>>> Street Photography eXchange #84 <<<

Started 6 months ago | Discussions thread
LincolnB
Senior MemberPosts: 3,662Gear list
Like?
Re: Let's clarify
In reply to oneANT, 6 months ago

oneANT wrote:

HappyVan wrote:

TroiD wrote:

Whether he/she is actively 'infusing his visions and intentions', or less actively trying simply to record what's there in front of him without becoming part of the picture, both approaches are legitimate. When the mind behind the camera touches the mind of the viewer, you may say you've approached something artistic. Or at least... interesting.

Let's clarify. Most people use recording devices solely for purposes of documentation. For viewers who share the same cultural values, a common motif (mountain, sunset, baby, dog) will evoke a predictable emotional response.

On the other hand, an artistic production is somewhat different. IMHO, the artist interprets and transforms. Art occurs when the artist infuses something unique of himself.

For example, there is this picture of a kiss. It tells you nothing about the photographer other than he comes from the western tradition. In other societies, a public kiss is frowned on.

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/7625069483/photos/2825036/_dsc0912cc

BY comparison, OneAnt and Paulmorgan have displayed transformed images that they think are important (presumably to themselves).

transformed ...??? its SOOC (straight out of camera) and straight out of my mind when I took it. The artist does not interpret and transform after doing what they intended. Luck is a wonderous thing in street but you still have to extract what is there. You haven't done this and nor do I see any of you in the photograph and this is what I look for above everything else.

You are exactly in the camp that you bagged.

The other thing you need to prove its art ...a portfolio (these from many) and except for b+w its still sooc.

Your message is your own imagination and none of it in the photograph ...only someone into detective stories could ever squeeze such a juice out of it but I think the photo has none and is certainly not artistic.

As a footnote, this other kind of street, this 'cause & effect' straight-shooting street, is as troiD says ...is a distinct style of its own and no less legitimate as a street photograph. Mine are on the artistic side and I know I push the definition which makes then no more legitimate than any other style, so what you need to understand .....is street photography.

...and stop making up stuff after you snap a pic.

Yep.

If HappyVan has a style, it's that he relies on the subject and the camera to do all the work. He puts little-to-nothing of himself into his photos. His contribution is almost entirely passive. Then he makes up some artsy-fartsy dialogue with himself to convince himself that he's done something meaningful.

Ant.

 LincolnB's gear list:LincolnB's gear list
Olympus PEN E-P1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G3 Fujifilm X-E1 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-42mm F3.5-5.6 II ASPH Mega OIS +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
smsNew
RedNew
(unknown member)
WowNew
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow