http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27350410 Not much to say about this really. It reflects my view that "true" documentary requires genuine time and engagement with the subject.
On the back of this I can't help questioning if "street photography" as currently defined/practised is documentary at all. What is it documenting? As far as I can see it is, often as not, simply collecting random stuff, with no programme or purpose other than to photograph on the street - which captures a thought Szarkowski attributed to Eggleston in the preface to the latter's Guide, "...that the nominal subjects of his pictures were no more than a pretext for making colour photographs." Szarkowski notes that he did not believe him and proceeds to explain why - in a nutshell "...it is a matter of intelligence, imagination, intensity, precision and coherence." If Szarkowski's insight is valid - how does much modern street photography, or alleged documentary in general, measure up?
On the back of this I can't help questioning if "street photography" as currently defined/practised is documentary at all. What is it documenting? As far as I can see it is, often as not, simply collecting random stuff, with no programme or purpose other than to photograph on the street - which captures a thought Szarkowski attributed to Eggleston in the preface to the latter's Guide, "...that the nominal subjects of his pictures were no more than a pretext for making colour photographs." Szarkowski notes that he did not believe him and proceeds to explain why - in a nutshell "...it is a matter of intelligence, imagination, intensity, precision and coherence." If Szarkowski's insight is valid - how does much modern street photography, or alleged documentary in general, measure up?
No comments:
Post a Comment