- Street photography requires the least amount of work. The street is there, waiting, accessible. A web designer is hardly going to go into a war zone like Nachtwey to do conflict photography (an equally meaningless and cliched form).
- The person feels like they ‘know it.’ All these romantic types, ‘seeing, no really seeing.’ They are so sensitive to the beauty all around them. They just can’t help but capture it. No deeper thought, or narrative is required. A very simplistic, cute aesthetic rules.
- The cult of Cartier Bresson, and Winogrand. These two gnomic photographers are absolutely revered by the amateur because of their seemingly non-technical mantras on method. There is enough going on in a street photo that technique, tonality etc. is less of a concern. This makes it even easier for the amateur.
The photo above is a particularly good example of all the things that is wrong with nearly all street photography:
- No discernable tension in the frame, no risk taken. The photo is essentially meaningless. What is it about? Wearing sandals when you’re old?
- Garish framing resulting in a kitch photo which draws attention to itself.
- Terrible technical quality of the pictures (even shown on the web), very flat tonality, over exposed. Focus problems on the front girl is distracting.
- It doesn’t do anything new. Others have done this shot a million times before and a hundred times better. This isn’t saying anything different. How boring. Looking at this stuff is so draining.
Of course this critique stems from my own massive insecurities about what I’m doing. Of course.
Posted 2 years ago
