Check out today's NY Times for an article that starts out as a review of Japanese street photographer Daudi Moriyama then uses that as a launching point for a thoughtful, although IMHO wrongheaded, screed about the lack of contemporary street photography. An interesting read that can be found here (you'll have to sign up if you're not already registered).

http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/artleisure/moriyama-photos.html

Comments?

-- Mason Resnick (bwworld@mindspring.com), December 12, 1999

Answers

Most of the observations in the article (published by the Times but written by an associate author for Doubletake) track pretty well with what I've seen in exhibitions of contemporary work in the Northwest. The preoccupations are self, wildlife, landscapes and objects. Photos involving individuals are often self-portraits or else individuals as objects rather than personalities. There seems to be a very minor interest in urban life, street life or suburban life, the kind of themes that motivated Winogrand, Bill Owens and others. I'd be happy to be proved wrong, but I think the comments were on the mark. One of the most telling statements might be that of the gallery director who said street photography is not exhibited because no one will buy. Maybe that's a closed loop; no one will buy because it isn't exhibited. But it may also be because street photography doesn't engage contemporary interests.

-- Josef Brugger (jbrugger@teleport.com), December 13, 1999.

From all of the street photography I've seen, there is only one shot I would really, honestly, want on my wall. That one was done by Weegee (aka Arthur Fellig), and is a night scene of a lamp post and a man. The man's back is to the camera.

I talked with a gallery owner about photography, and he told me, flat out, that street photography doesn't sell. People will come in and look at it, but that's all they do. They buy landscapes and wildlife, but they only admire the street photos and then move on.

I think that street photography should be done, and done with a passion, but it's just not as commercially viable as other forms of photography. The Medium Format Digest once had a question from a photographer concerning commercial web pages. I looked at what he photographed. Believe it or not, he sells Ilfochromes of cardboard cutouts under colored lights!! He makes his entire living from this, and he was making it just from gallery sales.

Mason: How many of your photos have sold over the web? What photo is your biggest seller? Are any as cute as "The Little Cheerleader"?

I think that a well-placed web cam can be more interesting than most street photography. Yes, street photography is a view into our daily lives, but so what? If I want to see people, I just go down to the mall and hang about. Most street photography just isn't that interesting or spectacular.

-- Brian C. Miller (brianm@ioconcepts.com), December 15, 1999.

>Mason: How many of your photos have sold over the web? What photo is your biggest seller?

None, but I haven't been trying. I've sold numerous prints in person, again without a rep or really pushing very hard, and have published several dozen images and been paid for the priveledge. My biggest seller is a street photo of Gloria Swanson getting out of her limo.

>Are any as cute as "The Little Cheerleader"?

That kind of comparison totally misses the point.

I'm not interested in cute. I'm interested making images that are extracted from the real world and have a tension between their form and their content. Not an easy thing to accomplish or explain, especially to someone who is more interested in web cams.

-- Mason Resnick (bwworld@mindspring.com), December 15, 1999.

Hmm, maybe we should define "live" and "dead".

Is some venue or genre "live" just because it is popular? Should we pay attention to pundits at all?

MR: "That kind of comparison totally misses the point. I'm not interested in cute."

So? Do you want to make photographs which people want to hang on the wall?

If we are talking about why a genre isn't popular, then let's take a real look at why it isn't popular. If street photographers delivered stuff that was as cute as babies in flower pots, would it sell? If we produced photographs of street scenes as grand as the Tetons at sunrise, would they sell? From what I have been told, gallery owners want to hang photographs which sell. Popular things sell. Money talks, like it or not.

It is a good and wonderful thing to document our surroundings. I do it with a Pen-F and Ilford Universal 400. Whoopee. Do I have any personal illusions as to their saleability? No. Will they have any value at all one day? Probably after I'm dead, if ever.

MR:"I'm interested making images that are extracted from the real world and have a tension between their form and their content. Not an easy thing to accomplish or explain, especially to someone who is more interested in web cams."

Let's see, I said: "I think that a well-placed web cam can be more interesting than most street photography." Ah, Mason, are you feeling put off because of some pundit's "(fill in the blank) is dead" article? And what is the great difference between a bunch of stills from a web cam and a contact sheet of one area? I get 72 images on a contact sheet. Is that better than 36 and worse than 4096? Does it matter?

Yak, yak, yak, yak, "When all is said and done there is a lot more said than done." (quote courtesy of Mad Magazine toilet paper)

Content is the key here. The public ain't buying because the public doesn't see what it wants to see. If we want our photography to be popular, then we have to produce images which appeal to the populace. That is a matter of simple market dynamics.

Street photography is no more "dead" than anything else.

So here's the question: Are we photographing for the average person to enjoy something, or are we photographing for other photographers?

Mason, since you want your photographs to be "...images that are extracted from the real world and have a tension between their form and their content..." then I would guess that you are photographing for other photographers, and highly educated photographers to boot.

With that in mind, is it any wonder that some NY Times pundit says that street photography is dead? The pundit and the general populace don't understand what they are looking at. So they aren't going to shell out their money for it.

You're right, Mason, you'd have a hard time explaining your artistic intent to me because I photograph "bark" and "barbed wire around growing tree" and "child on swing." I'm uneducated in art-speak and I don't mind.

If some pundit said, "Nature photography is dead!" who would pay attention?

I wouldn't. I don't read what pundits write! I photograph something because I find it interesting, whether it is a tree, a rock, a car, or a person. I don't worry if something I photograph is interesting to somebody else or not. Some of my most well-received photos were done when I was simply burning film instead of winding it off.

I don't bother to fill my life with artificial angst about my photographs. After all, they are only photographs, not "War and Peace" or "Gone with the Wind."

-- Brian C. Miller (brianm@ioconcepts.com), December 15, 1999.

