Street photography and fine arts, I need to find some spot in between.

From examples you showed here, I think the problems you faced are composition problems. Probably you need to learn how to make your photography composition better.

> I started trying street photography several months ago, after I feel tired of landscape or still life... But the more I look at it, the more I feel that it is not the kind of photography I want to do.

Too many photographers I know are like this. They first start out in photography because they like taking pretty pictures; then they realize that a "pretty picture" is not enough to bring them any serious recognition; and so they fall to the charm of the supposedly anti-aesthetic grittiness and artiness that street photography exudes (BTW, this "grittiness" forms an aesthetic of its own, thus contributing to the SP's downfall by not making it fundamentally different from pretty-picture photography).

After a while, they realize that SP is only a very marginal genre, with its own group of followers who are mostly middle-aged men who meet mostly on the internet, and who fall into the either the category of hobbyists or outsider artists, and that SP does not and will not give them a ticket to the mainstream art establishment they hoped it would.

Eugine, your biological clock is ticking, time is running out to create that masterpiece hidden within you! :-) At 24 you should have a body of work by now.

I think Eugene is on to something.

I'm actually 25. Some people can't do math...

And some have an obsessive-compulsive irrelevant picture posting disorder.

tick, tick, tick... :-)

"I'm actually 25. Some people can't do math..."

TICK, TICK, TICK! :-)

Is that a Geiger counter in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?

I prefer to take things easy...

Jia, I agree with Robert and Xiao. Compositionally it is too busy and the relation between the person and the bikes is unclear. There are also some tonality problems. But also I think you should give some thought why did you take this picture. Why do you want to have a person walking past the bikes? What does it tell the viewer?

Street photography is no different than anything else in life; you have a few original talents, and then there's a whole bunch of folks whoexcel at imitating those talented people. The secret is to have enough talent and soul to cut your own path. Ofcourse we all sometimes borrow someone else's machete to do so.

Xiao, > Probably you need to learn how to make your photography composition better. No doubt about that. But are you implying that I should take your class? :-)

Robert, > Keep it simple... I hope it is that simple.

Eugene, > then they realize that a "pretty picture" is not enough to bring them any serious recognition. ... that SP does not and will not give them a ticket to the mainstream art establishment they hoped it would

I am not trying to do arts for a living. But I think you are right. At first, mainstream photography (or at least my mainstream photography) start looking boring and too formularized. So I seek for fresh air in SP. But then I realized it is a completed type of visual art. Someone says HCB is one of the forefathers of the genre of SP. But seems to me his work is far different from today's SP. I guess I am just looking for something fresh yet aesthetic (in conventional sense).

Jia, visit Orville's site...

http://www.newyorkstreetphotography.com/Orville_Robertson_Web_Site/Home.html

> At first, mainstream photography (or at least my mainstream photography) start looking boring and too formularized. So I seek for fresh air in SP.

Two points. One, how are you, then, saying above you're not sure SP is the kind of photography you want to do? -- SP is as full of stale air as film noir. Two, a composition and an allusion to simple life with an exclusion of contemporary elements (what you see in many of HCB's photos) does not a good photo make. HCB is way overrated. If someone were to take HCB-like pictures today, he/she would be considered an amateur not worth looking at. Not because HCB has done this or that first, but simply because the pictures would not be saying much. What do, for example, any of HCB photos say to you? To me, they say very little except that HCB was one of those nostalgic people who dream of retiring in a cottage where milk is delivered every morning and who like to exclude telephone wires from their photos.

Robert -- do you really think a portfolio with "I sell prints for $ blah blah" and little cute Mac Pro buttons is worth visiting?

It looks like you're in San Francisco. If you want to focus, find an aspect of life there that interests you and explore with your camera.

"worth visiting?"

I think that it might be the kind of work that Jia was eluding to. You can't have it both ways Eugene, you now have a problem with someone selling street images that are beautiful in all respects?

And Eugene, when my son was your age he was helping program that little video game called Bioshock!

tick, tick, tick... :-)

"When my grandpa was your age, he wasn't trolling on the internet."

tick, tick, tick... :-)

> You can't have it both ways Eugene, you now have a problem with someone selling street images that are beautiful in all respects?

Doesn't matter. When an artist advertises prints for sale, that always lowers my opinion of him/her.

> when my son was your age he was helping program that little video game called Bioshock!

I'm currently programming an online CMS (content management system) for photographers and artists. A non-public preview.

>>> Robert -- do you really think a portfolio with "I sell prints for $ blah blah" and little cute Mac Pro buttons is worth visiting?

I just took a look. It's an outstanding portfolio and definitely worth visiting. So where's yours?

Eugene,

> One, how are you, then, saying above you're not sure SP is the kind of photography you want to do? -- SP is as full of stale air as film noir.

Well, i guess that's where it shows my naiveness in photography.

> Two, a composition and an allusion to simple life with an exclusion of contemporary elements (what you see in many of HCB's photos) does not a good photo make.

I have to disagree. There really isn't a single clear definition of good photo. You can argue the same from opposite side. Why can't a photo be considered good just because it is visually pleasing. Of course you can say, then why don't you just go shoot landscape. Well, the difference is that, in some of HCB's work, such visual harmony is captured in our daily environment. If we go to the other extreme, a journalism style photo that contains plenty contemporary social context, but not any aesthetic merit, is hardly a good photo either. It just happens to be at the right place at the right time. And that's why I can't appreciate some of HCB's work.

> Why can't a photo be considered good just because it is visually pleasing?

Because a photo is not a woman.

> So where's yours?

Right here. Now, can we please put this discussion, as well as the discussion around my age, to an end?

> Because a photo is not a woman.

And who said that. In spanish, we have "la fotographí¡¢. :-)

oops, "la fotografí¡¢.

maybe they'll re-name the intro on the S&D forum front page:

Feisty bunch of middle aged photographers wondering why 5000 images won't automatically give them a ticket to the mainstream art establishment.

Right on.

So, again Eugene, why do you think Orville's is not worth visiting? Looks superior to me, and worthy of viewing by anyone at any level. A ton of great and interesting work...

>>> ... wondering why 5000 images won't automatically give them a ticket to the mainstream art establishment.

Specifically, who's wondering???

i don't think anybody is wondering, Brad. just trying to lighten things up.

Hey Eric, glad to see you back...

cheers to you too, Brad. I wouldn't say "back" though. an old PN thread with auto updates came in the other day and the next thing I know..i'm back up to 20 a day :)

> So, again Eugene, why do you think Orville's is not worth visiting?

It's the cutesy Macintosh buttons that turn me off. And I'm a Mac user at that!

and remember Balaji? Geez, talk about putting stellar work up on a consistent basis. Someone said further up here that if HCB was shooting today, he'd be mediocre (or something to that effect. Especially around Balaji and some of the other regulars here), and I agree, always have done, never got the attraction myself.

Many talented photographers grace this forum.

Eugene, Orville has done all the things in the art world that you deem important, you really are one uninformed lad...

http://www.newyorkstreetphotography.com/Orville_Robertson_Web_Site/Resume.html

Orville has done all the things in the art world that you deem important, you really are one uninformed lad...

You'd think someone with that CV would refrain being a walking Apple ad with a bad taste at that.

Second, his only recent accomplishment (other than group shows, which are irrelevant in most gallerists' view) is a show in Hoboken Almanac Gallery, which is really not that great of a gallery judging from its website. Third, having images in a library/local photography museum collection really doesn't mean much.

Eugene, I have literally been using a Mac since before you were born. But I suppose you can still teach us all a few things about (fill in the blank).

