mort Loc: california

with the discussion on what is street photography , i thought i would post some photos of street abstracts .
critique always welcome .

sreet abstract

(Download)

street abstract 2

(Download)

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Lets hope you realize that this is a place for Street Photography, not for other pictures of street scenes and most particularly not for abstracts!

I assume you may not be aware there is a difference. But "Street Photography" is a Term Of Art, or maybe better stated as a misnomer. The meaning is not a combination of the dictionary definitions of those two words.

Street is pictures about life and our relationships to our surroundings.

With that in mind a discussion of how our images come at least close, or are Street if someone thinks they fit, would be very interesting.

Why do you feel those images fit in a Street Photography forum?

mort Loc: california

i consider myself a walk about street photographer . i carry my camera at most times , and photograph what i find interesting . you can check some of my photos
on flicker ( mort linder or m_spoke ) . most of my images do include people , but i do not think that is necessary to call them street . the book " world atlas of
street photography " has a wide range of images , even a stop sign . some of the photos have been heavily processed , or set up . there are some of google
street . do you consider graffiti , door ways , empty streets , parked cars , store fronts , or signs as street photography ? a lot of walker evans photos are of
signs on buildings or store fronts , and i consider them street . what is more life than what we pass along the way ? i take photos at flea markets , street events ,
art museums , craft events , malls , and farmer's markets , and i consider them street . i feel that these photos of what is happening on the street surface as
interesting and artistic , and i consider them street .

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

I wholeheartedly agree with all of that. If that is how you see it, it's Street!

But the last sentence, about "on the street surface" doesn't fit, though it certainly is interesting and artistic. The painted lines and the manhole cover do show something about how people relate to our surroundings, and that specifically is the tie to Street, not the fact that it is on the surface of a roadway.

Thank you for the detailed an enlightening response. Discussion that helps people see that "Street" is not just a picture of people on city sidewalks is helpful. It helps to see how the subject in Street is an intangible non-object visual symbol.

Heather Iles Loc: UK, Somerset

In other words anything photographed on the street is considered "Street Photography".

What I do ask, is what makes a good Street Photography photo? I would hope that it tells a story and leaves us intrigued and therefore holding our interest.

I do wonder though, does the Manhole Cover or whatever cover it is tells a story and leaves us intrigued? It doesn't me.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Not what he said.

Anything photographed on the street might be Street. But might not be... for example images of street performers that show only their performance actually aren't Street. A portable portrait studio set up on a street does not produce Street.

And clearly many images that are not related to a road are very much Street. In a cafe, on a beach, and even a cow pasture all can qualify as the "street" in Street Photography.

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

[quote=Heather Iles]In other words anything photographed on the street is considered "Street Photography".





I asked a question about the differences in the two street sections the other day, and I got in response a lot of opinions from a lot of various people, but no definitive answer at all. That's what I expected, but I was hoping . . . .

If you're interested, you might review that discussion. Everyone seemed to think his answer was the definitive one, but hardly anyone agreed with one another. It was posted in the Main Photography Discussion section.

mort Loc: california

what is art , what is street photography ? these things are in the eye and mind of the beholder . reading " the world atlas of street photography " certainly
poses the question of what is street photography . included are arial , over exposed , over processed , google street screen shots , blurry images , set ups ,
and other , what might be called , avant guard images . i guess i was posing the question by posting these photos of the " street ". they were something i
saw in passing that " i " think are interesting abstract images .

mallen1330 Loc: Chicago western suburbs

What is street photography ?

Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said in 1964 (on a similar but slightly different subject), "I know it when I see it"

Look at the examples of the "Greats of Street Photography" at the top of the section: Architectural and Traditional Street Photography, to immerse yourself in the genre. This may provide a base of understanding or a mindset so that you will "know it when you see it."

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

The problem with "What is Street Photography?" when researched on the Internet is the same as any other topic: how to determine which sources are authoritative, credible and reliable. Mere lists of images and non-authoritative discussion of famous photographers alone probably is a very poor basis on which to understand Street. It is a just a very meager start...

