The disease of street photography and some considerations
At a time when many seem to reject the definition of street photographer, this site strongly and proudly emphasizes its belonging.
PetaPixel is a site that loves sensationalism and lavishes itself in articles often not corroborated by effective images. In one of the last articles the index is pointed at that many street photographers are denying this definition. you can read it by clicking here.
My readers have seen how recently I changed the website title, the logo and my pride in belonging to street photography is clearly highlighted. Just at a time like this where apparently many want to be dissociated from this definition. And I remarked, practically from the beginning of this blog, that it started in 2021, how today street photography is the true credible photojournalism, because it is independent and does not necessarily respond to the logic of supporting the globalist narrative, that with real acts of mass manipulation exercises the task of being an instrument of the system. this is why I quit photojopurnalism as I explain here:
And speking of the witch on petapixel went on the air the painful adventure of a street photographer takes place who, in pointing out the bad photos taken in New York City, the easiest place on earth to do street photography on the planet, plays a second part in whose good photos for him are at least as mediocre as the first ones. I want to clarify: I have nothing against the photographer who, by the way, I believe I published some time ago in my magazine. There is that sometimes you don’t take days or even entire journeys, for heaven's sake. But whether you pass an insult to Putin written on a wall for a good street, that says a lot.
As a street photographer, but above all as a popularizer of the genre and educator, I often analyze how street photography ends up with an incorrect perception. And often the perpetrators are precisely those who, in theory, would be the bodies responsible for spreading a real culture of street photography. I'm not talking about rules. I don't think street photography should be confined to rules, since, above all else, it is an absolutely personal expression. I talk about quality. And in recent years we know where the problem lies. Get ready because I will use a strong concept.
Visual games / optical effects are a disease of street photography. A disease that is like a cancer that has spread rapidly, affecting all organs.
The very idea of a type of photography reduced to this speaks volumes about the erroneous idea that has spread in the media. By now I only see people asking a woman to hold a dog in front of her, making a copy of a photo of Elliott Erwitt:
Awards, festivals and of course social networks contributed to this. To the point that today modern street photography is considered this: a continuous flow of optical effects. Street photography has been reduced to this in the mass imagination. The fact that some photographers today want to dissociate themselves from the term is not surprising. Not everyone has big shoulders to be able to say: look, street photography is not this stuff here, this nauseating shit.
The group in public is also partly responsible. That “smile in the head” approach and always aiming for a street photograph that is some sort of joke is certainly part of the problem. British photography was not that before. How long should the effect of a joke last? The overlaps, the juxtapositions, the optical effect are really misery compared to the photography that documents, the photography that arouses emotions, that offers a point of view of society, but today if you come to say this they tell you that street photography is not that. and that you get confused with documentary photography.
But, of course, I disagree. And, in fact, next week I will give a webinar about this topic, remarking the pride to be a street photographer:
