Landscape photographers photograph landscapes, wedding photographers photograph weddings, and sports photographers photograph sports. Portrait photographers take portraits. Travel photographers document their travels. Nude, architectural and wildlife photographers point their cameras at nudes, architecture and wildlife. Fashion photographers photograph fashion. So what do street photographers photograph?
For the past several years, I’ve been publicly associated with the photographic genre known as “street photography” — an association I’ve grudgingly accepted, yet yearned to shed.
The majority of photographic disciplines are defined by subject matter. A few others, such as underwater photography and aerial photography, define themselves by the photographer’s location rather than by subject. Sometimes, as with macro photography or infrared photography, the discipline is defined by technique.
But street photography? As a subject, I can assure you I’ve taken very few photos of actual streets. As a location, I haven’t more than a handful of images shot while standing in the middle of the road. And I guarantee you that neither the streets, their pavement nor the vehicles that traverse them are in any way instrumental to my photographic technique.
Yet here I am: a “street photographer” in the eyes of many.
Street photography is perhaps the only genre that defines itself through existing photographs. Unlike all the other photographic disciplines — which are classified by subject matter, location or technique — street photography is evaluated by how closely the images mimic those of one or more photographic forefathers.
But which type of imagery should define the genre? The kinetic enthusiasm of William Klein? The uneasy naiveté of Garry Winogrand? The political undertones of Robert Frank? The visceral colors of Joel Meyerowitz? The ironic humor of Elliott Erwitt? The witty gamesmanship of Lee Friedlander? Should street photographers emulate Cartier-Bresson, who forbid the cropping of his photos? Or should they emulate Daido Moriyama, whose technique practically demands drastic cropping? Which stylistic governance is correct?
People who align themselves with the street photography genre actually argue about this stuff. They argue about such “rules” as where one must photograph; what one must photograph; whether or not the subject is allowed to notice the photographer; which lenses are acceptable; if the photo needs to tell a story; what type of story to tell; whether you’re required to look through the viewfinder when you shoot; whether or not you’re allowed to photograph the back of someone’s head; how close you must be to your subject; how closely your photo must conform to the golden ratio… the list contains as many entries as there are photos to define the genre.
Because I’m publicly associated with the “street photography” discipline, and since I’m occasionally asked to speak about street photography or to give workshops on the topic, it’s logical to conclude I might shed some light on the debate — thus helping photographers separate the real rules from the made-up rules.
So here’s my take: There are no real rules, because there is no such thing as “street photography.” It’s an artificial designation invented to satisfy people’s need to classify that which had been previously unclassifiable. “Street” photography is just a fancy name for “other” photography — photography that didn’t fit within the specific confines of any of the more particularized genres.
I’ve never met anyone who wants to be categorized as an “other” anything. Humans have an innate desire to belong. “Other” is an exclusionary term that implies you don’t belong to anything. “Street” makes you part of a club. But it also subjects you to a set of rules no less ridiculous than a club that requires you to wear a funny hat, learn a secret handshake, or greet each other by quacking, mooing, or braying like a donkey.
Throughout the years, a certain thematic “sameness” has permeated the “street” genre — the inevitable result of its own incestuous definition. I have tremendous admiration for the many photographers whose vision was once so unique that it required the designation of a genre to define it. These photographers pushed the envelope of what was considered acceptable, but I don’t believe this same envelope need confine us in the future. Because street photography is defined by images of the past, it has the adverse effect of limiting photographers in the future.
For this reason, I actually prefer to think of myself, plus all those inspirational photographers of “other” subjects, as observational photographers. There’s a lot less baggage accompanying this term.
Essentially, everyone has two choices when they pick up a camera. They can make a photo or they can find a photo. 95% of the time, I try to find my photos. But even in those rare instances when I do set out to make a photo, I leave plenty of room for serendipity — preferring to give chance the opportunity to exceed my preconceived expectations. Some might argue that this defines me as a “candid” photographer, but I think the word “candid” implies an intent to photograph people — and this isn’t necessarily the case. I’m going to point my camera at whatever interests me. Frequently that’s people. But sometimes it’s a building, or a sign, or an object, or a shadow. Sometimes it’s something orderly. Sometimes it’s something chaotic. Sometimes I don’t even know what it is. But it’s always something that I found interesting.
I have no rules and no manifestos. But, like any photographer, I do have my proclivities: I prefer to shoot in black & white; I like to be close to my subject; I’m fond of romance, and drawn to irony — particularly when it’s so subtle I’m not even certain it exists; I’m rarely concerned with focus, sharpness or fidelity; and, somewhat embarrassingly, I find myself sensually comforted by film grain. But these proclivities are not rules — I don’t rigidly adhere to them, and I certainly wouldn’t be so arrogant as to dictate that others must.
If asked to write down my guidelines as an “observational photographer,” I would tell you that “I sometimes take photos outdoors and sometimes indoors, usually using whatever light exists, unless I want to add some. I mostly handhold the camera but sometimes press it against a steady surface or, if necessary, affix it to a telescoping three-legged contraption. I’m ambivalent as to whether I shoot in the day or the night, on public property or on private property, on paved or unpaved surfaces — either natural or manmade, stationary or moving. I carry one or more cameras of either film or digital persuasion, along with one or more prime lenses of whatever focal length struck my fancy as I walked out the door. I point my cameras at either a knowing or unknowing subject that may or may not be of organic origin. I process my photos however I think they look best, print my favorites, and post them singularly or in groups for others to view.”
The great thing about being an observational photographer is that you’re not required to adopt a lot of silly rules and regulations. You are absolutely free to establish your own photographic parameters and follow your own vision. Unlike the suffocating stipulations that the photo beau monde (aka “internet forums”) heap upon anyone who dons the “street” label, there’s nothing restrictive about being an observational photographer. If you see it and you like it, then you shoot it — however best you see fit. And isn’t that why you chose to become a photographer in the first place?
ABOUT THESE PHOTOS: “Street” was actually taken in the middle of the street — a rare occurrence for me, in spite of being identified with the so-called “street” genre. It was shot with a Leica M9. I’d tell you which lens I used, but there’s no indication in the EXIF data, though I suspect it’s one of my old screw-mount 50mm lenses. “Intimate 1” and “Intimate 2” indicate just how arbitrary the term “street photography” really is. They’re both similarly framed and convey a similar closeness between two people, yet not many viewers would consider “Intimate 2” to be a “street” photo. The first Intimate photo was shot with a Ricoh GXR using the 28mm (equivalent) f2.5 A12 module. The second Intimate photo was shot with a Pentax K5 using an old Pentax-M 50mm f1.4 SMC lens. “Something Orderly” and “Something Chaotic” unabashedly illustrate a point made in the body of the post, and both were shot with a Leica R4 and a 50mm f2 Summicron-R lens on Kentmere 100 film at ISO 100, developed in Diafine. “Hip Hop Hedge” definitely breaks one of the so-called “rules” of street photography — “thou shalt not photograph people from behind.” C’est La Vie. Shot with a Leica M9 and a 21mm f/2.8 Elmarit-M lens.
NOTE: I’ll be co-hosting a Street Photography workshop for the Leica Akademie in Vancouver Canada on July 20-21, 2013. Anyone wishing to see how I deftly dance and weave and worm may way around the obvious irony is encouraged to sign up for the workshop!
If you find these photos enjoyable or the articles beneficial, please consider making a DONATION to this site’s continuing evolution. As you’ve likely realized, ULTRAsomething is not an aggregator site — serious time and effort go into developing the original content contained within these virtual walls.
no comment
I have always called myself an observational photographer, usually away from streets.
When on holiday like now I find myself becoming a street photographer, I am fascinated by the stupidity of road menders and street sign makers. Surely I qualify as a temporary street photographer…
Unfortunately, in our world, for things to exist they need to be named: it’s maybe a matter of putting things or people in categories or boxes to classify them. I believe it’s a more fundamental need than a pure confort for the weak human beings we all are, it’s even a philosophical fact (if I dare say…). But I know that you know…
And by the way, you have put yourself in quite a large box: I guess almost every photographer on earth is an “observational photographer”, at least when he doesn’t work on order. Then the big question is what you observe and what the others observe, how you observe and how the others do…
Would I be wrong if I would suggest that you observe situations or “conjunctions”? That you are more a fast shooter than a contemplative?
Sorry to try to squeeze your box!!
Thank you again for your clever articles
Paul: I’m not sure whether your comment was purposely enigmatic, or if you actually left the comment field blank, and my blogging software simply added the words, “no comment.” I prefer to think it’s the former but, if it’s the latter, feel free to try again.
Caroline: Of course you’re free to define yourself via any genre you choose. Holidays are perfect for this: I personally become a “lame” photographer every time I go on vacation — not a label most photographers aspire to, but definitely descriptive of my Holiday output. Just be aware that the new breed of internet “street photographers” probably won’t take too kindly to your wink and a nod toward literal interpretation. Trust me.
