why is street photography so hated?

back alley

back alley

IMAGES
Local time
10:44 AM
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
41,286
i know we all can't be masters at it but i see pics of cats and flowers and kids that get positive comments...calendar pics at best...
 
FrankS said:
Billions of McBurgers sold. Doesn't mean it's good food.
Click to expand...

But they're aren't billions of good photographs in any labeled area. They are rare indeed.

I think it was Mary Ellen Mark that said street photography is one of the only areas that is purely photographic because it is an area that really does what photography as an art form can only do. And to get good at it, it takes a very highly developed instinct. Many photographers that never look deeper than whats on tje surface or are looking for immediate gratification and never see whats in better street work so i some cases better work is shooting over their heads.
 
Hated? I've seen zero evidence to prove it.


And in general people aren't interested in something they see everyday.
Street photography is not in the range of interest of general public, which is facebooking and tweeting something more common as OP mentioned.
Also street photography replaced for easy to digest mobile phone amateur videos of something funny happening on the street. Plenty of street video shared.
 
photomoof said:
What's not to understand?

90% of so called street seems like life situation at best, or, at worst, fashion reporting. While it is historically very interesting, and all humans like to know how others act and dress in public, for me it's not that interesting until it ages a bit.

Meaning -- I am glad some photographers take photos of strangers on the street, but I personally don't anymore.

Having said that, sure I look at street photos all the time, but I like deeper investigation of people's lives.
Click to expand...

You sure get that from good bodies of street work and if you are lucky you also get to see a bit of the creator to. Thats when it is really good.

How many new photographers look deeper than the surface. Thats why puppies, flowers and sunsets are everywhere on the web. They are very easy to understand. Nothing is wrong with that and fill calendars and camera clubs everywhere. People are enjoying it and thats OK.

Most good street work has layers and those viewing need some visual language skills. To understand some of it for those that aren't fluent would be like taking some that just learned to read understanding the work of James Joyce. They probably wont get it. Or a someone that is just getting into music understanding Coltranes, Love Supreme.
 
History is always the great decider.

One good thing about really good street work is if done right also documents the time and things in those times like the advertising, the social situations, the devices of the time and what people are doing in those times.

There are some things that are in the works that have stood the test of time and those are images that work on several levels and usually are ones that are not about immediate gratification.
 
Photographs of kittens and daffodils and cute kids are appreciated for their decorative qualities - and, even if poorly composed, people can relate to these "camera club" (as Sparrow described them in another thread) and often sentimental pictures.

But the typical street photograph as found on the web is poorly composed, often of dubious technical quality, and meaningless to the viewer. Worse, many are voyeuristic for no good reason (a worryingly large number of young women feature in "street photographs", for example - and I bet these weren't taken as social commentary!).

There's nothing wrong with street photography - if it's done well. But it rarely is... to be a good street photographer is a rare skill, and it's an especially difficult and demanding photographic genre to excel in. I don't do it because I know I'm rubbish at it!
 
I only speak for myself here. Not trying to explain the public opinion.
I don't categorically "hate" street photos, but 99.9% of what I see *on the internet* is to my eye trashy snapshooting. It seems to me that most internet posters who label themselves "street shooters" :
1) are shotgunning
2) have a very weak editing ethic
3) think that ANYTHING shot on the street is fascinating and worth showing the world
4) think that ANYTHING labeled "street" is categorically wonderful
5) think that one interesting element of an image makes up for the 95% of the image that is crap

Good / excellent street work is extremely hard to get right (I tried and gave up :p ). Most internet people take the shortcut of redefining what is good rather than working to actually get it right.

Sorry .... once I got started, it was hard to stop :D
 
There are also many who love street photography (just look at the meteoric rise in popularity of Vivian Maier).

But there are haters and I think they are in one of two camps:

1) The general population who enjoys photography (because who doesn't?) and has an overbearing opinion on the net.

These people mainly disdain street because of those photographers like Bruce Gilden and people who only photo the homeless.

2) the old crusty photographer with an opinion.

He or she disdains street because too many people have jumped on the bandwagon and Eric Kim. Those young whipper-snappers with their digital-doo-dads and all of that.

