Is Street Photography Dead?

Is Street Photography Dead?

  • Yes

    Votes: 82 20.6%

  • No

    Votes: 317 79.4%
  • Total voters
    399
jordanstarr said:
Granted, you get the occasional character or group on the streets of Manhattan. But for the most part, you need to give up the white-washed comfort zones and really explore outside the rich/middle class areas to get anything truly great.
Click to expand...

Because we all know that the average rich/middle class person can never be interesting... :rolleyes: More close minded, stereotypical bull**** really.

Seems to me that some people think street photography always has to be witty and conform to the decisive moment. That reminds me of people who think that music is all about craming a thousand notes per second into a song for it to be good. Sometimes, playing three chords works.
 
igi said:
Depends on where you live.
Click to expand...

Depends on :

- where you live
- where you are
- what is in the lens field of view
- which mental compositions you've got in mind
- what your perception of things is
- which poetry you can create using what is in front of your lens
- which story you can tell,

and so on.

I fully agree with sleepyhead to say that not only random shots of people in large cities streets are "street photography". Very beautiful shot of the Little Mermaid BTW (but afterall this isn't a shot of the Little Mermaid actually, this is "something else"... and it's great).
 
jsrockit said:
Because we all know that the average rich/middle class person can never be interesting... :rolleyes: More close minded, stereotypical bull**** really.

Seems to me that some people think street photography always has to be witty and conform to the decisive moment. That reminds me of people who think that music is all about craming a thousand notes per second into a song for it to be good. Sometimes, playing three chords works.
Click to expand...

Please, post three good photos. You've made more than 10,000 posts.
 
mep said:
Please, post three good photos. You've made more than 10,000 posts.
Click to expand...

You can look at my flickr. If those aren't good enough, then I can't help you. Not sure what your point is other than to make me feel as though I'm not worthy of posting because you deemed my photography crap. I've noticed that you aren't showing yours...
 
Personally, I'd love for street photography to die so I could be one of the few people doing street photography... So, yes, street photography is dead, please get off the streets so real street photographer can work in peace without having to leave an area because a pack of some photography club newbies are crowding his favorite corner and scaring the game.
 
jordanstarr said:
...really? NYC has to be one of the hardest places to shoot street photography in a sense. Anyone who has been there for longer than 3 days knows that people just walk from one shop to the next. Nothing really ALIVE happens on the streets in manhattan. It's a tourist city with hollow tourist characters and situations. Unless you REALLY know the city, hang in the hoods of harlem, drink with the bums at Coney Island, explore the alleyways of the lower east side....you're pretty much just getting people walking to work, going shopping or looking up.

Granted, you get the occasional character or group on the streets of Manhattan. But for the most part, you need to give up the white-washed comfort zones and really explore outside the rich/middle class areas to get anything truly great.
Click to expand...


with respect, i couldn't disagree more. new york is a visual circus, full of authentic activity. i'm not sure that shooting hoods, bums or alleys (and, fwiw, there really aren't alleys anymore on the lower east side) is necessary for "street" photography. also, fwiw, i hate the term "street photography" since it conjures some false equation of street life with the poor and disenfranchised. street life - in a city with an active public life - is for everyone, and no city in the country has more democratic streets than new york and, outside of san francisco, more dramatic settings.

it's funny, my advice to you would have been to get off of fifth avenue a little more, and then i read your last paragraph again. i sense a little reverse snobbery, and forgive me if i'm wrong. look for the good, my friend. look for the good.
 
upceci said:
Personally, I'd love for street photography to die so I could be one of the few people doing street photography... So, yes, street photography is dead, please get off the streets so real street photographer can work in peace without having to leave an area because a pack of some photography club newbies are crowding his favorite corner and scaring the game.
Click to expand...

So what got you into street photography ?
 
Everyone with a phone is now a photographer.

I think the classic HCB/Winogrand definition of "street" photography had its auteur moment when it was new and the cameras capable of capturing the "decisive moment" were relatively expensive and limited to a few. Back when they did their work the urban street was still a minority landscape in a still (mostly) very rural world (rural being both a physical and mental construct).

Now streets are everywhere. Ubiquitousness diminished newness.

Video killed the radio star.
 
"Is street photography dead"? Of course it isn't but a lot of streets have changed. Today's Phnom Penh resembles downtown New York 150 years ago. If you are looking for these kind of pictures...travel.
 
Aristophanes said:
Everyone with a phone is now a photographer.

I think the classic HCB/Winogrand definition of "street" photography had its auteur moment when it was new and the cameras capable of capturing the "decisive moment" were relatively expensive and limited to a few. Back when they did their work the urban street was still a minority landscape in a still (mostly) very rural world (rural being both a physical and mental construct).

Now streets are everywhere. Ubiquitousness diminished newness.

Video killed the radio star.
Click to expand...

maybe. i have a hard time believing we're at the end of history.
 
