Diane’s forlorn freaks,
Garry’s uneasy streets,
Lee’s hidden signs,
Robert’s lonely places,
for what it’s worth…
You can only photograph what’s there, I think we agree on that. Not what’s in your phantasy. Some photographers have photographed “scenes from their phantasies” that they had to construct before these could be photographed. And as a black and white film photographer I’m not even thinking of the “artistic” horrors of extreme photoshop manipulation… The constructing part – be it arranging people and things, or putting together things to suggest a non-existing reality – is in fact introducing another art form like performance or sculpture in its widest sense, then simply putting it on film. The photographer, in all his freedom [to quote William Klein: “anything goes”], nevertheless should realize this, so he isn’t fooled into believing such photography is the real “art photography”. The real “art” in photography is in my opinion in the elevation of the image from its purely representational “reality” level to a higher (non-anecdotal) symbolic function, which could be enigmatic or even of a metaphysical nature.
Looking at random street photography sites on the internet, it suddenly struck me that there is something of a tiny subcategory of pictures in which passers-by look very disturbed at the camera, and therefore at you, the onlooker. All of them seem irritated, or at least worried “what the hell is this for?” I don’t understand, are these uneasy pictures supposed to convey a deeper meaning (“look how worried people go through life”) or is the photographer merely showing us his “courage” (and in fact possible lack of respect and consideration for the other)? Personally I usually avoid these kind of looks, because I see no use for such images in the context of what I make, and I prefer not to upset people. Empathy and being able to read body language are essential. Shooting people no matter what I’m sure wasn’t what Garry Winogrand was thinking of when he said he “photographed things [read: people] to see what they would look like when photographed”. It’s proof of an unsettling egocentricity when the thing that interests you is to read the reaction on some stranger’s face to your brazenness. Apart from that, any filmist can take a whole film (for the digitalist: that’s 36 takes) in some 30 minutes in an average town center, if he dares photograph people at extremely short range in passing. But street photography is not for testing or proving courage, I hope.
It was on Dutch t.v., some artists had a great idea – their words – to get people out of their isolation. Those (old) people were given a digital camera and some instructions and then had to ask someone they did not know personally before, if they could take portraits of them. That way they would get into contact because “in order to make a good portrait you have to know a lot of personal details of your subject” (?? – O, really?). Also it seems odd to me that you need a camera as an excuse to start talking to someone. Hopefully this will not inspire people to start telling me their life stories when they encounter me on the streets with a camera.
“We are seeing a resurgence of black and white in documentary photojournalism now. [….] People are actually embracing black and white [photography] in a way that they haven’t for several years.”
MaryAnne Golon, World Press Photo Jury, 2009.
We have been mislead to believe that the important moments of our lives are only the highlights, the happy holidays, the birthday parties, another baby’s first steps in a sunny park. That’s what we’re supposed to be photographing. Others record the news of the day, the travels and landscapes, scenes to impress the world… Robert Frank showed us that we overlooked, all of the moments in-between, when nothing important seems to happen, which are nevertheless so meaningful since they make up the bulk of what we describe as “our days”. His melancholy imagery is like stuff from all of our gone dreams, vaguely remembered but loved. Nothing sad about that, it’s just the passing of things.
I came across a Dutch site called fotovisie.net announcing a contest for March 2009. Subject “street photography” – interesting maybe… Participants were asked to take photographs showing something “allowing the viewer to make up his own story about” [there’s the story-telling again!]. They also made some suggestions, which I will translate here, because they’re so revealing:
– people queuing at the subway or a building;
– old man on a bench reading a paper [an old favorite];
– someone feeding birds in a park;
– passers-by in a crowded street;
– loner on a bridge seen from afar [if that doesn’t do it!];
– child playing next to a parked car;
– animal feeding on the street;
– legs and bag on the stairs [seems a new favorite; very story-telling obviously];
– old car with new building in the background.
Where do people get this kind of inspiration? Looking at Photo Year Book 1937 or something? It’s 2009 for heaven’s sake, give us a taste of what’s going on. Don’t make a want list when you take your camera to the streets, show what’s there and open up to what you do not know already!
Why is it that we see so very few bad weather street shots? Does the sun always shine in your corner? It’s amazing what bad weather can add to your photography. Do go out sometime and take a safe camera. You don’t need an underwater or even an all-weather camera, my good old Nikon FM (mechanical) will do fine for me, for instance. See how people react to bad weather, don’t be satisfied by just photographing the weather itself. It can be really inspiring…
Street photography seems to be quite fashionable in some circles, judging from the heated debates about hipshooting, getting permission and using long lenses, that I occasionally find on the net. And when I look at some results of all these photographers who have overcome their fears, and proudly present their pictures, I see very little that was worth the trouble in the first place… I guess, with an urban mindset (whatever that is exactly) you can even do landscapes in street style (as the great Lee Friedlander proves), but otherwise the country boy/girl spirit will always show through in you images, most likely making them look like the day out in the big town that they probably are depicting. So the thing to ask yourself is: do I really want to confront all these people, what do I want to show… Not the pitiful homeless beggar again please. Or the living statue in front of that poster.
Just saw part 10 of the “The Road to Mecca” by Belgian t.v. documentary-maker Jan Leyers, in which he meets Saudi Arabian female (the first ever!) photographer Susan Baaghil, who asks to travel with the t.v. crew. We see her taking innocent shots of colorful windows in a street and a woman making ornaments on the market, who willingly poses: “shukran” . She has studied in the U.S.A., but prefers to adapt to certain rules at home. Her doubts about her own profession possibly being a sin according to her religion become clear when she tells that she checked with a scholar during her hadj to Mecca. The answer was that photography is permitted because you don’t create anything new, it is only a reflection. Of which we all take notice!…
In her office (entrance sign: “women only”) we saw that Susan Baaghil had taken the necessary precautions, all the large portraits of brides had their faces covered with business cards of the photographer! One funny aspect, when we saw her taking some more happy-go-lucky pictures of a family on the beach, she asked them to yell “Ali” instead of cheese.