Rafael
11-20-2007, 12:45
After spending many days couped up in the house working at the computer, I finally found a couple of hours today to head out onto the streets to take some photographs. I hadn't made it two blocks when I ran into two guys I know but have never really liked all that much. Still, I felt obligated to stop and say hello. One of the guys looked at the camera hanging around my neck and asked, "so, just snappin' some pics?" I responded with a nod and quickly found an excuse to move on. But his question got me thinking. In fact, I spent most of the next couple of hours thinking about what, exactly, I was doing out there on the street with my camera. I concluded that I was, in fact, doing a whole lot more than "snappin' pics."
Now I know that different people hold competing conceptions of street photography. The narrowest definitions of the term seem to limit it to the taking of un-posed black and white photographs of people, usually strangers, on the street. Others include under the rubric of street photography any photographs that were taken in an urban setting. I have come to understand that I fall into the second category and that I define street photography not by gear or film or subject matter but by the possibilities that it holds for the communication of emotions and ideas through visiual imagery.
What sets street photography apart from the other types of photography that I do is that, unlike all of the others, my street photography is guided exclusively by what I want to communicate. Whenever I shoot an event or a portrait or a dog sport, the subject matter is dictated to me. Even when I shoot a family gathering, the subject matter is already there. Sure, whenever I am taking photographs I am presenting the subject in my own way. But the degree to which I am expressing myself through these types of photographs pales in comparison to the personal expression that is in (or that I strive for in) my street photography.
It is often said or written that photography is the art form for those who have little or no talent for painting or drawing. I disagree wholeheartedly. Through photography we can do something that is impossible for a painter or a sketcher: we can capture a moment in time that, while unique, can evoke or communicate human emotions that are universal. Certainly a realist artist can achieve a similar result. But he or she always has the option to exclude or include aspects of the scene that he or she is reproducing. And, no matter how good he or she is, the realist artist is always drawing or painting the scene over time. So, discounting photo manipulation for the time being, we can say that only the photographer communicates by composing images exclusively from the subject matter of his or her environment as it is at any given moment.
Now, I know that some street photographers think of their enterprise as one of simply following their nose in order to find whatever is presented to them on the streets. I don't think that this is a full description of street photography, at least not in the way that I have come to understand it. I agree that street photography necessarily entails wandering in search of photographs. But what are you looking for as you wander? Personally, I am looking for compositions that will communicate whatever it is that I have in my mind. Sometimes it's an emotion. Sometimes I have an idea in mind. But I am never wandering aimlessly.
If you accept or share my understanding of street photography, I believe that you are required to relinquish any firm rules about its definition. It can't be limited to black and white images, or to un-posed photographs, or to photographs of people, or to rf photography. It can only be limited by the vision of the photograher. Film, camera, and subject choices should be determined exclusively by the emotion or the idea that the photographer seeks to communicate.
Documentary photographers often describe their role as that of the medium through which stories are told. Of course, the personal vision and artistry of the photographer come through in his or her photographs. But, the primary objective is the telling of the story. Street photography, as I understand it, is the opposite of documentary photography. The street photographer searches out photographs that will communicate his or her own vision. The ideas or emotions that the photographer seeks to communicate are primary. The story, if indeed there is one, is told in order to communicate them.
So, to come back to the original question, the answer is no. I was not simply snappin' some pics. However good or bad the results of my outing turn out to be, the enterprise was far grander than simply snappin' some pics.
Now I know that different people hold competing conceptions of street photography. The narrowest definitions of the term seem to limit it to the taking of un-posed black and white photographs of people, usually strangers, on the street. Others include under the rubric of street photography any photographs that were taken in an urban setting. I have come to understand that I fall into the second category and that I define street photography not by gear or film or subject matter but by the possibilities that it holds for the communication of emotions and ideas through visiual imagery.
What sets street photography apart from the other types of photography that I do is that, unlike all of the others, my street photography is guided exclusively by what I want to communicate. Whenever I shoot an event or a portrait or a dog sport, the subject matter is dictated to me. Even when I shoot a family gathering, the subject matter is already there. Sure, whenever I am taking photographs I am presenting the subject in my own way. But the degree to which I am expressing myself through these types of photographs pales in comparison to the personal expression that is in (or that I strive for in) my street photography.
It is often said or written that photography is the art form for those who have little or no talent for painting or drawing. I disagree wholeheartedly. Through photography we can do something that is impossible for a painter or a sketcher: we can capture a moment in time that, while unique, can evoke or communicate human emotions that are universal. Certainly a realist artist can achieve a similar result. But he or she always has the option to exclude or include aspects of the scene that he or she is reproducing. And, no matter how good he or she is, the realist artist is always drawing or painting the scene over time. So, discounting photo manipulation for the time being, we can say that only the photographer communicates by composing images exclusively from the subject matter of his or her environment as it is at any given moment.
Now, I know that some street photographers think of their enterprise as one of simply following their nose in order to find whatever is presented to them on the streets. I don't think that this is a full description of street photography, at least not in the way that I have come to understand it. I agree that street photography necessarily entails wandering in search of photographs. But what are you looking for as you wander? Personally, I am looking for compositions that will communicate whatever it is that I have in my mind. Sometimes it's an emotion. Sometimes I have an idea in mind. But I am never wandering aimlessly.
If you accept or share my understanding of street photography, I believe that you are required to relinquish any firm rules about its definition. It can't be limited to black and white images, or to un-posed photographs, or to photographs of people, or to rf photography. It can only be limited by the vision of the photograher. Film, camera, and subject choices should be determined exclusively by the emotion or the idea that the photographer seeks to communicate.
Documentary photographers often describe their role as that of the medium through which stories are told. Of course, the personal vision and artistry of the photographer come through in his or her photographs. But, the primary objective is the telling of the story. Street photography, as I understand it, is the opposite of documentary photography. The street photographer searches out photographs that will communicate his or her own vision. The ideas or emotions that the photographer seeks to communicate are primary. The story, if indeed there is one, is told in order to communicate them.
So, to come back to the original question, the answer is no. I was not simply snappin' some pics. However good or bad the results of my outing turn out to be, the enterprise was far grander than simply snappin' some pics.