David Rathbone
@david_rathbone_photo10 Aug
Is street photography becoming to Broad a church
Something I’ve been thinking about lately, has street photography become so broad that the term is starting to lose its focus or meaning? If someone tells me they’re a portrait photographer, I have a pretty good idea of what they do. But if someone tells me they’re a street photographer, I’m not really sure what that means anymore. The range of photography that now sits under the street photography umbrella is enormous. We now seem to put a lot of different approaches under that umbrella, candid moments, street portraits, silhouettes, architecture, urban landscapes, abstract/graphic images, found still lifes, posed portraits and even some forms of documentary I’m certainly not saying these aren’t street photography, or that I don’t enjoy them. Quite the opposite , I love seeing the variety of work that gets posted But I sometimes wonder whether, by encompassing so many different styles, we lose sight of what makes street photography distinctive. For me, the essence of street photography is the unexpected, candid moments, coincidences, gestures, relationships between strangers, humour, tension and those fleeting moments that you couldn’t have planned or staged. There’s often an element of ambiguity too, you see something happening, but you’re not necessarily given the whole story. That unpredictability is what attracts me to street photography. So where do you draw the line Is a beautifully composed silhouette on the street street photography? What about a carefully arranged street portrait? An architectural image with no people? A found still life? Or is street photography now simply an umbrella term for photographing life in public spaces? Interested to hear what others think. Where, if anywhere, would you draw the boundary?
I think upredictability is what draws a lot of us to it and as someone else has said "quiet humor" when they saw a photo of mine.
But in reality that can be hard to achieve every time we go out and about, so an urban landscape with some graffiti will make do!
Absolutely, I agree. The unpredictability and those little moments of quiet humour are probably what draw me to street photography too. But the reality is we’re not going to find a great candid moment every time we go out if only it were that easy! Sometimes the urban landscape, a bit of graffiti or an interesting bit of light has to do. I suppose that’s where the debate gets interesting, are those images still street photography, or simply photography taken in the street?
“ Or is street photography now simply an umbrella term for photographing life in public spaces?”
That’s about it…. Which is fine. It gets us out walking, observing our surroundings, challenging our minds in ways uncommon for most daily lives. In my opinion there’s no higher calling for photography than that.
Within my lifetime, mid-20th century, “street photographer” referred to someone who took photo portraits in touristy urban spots for a fee. Actually, it still does. During the past year or so I’ve observed several young people taking street photos with some kind of large-format-looking camera that puts the image into a newspaper page. Strange but popular.
I think that’s a really good point. Perhaps the fact that “street photography” has meant quite different things at different times is itself a reason not to get too hung up on defining it.
And I completely agree that the best thing about it is that it gets us out walking, observing and looking at the world differently. Whatever label we put on it, that has to be a good thing.
I suppose my question is more about whether the term is still useful as a description of a particular approach. If almost anything photographed in a public space can now be called street photography, does “street photographer” actually tell us much about what someone does?
Interesting thoughts but I agree with David - 'don't get too hung up on defining it'. We all probably have our own sub-niche of the genre that we particularly enjoy. I just focus on that and kind of pass the other stuff by
Yes, I think that’s probably the sensible approach. Perhaps I’m guilty of getting a little too hung up on the definition!
Totally agree. personally I'm not someone who is looking to have a defined style, maybe that helps. It's how the mood takes me. Periods of candid people shots, patches of light, reflections all up for grabs I don't want to fall into taking the same stuff over and over. For me its all about the image, its the random nature of the street not really bothered what title anyone puts on it.
I've viewed street photography as an umbrella term for quite some time, but I do think we lack subgenre name. Like taking portraits in a studio is very different from asking a random stranger for a portrait, eg a street portrait, just like taking a still life you've arranged in a studio is very different from a still life scene you stumbled upon. I've tried making 'streetscapes' a thing, that is landscape/cityscape photos that still have a candid human elements as part of the composition. James Popsy is a good example of this
Maybe the problem isn’t that street photography is too broad, but that we haven’t developed a good enough vocabulary to describe all the different approaches within it.
At the end of the day, it’s all just photography. And we’re all just photographers. Photography itself is a broad church and the “street” label is just another attempt to try and define a bit of it. Personally I’m not sure it really matters. Obviously your mileage may vary…
Yes, I think that’s fair. At the end of the day it is all just photography, and perhaps we shouldn’t take the labels too seriously. I suppose my original thought was more about whether the “street” label is still useful if it covers such a wide range of approaches, and we can all find our own little corner within it. As you say, it probably doesn’t really matter, which is very true
Hi David.
The broader the church, the wider the congregation, with more diverse images as a result.
Cheers.
I agree. The broader the church, the more diverse the photography, I’m probably less interested in exactly what genre a photograph sits in and more interested in whether it’s good photography does it catch my eye, make me think, make me smile or leave me wondering about the story behind it? The label is secondary really. It’s the photograph that matters.
Totally agree David. Street photography is for me images which show everyday life in public spaces which includes candid, unposed moments, predominantly showing people who do not know they are on camera. Architecture, shadows, lighting can be a central theme or backdrop. Photos solely of buildings, objects or consenting people portraits are in my opinion a different genre. I'm glad you've raised this issue.
Thanks, I think we’re pretty much on the same page. For me, it’s the candid, unplanned element and the interaction between people and their surroundings that really gives street photography its character.
I love all types of photography, so this isn’t about saying that buildings, objects or posed portraits don’t belong in photography. It’s more that I feel the term “street photographer” has become so generic that it’s lost some of its punch and meaning. If someone tells me they’re a portrait photographer, a landscape photographer or a wildlife photographer, I have a fairly clear idea of what they do. “Street photographer” doesn’t necessarily tell me very much anymore.
I actually think a tighter meaning could strengthen the genre and make it more appealing, rather than exclude people from it. It would give street photography a stronger identity and make it easier to understand what makes it distinctive.
Look at any creative outlet. All genres have sub genres. Rock music is a wide category. Comedy too. For me, as mentioned, it gets you out into an urban environment and paying attention. It’s about observing life as it happens. How we as photographers choose to represent that is where the creative part comes into play.
And I think the broad church as you describe it is photographers pushing against any traditional boundaries