The readers of this blog may have noticed that I tend to define my street photography as old school. So what do I mean by this definition? And why and I believe that a differentiation needs to be made?

I consider this book one of the most important pieces of my collection. It is a simple and quick manual book, but inside it is kept all that approach close to mine and in which I identify my photography also on an aesthetic and content level.

Joel Meyerowitz, who is and one of my favorite street photographers, in my opinion, can be considered one belonging to the old school.

Look at this photograph in color by Garry Winogrand that I consider fantastic:

I would like to make a distinction between old school and today's street photography. Most importantly, I see a clear difference between the old school of photographers like Joel Meyerowitz, Garry Winogrand, Todd Papageorge, the first Bruce Gilden, Vivian Maier and the British school. I consider in-public important for the history of street photography. Which marked a well-defined brand. An approach and an aesthetic of its own that has certainly contributed to influencing new generations of photographers, to the point that many today consider that very visual approach, studded with juxtapositions and visual games, the way of doing street photography.

To the point that for many that is street photography. The one and only.

To the point of considering the photography of Winogrand and Meyerowitz outdated.

Of course I don’t agree.

For me, street photography must have a documentary value. And when reduced to mere execution and stylistic exercise, when it becomes a display of what the photographer's eye has been able to see, it can function as a scholastic approach. But it makes me bored.

I want to clarify: I respect the photographers who prefer that kind of street photography, but is not my thing.

As a photographer I am interested in humanity. Not in tha absurd of what is happening. I believe that in the everyday normality there is a lot to tell and it doesn't have to be something that makes you exclaim wow immediately. I prefer to focus on gestures and expressions, in the documentation of those details that reveal the human condition.

Chris Weeks with his book Street Photography for the Purist is another reference that clarifies a certain vision and approach of those street photographers that can be labelled as old school.

Anyway this speech doesn’t exclude that sometimes I can encounter juxtapositions, like in this photo:

To try to summarize what old school street photography is, let me schematize it like this:

OLD SCHOOL STREET PHOTOGRAPHY

Main reference artists: Joel Meyerowitz, Garry Winogrand, Vivian Maier, Helen Levitt, Tod Papageorge, Bruce Gilden, Bruce Davidson

Photographer Focus: gestures, expressions, revealing humanity, human condition

Required skills: genuine interest in others, knowing how to grasp spontaneous moments, speed of execution, invisibility

Let me clarify another point: this should not be an enclosure for creativity but rather an observation of attitude and preference of approach. If taken in the wrong way it would limit the photographer's freedom of creative expression.

With that said I mean that in general I prefer when I shot as an observer, not a participant. But it can’t be a dogma. Also Winogrand and Meyerowitz count with street photos where there is an eye contact, to make an example and i love photographs with eye contact!

Conclusions

I came to the conclusion of the existence of a differentiation after years of experience in my photography, on how my photography and that of other photographers are received compared to other approaches and visions.

I believe that much of the work by Garry Winogrand and Joel Metyerowitz proposed today would be ignored at many street photography awards and street photography festivals. this is because Street Photography evolves with us, with society and is a mirror of society.

If we have seen as a good street photo made in the subway was attacked recently we have an idea of how society in its evolution and, perhaps, involution, can consider not only dated but even disrespectful a certain kind of photography.

Old School Street Photography does it still make sense today? As an interested party I answer yes. But I also do it in the consideration that certain photography never dies. Let's see how, in any case, the photographers mentioned have resisted the passage of time. If photography is important to you as a document and social reflection, I am convinced that this type of photography will resist more than a colored balloon superimposed on a guy's head.

I am married with a history teacher. She studied photography as a historical source. And in particular it was the photos of Nacho Lopez that were the subject of her study.

That is the landing place that makes photography noble.

What I mean by Old School Street Photography

This photo in the barrio…

Street Photography: the sense of community