Googorama -- a critique of street photography?

Banality is a perfectly respectable subject for art.

But Street photography does not have to deal with that, so your suspicions are in error.

I agree with Jacob on banality as a subject.

I completely disagree that equipment has anything to do with what photos are showing. It's been at least five years since I saw a street fight in San Francisco. I haven't seen any major arguments on the street. The "bad" areas that were interesting have been homogenized into bland modern landscapes with anything other than walking moved into the interiors. I used to feel an edge that gave me a creative burn while walking certain neighborhoods in big cities, but not I just feel placid. This is why I have increasingly moved into shooting indoors.

<< ... It's been at least five years since I saw a street fight in San Francisco. I haven't seen any major arguments on the street. ... >>

This is because all Bay Area residents are in basic agreement ... on everything. Can't move there unless you agree. :-)

But in seriousness, I don't think that if one finds the photos dull, the cameras are to blame.

This much I'll say: with more and more people out photographing and "publishing" (on photo sites, facebook and similar places, and via email, etc.) there are far more photos out there -- more dull ones, but lots of good ones, too. So the challenge is to find the photos that interest you.

I can't say I agree with much of what is being suggested here. Google Street View is not photography - it is documentation. It's a set of cameras mounted on top of a truck driving down the street capturing everything it sees. There is no thought involved, no consideration for composition, and no ambition for artistic quality of attempt to make a statement. I find it strange that it is being considered as 'photography'. As a comparison, is a dictionary a form of literature? Should it be compared to great novels? Should it reflect banality upon genuine attempts at literature? Give me a break.

When did someone say there has to be thought, consideration, or ambition for photography? I've never seen any definition that says that. A lot of street photography is idle snapping while hanging around, it's the editing that usually makes it work.

Banality is a perfectly respectable subject for art.

Jacob, that is indeed correct. But I was not saying that street photography is becoming banal because its subject is Banal. I was saying that -- I suspect -- street photography is becoming banal because it became incredibly more pervasive than it once was -- *not* because it is "showing Banal". It think this is similar to the advent of 35mm film, when snapshot photography became incredibly more pervasive, and -- possibly, just possibly -- pushed back the acceptance of photography as an art form.

Again, please do not misunderstand me by saying that I claim that everyday snapshots cannot be art (or that snapshot aesthetic cannot be used to make art). That's exactly what Joachim Schmid or Wolfgang Tillmans are doing, and I do not say it is not possible. My claim is that the aesthetic that relies on photographer "being there" (which is commonly found in street photography) is becoming more banal, because cameras are now everywhere.

I completely disagree that equipment has anything to do with what photos are showing.

Jeff, that is true of course as long as you -- the artist -- are free to choose any equipment you like. But technology is a part of our everyday life and it unavoidably influences it. Because everyday life is a subject of your photographs, it turns out that technology also influences your decisions of what to shoot and when, no matter what you're shooting with.

Google Street View is not photography - it is documentation... There is no thought involved

Mike, did you look at at the link I posted? Here it is again. True, there is no thought Google's lens, but this photographer, using careful cropping and "magpie-like attitude" (in a good sense) has put together a better portfolio than I see among many street photographers.

Google Street View is not photography - it is documentation... There is no thought involved

Mike, did you look at at the link I posted? Here it is again. True, there is no thought behind Google's lens, but this photographer, using careful cropping and "magpie-like attitude" (in a good sense) has put together a better portfolio than I see among many street photographers.

Dammit, I forgot how to post HTML.