IF COMMENTS FROM THOMAS AND DENNIS ON my last entry are any indication, I apparently created confusion, re: my idea of street photography. While I thought that the pictures in the entry might make my what is street photography? idea fairly clear, I believe the confusion culprit is the phrase “…can be done anywhere and people do not have to be present in the photo”. So, let me give it another go using my own words, as opposed to quoting those from some else. Smiply put…
iMo, to my eye and sensibilities, street photography is the surreptitious act of making candid pictures which depict people, in public places (primarily man-made environments), displaying gestures, expressions, body language, including quirky / spontaneous / curious situations and relationships to others and/or their immediate environment, and the like.
No. I do not believe any of Sir Ansel’s pictures of the natural world are street photographs. They are landscape photographs. While I appreciate-and make-street scenes devoid of people, I do not consider them to be street photography. No. They are urban landscapes.
All of that written, it should go without writing (as he writes it while writing it nevertheless) that street photography can be many different things to many different people. Ultimately, that’s OK with me cuz, I don’t give a damn what a picture might be labeled as. I care only about whether, or not, any picture (any genre) is, iMo and to my eye and sensibilities, a good picture.