The new paranoia – a short essay on assholism
There’s a new paranoia infesting the minds of a certain trend of street photographers: that every street photograph is a puzzle where multiple layers of interest must come together in harmony, hence turning street photography into a puzzle.
A good street photograph has to have something minimal to decode, that makes it interesting. Nevertheless, this certain trend is once more falling into that dangerous zone where “”if it doesn’t have 91654 layers of interest, it’s shit”.
I have been following silently this trend for sociological reasons and my findings lead to the inevitable conclusions:
1 – There are 5 or 6 photographers of the new generation who achieve this high level of photography.
2 – There are those who criticize the shit out of those who don’t, but when you come across their body of work, it’s unbelievably bad.
A few weeks back I read this article by a Portuguese photographer who, in the line of the old pros, stated a bitter elegy on how digital ruined photography. Then I see his portfolio and it blew my mind how the hell can someone shoot such a huge amount of shit. My latest irritation came from a photographer’s comment on a photo. The photo portrayed a woman with high class shopping bags going one way and another one with cheap plastic bags going the other. It was interesting and it showed two sides of life. Then a guy comes in and comments (paraphrase) “I’ve done many shots of this, find your own style. Sorry.” Thus, the photo was tagged as invalid as a street genre example.
What the fuck? So were you, who are in your 30s, who invented the social comparison street photos? I’ll be damned.
What is this need that some people have to lower and shit on others photos in order to become noticed? Pathetic.
Let’s talk about layers and street photography.
First, thank you Nick for the heads up, it’s appreciated!
This photo, Stick, by the brilliant Nick Turpin http://www.nickturpin.com/work (one of my heroes)
has obviously two layers of interest. The woman’s stick is perfectly harmonized with the white stripe behind her. This is good street photography and hard work.
This other Turpin’s photo, Untitled
has one layer of interest and it’s absolutely delicious.
As in good poetry, a certain opacity is welcomed to force the viewer to understand the meaning of what is being narrated. I have written several essays and analysis on the opacity on poetry and I find that a decoding process of the poetic subject’s expression leads to higher levels of pleasure and knowledge.
I’ll give you an example. (which can also serve as basis to why I think hip-hop is corny as shit, but that’s off-topic)
1 – “You are my baby love
you are the light that shines above“. >> No metatext, no decoding needed to the viewer, no metalinguistic efforts.
2 – “As water, you fall upon me in shades of green.” >> If you don’t know the psycho-linguistic symbolism involved in linguistic signs and the genetics of the philologist relation between seme and expression, you will fail to understand most of the good poetry. This also differentiates typical teenage poetry from an adult’s expression of human relations and one’s liaison with the several aspects of how we understand the world.
Following that line of thought, which is my own, I could very well remind some people (with a slap on their faces) that Street photography with several layers of interest is brilliant, but, in a few ways forcing it will make you go so conceptual you may distort the reality of what should be portrayed.
So, if what you love is documenting human behavior, shooting street does not require you to obligatory invalidate your work just because you didn’t capture something brilliantly unique where a multitude of layers come together. Documenting and conceptualizing can be in harmony in a perfect marriage. If you want that in your work, is awesome, I want it too.
Nevertheless, once you begin regarding the conceptualization of street photography as the main and sole purpose of what you see in other people’s work, you risk being more than a street photographer: you may become an annoying asshole, and you should check your body of work before being arrogant upon others.
In conclusion.
Digital ruined the photography world. Wrong. The internet is just able to show you more crap, but it’s positive that more and more people are shooting. And there are so many gems out there, waiting to be seen. Such as in teenage writings, it’s good they write so much, even if it’s crap to a more demanding audience, it’s always good that they are expressing themselves and evolving. Most new photographers will evolve, most will quit, who cares? I take pleasure in seeing a good photograph amid 10 shitty ones.
Street photography must show a multitude of layers. It’s brilliant when it does, but the genre is so much more than that.
So much more.
So go on and shoot. Shoot shoot shoot! And as Nick says “Edit edit edit”. Then go and shoot again. 😉
PS – English is my third language, so I will not go on in a hypercorrective mannerism frenzy.
so bloody well said! I enjoyed it from first to last line!
Thanks for the twitt, baby!
I totally agree with you, well said!
Thanks for reading SImon!
Well said indeed.
Thanks Jacko!
Hoorah! Incredible read man, I used to get put down by flickr comments and stopped shooting for some time, then I realised…well…along with shooting for MYSELF and enjoying it, what do I care what armchair photographers think. Now I’m having more fun then ever. Thank you for this brilliant read.
Just go out and do what gives you pleasure. Shoot and shoot, delete what you don’t like and go out and shoot again.(:
You are right at least on one thing, it is much easier to criticize that to go out and actually take good photos.
As for the new multi-layered trend in street photography, I think it is not new at all, but it is extremely difficult to take a GOOD photo of this kind. Anyone who claims that this is the only street photography style don’t know s**t.
Hang on, I am preparing an article on the brilliancy of multi-layered street. As I once wrote, I believe there are at least 3 levels of street photography. From the new generation of street photographers, only you and Felix Lupa truly excel on the first level. I have never seen a body of work as yours and Lupa’s in what comes to multi-layered street photography.
In a personal note, you and Lupa are, from what I have been seeing, the only ones who provide serious honest critique aimed at improving new photographers on this particular sub-genre, instead of putting them down.
well put
Thanks for reading!
Funny, I was talking about this with Stammy the other day. I agree. There are many different approaches, styles, ways to shoot street . I like the ‘multi-layered’ street very much. But it would be insane to think that this approach is or should be the only one. It doesn’t exhaust the genre, it doesn’t have to be the rule for everybody or everytime or the imposed standard. Everyone has to undestand what is his style, do and enjoy it.
Yes, Mary, that exclusiveness trait bothers me when enforced upon others. Do as you will, help others improve, but do the right thing. It seems to be too hard for some.
Really enjoyed reading this. Interesting.
Although not all street photos have to be multi-layered (for me), they should at least be visually pleasing or portray some situation/interaction – bordering a documentary style.
At the moment I’m a bit tired of the “random people shot from the hip” style – or is that a genre, too? 😉
I agree with you wholeheartedly. (:
I’d love to use this In a Yard journal…
I’d love to put this in a Yard Journal. What do you say?
Pelle, you will always be free to do whatever you want with my stuff.;)
Remarkable issues here. I am very glad to see your post. Thank you so much and I am having a look forward to contact you. Will you kindly drop me a e-mail?