Copyright 2000 Jeff Spirer

Just another day in Beserkeley... 35mm lens, Tri-X, negative scan.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), August 17, 2000

Answers

The silence is deafening! This is the third time Ive viewed you image and cant believe it has been posted this long without a comment.

For some reason this image does not appear as sharp as your past posts and it takes away from the overall appeal. Initially the severe angle unsettled me but after a time Ive grown to like it, a lot. I wish the reflection to the left of the door frame wasnt cut off down the middle of someones head; it holds a good amount of interest for me. I do like how the picture reveals so much about the immediate environment. Her right eye seems to be focused on a different point than her left eye, could be the lighting. The security grates make quite a statement; they scare the hell out of me. Im not commenting on the technical aspects because they are irrelevant. I like the picture. Good eyes- yours not hers.

larry

-- larry szoke (lszoke@icom.ca), August 18, 2000.

Interestingly, the immediate environment in this people photograph is more detailed and really more interesting than the person by herself. The girl is secondary. The girl becomes the environment, and the environment becomes the subject. What I think about when I look at her, though, is how interesting people's expressions are when they're walking along the street, totally involved in their own thoughts, totally unaware of the outside world except perhaps what to avoid steping on or walking in. The inside world, however, is full with personal issues like what to cook for dinner, how to fit something into a schedule, or what a busy day they have tomorrow. The girl being ofset so far from a more traditional subject region really makes an interesting image.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@alaska.net), August 19, 2000.

This is not intended as a criticism of the style, subject or technical quality of the posted photography...just an inquiry.

I guess I'm more of a traditionalist. I tend to do portraits (even street portraits) that have a predetermined purpose, and are more "crafted" as opposed to "impulsive." I'm not sure what the purpose is in "random street photography." That's why I have never been a fan of Winogrand, etc. I appreciate Arbus, Frank, Michaels (weird little stories), and even Rowlett!!!! heaven forbid!!! :>), but just a quick, impulsive, random point and shoot on the street leaves me wondering. Also, is there a purpose in the tilts? Winogrand was noted for this, although, when asked once, he responded, "What tilt?"

Again, this is not negative criticism...I would just like a discussion of random street photography...convince me! Todd

-- Todd Frederick (fredrick@hotcity.com), August 22, 2000.

The purpose is simple - it's to create meaningful photographs.

Some of us find meaning in the real world, some don't. And it's not random, it's the world around us. Some of my "street" shots are carefully constructed in advance by picking backgrounds where I hope something will happen and then photographing as people happen into the scene. Others just happen because the opportunity shows up.

Regarding tilt- it's just another compositional and emotional construct in the photo. If all photos conform to some template - strictly square to the edges, 8x10 form factor, "rule of thirds", no blur, etc., the world becomes boring and can be photographed by computers.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), August 22, 2000.

Ok...a "meaningful photograph." I think most of us want to take meaningful photographs. I do!

A while back you were very critical of Phil Borges' formalistic style, and were very critical of his images, techniques, and motives. However, I'm guessing that he is also trying to take meaningful photographs, just as we are. So what makes your photograph of the young girl on the street more meaningful than Borges' photographs of native peoples?

Now then, I really can't get involved in the image of the street girl you posted...I guess it's not meaningful...to me. However, it seems to be meaningful to others, and I'm sure it is to you. How is your image of the girl on the street a meaningful photograph to you? Can you tell me?

Therefore, I guess if this photograph is meaningful to you but not to me, and my photograph (such as "digital photographer" below) is meaningful to me but not to you, and if Phil Borges' photographs are meaningful to him but not to someone else, then ALL photographs are meaningful to some people but not to others, and ALL photographs are not meaningful to some people but are meaningful to others...so then, the quality of meaningfulness is totally relative: simply a matter of personal opinion and/or artistic taste, devoid of any specific criteria of what "meaningfulness" means in an absolute sense. Is that correct?

If that is correct, then no one can ever be criticial of anyone elses' photographs since they must have meaning to someone, even if only to the photographer him/herself.

If I were to take a disposable camera and sit on a street bench and snap away for ten minutes, I could set up a display of photographs or post them here that are "meaningful" to me...simply because I say they are. But, my audience may say that these photographs are not meaningful to them, and they would be perfectly correct in that critique.

therefore, what constitutes a "meaningful photograph?" (and it's not simply because it "pictures life," in my opinion).

I am really trying to understand this but I guess I just don't get it.