Sorry if I ended up using the net in conjunction with my photography Eugene!

"Many talented photographers grace this forum."

indeed. Robert, not to fret mate, you're one of the "some of the other regulars here" in my books. It's a treat having your older scanned film material ("American Bank") posted here, and glimpsing into an age & era & environment I'm not familiar with.

great cv, Orville. I'm embarrassed i haven't ventured that far and seen it before.

Eugene, why don't you comment on his photos. Rather than buttons, and your opinions of his accomplishments. Your comments and criticism suggest an air superiority - unfortunately it's not in concert with what I see on your site.

You really are coming off as a very bitter person.

If you want, for a comparison, see an impressive CV, here is an example.

Eugene, why don't you comment on his photos.

Because you won't like what I'll say.

I still think Eugene's original post has a point.

All the "old" people here that were brave enough to take on the net at the precise moment in history that it first became possible, should be looked at as pioneers in a new way to exhibit their work! Remember print newspapers?

Before MY generation, no one did this kiddies! :-)

"I still think Eugene's original post has a point."

I can't argue with his beliefs or yours.

But I don't think it is fair to pile on Orville, he did not ask to be made an example. Plus he seems to be a genuinely pleasant and unassuming fellow.

Andy, if I spent a few hours around a boxing ring I could match your pics! :-)

It's not a belief, Robert, it is an observation which may or may not be factually correct. Orville may not fit this but that does not mean Eugene is wrong:

Too many photographers I know are like this. They first start out in photography because they like taking pretty pictures; then they realize that a "pretty picture" is not enough to bring them any serious recognition; and so they fall to the charm of the supposedly anti-aesthetic grittiness and artiness that street photography exudes (BTW, this "grittiness" forms an aesthetic of its own, thus contributing to the SP's downfall by not making it fundamentally different from pretty-picture photography). After a while, they realize that SP is only a very marginal genre, with its own group of followers who are mostly middle-aged men who meet mostly on the internet, and who fall into the either the category of hobbyists or outsider artists, and that SP does not and will not give them a ticket to the mainstream art establishment they hoped it would.

end ital

"All the "old" people here that were brave enough to take on the net at the precise moment in history that..."

(rolls eyes) and you walked 5 miles to school everyday...uphill...in the snow. :)

Eugene nearly always has a point. Then he keeps sharpening the pencil until he's down to a tiny nub ... and the whole thing breaks off. :-)

I'd be glad to make an example of Orville: He's my example of both an excellent street photographer and a friendly and helpful forumer. Know anywhere we can find another couple dozen like him ?

Group HUG!! :-)

"Eugene nearly always has a point"

I think his OCD statement was more accurate! :-)

Putting aside the ascribed motivations, Eugene's point has a certain validity. Street photography is often (not always but often enough) a closed loop with self-referencing photographers. Look at the Flickr street groups, even the curated ones adhere to a rigid formula. That's not to mention the aesthetic largely practiced on this forum.

"and you walked 5 miles to school everyday...uphill...in the snow"

with no boots, gloves or coat! :-)

Andy, I'm in agreement with part of Eugene's point as well. Part of it describes my own (to date quite short) journey in photography.

But I part company where he gets to the "serious recognition" clause, and I'm out of the building long before he gets to the part about not getting "a ticket to the mainstream art establishment."

Serious recognition ? In the arts ? Me ? Ha ! I went through life unable to make anything that didn't end up an ashtray (no matter the assignment), nor draw anything much beyond a stick figure.

"Look at the Flickr street groups,"

There are people there with THOUSANDS of pics in their portfolio's!

i really enjoy flickr. i was worried (on a few levels) when yahoo was about to be bought by MS....

Funny that Eugene mentioned Wolfgang Tillmans. Recently I saw an exhibit of his. It was a large exhibit at a big museum. And there's no question Tillmans has enjoyed quite a bit of artistic acclaim. He's attracted a following.

The only problem I had is that with darn few exceptions, I just didn't like the photographs. And his 'mixed media' work didn't do it for me either. Many people disagree. I have no problem with that.

> Serious recognition ? In the arts ? Me ? Ha !

Not you, Michael, but I know too many people who think they can make art just by buying and using a DSLR.

You sure talk a lot of smack for somebody who shows so little..

Street Photographers get no respect...

http://www.photogs.com/bwworld/norespect.html

Wow, look at what these real artists did to this thread in 3 hours.

Thank those who have given constructive advices. Let's stop right here, not to drift any further.

"...but I know too many people who think they can make art just by buying and using a DSLR."

If this is chief among your worries, Eugene, I suggest to you that you are blessed.

Lilo Raymond said photography gets harder after the first five years.

Robert, interesting link, although it does make me have better idea of where to go next. :-)

sorry, I meant to say "it does NOT".

I like Eugene but I fear what he'll sound like when he actually becomes an grumpy old know it all. I hope he's not as condescending toward his partner/friends/kids as he is toward his peer online photogs. I recommend happy meals (not the Ronald McDonald kind) in Laos... and a week roaming Bangkok... ...slow train south. enjoy beauty and not worry about being recognized or what art is or isn't...

BTW RJ's 06:26 PM very very nice!

Ray said: You sure talk a lot of smack for somebody who shows so little..

What, you expect me to kiss arse around here?

Or the Tibetan hinterland even, Leslie.
Jia, check out this guy for some inspiration that is relevant.

Thx, I prefer hanging out in the backyard though.

i off.

more familiar faces. Les, Jamie, hows it going guys? got a light?

Or in a hipster hell.

Or in cheap hotels.

>>>Thx, I prefer hanging out in the backyard though.<<<

Exactly what a grumpy old man would say. Perhaps I'm wrong. Maybe it's just the NE weather or is it the 18-1 record:))))

Hi Eric~ long time no see, where have you been hanging?

You can also find me in cheap family-owned diners or playing pool.

I'm also play an integral part in the composition of some of Roy Lichtenstein's pieces around Philly.

Still Life with Goldfish Bowl

Bitchy as it may sound, I'm inclined to agree with this:

"...SP is only a very marginal genre, with its own group of followers who are mostly middle-aged men who meet mostly on the internet, and who fall into the either the category of hobbyists or outsider artists..."

Though at present I seem to have misplaced my SP demographics chart.

>And some have an obsessive-compulsive irrelevant picture posting disorder.

Stop messing around with the 600 Eugene. Get the SX70 film or buy a LAND and shoot the peel off type films ala Warhol since you like him so much...

Stop messing around with the 600 Eugene. Get the SX70 film or buy a LAND and shoot the peel off type films ala Warhol since you like him so much...

All the pictures I posted in this thread except the diner/pool diptych were taken on a Land camera with peel-apart film. The diner/pool diptych was shot on Polaroid Spectra film, which is the best integral film Polaroid ever made or will make.

BTW, peel-apart instant film is superior to integral film.

>>>> "...SP is only a very marginal genre, with its own group of followers who are mostly middle-aged men who meet mostly on the internet, and who fall into the either the category of hobbyists or outsider artists..."

No doubt projection on that characterization - I'm all ears on above specifics. So where do other photography genre shooters (portrait, sports, landscape, pj, fashion, commercial, etc) meet? Personal ads? I've met and shot with people (male and female) of all ages.

Eugene, get a polaroid 195 and stop playing around.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/176612-REG/NPC_195_NPC_195_Camera.html

I have a 450 in my hands! :-)

I have my eyes on a 4x5 back, thank you very much.

"I have my eyes on a 4x5 back, thank you very much."

Sounds like a lot of fun!

> So where do other photography genre shooters (portrait, sports, landscape, pj, fashion, commercial, etc) meet? Personal ads?

