Hi Maggie,
Thanks for answering my original question and elaborating on your thoughts, really appreciated.
I should say that am not at ease with your reasoning when it comes to photographing subjects whom I personally know. I get what you are saying, but I don't know why the value/category of a picture would be different just because it contains a family member. There are many examples of famous photographers such as Sally Mann who have extensively photographed their families. Take for example the street photos of Robert Watcher taken in Nicaragua. He lived there for many months and he is undoubtedly a familiar face there. He walks up and down the same streets and sees the same people time after time. That also introduces a degree of familiarity, perhaps even friendship. When I see the pictures he took, the fact that he might know the persons in the picture does not change how I perceive them. Or take Fahim's pictures of people from all around the world. He tells us time after time that he tries to get to know these people, he engages with them. So most of his pictures are of people whom he knows or has even visited their homes.
Now I realize that your remark was not to say that such pictures are of lesser value. You have merely said that you would consider them as portraits and not street photos. But does it really matter? What Doug wrote back to you is what he has been saying all the time. If we could know what exactly street photography is, what would we do with that knowledge?
Thanks again Maggie.
Cem,
When the response to anyone's questions on " what is art? , what is fine art? , what is street photography? what is a landscape?, etc., if the only answer we will ever get is "who cares", then why have a question at all or ask anyone's opinion?
I most often don't engage in these conversations, because they usually end up fizzling out because people say "Who Cares?".
Now, your question was a little different. It didn't say "what is street photography?". You asked what it meant to me; how do I, Maggie, define it.
Obviously, there can be no clear black and white answer, but if I were to try to explain it to someone what
the basic concept was, it would be as I said. Obviously edges will always be fuzzy. Robert's excellent photos taken in Nicaragua, have that sense of documentation of people, of a culture etc., and he is able to capture a candidness in these people although he has through time engaged with them and become intimate friends. He does have a photo though, of his wife, posed with others and that photo, doesn't seem like street photography to me. Same people, but feels like a portrait of friends made on vacation.
Definitions are important, though, even if fuzzy. If you tell me you are a wild-life photographer and I go to your website and see industrial images, or architectural abstracts but not one animal, I would be confused.
The fuzziness will always be there. How many man-made objects can you have in a landscape before it is no longer considered a landscape? There will never be a definite answer. But I am able to say, that a photo taken of a potted plant on my front entry certainly is not.
So, I gave my opinion and it may well not be worth much, but it is my opinion. Do I care if you call yourself a street photographer or not? Not really. Do I think one kind of photography deserves more respect than another, no.
I do, however, respect the opinions of others and may not agree with all of them, but I wouldn't point to someone and laugh at their opinion by saying something such as "HA! Listen to Maggie, she's got the answer!". I never said I did. It was merely an attempt, in my humble way, of answering what you asked because I didn't believe you were asking us for a "who cares" answer.
kindly,
Maggie