How is your photograph of the young girl on the street a meaningful photograph to you and how could I make it a meaningful photograph to me? Tell me more.

-- Todd Frederick (fredrick@hotcity.com), August 22, 2000.

A while back you were very critical of Phil Borges' formalistic style, and were very critical of his images, techniques, and motives. However, I'm guessing that he is also trying to take meaningful photographs, just as we are. So what makes your photograph of the young girl on the street more meaningful than Borges' photographs of native peoples?

I don't know if I can answer that. But my problem with Borges is that he wants to put indigenous people into a box, and that is where they have been put for years. It may be a more sympathetic box, but the only box that really works is the empathetic one. If you want to see some truly great portraits of indigenous people, see some photographs by Luis Gonzalez Palma. (II Silenzio dei Maya is the best book of his work, if somewhat expensive and hard to find.) It's immediately obvious that Palma and Borges are working on two different emotional planes.

I have done photographs of indigenous people, and I'm pretty careful about what I shoot. I do shoot on the street, for example, this one.

How is your image of the girl on the street a meaningful photograph to you? Can you tell me?

Like most of my urban shots in the US, to me it's about the alienation of the individual in the greater scheme of things, a contrast between the individual, the person, and the trappings of modern life, the metallic, the glass. The noise. I suppose that in some way I am an existentialist, although my style of shooting is much closer to the surrealists, as I have said before. With this shot, I had been looking at the security gate and thinking about the open markets we have once a week. She walked into the scene and I isolated her. By the way, it's an illusion, she was holding a man's hand.

so then, the quality of meaningfulness is totally relative: simply a matter of personal opinion and/or artistic taste, devoid of any specific criteria of what "meaningfulness" means in an absolute sense. Is that correct?

Maybe. It's certainly why what is art? is such a commonly unanswerable topic. It doesn't mean we can't be critical - many photos are trying to message but fail for some reason. Not for everyone necessarily, but for someone, maybe the someone that happens to be reviewing at the moment. And it is tied to the moment...for years, I have searched for a good video transfer of Orson Wells' movie of The Trial (a photographer's movie if there ever was one.) It was impossible to find because it was unanimously trashed by critics when it came out. It recently resurfaced, due to a revisionism among critics about the film. Well, a great film was always a great film, but there was a coterie of critics that didn't particularly care for it, forcing it into obscurity. Fortunately, it's now available, and I'd recommend it to any black and white photographer purely for visual reasons, although there's a lot more going for it than just the visual.

If I were to take a disposable camera and sit on a street bench and snap away for ten minutes, I could set up a display of photographs or post them here that are "meaningful" to me...simply because I say they are.

Are they meaningful to you> Or are you just saying they are?

My photos are meaningful to me, and I find, frequently to other people. (Not consistently, some people hate them.) I find meaning in their thematic and stylistic relationships, something not particularly planned, it just happens because it's where my mind goes, how I see the world, what matters to me. Isolated, they may be meaningless to most people. As a group, I think they come together in several ways.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), August 23, 2000.

Jeff...I think that for this photograph of the girl to communicate the meaning you so well expressed, might be better articulated by creating a sequencing of related images which interrelate, to "tell a story" to communicate your feelings of alienation. I think the single image doesn't communicate the full story by itself.

-- Todd Frederick (fredrick@hotcity.com), August 23, 2000.

If you step back from this immediate image, you will see that all of Jeff's images are remarkably consistent and deal quite specifically with his deliberately stated "meaning".

I can't find the quote right now, but some clear thinking woman who was (is) a writer, said that the paragraph is the emotional unit of language. In photographic terms, I feel we must string images into sentences, then paragraphs, that convey the feelings, emotions and conditions that may not be obviously represented by objects in the images.

In musical terms, you might have a favorite lick, or stanza, which is catchy and memorable, but the real emotional power is conveyed, and the genius revealed, in movements, in verses and refrains in the composition, complete, and constructed of deliberate details... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), August 23, 2000.

Jeez you're an elegant writer Tom. I had seen the last posting the night before and was going to respond, but yours made me take a deep breath and think more.

I was going to say essentially the same thing you said in the first couple sentences. My postings here have been quite consistent, including recent ones such as the "tough guy" and "west side story," both of which have somewhat more minimal, yet still distinctly urban, backgrounds, and then back to the smoker, the girl on the fire escape, etc. At times, I think I'm almost too single-minded, I have millions (well not quite) of these kinds of shots. My parents recently sent me a long lost box of prints that I made when I was 14 or 15 (too bad they've never found the negatives) and I was shooting the same thing then, if a bit less skilfully ad somewhat less directly.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), August 23, 2000.