It doesn't matter where people meet. It matters where people exist.

Because you know it's not art unless it is done with a 4x5, or is that a dslr? :-)

>>> It doesn't matter where people meet. It matters where people exist.

OK, you originally said meet. So lets move on to "exist." Go ahead on that one...

"No doubt projection on that characterization..."

Your probably right.

"- I'm all ears on above specifics."

Like I said, I'm a little short on SP demographics, but we could start with you and me: can I assume both white and middle aged?

(no offense intended if you turn out to be a 13-yo Korean girl)

Eugene, you live in/near Agawam? No wonder you are pissey. Get out of the woods boy! :-)

I'm sure that you have a lot of REAL live art buddies in Agawam Eugene, they must be running all over the place! :-)

Robert in Worcester, Eugene in Agawam, and me in Providence, all within 80 miles of each other, all up at 2:00 in the morning, and not one of us at a bar, we should be ashamed. I'm going to bed.

Eugene, I'm sorry. I have no idea where you live. You may have just been visiting the Agawam area.

'I am a passionate lover of the snapshot because of all photographic images it comes closest to truth'

Lisette Model

>Like I said, I'm a little short on SP demographics, but we could start with you and me: can I assume both white and middle aged?

(no offense intended if you turn out to be a 13-yo Korean girl)

SP, here's a clue.

Eugene I like your HD nite shots, though for you the medium is the message. They exhibit no more or less interest or context or purpose than any other common street photograph. They are lovely for me though because of your interest in light and the mood and quality that brings in. Something many of us share. And you do raise the debate a bit. But its amusing how you like to fit people into these convenient little mental boxes. The sort of mind set of kids who play on the internet all day or spend their time playing computer games. You probably fall off to sleep thinking you're Socrates or someone. Feelin strong and good bout yourself.

Personally I believe, and I think several would, that its not really about a genre of photography, its really about self-exploration. Every so called "original" artist became so because they found an interest and followed its path and worked hard to go where the journey lead. It is about the work, not being a this or a that. I leave those distinctions for those that have some stake in it. And I don't get why that you think less of artist that put their work up for sale and then tout the credentials of some guy who's site is totally bout selling product. <scratch head in confusion>

And then Orville's sux because of the buttons?? Dude..

> Eugene I like your HD nite shots, though for you the medium is the message. They exhibit no more or less interest or context or purpose than any other common street photograph.

You're exactly right, which is why I'm not going to bring them in a portfolio to any gallery or show. These are personal shots and they were about self-exploration you love to talk about. However, they're not serious photography, and I do not plan to continue that series.

> Personally I believe, and I think several would, that its not really about a genre of photography, its really about self-exploration.

Yadda yadda. If your photography is about self-exploration, why do you show it to other people?

> I don't get why that you think less of artist that put their work up for sale and then tout the credentials of some guy who's site is totally bout selling product.

Because I have a certain experience which comes from viewing established artists' portfolios. You don't, apparently.

> And then Orville's sux because of the buttons?

Yes, and it is amazing to me that people here just "don't see it." Must be a sad bunch of folks.

> Robert in Worcester, Eugene in Agawam, and me in Providence, all within 80 miles of each other, all up at 2:00 in the morning, and not one of us at a bar, we should be ashamed.

No, I'm not in Agawam, I'm in Boston area. Let's meet at Monk's Cafe one day. Thx for recommending it, BTW, they have awesome pale Belgian beer.

I meant the one in Philly...

I am a passionate lover of the snapshot because of all photographic images it comes closest to truth'

Exactly. Makes me wonder why so many people here were pissed when the talk came to Warhol's snapshots...

While we're at it, let's talk about the high suck factor of the grainy/high contrast/Moriyama/Klein-style wannabe digi pix that pass for high art 'round here.

"...they were about self-exploration you to to talk about. . ."

Actually, I've never talked about that here ever except this one time..so why are you putting words in my mouth? Is it as I suggested before, you need to pigeonhole people and define them in your terms so you can then argue with your projected image of them? This isn't really a discussion, its more of a Karl Rovian tactic. It seems pretty dishonest to me, but if you need to do that go ahead, just realize its your image devoid of much reality.

And your HDR photos are not about self-exploration at all. They were you trying to learn a technique, which is good, but don't confuse the two.

"why show it to other people".

Why not...self-exploration doesn't happen or live in a vacuum. If you were serious about yours, you would understand that.

"Because I have a certain experience which comes from viewing established artists' portfolios. You don't, apparently.

You miss the point, I don't do regular portfolio view, but I have seen photographer friends portfolios when looking to get into various photography schools and a couple of fashion photographers and commercial guys looking for gigs.

A website is not a portfolio generally. Yes, an establish artist/photographer, does not sell out of a portfolio, but every "established" professional sells their work, these days usually off a website.

I'm surprised you didn't know that.

"Yes, and it is amazing to me that people here just "don't see it." Must be a sad bunch of folks."

Well, I just went and looked at Orville's site. There is some pretty nice pics there and that is what's important at least to me.

But Orville, he's right..those little mac buttons sux!! :)

"While we're at it, let's talk about the high suck factor of the grainy/high contrast/Moriyama/Klein-style wannabe digi pix that pass for high art 'round here."

Its really no different than over saturated color digi pictures with the contrast pumped up to give them a psuedo edgy feel or fake cross-processed look that I see all over the web. ...but whatever turns you on.

Andy, if you want to have some involved discussion and critique, don't you think it would make a lot more sense if you and Eugene were involved on a regular basis here, posting street or docu pics, instead of doing a drive-by? I think some of the negative reaction is coming because Eugene hasn't done that, he's just sort of dropped in lately and lit fires. But if he wants to get into it, pics like what he's posted above should certainly be open to criticism. Fair is fair.

You see, it's a fine line to walk between criticizing people's work and being honest about it, and trying to remain friends and being civil to people. If we could all find an agreeable way to talk about these things, I'd be all for it.

I don't see anyone here who hasn't posted crap at one time or another, or anyone who has a corner on what's legit and what's not.

Glad to see everyone survived the night.

"I'm in Boston area. Let's meet at Monk's Cafe one day...the one in Philly"

Eugene, I'll be down again teaching my liver who's boss on 3/14-3/16, please feel welcome to join us, I promise a pub crawl you won't remember. In the mean time please tell me you've been over to The Public House in Brookline?

"While we're at it, let's talk about the high suck factor of the grainy/high contrast/Moriyama/Klein-style wannabe digi pix that pass for high art 'round here."

Damn Andy what's next, my sister is ugly? You're killing me, I'm such a sucker for that stuff.

Ray, this forum positively sucks for quality. I don't comment much because there's not much to comment about. Back patting isn't smething I'm really good at.

"...it's a fine line to walk between criticizing people's work and being honest about it, and trying to remain friends and being civil to people."

Just to be clear, I want the brutal truth. I'd rather stand behind someone looking at my work and hear them say is derivative shite, than have them look me in the eye and toss off some ambiguous nonsense because they worry about protecting my frail ego.

Because we're not really friends you owe me the truth, straight up.

>>> Ray, this forum positively sucks for quality.

Well, OK, when was the last time you lead posting something good here?

"Just to be clear, I want the brutal truth. I'd rather stand behind someone looking at my work and hear them say is derivative shite, than have them look me in the eye and toss off some ambiguous nonsense because they worry about protecting my frail ego."

Me too. I'd rather be uncomfortable with the truth than comfortable with a lie.

"Just to be clear, I want the brutal truth. I'd rather stand behind someone looking at my work and hear them say is derivative shite, than have them look me in the eye and toss off some ambiguous nonsense because they worry about protecting my frail ego."