So, it looks like we have 2 types of Street Photography getting intertwined....
  • Classic Street Photography: LikeHenri CartierBrenson, Robert Capa,Garry Winogrand, Bruce Gildon, Vivian Maier...
    • although these all have different styles.... are more of telling a story, invoking an emotion for the viewer...Timing/Composition/Lighting/Geometry is all a part of this type SP.
  • Documentary Street Photography: (My Def) Where there is more photographing of objects, walls, buildings, that may or may not tell a story or have an emotional appeal. The images can be more in line of graphic art of real things, or just a snap like shot of an interesting thing or building. People are not the main subject, the main subject can be anything. Composition is also important in these photos. Telling a story or invoking an emotion with the viewer is not as important. It is more Documenting what you see on the street.. and will, down the road, will serve as a historical image of that time.
I believe the Original poster meant "Classical Street Photography" Which is the hardest genres in photography to master. IMO.. It is more than a good framing skill... that works well for "Documentary Street Photography". but Classic Street Photography (my def: for my post) is also documenting.. and much much more. IMO.


Both have a place in history, with totally different impacts on the viewer...



Both are alive and well :p
 
jsrockit said:
Because we all know that the average rich/middle class person can never be interesting... :rolleyes: More close minded, stereotypical bull**** really.

Seems to me that some people think street photography always has to be witty and conform to the decisive moment. That reminds me of people who think that music is all about craming a thousand notes per second into a song for it to be good. Sometimes, playing three chords works.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's so much close-minded or stereotypical as much as it is my first-hand experience from living in New York and opinion. NYC (Manhattan specifically) hands you street photography on a silver-platter and I found (opinion again) that you either have to work way harder to find something un-touched or you become complacent with ordinary images that really say nothing about anything and just have people in it -no emotion, no thought, nothing deeper than "just being there".

Trust me, check out my site and you'll see plenty of shots in Manhattan because I did find some things that interested me. But 99% of the people are shopping or doing touristy things, which frankly is boring to me and says very little other than the fact that people like to shop and look up at buildings. I imagine at least part of you feels the same way, judging by the locations you shoot on your flickr account.

You obviously can do street photography everywhere and find stuff to shoot everywhere (I live in a town of 1500 and I still find stuff to shoot), but New York City is so flooded with it that it's no longer really interesting. It's been done, it's been said. I believe art in street photography is about pushing the boundaries, finding new things to shoot, photographing things that reflect something spectacular about the human condition. Unfortunately, I think street photography is dying in this regard because it got just too damn easy. Where is the challenge? What are you trying to capture if not for a decisive moment? Why not witty or at least intelligent and thought-provoking? Any idiot can walk through a crowd blindly shooting everything. If conforming is the opposite of this, I'll gladly call myself a decisive-moment seeking, witty, conformist (though I don't find many of my photographs witty, really).
 
First, I'd like to apologize for not exercising as much tact as you've extended to me. I've been trying harder not to be as rough, but at times I still get emotional over this stuff.

jordanstarr said:
I don't think it's so much close-minded or stereotypical as much as it is my first-hand experience from living in New York and opinion. NYC (Manhattan specifically) hands you street photography on a silver-platter and I found (opinion again) that you either have to work way harder to find something un-touched or you become complacent with ordinary images that really say nothing about anything and just have people in it -no emotion, no thought, nothing deeper than "just being there".
Click to expand...

I do understand. I guess I just got a bit offended that a certain group of people cannot be interesting. I do get what you are saying though and we all struggle with it in NYC. I guess it is why 75% of my photos aren't of people these days.

Trust me, check out my site and you'll see plenty of shots in Manhattan because I did find some things that interested me. But 99% of the people are shopping or doing touristy things, which frankly is boring to me and says very little other than the fact that people like to shop and look up at buildings. I imagine at least part of you feels the same way, judging by the locations you shoot on your flickr account.
Click to expand...

In all fairness I do feel that way at times, but try to make do. Mostly, I have come to terms with the fact that I'm not a street photographer in the decisive moment sense of the term. I just photograph whatever I think will make an interesting photo in my opinion and don't care if it's street or not (though at times I try the decisive moment thing). I have looked at your site and really enjoyed it.

You obviously can do street photography everywhere and find stuff to shoot everywhere (I live in a town of 1500 and I still find stuff to shoot), but New York City is so flooded with it that it's no longer really interesting. It's been done, it's been said.
Click to expand...

But times change, things change and if you worry about what's already been done, you end up making a huge list of what not to photograph instead of just enjoying yourself. As I've gotten older, I have come to terms that I'm derivative and that what I do has been done before. I've chosen just to enjoy it. If something comes out of it eventually, then even better. The only way to find your own voice /style is to go out there and do it. The history of photography is full of great photographers copying from each other. Check out the book "the ongoing moment" by Geoff Dyer which ties together photographers and their preoccupations with certain subjects.

I believe art in street photography is about pushing the boundaries, finding new things to shoot, photographing things that reflect something spectacular about the human condition.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with that, but as you've conceded, it's not that easy. Most of us won't be that lucky to be groundbreaking. It doesn't mean you cannot make something of worth. The great thing about photography is nothing is ever the same since time changes everything. Also, time changes how we perceive photos that have been taken. Context changes our perception of how images are read.

Unfortunately, I think street photography is dying in this regard because it got just too damn easy. Where is the challenge? What are you trying to capture if not for a decisive moment? Why not witty or at least intelligent and thought-provoking? Any idiot can walk through a crowd blindly shooting everything. If conforming is the opposite of this, I'll gladly call myself a decisive-moment seeking, witty, conformist (though I don't find many of my photographs witty, really).
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with the decisive moment at all. I enjoy looking at that type of work a lot. However, it is not the only way to photograph. That was my point. I guess I feel street still life is still street photography. Posed portraits made on the street is still street to me. Many don't share that opinion and that's ok. We can't all agree on everything. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top