[Leica] GeeBee's 'Street' photography

[firkin at ncable.net.au (Alastair Firkin)]

I know its very easy to be critical of others when they make blanket 
statements, but "street photography' does NOT "have" to contain 
anything at all really. Teachers and "academys" tend to insist on 
making classifications, and then the real "artists" often make fools of 
them. To insist that to be a landscape a photograph must contain a tree 
would be stupid. To explain why some street photographers are better 
than others using terms like "irony, humour and pathos" is fine, but 
not every image, or even great image taken as "street photography"  
need contain one of these 3 elements. How about pure horror? Having 
said that -- I just hate blanket statements --, I have to agree in 
general with the sentiments expressed. No form of art/craft is easy 
when it is performed at the highest level.

Cheers
On 27/02/2005, at 5:00 AM, B. D. Colen wrote:

> :-)
> First off, I'd suggest that anyone wanting to do, appreciate, or 
> discuss
> "street photography" take a look for minimal starters at the work of
> Winnogrand.
>
> For whatever its worth, street photography must contain either irony,
> humor, or some degree of pathos. It has to say, or really show 
> something
> about the human condition. It can't just say 'some people are fat;' 'a
> girl talks on a cell phone.'

Alastair