Re: [Leica] street photography

[Bmceowen@aol.com]

In a message dated 5/19/00 12:01:03 PM, guybnt@idt.net writes:

>imo, both 'manipulated' (i.e. posed pictures of friends, family, the
>indigenous population, etc) and 'spontaneous' (i.e. street photography
>as
>j.d. and others practice it) give valid results, from a documentary point
>of view: they record the subject 'az wuz.' they just approach it
>differently, one seeks to control the representation (think of curtis's
>photographs of american indians - though carefully posed and composed,
>they
>nevertheless remain unique, valuable records of a people we otherwise might
>know less about [if only with respect to how they looked and dressed]),
>the
>other does not.
>
>the latter (i.e. uncontroled) type of photography may yield 'truer' results
>from a documentary point of view in that subjects act 'naturally' since
>-
>supposedly - they do not know they are being recorded. i personally don't
>find anything ominous or threatening about that fact.
>


Well I said I was going to bow out but I've got to respond to this post . . . 
It seems like there is a middle ground between manipulating your subject to 
produce the photo you imagine and "stealing" their image in a fleeting moment 
without their knowledge. That middle ground involves actually taking an 
interest in your subjects beyond what you can get out of the deal -- which is 
what I think both of the extremes presented above are all about -- That 
middle ground means you spend some time with them. You get to know them and 
while doing so you document their lives. The important thing here is that you 
strive to tell THEIR  story. You don't try to tell YOUR view as with the 
manipulated image and you don't try to USE them for some 
political/cultural/societal statement that YOU want to make like so much of 
street photography seems to be about. This, of course, is photojournalism and 
it's my thing so of course I think it's the better course. But beyond that, 
from a merely philosophical sense I really do think it's the better course. 

Someone compared "street photography" to jazz. Using that analogy here's what 
I'm saying. Curtis, et al, rearranged the music in the piece. "Street 
photography" grabs a a couple of measures out of the piece and plays only 
that. Photojournalism plays the whole song and lets others decide (OK, maybe 
it messes with the tone controls a bit but that's basically the idea).

Bob (play the whole song, will you?) McEowen