Response to just another street shot.

The sheer eloquence, the structure, the expertise, the .. err unanswered question, please, gentleman, elucidate, the intention, if not the meaning of the street shot? What was captured in the angled shot of the young woman? frustration at being photographed ?, the intrusion? the arrogance? artistic license? The reference to other photographers always fails to convince me of original intent. I was under the impression of a story behind the photo, Bert Hardy 'Gorbal boys', HCB 'Garde de Nord', how does this compare?

Jeff, what is the intent and meaning?

Regards

Jack.

-- Jack McVicker (jack.m@virgin.net), August 23, 2000.

This photograph is different than most on this forum, in that it has almost nothing to do with photography, I doubt the woman even knew she was being photographed, and it looks like it was made somewhere between intuition and a twitch. The image was made with no regard for photo history, for conventional wisdom pertinent to the definative technique, even for making a definate statement. It seems like the bland visual noise that occurs in a modern human's head as they walk down a crowded city street thinking of perhaps nothing but a grey impatience for "this" to stop, and something "else" to begin. No expectations, just keepin' at it, with no thought of a larger picture... just "now here", and getting "there soon". Eloquent, but bleak.

John, you don't have to like art for it to be good. You should, however, like it if you intend to buy it. This is free... enjoy... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), August 23, 2000.

Tom and others...

I think dialog is good and can become a significant part of this wonderful forum Shawn has set up for us all.

Jeff has a particular style, subject, and message he likes to present in his images. I want to know more about it. It's not my style, but is cetrainly valid as a personal statement.

The issue of what we buy and display (or don't) is relevant. I certainly would not want to buy or display the photograph of the Iraqi soldier's burned head looking out the truck's window, but that photograph is the only image I ever picture in my mind when I think about the US/Iraqi conflict. That is a valid photographic statement.

Jeff's image is also a photographic statement, though I might not enjoy having it hang in my office.

So let's keep the dialog flowing.

-- Todd Frederick (fredrick@hotcity.com), August 24, 2000.

response to just another street shot.

Ohh , The syntax, the grammatical composition, but, the strange smell that permeates throught out this statement, is it cats, no .... dogs...... no...cows....... almost..... but ...

Tom, I can understand the presumed assumption that a photograph has almost nothing to do with photography, and the need to push the bounderies of esoteric and esthetical use of street images but ..definate...... I almost fell about the floor laughing, Please... the expression on the girls face.... more like outrage, but please, clarify , somebody, anybody, I read statements like, waiting for the moment to evolve or what ever... why the diagonal lines at the left, the window section to the right.. the angled shot and the body of the figure emerging from the bottem right corner. I like the use of words like consistent.. wonderful, but the consistent intent please... if the rules of composition are being cast aside what is taking their place, Gentleman.. without quoting some surrealist manifesto or indulging in a non specific inanimate dicussion of the life of a ............ fill in any title you wish but. please ... Elucidate....

regards

Jack

-- Jack McVicker (jack.m@virgin.net), August 24, 2000.

Exactly my point, Todd, I hope you don't find my tone to be negative in any way. You seem to be trying to calm me down. This type of discussion is just what I enjoy about this forum, and the P.o.P forum as well.

To reinforce my point and your re-expression of it, I really like Joel Peter Witkins' work, but I can't imagine where I would hang it in my home. This is true of some of Jeff's work, also. Not for the same reasons, obviously. While I appreciate what he's doing and how he does it, I would rather have a book of those images, to get the "drift" rather than pick one or two "hits" and display them out of context and frustrate Jeff's attempts to communicate his understanding of the world (or his lack of understanding... Maybe that would be better expressed as his reflection of the world, through the Spirer Filter)... t

My comment about buying is an inside joke for me, only, sorry. Many people think to collect art as an investment. Astute collectors will only buy work they like, because, as Chris Rock says... Ya never know... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), August 24, 2000.

Gentleman.. without quoting some surrealist manifesto or indulging in a non specific inanimate dicussion of the life of a ............ fill in any title you wish but. please ... Elucidate....

I can't do this. It's like asking a Catholic talk about religion with talking about God. It's too much a part of who I am and what I do...

To reinforce my point and your re-expression of it, I really like Joel Peter Witkins' work, but I can't imagine where I would hang it in my home. This is true of some of Jeff's work, also.

