I could only think to say that “Photography” was something “to do”… whereas “Photographer” was something “to be”…

Perhaps “art/ist” is something you are, not something you do, and thereafter debate becomes irrelevant.

STEFAN: I hear what you and Panos say, but much the same could be said of Eugene Richards’s printing, or some of Larry Towell’s book repro… I too have printed professionally for people as Panos has, and on this side of the planet, we lean more towards the zonal side of things than the harsher contrasts; at least, that is how I see it.

End of the day, it is a matter of taste, and black and white is NOT necessarily made up of 100% and 0% values.

Sean’s work already looks better on his site than here… quite often, B&W images appear to lose sharpness and also a sense of defined tonal range when their size is altered, and they are resized as JPEGS.

L.

absolutly right what Pano says. the pictures are grey in grey, not black and white.

I can see, as a painter of course, Picasso (whom I otherwise appreciate enormously) saying this from his bourgeois digs in Paris, while the gestapo picked up jews all around the city to send them to their horrible deaths.

The only question an “artist” would ever have to answer to him or herself, to others too if they wish, but in deeds then not in words, is not what is the name of what I am doing but “what am I doing?”.

That’s where the fight is.

IMO.

Street photography and art… three names: HCB, Garry Winogrand, Lee Friedlander. And I’n not counting Robert Frank and William Klein. As far as I’m concerned the case is closed! ;)

Giancarlo

PS; are we at 400 yet?

You can call me a “retard”, I couldn’t care less… Actually I even enjoy it quite a lot. Btw this word seems fashionable these days (see Panos’ posts). But Herve seems to have understood my post better than you. What I was saying is essentially:

1) “Art” is a word or, if you prefer, a concept, and we can debate endlessly about what it is, like middle ages philosophers about the various theological problems of their times. More recently, this problem has been addressed by many many people including Marcel Duchamp and the Dadaistes, or (sorry once again for my French references) the French “artist” Benjamin Vautier (aka Ben). And those who steal Duchamp’s urinals in museums or those who pee on them can legitimately call themselves artists. And if these people are artists, then street photographers should be artists too, otherwise it would be too unfair.

So I prefer to leave this debate to people who can write PhD theses and then become scholars and make a living of it (and btw Ben also managed to make quite a lot of money with his art and that without becoming a University professor and having to struggle to get a tenure).

2) I said that although it is not always clear cut, I see the distinction between photography that is staged and that that is not, or more or less equivalently the fiction/non fiction distinction as more “useful” or “tractable”, for at least we have a better idea of what we are talking about.

3) Let’s now try a syllogism.

Major: People who claim that street photography is not art are retarded.
Minor: Some of the best street photographers claim that street photography is not art.
Conclusion: Some of the most famous street photographers are retarded.

Unfortunately not all retarded people do great street photography, otherwise I would be a great street photographer.

I value “non fiction” photography more than everything else for I think than reality, for the better and for the worse, is always beyond fiction.

Ok, enough about that.

Panos,

I have nothing against the 400 posts and I was just trying to increment the counter to make it reach the 400 faster, with yet another useless post. And BTW my name is Ukaleq and not Ukaleb.

Akaky,

Since you seem to have a liking for both completely off topic posts and moustaches, here is a link to an interesting moustache that you might want to check:

http://www.boursorama.com/infos/actualites/detail_actu_marches.phtml?&news=4996249

A French version of John Bolton? LoL

i stay on the last two or three posts always….i think most people do …anyway, good suggestion…i will be getting to a review of your work soonest…..

cheers, david

Now that David has started a new thread no one will get to see the soccer match…which is wonderful. Please post it again in the new thread so it can be seen and enjoyed…plus it’s appropriate to the new post. Thanks!

i looked again at the Digital Railroad upload site….i did see your name, but no actual photos uploaded…

LIAM….

i do have photographs from you…and you have a couple of very nice singles which i plan to showcase soonest….

GLENN…

some nice pictures from you which will also been shown soonest…perhaps not quite enough for an “essay look”, but your best are out on the “leading edge”….

cheers, david

cheers,

Now, I know that some here may think that photography is photography, labelings are but a vain thing. Yes, when you have said that, unless you decide that is all there is to say, you still have to account for all kind of different choices and approaches photographers affect with their cameras.

Nachtwey does not exhibit or publish essays on blooming flowers, you may decide to write a whole book on what he does making sure you never use any sort of labeling as if doing so was the worse evil that happened in the history of human discourse, or you can think that using labels at time (say, war photographer?) does not mean writing anything in marble or induce debilitation in the reader (and yourself).

Rene is right, cut some slack, but especially, make sure what is someone replying to. The interest in what constitutes art photography IN YOUR OPINION is perfectly valid, we understand the responses can cover the whole gamut, from denying there ever was such thing to claiming it is quite differentiated from what a street photographer does….Even if this last one is a great artist whose “art” will endure..

Capice?

For anyone who cares my new blog will be http://octavioswilliam.blogspot.com/

Check it out next week!!!