Sure, there's truth, there's brutal truth, and then there's just brutal.

Truth is never brutal. It only becomes that way when delivered brutally.

...then they realize that a "pretty picture" is not enough to bring them any serious recognition; and so they fall to the charm of the supposedly anti-aesthetic grittiness and artiness that street photography exudes (BTW, this "grittiness" forms an aesthetic of its own, thus contributing to the SP's downfall by not making it fundamentally different from pretty-picture photography).

After a while, they realize that SP... will not give them a ticket to the mainstream art establishment they hoped it would.

Sounds like a rant from some delusional fruitcake. Who is the nebulous "they" he's talking about? I can only speak for myself, but I've gotten all the goodies and more than I ever expected out of doing photography.

Brad, I have no idea what your post said.

"Who is the nebulous "they" he's talking about?"

The writer talking about his own experience? That's what people usually talk about.

This is all so funny.

Young Eugene (Wyatt) Sherbet has been given a cowboy costume, and a shiny new pearl handled colt six-gun, by his Mum. His Dad was so pleased he got through college; he bought him a Deputy Badge. So, it was time to put all that training, all that tin shooting into practise. So, with his faithful mate, Andy (Doc) Kay they headed to"Street City" It was going to be a tough dirty job, but someone had to do it.

It was nearly noon, and Orville was picking up his groceries, and minding his on business. He was unarmed, and just thinking about his daughter's birthday....

Chill out folks.....

Ah, I was so hoping Allen would swing by.

>>> Ray, this forum positively sucks for quality.

Andy, when was the last time you posted some photographs of yours on this forum that you thought were good quality?

I am not comparing "mine" to anyone else's, nor is there a need for "my" photos to be better (though most are not) to anyone else's for me to hold an opinion that the stuff that is posted on this forum is in the large part derivative, tired dross.

OK, that's what I thought Andy - certainly supports Ray's comment about your drive-by style of "participation." Slam but offer nothing of your own - tired dross indeed...

i wish we could all meet at a pub and go shoot for a few hours.

I'd agree in general there's more going on right now on flickr, to some degree because some people decided to pack up and leave here and post there exclusively. But there are some decent posters here, and there's always a cycle to quality, and it could get better.

Most everything is derivative to one degree or another. Even Magnum has derivative stuff I don't find worthy of my time.

Yeah, I'm with Eric. So much of this would be laughed at in-person.

What a headache I have now that I've read through this. It seems like a lot of left brain thinking going on for what is essentially a right brained activity.

Nevertheless getting to Jia Pus' original question all I can say is that the remedy for any kind of block one runs up against (and we all do, it never ends, just ebbs and flows) is to simply keep working. The answers to questions one may have regarding a path to take in the future are found in the existing works. Only you can find what they are. It is certainly good to view the works of other photographers (I also greatly admire Orvilles' work), it can be very inspiring. However you run into danger when you start comparing your work to theirs. Unless you spend every minute with someone and shoot the same scenes they do at the same time, there is no point in comparing your work to any one elses. I've always loved cubism and as hard as I tried my paintings never looked like Picasso's'. Having accepted this fact, I then took comfort in knowing that Picasso, if he were alive, would never be able to paint a cubist image quite like mine. Of course he probably wouldn't want too lol, but you get my drift. Every artist must find a method of working that helps them achieve what they set out to do. What is it that they are setting out to do? They should be working on their work.

This brings me to another point: Art and artists. What loaded words these are. Who wants to think of themselves as artists or worse yet, be called one? I certainly don't. These are things that should be of concern only to those who have some sort of stake in the matter. Because such people have power and influence they can apply such labels to others and it can be blindly accepted by the masses who rather not think for themselves. This is why museums mount huge showings of work from people like Winogrand and Friedlander and very little space if any given to current work from unknowns.

A quick thanks to Robert M Johnson for the link. Interesting read. I've always thought that the only people who really enjoy street photography are other street shooters. The general public just doesn't "get it" unless of course as mentioned above they are in a museum and therefore are assured they are looking at art even if it doesn't make sense to them and they think "Gee I could take pictures like these".

At work we have a company wide photo contest every year, and every year my co-workers ask me if I'm going to enter. Most of my co-workers have at one time or another seen what I have uploaded here. So when they ask this question I'm always a bit suspicious. The fact is that year after year the photos that win are the usual cutesy, warm and fuzzy photos. Cute kids and smiling babies, lots of close ups of dog and cat faces, and many many scenics many also with sunsets. Last years grand prize winner was a barn in a field. Or maybe it was the year before? This years which was came out on Fri. in our newsletter was a rowboat tied to a pier. So I get suspicious and wonder if my co-workers really looked at my work or if they really looked at the winning photos since the difference is like night and day. Entrants have to have names and address for all identifiable people in their entry, so this eliminates just about all of my photographs for eligibility but even if this weren't the case it's obvious that the judges (whoever they are) are going for the blandest, most non-offensive photos they can find. I cannot possibly enter something political from one of the war protests or someone from one of the gay pride parades. Of course the fact that I might be offended at such trite photos winning what amounts to some pretty good money, is also irrelevant and certainly not a concern of the judges. Nor is it a concern of mine either. I've always said that the work should always be just about that: the work and seeing it through.

God save us from obnoxious self-important people with fancy websites.

I always enjoy the photos posted on this forum. I think in general the quality of work is very good. Perhaps i have low standards, but methinks not.

Some are starters and on a learning curve, those I find the most interesting, as i enjoy watching them progress.

I suppose we could all just talk about who has the best gear.....

I started trying street photography several months ago?

Just do what comes natural to you. Enjoy, and develop in your own way rather than trying to be something.

OK, enough talk, let's put away the keyboards and go out shooting.

Ray - "I can only speak for myself, but I've gotten all the goodies and more than I ever expected out of doing photography."

I met my wife who was a very recent graduate with a degree in art, one look at my stuff and she was putty in my hands! :-) That and the fact that I really was cute! :-) If you guys think I am that overloaded with photography here, imagine being her? :-)

BTW, when she saw my fruit pic above she shook her head and smiled!

yeah, fer shur Robert, I know what you speak of.. wink wink.

Wow, Ray, that dude with the camera was really getting down there...

Street photography can contain the people who live and walk on the streets or the stores, homes, schools, churches, trains, buses, whatever that depict a story for the viewer. Steet photography is about telling a social story. And maybe that is why you are finding it difficult to get into. If you don't want to tell a story think of the images that you are shooting as abstracts. That might add some more fun to your street photography. By the way the photos are great.

Jia,

I think you're looking too hard for a style or a "genre." The thing to do is to get out and shoot and not worry about what anyone else says or does. With a lot of time invested, you'll get to a point at which you know what you're looking for when you shoot, and that will become the only thing that matters. Following the rules of "street" "landscape" or "portrait" photography will only get you pictures that look like pictures that have already been taken. Get out there and shoot. A lot.

Good luck!

Concur w/J Sevigny..

Damn, this is definitely not one of *those* photography forums. Saw lots of characters in this thread. Pleasure to meet you all. :-)

J Sevigny, Somehow you words freed me a bit. I start to realize that myself this a couple of days.

I had a really nice rest of the weekend, and had to do my day job the entire Monday... Now I'm back, for better or worse.

@SP:

I certainly have been to the Public House in Brookline. I will see about March 14-16 in Philly -- thanks!

@Barry:

> Actually, I've never talked about [self-exploration] here ever except this one time...

Alright, I take that back. On your part, please stay close to content and reduce the amount of bitching and meta-commenting -- this thread is long enough already.