Other people like me take a different view. Sure many have jumped on the bandwagon. But I don't care, I still love going out and making photos.
 
I think many see street shooting as being the easy option. Just step into the street, point your camera at someone,anyone and shoot. I see plenty of shots that show people on the street just walking, sitting, standing, whatever but there is no real context to the shot. There has to be a little more to it than just point and shoot.
I consider much of my photography to be street but I do hope that at least some of it shows something more, humour, a feeling or an emotion.
Can't say I've seen any negativity against anybody's shots but I know I've seen some online that I don't rate very much.

Paul
 
daveleo said:
I only speak for myself here. Not trying to explain the public opinion.
I don't categorically "hate" street photos, but 99.9% of what I see *on the internet* is to my eye trashy snapshooting. It seems to me that most internet posters who label themselves "street shooters" :
1) are shotgunning
2) have a very weak editing ethic
3) think that ANYTHING shot on the street is fascinating and worth showing the world
4) think that ANYTHING labeled "street" is categorically wonderful
5) think that one interesting element of an image makes up for the 95% of the image that is crap

Good / excellent street work is extremely hard to get right (I tried and gave up :p ). Most internet people take the shortcut of redefining what is good rather than working to actually get it right.

Sorry .... once I got started, it was hard to stop :D
Click to expand...

Most people haven't developed an instinct because they are not yet fluent in the language. They see work from great street photographers but because they don't know what to look for and don't fully understand the language they don't see what is usually in better work so to them that great work just look like chaos. So they just shoot chaos. It can and usually does take years to become fluent. There are no easy roads or formulas and it usually starts with a real passion for art and photography and spending time with the words and works of those that had those developed instincts.

"What reinforces the content of a photograph is the sense of rhythm – the relationship between shapes and values." - Henri Cartier-Bresson

"To me, photography is the simultaneous recognition, in a fraction of a second, of the significance of an event, as well as of a precise organisation of forms which give that event its proper expression."-Henry Cartier-Bresson

"....content cannot be separated from form. By form, I mean the rigorous organisation of the interplay of surfaces, lines and values. It is in this organisation alone that our conceptions and emotions become concrete and communicable. In photography, visual organisation can stem only from a developed instinct." - Henri Cartier-Bresson
 
airfrogusmc said:
History is always the great decider.

One good thing about really good street work is if done right also documents the time and things in those times like the advertising, the social situations, the devices of the time and what people are doing in those times.

There are some things that are in the works that have stood the test of time and those are images that work on several levels and usually are ones that are not about immediate gratification.
Click to expand...

That's why I'm not overly keen on hearing the comment 'timeless' connected to a picture of mine. Unfortunately I'm around for a rather short time period somewhere between the early 1970s' and, if I'm lucky maybe, the early to mid 2060s' so why hide from the fact?

As to the original question, probably because its just so prevalent at the moment. It's easily accessible to anyone with a camera or phone who wants to give it a try, maybe its the new landscape (very much the way many people built up their knowledge and experience when I was growing up.) Difference being my God-awful landscapes from my early attempts weren't plastered over the shared space we know as the internet, thereby being unable to upset, annoy... or maybe even disgust anyone but my family.
 
Because it's so easy to make bad work in a mechanical way, a lot of people have taken it up so there's also a lot of hype around something which definition is elusive. Then there are groups who feel very passionately about their output and want to shape the definition to their ideas of it.

I suppose there is also the image that no one wants to be associated with of the street jerk senselessly shooting around.
 
daveleo said:
I only speak for myself here. Not trying to explain the public opinion.
I don't categorically "hate" street photos, but 99.9% of what I see *on the internet* is to my eye trashy snapshooting. It seems to me that most internet posters who label themselves "street shooters" :
1) are shotgunning
2) have a very weak editing ethic
3) think that ANYTHING shot on the street is fascinating and worth showing the world
4) think that ANYTHING labeled "street" is categorically wonderful
5) think that one interesting element of an image makes up for the 95% of the image that is crap

Good / excellent street work is extremely hard to get right (I tried and gave up :p ). Most internet people take the shortcut of redefining what is good rather than working to actually get it right.

Sorry .... once I got started, it was hard to stop :D
Click to expand...

:D:D:D

It doesn't hurt to vent ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top