Brian, believe it or not, we have more agreement here than disagreement.

>So? Do you want to make photographs which people want to hang on the wall?

It would be an honor for anyone to do that, but I don't go out looking for pictures with that end result in mind.

>If street photographers delivered stuff that was as cute as babies in flower pots, would it sell?

Absolutely--but it wouldn't be street photography. Anne Geddes has some wonderful B&W work that is spontaneous and real. But the "cute" stuff is what has made her a millionaire.

>From what I have been told, gallery owners want to hang photographs which sell.

I think it's pretty clear that street photography doesn't sell until it has had a few decades to take on an historical aspect (if the photographer's lucky, he or she will be alive to see this happen).

>Ah, Mason, are you feeling put off because of some pundit's "(fill in the blank) is dead" article?

Nah, it's just a cheap trick to get people engaged in a lively debate :-)

>So here's the question: Are we photographing for the average person to enjoy something, or are we photographing for other photographers?

I photograph because I am curious about what the world looks like photographed. If I am lucky, others will like it. But if there are no venues to show the work, how will they know? Thank goodness the Web has made it relatively easy to get good street photography into the public eye.

>Mason, since you want your photographs to be "...images that are extracted from the real world and have a tension between their form and their content..." then I would guess that you are photographing for other photographers, and highly educated photographers to boot.

No, as I said before, I'm photographing to satisfy my curiosity. Anyone's welcome to take a look.

>The pundit and the general populace don't understand what they are looking at. So they aren't going to shell out their money for it.

I agree completely. I think getting more street photography "out there" would help more people understand what it's about. I can give you the theory behind it but really the pictures should do the talking. http://www.photogs.com/mrphotos/mrphotos1.html and http://www.photogs.com/pedestrianphotos are my humble contributions, although there are many better ones around.

>I'm uneducated in art-speak and I don't mind.

My apologies if my comments came out as art-speak--I HATE art speak!

It sounds to me like your photography (or your appreciation of photography) is market driven. That's perfectly legitimate. But there should be room for more experimental, less commercially accessable work. I think the part of the article that concerns me is the author's intimation that street photography has fallen off of so many radars even as a more experimental fo

-- Mason Resnick (bwworld@mindspring.com), December 15, 1999.

From Frank Horvat's website: Midto wn, steam rising in New York.

Now, that's what I call grand.

OK, I'll readily admit that a photo like that is quite rare, and only found during east coast mornings. Much like the steam I saw once (and just once) while commuting one evening here in Seattle. A street photo like that is widely accessible. (and unaffordable for me at $1200/print)

Now then: So it's all a cheap trick for discussion! Aha! :-) Cheap tricks get the most attention.

I don't think my photographs are market driven, but I do divide my stuff by what I would submit to a gallery and what I wouldn't. Galleries are market driven, and I never expect them to hang what wouldn't sell. Of course, that leaves little avenue for "experimental" photography.

This, I think, should actually lead to guerilla exhibitions. (Um, "Guerilla Marketing" for photographers?) Perhaps contacting real estate agencies and asking to put your work in unleased buildings and such. Surely some good 11x14s would enhance the property more than a big blank "FOR LEASE" banner. Photos on the walls of diners. Change them twice a week. Photos in a medical office, real estate, wherever.

You want a showing? Make a showing! :-)

-- Brian C. Miller (brianm@ioconcepts.com), December 15, 1999.

MASON,

WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE "MARKETABILITY" OF STREET/DOCUMENTARY STYLE PHOTOGRAPHY? I'M NEW TO THE PHOTOGRAPHY WORLD IN A PROFESSIONAL SENSE AND I'M EMBARKING ON A PROJECT THAT COMBINES THE IDEA OF STREET PHOTOGRAPHY WITH A DOCUMENTARY SPIN. I ALSO DO NOT LOOK FOR PHOTOGRAPHS WITH THE IDEA OF WHAT SELLS IN MIND. I'M WONDERING IF THE FACT THAT MY PHOTOS WILL BE FROM VARIOUS REGIONS OF THE WORLD WILL CREATE ENOUGHT INTEREST TO SELL- SO MUCH SO AS TO EXCHANGE THE NOTION OF HISTORICAL RELEVANCE FOR INSIGHT INTO OTHER COMMUNITIES.

LEAH

-- LEAH WASHINGTON (ltwashington@earthlink.net), December 15, 1999.

Street photography dead? Well so is God but there's no shortage of the faithful. A good photograph is a good photograph.

Also, not all photographs are meant to be hung up at home. How many would want the picture of the naked Vietnamese girl running from the napalm strike hanging over their mantle? Or the picture of the incinerated Iraqi soldier? Such pictures still need to be made, whether the average person wants to buy them or not.

Street photography seems difficult to me because people are so afraid of having their picture taken, and the privacy laws are changing, and not in favor of the photographer. I don't think it's just primitive people who are afraid of having their souls captured. (Probably should get out the TLR, see if that helps). But street photography is all about people and their interactions, and as long as there are streets to photograph in, I don't see how that would ever cease to be one of the great photographic genres. No shortage of subject matter here in Seattle, but I'm sorry to say I missed it all, had to work. At least I'm not picking rubber bullets out of my a**.

-- Peter Korsborn (korsborn@gte.net), December 16, 1999.

>This, I think, should actually lead to guerilla exhibitions. (Um, "Guerilla Marketing" for photographers?)

Absolutely, Brian! All of your ideas wonderfully creative! I think we should break this out into a new discussion thread--Guerilla Marketing ideas for photographers. Want to start it off?

-- Mason Resnick (bwworld@mindspring.com), December 16, 1999.

"I think we should break this out into a new discussion thread"

OK..... :-)

-- Brian C. Miller (brianm@ioconcepts.com), December 17, 1999.