> And your HDR photos are not about self-exploration at all. They were you trying to learn a technique, which is good, but don't confuse the two.

How in the world do you know what my photos were about? And why are you rushing to separate technique from self all of a sudden? What is self?

> Why not...self-exploration doesn't happen or live in a vacuum. If you were serious about yours, you would understand that.

I concur, but my question was rhetorical, and you seem unwilling to get that...

> I don't do regular portfolio view, but I have seen photographer friends portfolios when looking to get into various photography schools and a couple of fashion photographers and commercial guys looking for gigs.

These don't count. Read below why.

> A website is not a portfolio generally.

It depends.

> an establish artist/photographer, does not sell out of a portfolio, but every "established" professional sells their work, these days usually off a website. I'm surprised you didn't know that.

Why did the word "professional" appear in your comment all of a sudden? Nobody was talking about commercial photographers. We were talking about artists and art business, remember? Established artists. NOT established professionals. Professionals are hard- working people struggling to make a living and critiquing them has very little impact culturally. Artists are either filthy-rich and don't have to work or unemployed and starved.

So, here's lesson number one in art business. NEVER price your works on your site, especially when it comes to photographic prints. All photographic prints that artists sell are limited editions. You can't make more than 20, or you can't make more than 50, or whatever. Better yet, don't have a website -- have your dealers manage it. I am not joking here. None of the big guns in today's art photography have a website. Why? Because not having a website brings about an air of exclusivity. Collectors like to be pampered and they get very unhappy seeing that any dork can buy a copy of a print they own for whatever price is indicated on some puny shyite in interwebs.

Eugene, never said price your prints on-line, but virtually every "established" artist/photographer either their own website, or a dedicated site for them by their reps. All of them have a link for "enquiry", that means sale. they all sell online.

Couple of examples: Gibson(hah, he even sells cameras on his site and its priced), Eggleston, just the first two I looked at contact for enquiries (read by a book or print or folio). but point taken, don't price your work. Ok, if you say so. But then again, you are the one who needs to see themselves as an "artist". I say sell the crap on em, give unit price breaks. Its all just a commodity, its not sacred.

But more interesting is your intial comment in this whole thread. What an interesting comment. From what youv'e seen here or anywhere, what makes you think any one doing this got into this type of photography to get "serious recognition" by which I assume you mean the established "Art WorldD" I should ask is that what you mean? If so, what an amazing assumption and yes,(for Andy) until he supports that with some substance, it is not an observation.

And then the conclusion that an aesthetic" = pretty = downfall. Why is that? How so. Is it possible that what you really mean is that gritty photographs have become derivative and thus trivialized?

In other words, when as Andy discussed or rather mentioned, Moriyama and others, influenced by Klein and others (including HCB and Atget ) developed his "anti-photographs" or "anti-asthtic" as it were, they were important because he looked at things differently and altered peoples perception about beauty or rather recreated an idea in some people of what was beauty. So, in Marcusian fashion (stop me when you're ready to fall asleep) this style has been assimilated into mainstream photography and turned into a commodity, a recognizable aesthetic that can be emulated and copied. Is that what your bitch about gritty style street photo is about?

If any of that makes sense to you, then the next question is, what makes you think that is what so called and much over used and in my opinion fading in usefulness term, "street photographers" are doing?

I should add "makes you think that is all so called...etc."

> never said price your prints on-line, virtually every "established" artist/photographer either their own website, or a dedicated site for them by their reps. All of them have a link for "enquiry", that means sale. they all sell online. Couple of examples: Gibson(hah, he even sells cameras on his site and its priced), Eggleston, just the first two I looked at contact for enquiries (read by a book or print or folio).

We're close to understanding one another, but some thorns remain. (1) Ralph Gibson, although a big figure in photography, has zero reputation in the art world, especially in its more snobbish sphere. Eggleston -- yes, this one has a strong reputation in the art world, but he is one of the very few star-level photographers with a website (and it seems it was more like his trust forced him to have a website rather than the other way around). (2) I meant to ask: where is the website of Jeff Wall? Rodney Graham? Rineke Dijkstra? Andreas Gursky? Thomas Struth? Thomas Ruff? Wolfgang Tillmans? All of these are huge names in the art world. Alec Soth (one of the few stars who does have a site -- and used to have a blog) once said regarding his blog:

The one caveat is that blogging is probably bad for one's reputation in the art world. The art world is built on exclusivity. Blogs are built on availability. Most art stars don't even have websites for fear of appearing pedestrian. But photography, for me, is a pedestrian art. It is democratic and accessible. So I participate in the blogosphere knowing full well that it probably hurts my art-world reputation.

He no longer has a blog...

> From what youv'e seen here or anywhere, what makes you think any one doing this got into this type of photography to get "serious recognition"

Sorry, but this question is dumb. First, I never do anything if I'm not going to get recognized in some way. Nobody does -- and if someone tells you something else, he/she is a liar. Recognition is healthy, and it is also healthy to say you want it, otherwise you're being insincere with yourself. I do not plan to become the next Andy Warhol. All I wish for is a couple of solo shows of my work. Not the work I have now -- but the one I plan to make in the future. I'm sure many people on this forum feel the same way, and if I'm not correct -- let's stop this discussion right now. Now, you don't even know how hard it is to get accepted into a show by a respectable gallery. Just to get that one show you want, you have to go for the gold right away, and not fool around with W/NW threads on a site like this.

> And then the conclusion that an aesthetic" = pretty = downfall. Why is that? How so. Is it possible that what you really mean is that gritty photographs have become derivative and thus trivialized?

Why downfall? Because a photo has to be intelligent in some way to qualify as art. This includes aesthetic intelligence. Yet aesthetic intelligence is only a small part of the overall "charge" a photo carries. Art photography is similar to sculpture: you only leave the absolutely necessary parts, and throw away the gimmicks, which may include dodges, burns, added grain, blah blah.

> In other words, when as Andy discussed or rather mentioned, Moriyama and others, influenced by Klein and others (including HCB and Atget ) developed his "anti- photographs" or "anti-asthtic" as it were, they were important because he looked at things differently and altered peoples perception about beauty or rather recreated an idea in some people of what was beauty.

Stop right here. Art is not fashion. Art is not about changing people's perception about beauty. Art is about changing people's perception about everything. It is easy to fixate on the idea of "making ugly things beautiful," or "making ordinary things beautiful," but in the end all you're doing is you're decorating a Christmas tree, not making art. All you need to make ordinary things look good is a designer's eye, not an artist's eye.

> what makes you think that is what so called and much over used and in my opinion fading in usefulness term, "street photographers" are doing?

Sorry, don't understand your question.

"Sorry, but this question is dumb. First, I never do anything if I'm not going to get recognized in some way. Nobody does. . ."

Sorry man, I wasn't criticizing you, I just wanted to clarify what you meant by "serious recognition". I believe actual recognition and acknowledgment is a fundamental human need. Just wanted to point out that you maybe shouldn't ascribe your needs on to everyone else. Sure, I would agree that many of us would, and many have and will have a showing or two. I'm into doing books, I like to sequence images. I just don't expect to get, what I would term "serious" recognition and I doubt very few do. But sure, I like recognition.....sometimes.

"Why downfall? Because a photo has to be intelligent in some way to qualify as art. This includes aesthetic intelligence. Yet aesthetic intelligence is only a small part of the overall "charge" a photo carries. Art photography is similar to sculpture: you only leave the absolutely necessary parts, and throw away the gimmicks, which may include dodges, burns, added grain, blah blah."

