Ming Thein recently posted an article containing his evolving views of street photography. He has some strong criticism of the "status quo" in the genre, and puts forward an alternative. I suppose none of what he describes is a completely new argument, but there aren't many articles putting forth a point of view on the subject as comprehensively as this one. He states the goal of the article as:
The evolution of street photography
I think some of his criticism has a point, for instance when he talks about how the obvious attributes of the "street photography greats" are copied and presented as the goal of street photography, rather than the idea behind their images.
On the other hand, when he talks about "sloppy shot discipline", I think it's fair to let the moment and mood prevail over the technical qualities of the image, at least so long as you can't combine the two. Ming Thein is an extremely structured photographer, who does have a good eye for mood, but IMO if his dismissal of shots with "sloppy shot discipline" were to be universally followed, a lot of very good images would be lost. Also, if one simply enjoys high contrast wide angle black and white images, why not shoot in that style, even if 98% of the other street photographers out there use the same style?
He calls the style he proposes less ‘street photography’ and more ‘reporting on life’. He then goes on to describe why he keeps his distance and uses a long(ish) lens; his reasoning makes sense for the type of image he proposes:
The idea of recording the "feel" of a certain era has been on my mind for a long, long time, so this essay definitely strikes a chord with me there. Also, the point about respecting individuals and how they would want to be seen is a valid one I think. At the same time, I find individuals and their stories fascinating; however, the percentage of candid shots that really manage to tell a story about a person is rather low. Would it be worthwile to shift at least part of our street photography focus to a more universal, rather than individual subject?
I'm curious to see how you guys and girls feel about it!
addressing some overdone stereotypes (...) to see if we can get a bit more understanding into a) why those stereotypes exist, and b) if we want to produce visually different and better work, what needs to change. Read on, but only if you don’t believe everything should be shot from close range and monochrome contrast is solely binary.
The evolution of street photography
I think some of his criticism has a point, for instance when he talks about how the obvious attributes of the "street photography greats" are copied and presented as the goal of street photography, rather than the idea behind their images.
On the other hand, when he talks about "sloppy shot discipline", I think it's fair to let the moment and mood prevail over the technical qualities of the image, at least so long as you can't combine the two. Ming Thein is an extremely structured photographer, who does have a good eye for mood, but IMO if his dismissal of shots with "sloppy shot discipline" were to be universally followed, a lot of very good images would be lost. Also, if one simply enjoys high contrast wide angle black and white images, why not shoot in that style, even if 98% of the other street photographers out there use the same style?
He calls the style he proposes less ‘street photography’ and more ‘reporting on life’. He then goes on to describe why he keeps his distance and uses a long(ish) lens; his reasoning makes sense for the type of image he proposes:
Images should not be invasive out of respect for the subject and the details they would prefer to keep private; similarly, as the world increases, so does the ‘personal anonymity’ of an individual: we want to be recognized, but not warts and all. (...) As a result, the focus of the image is less about the individual and more about what that individual could represent; a sort of Everyman. Facial expressions are far less critical because they’re less obvious; body language still matters, but this eases up on the criticality of timing. It is a photograph to encapsulate an era rather than a single instant.
It is both a record of impressions gained through observation of a place and people, and hopefully a more balanced view than a single (not necessarily fair or representative) instant. (...) It is a commentary on the idea of man: what is it to be human in this day and age? There are few to no identifiable individuals, not because I can’t photograph people at close range (I do, and usually now engage them socially first) [but] because the individual makes the story exceptional rather than universal. It is the idea that it could be you riding your moped to the end of the pier to fish for an afternoon, not a specific stereotype of personality. Street photography is social documentary, and a record of both the scene/subject and our interpretation of it; the real questions we should be asking are: what about life now do we want to remember? And more importantly, how do we want to be remembered?
The idea of recording the "feel" of a certain era has been on my mind for a long, long time, so this essay definitely strikes a chord with me there. Also, the point about respecting individuals and how they would want to be seen is a valid one I think. At the same time, I find individuals and their stories fascinating; however, the percentage of candid shots that really manage to tell a story about a person is rather low. Would it be worthwile to shift at least part of our street photography focus to a more universal, rather than individual subject?
I'm curious to see how you guys and girls feel about it!