Authoritative sources that analyze the images and the style, and explain what they are or are not, is an absolute requirement. Moreover it isn't just analysis of the photographer and that individual's work, but the comparative relationship between photographers. Photographers like Walker Evans hugely influenced others, such as Robert Frank, who then influenced many others such as Winogrand and Meyerowitz. Those direct lines of influence are significant, but so are disparate examples where there is no relationship between two different Street photographers.

The most significant concept that is gathered from genuinely authoritative sources is the breadth of Street as a genre, as opposed to the idea that there are clearly set limits to the genre. The limits, when applied without a broad background by a non-authoritative source tend to exclude significant parts of the very foundation for Street Photography as it exists today. Over simplified non-authoritative discussion tends to equate an individual style as a definition of the entire genre, which is virtually always in error.

I would suggest a much more academic approach to understanding what Street Photography is than just looking a pictures selected by people who don't know themselves. The best place to start is a copy, perhaps from a local library, of "Bystander: A History of Street Photography" published in 1994 by Colin Westerbeck and Joel Meyerwitz. Anyone who truly aspires to understanding Street should have a well read copy on their book shelf...

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

xxxxxxxxxxx

Floyd said:
Jan 17, 16 22:23:21
"I don't make any ultimate decisions about what is or isn't. The OP does that! If anyone thinks their picture is Street, they can post it as Street. Everyone else can argue the merits, but the ultimate decision has already been made at that point."

I meant to add that our section manager ( Apaflo) has also, by assuring that any image posted to this section is, perforce, "street photography", has also assured that any such image also qualifies as "fine art".
His words:
"Regardless, Fine Art is not something distinct from Street Photography. It isn't a matter of being equal, it is a fact that Street Photography is always Fine Art (but of course not all Fine Art is Street Photography).

According to the above dicta of the "Street" Section's manager, Apaflo (Floyd Davidson).

If you call it street, it's "street" and what's more, if it's "street" it is thereby "fine art"!

IN HIS OWN WORDS, YET!

Y'had no idea that it was all this simple, did you?

So one wonders...why, now, this search for "wiggle room"....now, at this late date?

Dave

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

You are the only one searching for it. There is no distinction between what I was saying six months ago (or years ago) and what I say now.

Did you want to make a point, or just make a fuss...

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

Apaflo stated:
"You are the only one searching for it. There is no distinction between what I was saying six months ago (or years ago) and what I say now.

Did you want to make a point, or just make a fuss..."

xxxxxxxxxx

To "make fuss" is not my intent. My thoughts ... and recollections (as a search of posts at the time this section was in its early days have proven accurate) lead to the the conclusion that these images posted by mort would have been accepted as "street" then...but evidently are to be questioned as such in the here-and-now. Each of mort's images indicates, in its own way, the interaction between persons and their environment... (and conveniently in both cases, the street).

Please note that I am not arguing whether they do or do not qualify as "street" . I am simply pointing out that what was accepted, and what is now accepted as "street photography" in the "street" section is clearly inconsistent. It is patently and mutually contradictory and renders totally reasonable the current questions about what constitutes "street" photography" in terms of images posted to the "Street Photography" Section.

It seems reasonable that if your criteria have changed from those indicated by your words "back then" , that you should simply admit that's the case. Simply claiming that there is no inconsistency just won't be supported by even the most casual perusal of your posts back in the early days of the section.

The alternative would seem to be to pretend that no confusion exists and leave it all to be ... confusedly..."worked out".

If possible, I'd appreciate it if comments be objective and based on fact. without negative, personal imputations of motivation such as "...trying to make a fuss".

Thanks,

Best regards,
Dave

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Yeah, sure.

Acceptable then, and they clearly have also been accepted now. Obviously they have not been deleted, and just as obviously I previously flat out stated everything you are now claiming as your own thoughts:


So you are making a fuss about something that is not the case. A fabricated contention for the sake of having a dispute.

That is what everyone expects from you. And from this point foreward anything else will be construed as off topic and unacceptable.

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

Many thanks, Floyd,
I"m delighted you cleared it all up...or up-cleared it all!
Most Appreciatively,
Dave