Street photography is not a commercial activity, it is the only kind of 'art' photography that involves the public without their knowledge or cooperation. Even photojournalists who make pictures of people in public places are just doing their jobs and are seen as being, to one extent or another 'acceptable' because at least their motive for picture making is clear. The street photographer, however, is almost exclusively unmotivated by financial gain, so WHY is he pointing his camera at me?
The lack of a clear, quickly comprehensable reason for making pictures in public is probably the main reason that street photographers are particularly singled out for suspicion. When ones privacy is momentarily invaded by a photographer or cameraman in a public space the minor objection or irritation we feel is tempered when we realise that it is a commercial activity, we don't feel singled out, we accept it and walk on.
A conflict does exist between the street photographer and those candidly photographed, nearly half of the 500 respondents to my poll on this agreed with the statement The right of a person to privacy in a public place is equal to the right of the photographer to take a photograph in a public place. If both parties rights conflict equally there can be no resolution but perhaps the problem is not so large, after all, most people photographed by a street photographer don't know anything about it, its very much a matter of approach. At one extreme you have highly invasive street photographers like Bruce Gilden whose approach involves physically jabbing at passers by with a camera and flash and results in pictures of scared people. And at the other extreme you have someone like Beat Streuli who shoots on a long lens from such a great distance that neither he or his pictures have any physical or emotional connection with the subject.
Bruce Gilden on the street
image: Bruce Gilden
image: Beat Streuli
image: Beat Streuli
Despite the fact that I actually quite like Gildens pictures for what they are, I'm not sure what his images tell us beyond what results when a big scary man takes a photograph at the exact moment you think you are about to be knifed or mugged, his pictures record his process not the people of Manhattans streets. Beat Strueli's work is harder for me to like and understand, here is a man who risks nothing on the street, he doesn't risk physical interaction with the street and its people and more importantly he doesn't risk making a decision about editing the scene, his pictures contain no moments or happenings, he literally records the bland and you don't need a camera to see that. (Perhaps someone could help me with this? I would love to here a defence of Struelis work. As someone who shoots on the street, I know these pictures were not difficult to make so write and tell me why I should admire or respect them. I'll post it here)
For me the key word in resolving the photographer/subject conflict is 'empathy'. I believe it is the strong empathy I feel for the strangers I photograph in the street that has prevented me from ever having an unpleasant incident while street shooting, you only have to watch someone for a short amount of time to feel for them and their situation. This brings about a way of working that connects you with people not just subjects and produces candid images of strangers with whom you feel a relationship. The Photographers empathy for the predicament or situation of another human being results in gentle, sensitive and subtle observations. These two images by in-public photographers David Solomons and Matt Stuart are good examples of pictures that sensitively observe the situations of others in the street. They are taken at close quarters and bravely engage with the subject whilst not singling them out in an aggressive way.
image: David Solomons
image: Matt Stuart
Perhaps a discreet, sensitive and empathetic approach not only avoids confrontation but makes you a better street photographer.
For those of you in London Matt Stuart will be showing his work from the 4th February at KKoutlet....info
WHY is he pointing his camera at me?
January 18th, 2010
12 Responses to “WHY is he pointing his camera at me?”
Leave a Reply
Twitter links powered by Tweet This v1.6.1, a WordPress plugin for Twitter.
Proudly powered by WordPress. Theme developed with WordPress Theme Generator.
Copyright © sevensevennine.com | nick turpin on street photography. All rights reserved.
Copyright © sevensevennine.com | nick turpin on street photography. All rights reserved.
January 18th, 2010 - 2:47 pm
If you think an image must be difficult to make in order for it to be valuable, you should have taken up painting.
January 18th, 2010 - 3:07 pm
“In defence” of Streuli—
While much of street photography could be considered about the relationship of the photographer and his/her environment, Streuli attempts to do achieve the opposite. By using long lenses the photographer and subject are completely isolated from each other, and what Streuli is capturing is relatively removed from his influence. I think it is actually a very interesting way of approaching public image making.
This sort of conversation led to my project “Connections” where I photograph strangers on the street while I hold their hands. http://work.rossevertson.com/#38700/Connection
January 18th, 2010 - 3:25 pm
Hi,
I think you are right about people shot by PJs, and this can also be said about security cameras. As long as people can identify a purpose of being photographed or filmed they are more keen to accept it, they understand (be it for good or bad reason, but thinking of it requires at least little intellectual workaround so that it is no more spontaneous rejection or acceptance).
Empathy… not sure Bruce Gilden has no empathy. When he would say that he “loves his subject” that shows some level of empathy – though he might refer more to the photographic rendition of them rather than the real people. But which street-photog really cares about the people he would shot ?
Also the more I learn about Cartier-Bresson and the more I think he had few genuine empathy for his human subjects, which probably sounds paradoxical. But when HCB would speak about his photographs he would always insist on the “geometry”, and I believe the (too famous) “decisive instant” refers for him to the moment at which the geometry is here, much rather than feelings are expressed. HCB didn’t find feelings to be interesting material and furthermore I believe he had somewhat misanthropist tendencies (but of course I might be wrong).
So I am not sure about empathy… could be yes, as long as it allows the photog to engage his subject in a way. But empathy without engagement doesn’t help. And on the contrary some photogs would find a way to engage without empathy…
I think the “photographer/subject conflict” you are referring to is first and foremost a photographer inner conflict.
PS: As for pics from Beat Streuli… I did not know him before and did few check on his website and elsewhere www. I don’t really get it too, it lacks of something vital that I am eager to find in photography whatever the genre. But I guess that is what he wants to come up with, something un-lyrical.
January 18th, 2010 - 4:52 pm
I am not an native English speaker, so I will keep it short. In my experience, there are different approaches to street photography and just as many supporters. For instance, I am not especially impressed by the two examples you give as good photos here (but I don’t mean the photographers, because some of their work I really like).
In the site IN-Public some of the photos (and photographers) are simply brilliant, others I really can’t see the attraction. For me a photo is good when it is absurd, when it puts a grin on my face, for others empathy is important, and so on.
One thing I do agree on, photographing people with long tele lenses does not result in good (street) photography.
January 18th, 2010 - 5:52 pm
Ross I think to a large degree the best work is difficult to make either physically difficult or conceptually…the art world is the exception to this, artists that use a camera get to show work in galleries that most photography students have disregarded by their second year. Photographic artists ‘make’ their pictures ‘good’ by talking and writing about them whilst good street photographs don’t need explaining. Beat Streuli still takes pictures like somebody who hasn’t gotten over their initial shyness of taking pictures in the street, he takes pictures like the students I teach on their first day of a workshop. Now it may be that he is choosing to use a long lens to avoid interaction with the subjects, does that mean he is also deliberately not selecting the moment to make the picture? He’s no cleverer than a CCTV camera in a town center.
January 18th, 2010 - 9:02 pm
When I was a student of photography, it was this sort of discussion that was disregarded by the second year.
By defining the rules of discourse in terms of “street photography” and “art photography” the conversation becomes pretty useless. If you think Streuli doesn’t fit into your idea of what the canon of street photographer is, why question his motives or value at all? If street photography consistently stands on it’s own, why have a blog dedicated to the discussion of it? Because there is ALWAYS value in discussion and context.
I don’t necessarily care for Streuli’s images, but I can say that about any number of photographers (or artists using photography)—and I am still glad most all of them are out there making photographs. I am hard pressed to dismiss any work just because it doesn’t appeal to me, directly.
January 18th, 2010 - 9:56 pm
Thanks for this thought provoking article on the nature of the street photographer’s interaction with strangers. Although I agree with the first part about not appreciating the intrusive or distant approach, I question the conclusion about what might be significant to quality street photography- “The Photographers empathy for the predicament or situation of another human being results in gentle, sensitive and subtle observations.” I think if we truly empathized with the “predicaments” we observed, we might not be taking our photograph. I wonder if our need to take the photograph and the often needed rapidity from observation to shot, make empathy difficult. I suspect it is often other qualities than ones empathy that result in excellent street photography and protect you and others from confrontation. You used the words gentle, sensitive, and subtle which may be more key to the lack of confrontation and leads to a more respectful approach when privacy is impacted.
January 21st, 2010 - 5:24 pm
[...] I’ve just been reading this interesting post by Nick Turpin on empathy/connection with the sub…. The link should include the comments following the post – an interesting discussion well [...]
January 22nd, 2010 - 8:08 pm
In my favourite street photographs, there’s a shared ‘moment’ between the photographer and subject, a kind of intimacy that may only last a second but it’s priceless all the same.
For me, the joy and frustration of street photography is in capturing (or attempting to) ‘that precise moment’ rather than the one immediately before or after…
January 24th, 2010 - 7:25 pm
Nick,
What a wonderful world it would be if everyone conformed to your vision and definition of street photography! (end sarcasm)
I don’t like Streuli’s images either. I call that surveillance photography. I also don’t think he cares whether you or I admire or respect his work and I think you’re wasting your time pondering that question.
There are a lot of great images over at in-public, but in my opinion, it is not the central authority on street photography. Once we let these internet cliques such as HCSP (flickr) and in-public.com define our work, it is no longer our own.
Eric
January 27th, 2010 - 4:05 pm
Curious, Nick, if you see a difference between Streuli’s work and that of, say, Walker Evans’ subway portraits. Evans’ photographs are just as voyeuristic (he hid his camera) but some might say, just as probing. Also, Streuli usually presents his work in some sort of composite format — large scale triptychs, video mosaics, etc. Again, this is not unlike Evans, whose subway portraits are often presented several at a time. In either case, I don’t think the images have much impact when shown individually and out of context.
Having said all this, I’m not a fan of Streuli’s work either — but not because I think it’s bad street photography. In fact, I wouldn’t call it street photography at all. His images seem to endeavor to probe the subconscious somehow and probably appeal to an entirely different crowd.
January 30th, 2010 - 1:55 pm
@Eric I don’t think in-public is the central authority on street photography either, although ten years ago it was virtually the only place you could go to see contemporary street photography, that’s all changed now of course….and I’m glad it has. Street Photography is now a recognised and distinct photographic approach but in 2000 it would be unthinkable for a major publisher like Thames and Hudson to publish a big hardback book on the contemporary scene as they are now doing this autumn….and there would have been no audience for my recent magazine. The major figures who stand out for me in street photography are the ones who go their own way like Cristobal Hara and Martin Kollar, they just let their personal vision unfold apparently largely un influenced by the rest of us and I applaud and admire that.
@Brian I only mention Streuli in this context because I have seen his work included in two exhibitions of street photography and, incidentally, displayed as single huge images in both cases. Its funny, if anything I would question if Walker Evans shot in the tradition of street photography, most of his work is either peopless or posed.