a subgenre of photojournalism. There are a lot of photographs that capture humans in their environment with an intent of capturing not just an image but some sort of commentary or truth about our existence. When these images are taken in an urban setting, that's when it becomes "street."

It should go without saying that this is just a personal definition that I work with, and don't expect that others need to follow it. It's just how I look at things.

 

[limr33 3]

And if you want to explore the pinnacle of the genre, the true masters, Alex Webb books is not a bad place to start
Alex Webb Rebecca Norris Webb Photographs

Some really great ones in there that were very well composed. Some not so much. Like this one: Alex Webb Rebecca Norris Webb Photographs (image 5) I see nothing about this that is remarkable. Poor composition, no real subject. blurry people.

I'm surprised that Andre Kertesz doesn't get mentioned more often (and who, incidentally, often shot with a longer lens.)
andre kertesz street photographs - Google Search

10 Lessons Andre Kertesz Has Taught Me About Street Photography
Of course, in this article, Kim chooses some of Kertesz's photographs that aren't street photography at all.