This is doo doo, art photography, street photography, documentary, fashion bla bla. These are all trivial distinctions, though I do agree you want to reveal what it is that's important to you the creator, the essence, what ever that may be to you. But there is no one single path to that, and these techniques you eschew are part of it, they are craft not gimick unless your work is nothing but your tool kit. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. If all you are saying is that what's important to you is not just the formal concerns of the work. That's cool. But who cares what's important to you? Not that that isn't important, but really why should that temper anyone else's judgment.

If you would just give your opinions for yourself and not make them pronouncements like some rigid law, people might be more willing to listen to what you have to say.

"Stop right here. Art is not fashion."

No Eugene, you stop. Art is nothing but fashion. Your buddy Warhol taught us that, and you know it because you profess to it. You site your litany of your huge names in the art world, and what are they but fashion, what's currently in fashion?" Jeff Wall??? - there's nothing unique or special about Jeff Wall except the scale he works on. He's just Chuck Close inverted and many years later. His reputation was created and nurtured by his promoters. If what impresses you about a person's work is how famous they are or how much they get for a piece, then this is just an exercise in social climbing, not art understanding or appreciation. I know several fine photographers that I think of as artists, and their work has a lot more gravitas than Jeff Wall. They may or may not become famous, but they are artists.

I do agree, with Jeff Wall through, that photographers have to come to terms in some fashion with the reportage/documentary aspect of photography.

Art is nothing but fashion. Your buddy Warhol taught us that...

This statement only shows that someone is sorely lacking in art appreciation around here.

Jeff Wall??? - there's nothing unique or special about Jeff Wall except the scale he works on... I know several fine photographers that I think of as artists, and their work has a lot more gravitas than Jeff Wall.

See, now you are talking in absolute statements and not for yourself. No, but this is complete and utter BS. You, sir, are being delusional. Jeff Wall is one of the most important photographic artists of late 20th century. He's also a damn good art critic/writer. This isn't something I'm pulling out some hole in the back; this is a well- known fact and not knowing it only makes you look bad and lacking in education. "Nothing unique and special about Jeff Wall" -- hahahahahaha.

He's just Chuck Close inverted and many years later.

Oh yeah? "Just Chuck Close?" Just like that? It is very sad that major contributors to 20th century art and photography get dismissed like that on this forum by uneducated and self-important folks who incessantly compliment one another on some stupid W/NW threads.

> But there is no one single path to that, and these techniques you eschew are part of it, they are craft not gimick unless your work is nothing but your tool kit. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Yet another absolute statement from you. You know, if you're speeding in your car, that's okay with me, but don't blame the car in front of you.

> If what impresses you about a person's work is how famous they are or how much they get for a piece, then this is just an exercise in social climbing, not art understanding or appreciation.

Still getting used to the fact that art market is smarter than you, eh?

I should call it GAPS -- Generalized Amateur Photographer Syndrome -- thinking your and your peers' work is great art while sneezing when someone mentions an art-world name, especially when that name belongs to a successful artist whose art pieces sell for more than the cost of your house.

Jeez, if a bloke owns some Galleries, or some Arty Publication...then they are the word on the street...way the world works. Then, it's a masterpiece, understand saddos!!!...who are the nobodies or nothings to think otherwise? Jeez, they don't even crap in a gold bowl. And they never went to college either, so there!

Yep, burgers and fries are very successful as well. I like the milkshake best.

I move that Eugene Scherba be suspended from this forum. If someone cannot be civil, regardless of their opinion, knowledge, talent- or lack thereof, they have no business posting here.

We've seen this BS before. Time to turn the page.

I wish I was 24 again. Life was much clearer when I knew everything...

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/10cc-art-for-arts-sake/2403337229

Eugene, your buttons are so easy to push. Jeff Wall, true, a knowledgeble and lucid educator, writer and critic indeed, doesn't make him a great artist. But I believe in freedom of religion. If you want to worship Jeff Wall and the "art establishment" go ahead. They'll gladly accept your hommage. And Mr. Wall will laugh all the way to the bank when you shell out your million bucks for one of his pieces. But I didn't sneeze, I simply disagreed with one of your choices and the generalized mindlessness that you so blindly and uncritically accept whatever the art establishment feeds you. I suppose facing up to that tends to make you understandbly very defensive.

"Still getting used to the fact that art market is smarter than you, eh?"

You are beginning to sound pretty shrill in your responses Eugene,are you getting frustrated that people simply don't buy into your elitist cant?

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0geu8Lh47FHOUIAqO9XNyoA?fr2=sg- gac&sado=1&p=famous%20black%20and%20white%20street%20photographers&y=Se arch&fr=yfp-t-342-s&ei=UTF-8

"I wish I was 24 again. Life was much clearer when I knew everything..."

Maybe we did Brad? :-)

Time for Allen to post a random picture.

Time for Allen to post a random picture.

;)

Random Photo

I might not agree with Eugene but he is pretty brave to state his argument and stand his grounds.

ground...

FWIW: I love to argue, I don't mind hearing other points of view. Life would be pretty boring just hearing from like minded people. :-)

Robert, of course..

"I move that Eugene Scherba be suspended from this forum. If someone cannot be civil, regardless of their opinion, knowledge, talent- or lack thereof, they have no business posting here."

is this forum run by roberts rules, now? although i would have appreciated a different tone, i didn't find anything worth a red card.

i also enjoy arguments like this and learn a great deal from opinions i haven't heard/thought of before. amazed actually, that this one went this well for this long :)

still hanging in there, Jia?

What Eric said. No need to suspend, It's all good. BTW i s Jeff on vacation?

> Still hanging in there, Jia?

Yep, I'm here. No doubt, there are many good writers here. But I have to say that this sort of conversation makes a hobbyist like me feel a bit out of place here.

>I move that Eugene Scherba be suspended from this forum.

I don't agree. There's nothing Eugene has written that's overly offensive. In fact, I find his precocious enthusiasm to be refreshing. If he were only a bit taller and a bit better looking, he'd probably be a big hit with the ladies.

My only suggestion is that it may be more effective for Barry and Eugene to email each other. Or put it all in a Valentine's card.

"""I move that Eugene Scherba be suspended from this forum. If someone cannot be civil, regardless of their opinion, knowledge, talent- or lack thereof, they have no business posting here."

""

I'm not calling to ban anyone Eric, I'm defending his freedom of speech!

I guess someone deleted Ray's statement as mine contained his quote and no longer makes sense. "Roberts Rules" didn't mean you, Robert, it ment "Robert Rules of Order". I agree with you and also learn from constructive arguments. Cheers mate,

E

"Robert Rules of Order" daaaa, you got me there Eric! :-)

If he were only a bit taller and a bit better looking, he'd probably be a big hit with the ladies.

Ha, at 24 he's still building up his testosterone levels. The beating of the chest, aggressive dominates postures, and charging other males with throaty sounds and arm waving gestures are all part of it. I'm sure some of ladies will be impressed with his virility.

Why should he be banned from doing what young males do.

Listen up Eugene baby - if the art market was real...I could short the fecka..it aint real cos big bad boyz (like me)..cant short it..cant trade it..all you can do is go long..see it is a fixed market ..a little fairies picnic..

do some reading Eugene get with the pro gramme and stop programming..I take it you can add ..read some economics and finance..then come back and tell me about the 'art' market..

hahahah mmmm lighting up another big fat Cuban cigar...

and btw - NY isnt the best place to make street shots..Paris is...the wimmin dress better and are more pleasant conversationalists - although higher maintenance thats for sure.

oooorooo lads.

Allen, what you wrote is beyond a rational discussion. It only makes you look bad...

if the art market was real...I could short the fecka...

