I used to visualise my favourite street photography heroes when I made family photos or when I was out with my family making photos.
I was always trying to think of the photos I was making as street photography-style photos.
Trying to divorce myself from the ‘scene’ like a documentary photographer, to catch a candid moment of (faux) truth.
Trying to find the right angle or trying to find something visually interesting to make an interesting picture from but it’s recently dawned on me that street photography is simply just photography (a bit obvious!) but the only thing that’s different is the context of subject.
I’ve been talking about sequences of late, here’s another sequence of compositional experiments, good and bad:
A couple I thought were OK.
So if street photography is just photography, why not just drop the ‘street’ part and just call it what it is, simply photography?
Or could I just call it picture making?
One thing I’ve found interesting of late is the number of well known photographic artists talking about their pictures, or the making of their pictures, explaining they didn’t photograph with a specific intention in mind. Ideas formed in post, I remember this being frowned upon at art school.
A few months ago I may have mentioned how I was interested in Mark Cohen talking about how he made his pictures and how he noticed later important details he said he could never have seen at the time of making his photos. Akin to ‘happy accidents’ in painting. The paint fell off the brush in a way not as intended but it captured the imagination.
Earlier tonight I watched a video of Sally Mann explaining art as she sees it, “for fun” and “without any over arching reference”. She even mocked art critics or “Cynical Post-Modern Critics” for always looking for a meaning.
Art for fun, can you imagine it? That would mean that we can all do it, but that wouldn’t do at all. It could spell disaster for Saatchi and co.
I hope this makes sense and doesn’t sound too ‘wanky‘.