Christophe: Thanks for your thoughtful comment. “Conjunction” photographer — I like that. Thanks. I might just have to borrow it in the future. While I appreciate your efforts to subdivide the giant “observational” box, I think my point (which I somehow always fail to make in these articles) is that each and every one of us should be our OWN genre, because each of us has our own unique way of viewing and interpreting the world. So, as you can see, I actually have squeezed the box — so tightly that I’m suggesting every photographer on earth is his or her own genre. It’s probably going to confound the search engines, but such is the price of ‘progress’…
It’s much clearer now, thanks.
“Conjunction” photographer: I’m happy if it helps and it’s copyright free!
EGOR, Based upon what I have been thinking about photography, which has been influenced by many of your observations, I switched to calling myself an “observational documentarian” who carries a camera. I not only wanted to drop the word street, but also photographer. This seems to better suit my schizophrenic approach to making images. Perhaps it fits yours as well. In any case, I completely support your ideas about self-labeling.
Personally, I use the term “ambient photography” to describe this sort of photography. Of course, doing so means I then have to answer the “what’s that?” question.
“I’m drawn to irony — particularly when it’s so subtle I’m not even certain it exists;”
Yep, no irony in hip hop hedge. Nice one, made me smile.
Is “conjunctions” the new Juxtaposition?
I lean towards “observational”; just happen to observe conjunctions.
But my take away, from another well crafted article is
“If you see it and you like it, then you shoot it”
Jason
England
Very thought-provoking article. Totally agree that the street photographer label is too narrow, simplistic, and even perhaps inaccurate. However, I’m not sure that the word “observational,” while different, really captures what you (and many of us) accomplish with your photography. The word is simply not descriptive enough. Think about it. You are recording social history, human behavior, and the character of modern, urban communities. What better record exist of our moment in history than the one we are all creating with our cameras? That we wander the streets to create that record is no accident. Where else would we find that reality to record? So, with all this in mind, I would think that the phrase “documentary photographer” is perhaps a bit more fitting. Of course, this implies a broader interpretation of the phrase than what is commonly associated with it, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. After all, as photographers, we don’t just observe, we document. The former is a passive verb; the latter an active one.
Thanks to everyone who continues to comment!
Don: I tried dropping the “p-word” for a while, but it just seemed to confuse people who wanted to know what I did. Perhaps if I’d have come up with something other than “visual raconteur” I might have succeeded. Alas, my newly self-appointed job description elicited nothing but blank stares, so I’m back to grudgingly calling myself a ‘photographer,’ meaning everyone once again assumes I spend my weekends attending wedding ceremonies…
Pepeye: I really like your “ambient photography” term — I think it suits this style of photography even better than “observational.” Frankly, some of my best photos are ‘happy accidents,’ meaning I didn’t actually “observe” what I photographed when I photographed it. “Ambient” most definitely covers this condition… 😉
Jason: There’s a subtle difference: When shooting digitally, I photograph “juxtapositions,” but when I shoot film I’m most definitely shooting “conjunctions…” or is it the other way around?
Eric: Excellent points, though I do tend to shy away from the “documentary” term myself. I think the idea of “documentary” photography comes pre-loaded with implications and perceived meanings: not nearly as many as “street,” but enough to make me leery. Of course, it might just be *me* that’s putting extra baggage on the “documentary” term, but I’ve always assumed a documentary photographer has a certain responsibility to photograph something with as little ‘bias’ and as much ‘coverage’ as possible. I tend to think of documentary work as “explanatory,” whereas I prefer to take photos that befuddle and possibly obfuscate… 😉
Another much enjoyed, thought provoking article.
i always look forward to your next slice of insight.
well done and keep cooking cooky.
Would it be absurd to call this SITUATIONAL photography?
One of the nice things reading the archive backwards is that I now see a little more of the telemetry between arebureboke and fractured.
Reminds me of Momento. Perhaps I should chop up the order a little.
Perhaps you could call your style “existential” photography? Of course that is still a label, and as such, is in contradiction to the very spirit of existentialism.
Rather than calling myself a “photographer”, which is again labelling myself and putting myself in a box with a preconcieved identity, I would rather just say, “I sometimes take photos”. Then it becomes about something that I do, rather than something that I am.
I like your approach to photography. When I pick up a camera and take it outside I tend to just shoot intuitively. I’ve gotten a lot of interesting and striking images that way. I understand about technicalities, but I rarely worry about them.
I like this aesthetic idea of Are-Bure-Boke. Of course that is still an attempt to draw a fence around something, that is fundamentally unfenceable.
So yes, I sometimes take photos. That’s really all that is worth saying.