Peter, whether the art market is real or virtual is not important, because whatever its size is, it is still larger than the market for cliched, poorly exposed street shots.

Just a week ago I spoke with a collector of Eggleston's prints. He owns a number of them, and he worked with Eggleston on his 2 1/4 project. People like that exist, and there is more of them then it seems... You just have to look.

>>> The beating of the chest, aggressive dominates postures, and charging other males with throaty sounds and arm waving gestures are all part of it.

Heh heh, no branch hurling or running sideways???

>>> Peter, whether the art market is real or virtual is not important, because whatever its size is, it is still larger than the market for cliched, poorly exposed street shots.

Ooooh, I now feel so insulted. Snif....

I think it is good that people like Eugene rattle people's cages - you know he is paying all you guys a compliment by opening up a discussion regarding the worth or otherwise of what people like to post here and why they do it.

I am surprised that so few people have made the simple point that perhaps it isn't their ambition to exhibit or sell anything and maybe posting is just about having a bit of innocent fun and sharing.

If I am mistaken in this observation, then a lot of criticism(s) posted regarding the typical post are probably fair, if I am more correct than not in suggesting it is about a bit of fun - then Eugene type comments are not very interesting or instructive

It is obvious that there is a spread of motivation ranging from the ambitious to the show some stuff to a liek minded audience crowd.

What is boring to me though is reference to 'names' and collectible 'artistes' - why?

Well if making photos is about making money or aspiring to be famous ...there are easier ways to do it..and better lives to be lived.

Righto Peety..for myself, I wouldn't mind doing a book or two, plan to do so, even a show or two, and of course then the fame will roll. But though books are fun, I really do enjoy the interplay of the photos with people who enjoy it and enjoy getting better at it and watching others grow and seeing what happens in the photos. Its a niche riff, I understand, and every once in a while I get an urge to do something different as well. I Don't like to get too locked into "genre" identification.

But walking around with a camera, sometimes with friends, fits my current lifestyle, and I think most would say similar unless I'm greatly mistaken. ..doesn't mean we don't take photography seriously..but its basically a serious hobby. No shame in that. In fact in the "old days" the term amature had a positive value. Now rank amature has a whole different meaning:)

In England, I read, I think in Bystander, that artists were amatures, professionals did protrait and paid work. But I digress..

"it is still larger than the market for cliched, poorly exposed street shots."

See, that just shows, boyo, that cliched, poorly exposed street shots are obviously much more exclusive and refined than fine art on the art market, otherwise, everyone would want to do it. Damn, guess he'll never cash in on the "street craze".

Well, I guess my only choices are, look at s*ite street photography, or fine art, seems one can't enjoy both...what to do..

http://partner.galleryplayer.com/panasonic/Default.aspx

Eugene, that's very cool you met that guy, and you're right. People are out there like that. I'm a big fan of Eggleston BTW (not Wall though). Just know you aren't the only guy that comes to this forum who meets these people.

I won't name names, because its not for me to do so, but there's people here that are much more connected to the fine art gallery world than you might expect and have a knowledge of the history and current developement in photo more than you know. err...at least they read and stuff....no, just kidding..

Peter, I understand I am probably spoiling the fun for many forumers here and am opening up the Pandora's box of sorts by bluntly discussing "what, in the end, is all this worth?" Yours is a good point in that regard.

However, people have a tendency to grow out of fun things as they age. In some sense, I have outgrown this forum, and coming back here sometimes makes me feel pity for the few poor souls who stayed and kept contributing. I could of course have given it up by not coming back, but, since I used to see in this forum people whose minds worked in a certain way similar to my own, I have nevertheless decided to post my actual thoughts and feelings on the subject.

True, one of the primary reasons why people here take photos is to be able to show them -- not to the whole world -- but, as you say, to a like-minded crowd who will appreciate them. It is not true, however, that all of them are doing this just for fun. There are photographers here who try to push their work into other spaces as well (gallery/web/print). These include Orville Robertson (whose site I somewhat imprudently and overly harshly criticized), Jeff Spirer, Brad Evans, and Ray Haack. That's already four photographers. There is also Andy Kochanowski whose street color work happens to be quite good and who, like myself, is constantly put off by the low quality of the "fun" postings here. So there is a genuine group of people who take their work seriously (for better or worse), and who therefore are concerned about what I say in this and other threads. I also have noticed that only people who take their work seriously bother to reply to my comments, as if I were touching their Achilles' heel of sorts.

I also understand that art is not the easiest field to make money in, and that is exactly why I majored in science and not in art in college. (Not that science is the easiest way to make money either...) However, there is more than money involved (and more than fame too). It is extremely rewarding to (a) have your own show; (b) publish a book; (c) sell your work. That something is called prestige. In science, they say, "publish or perish." In the art field the equivalent is "exhibit or perish."

With that in mind, I don't see a reason why people on this forum would be uninterested in exhibiting their work. I bet that a number of them must be looking at this very time at ways or means to do just that. I am a result-oriented person, and I would have found nothing wrong in that.

However, I also noticed a huge rift between the art world and the world of amateur photography. It is very different from the rift you find between people who go to art school and those who are accomplished artists. Although art students often are not confident about their own work, they, in general, aspire to become serious artists and exhibit in the most prestigious art spaces in the world. Forumers here, on the other hand, seem to be caught in a perpetual state of denial and alienation. Their perception of the art world is that of a small and corrupt group of people where everyone knows everybody, and where everything is made for money and as favors. Although this stereotype has some true sides to it, the art world is way larger and way more open than people here realize.

I can only conclude that either (a) everyone here suffers from the stereotypical conspiracy theory syndrome regarding the art world and artists, or (b) people here take criticism of their work from the art world very bitterly, and secretly wish the art world didn't exist at all, so that their own work would shine better.

This is a very sad situation. I suspect that too many people here have bought to the idea that "everyone can be an artist," and respond childishly to anything that suggests the opposite. This probably fits well with the fact that all of us here are photographers -- and who, if not photographers, would be the most likely proponents of that idea? After all, all you need is a camera... Or not.

Here is my final thought: this forum is called "Street and Documentary." I see too much Street and too little Documentary here. And, I think, I just discovered why. Taking Street pictures is easy. Just go out into the street and make sure there is at least one woman in the viewfinder at all times. Don't listen to those who say it took years for Winogrand to master his technique. It didn't. He was just a trigger-happy shooter. Making Documentary pictures, however, is hard. This requires you to make a project, draw a budget, perhaps even ask for grant money, go to a location, meet real people in-person, talk to them, and finally take the picture. Not fun at all. Yet there is no doubt in my mind what type of photography is more valuable...

> but there's people here that are much more connected to the fine art gallery world than you might expect and have a knowledge of the history and current developement in photo...

Like?

"Like?"

oh, you know, the ones that "like taking pretty pictures; then they realize that a "pretty picture" is not enough to bring them any serious recognition; and so they fall to the charm of the supposedly anti-aesthetic grittiness and artiness that street photography exudes..."

is constantly put off by the low quality of the "fun" postings here

Why post out of focus uninteresting poloroids and beginner paintings on this forum while criticizing the general quality of what others post here?

Regarding Jeff Wall, Barry, I don't care if you like him or not. No one cares. A hundred years from now, people who will be reading history of photography will be reading about Jeff Wall, and not about Barry Fisher or Eugene Scherba. It is truly completely irrelevant what your or mine opinions of Jeff Wall are.