I don't hang quite a bit of it in my home either.

I'm not entirely sure where all this is going.

The image was made with no regard for photo history

I will put one that has lots of regard for photo history into another thread.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), August 24, 2000.

I've seen thousands of people on the street who look just as bored, angry, (outraged, if you think so, Jack) and in a constant state of resentment at their self imposed condition... and there was no camera in sight. McDonalds and 7-11's the world over are staffed with thousands of people who have this expression on their face 24/7. It has nothing to do with being photographed.

There is no photographic justification for why this image is put together like it is. You seek to impose rules, standards and qualifiers on this image that have no relevance to it. That's why you don't understand what it has to say. You look for some device, some predetermined niche that it can fit into that will allow you to say "Oh! That's what it means". This is because you are a photographer (or currently a photography critic) at the expense of other experience. Quit looking at it like it is an object to be dissected according to photographic rules and accept that it is an image of an intensely unhappy woman propelling herself through a hard, out of balance, indifferent world. A great, historically important photograph?... no, but an insightful and well recognized moment? Yep. It would be a fine supporting word in a larger paragraph of intense emotional images.

By the way, it was Gertrude Stein I quoted, earlier. Is that what you are referring to as a "Surrealist Manifesto"?

"Non specific inanimate discussion of the life of..."... what the hell are you talking about? is that related to this rather animated discussion in some direct way? Please ellucidate... t

p.s. "presumed assumption" is redundantly repetative (smiley face here). I make no presumed assuptions... I state my case. And enjoy the parry and thrust.

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), August 26, 2000.

street photography

Jack, I fight the same feelings as you espoused here in this thread. But as I learn more and more from the many photographers here, I am reminded that HCB, Winograd, Evans and even Bourke-White, ect. had people who questioned the validity of their images. I take pictures of many things. But few of people because I haven't found them exciting. I just don't see the same way as Jeff. I've even put up threads on different forums regarding this very subject. But as I've grown, I have begun to realize what photography is and can be. For me it is about expression. This image of a girl walking down the sidewalk is just as valid as my 1000th image of Half-dome. Jeff is explaining what he sees through his eyes with this image. It needn't tell any certain story because the story changes with the experiences of the viewer. Jeff's imagery doesn't mean as much to me as John Sexton's or Ray McSaveny's work because that is the environment which I spent most of my middle-life in. But that doesn't negate the images that Jeff makes, even for me. I feel all images have validity to whom ever they touch. Some like kids, some like sports, and some like naked girls. From our collective creations come tomorrows images. There are photographers here who disdain Anne Geddes' work with babies and children. They dismiss it as too contrived and commercial. They feel the only work worthy of their plaudits are avante garde works. But I happen to feel she is extremely creative. She puts enormous effort into each piece she creates. But neither my admirations nor the disdain of the avate gardists determine if her work is good or not. It is the viewer who determines if it is good to "them." And that is what matters. Lumberjack

-- lumberjack (james_mickelson_@hotmail.com), August 26, 2000.

Response to just another street shot.

My problem, in viewing Jeff's images, I took this type of photography when I was 14 and had just been given a Praticka 35 SLR camera. I rushed about everywhere snapping away and ' creating' the same type of photograph, tilted, blurred, out of focus, black cat in a coal cellar, graduated , as all first year art/photoraphy students do, to a pin hole camera. Used the tiny 'fish eye' that allow you to see your visitors without opening the door, mention the bottem of wine bottles and I was working out how to cut the wine bottles, greens, browns, I learnt to develope film with home made chemicals, my fingernails had become brittle and stained with a variety of chemicals, but Education beckoned, Jean Paul Satre, Occam's Razor, Adlerian principles regarding compensation began a totally different concept of images and photography.

So, when I ask about the motivation and reason for a style after the 'author' has given part explanation, "the waiting at a certain location for a 'scenario" to develope" I would like to know the motivation, be it purely looking at the young ladies, attemting a new chat up line, seeking a photographic concept but please don't insult my intelligence with a ' my inner being took over and suddenly I found I had taken a photograph', we all have inner motivations, but usually these are within the confines of rational behaviour.

How does the old saying go, 'In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.'

Tom & James, thank you for your concern, I'll dig out some people street shots that date back to 1966, and some that were taken quite recently.

Regards

Jack.

-- Jack McVicker (jack.m@virgin.net), August 28, 2000.