So let's come back to the original question I asked (and which you declined to address, instead deciding to start a fight about whether Wall is an artist or not). So where, where in the blue blue sky are the websites of Jeff Wall, Rodney Graham, Rineke Dijkstra, Andreas Gursky, Thomas Struth, Thomas Ruff, and Wolfgang Tillmans?

> Why post out of focus uninteresting poloroids and beginner paintings on this forum while criticizing the general quality of what others post here?

Only one Polaroid I posted was out of focus, and I can take it down if it hurts your eyes that bad...

Eric, I forgot to mention you in my short list of people who take their work seriously... Sorry man.

Ray, in my turn, I'd like to ask, why do your posts from Feb 10, 2008; 04:10 a.m. and Feb 10, 2008; 06:37 p.m. suck so much?

With respect to "names" having or not having their own website, with strong gallery representation there's no need to. Many times galleries want public exposure to be under their control.

Richard Avedon and Helmut Newton had (and still have - they're dead) their own website. With respect to Avedon, he placed his trust in Fraenkel (in SF) for sole representation, even though he was New York-based. Eggleston has his - in trust, no doubt because he has better things to do than pushing HTML around on a computer...

It really not a metric of having "made it."

Well, I'll repeat the question for you, since you seem to want to avoid answering it.

Why post out of focus uninteresting poloroids and beginner paintings on this forum while criticizing the general quality of what others post here?

cheers, no offense taken, Eugene. not much into lists & labels anyway

> With respect to "names" having or not having their own website, with strong gallery representation there's no need to.

So, in your opinion, there are no second thoughts about exclusivity involved?

cop out

"people here take criticism of their work from the art world very bitterly,"

Eugene, a well known art/photography critic with "real world credentials" once visited my site and loved everything he saw. He was nice enough to send me feedback stating so. A year or so later the same guy liked two, and only two pics on my entire site. One of them being the picnic shot above, it is kinda a private joke to me now. I took both shots he loved within minutes of each other, because my wife to be was with me that day and my intent was to make an "artsy" shot. The point of this story? The only critic I trust is A/Z. He once spotted a shot of mine that went on to bigger and better things. :- )

Your picnic shot is actually pretty good. Not like any of that Ray's stuff...

OK, so it sounds like you're feeling better now. Hope so.

>>> So, in your opinion, there are no second thoughts about exclusivity involved?

Don't understand what you're asking wrt exclusivity. Making it to the level of the photogs you mentioned is extraordinarily rare - kind of like the high school kid dreaming of getting into the NBA.

One level below the rarefied air and there are lots of people who have gallery representation. Are they making a living off of it? No. Most do other things - commercial photography, weddings, writing, retired from another field, trust funds, etc.

I'm with Barry, I just like getting out and shooting - for fun. No aspirations beyond that.

FWIW: if my first photography goal was met I would be doing Hallmark cards right now! :-)

And then again there was that millionaire photographer I met with a Rolls-Royce and mansion from doing postcards and menus. Vacationing six months a year in Florida! Eugene is right! :-)

Eric does MTV...

http://www.terraform.tv/video/ericmilner.mov

Feb 09, 2008; 06:55 p.m. is one of my all time personal favorite photos, shot in Canada.

Extra, read all about it! New York School is dead as a doornail. Forty years on people continue working in ways obviously influenced by the likes of Winogrand and others of the era. Zombie like photographers wander city streets capturing bygone motifs oblivious to time and change. More news at five.

Oh my god...!!!!he takes down Winograd and HCB in the same thread, how refreshingly iconoclastic

"Here is my final thought: this forum is called "Street and Documentary." I see too much Street and too little Documentary here. And, I think, I just discovered why. Taking Street pictures is easy. Just go out into the street and make sure there is at least one woman in the viewfinder at all times. Don't listen to those who say it took years for Winogrand to master his technique. It didn't. He was just a trigger-happy shooter. Making Documentary pictures, however, is hard. This requires you to make a project, draw a budget, perhaps even ask for grant money, go to a location, meet real people in-person, talk to them, and finally take the picture. Not fun at all. Yet there is no doubt in my mind what type of photography is more valuable..."

I think taking nite shots when you don't have to contend with anyone is the most valuable. Todd Hido, the man. But I do think you are right, documentary is a more ambitious undertaking, and I've been thinking of along those lines for a while, nice point Eugene. There are very few if any real documentaries going here. Jeff has a great thing going with the boxing. And the clubs as well. I recommend checking his website. Also Brad has his alcatraz series. But when someone does have a project, they often don't like to utilize the forum to show off all the pics and instead usually just link to another site so people can view it there and comment here. But true documentaries, meaning long time projects of place or theme are fairly rare here.

Your picnic shot is actually pretty good. Not like any of that Ray's stuff...

You are awful, Eugene, but i do like you. I've got a nice Picnic Photo, and i do like you...will you say something nice about it. His such a brave boy.

Jeez ,Eugene ,you really need to go out there and take some photos that's what it's all about.

Give the preaching a rest for a while and show the world what you can do. Lead us to the Promised Land.

Thanks for the entertainment, Eugene, you are a star.

http://www.last.fm/music/The+Police/_/Born+in+the+50's

jesus christ this is the shittiest thread ive ever read

John, your website is broken (trying to view http://johnasavoia.com/dump55.htm, for example, brings up broken links only)...

Robert -- your last picture is really nice.

thanks for the heads up eugene, i dont really use my website any more to be quite honest, i tend to only post my work on http://john-savoia.livejournal.com/

The only critic I trust is A/Z. He once spotted a shot of mine that went on to bigger and better things. :- )

;-)

After being away from this site for a while I have to say that I'm a little perplexed by this discussion. Can anyone disagree that street photography is a niche aesthetic, or that it is insular?

On the other hand, who on earth is going from happysnaps to Moriyamakleintomatsumajoli to professional disappointment and on to something else? And what photographic genre isn't spilling over with middle-aged white guys?

Yes, goofy web designs and design elements predominate on the interwebs, but I'd rather look at good photos with crappy design elements than the reverse.

I believe there is a very low threshold for what makes something art, whereupon it must be determined whether it is good art, bad art, dismal, abysmal or coruscating art. I'm very dubious when people deign to tell others what art is and isn't. It is silly, and reminds me of something John Brownlow wrote a few years ago:

I can still remember the first time I showed my photographs to a gallery. I had no idea what to expect.
The guy opened up my box and flipped through the photos, frowned for a moment as if trying to place them,
and then smiles and said "ah, yes! semi-abstract urban documentary".

So now I knew.

Jia, whatever photography you do should be photography you love doing. You say you tried landscape and still lifes but say you aren't good at them, so you are trying street photography and are "missing something." Let me tell you what you're missing: practice and love. Of course your first tries at any given genre will suck -- who said good photography was easy? If you really, really like making photographs you'll obsessively experiment, fail, fail less, fail better, and with both focus and giddy abandon you'll learn.

Basic Western rules of composition are not difficult to learn and apply, so you need to get past the "I'm not good at them" stage to the point where you do the kind of photography you love, not merely a genre you aren't bad at as a beginner. It doesn't matter what you are terrible at, it matters that you find something you love doing and work at being good at it.

What do you enjoy? Do you love street photography? Or landscapes? Or still lifes? Do you enjoy making photographs? Think about that question. Some people love paintings but don't love painting, you know....

you do should be photography you love doing.

Holy Moses, Bailey Seals, you have just hit the proverbial nail, on its proverbial head. I always had faith.

And then go out and do it..

?:

I really really liked that second photo ,Saul. I felt i was being transposed into the image.

Thanks Allen!

Saul, that 2nd pic is a gem.

As well as the 3rd.

And the 1st.

And the 4th

But not necessarily in that order.