Talking About Subjects & Objects in Street Photography

Run Don't Walk (Melbourne Australia June 2014)

I read yet another definition of Street Photography yesterday. And boy oh boy aren't there a lot of them around these days? But never mind that. What I want to talk about here is just a few words that really stood out for me. The writer was giving his definition and said something about "objects" in the street. At first I read on, then, suddenly, I realised he wasn't talking about the buildings, cars, buses or other inanimate things one sees on the street; he was actually referring to the people in the street as objects—as things.

People as things? I don't think so. But, as I read on, there it was again, and then again. This so-called "expert" on street photography was describing people as objects. Sorry, I know I'm repeating myself here, but I was and I still am just so flabbergasted at such an idea. And, just think how many people are going to read that article. Makes me shudder.

Anyway, it put me in mind of something a fellow Twitterer said to me a while ago. I forget what we were talking about, but I had used the word subject in a post, referring to the people I photograph in the street. Here's his reply:

I wouldn't even call them subjects. Sounds too clinical. I'd opt for collaborators. It's a partnership.

And he was right. Is right I should say.  Regular readers will know that I have been trying for a while now to start a conversation that will lead to a less aggressive, less acquisitive and gentler way of speaking about street photography (here's my blog post about language in street photography).

I have for some time talked about "people I photograph" rather than using the word subject. A change that has to do with my desire to change the language, but in truth prompted by my fellow Twitterer's comment quoted above.

As a street photographer, calling a person I photograph a subject really implies that that person is subject to, or in some way not on the same level, or holding the same power as me, simply because I am the one with the camera making a photograph of them. If anything I feel that the person being photographed is the one directing the process. By this I mean that they are the ones who invite or do not invite the photographer (that's me) to photograph them.

Of course for many this is all very esoteric and perhaps is even seen as complicating what some would argue is a very simple process. And of course, street photography when practised well is a very simple process.

How is it simple? Well, I don't mean simple as in easy: it's not always easy. No, I mean simple as in straightforward. We talk about being "in the zone" when on the street photographing. And when we are in the zone we are in touch with the feeling—the vibe if you like—on the street and in a deep way we are connected with the other people around us. In this way we just know if we are given "permission" to photograph them or not. Of course it's not at all spoken, this permission; it's more about the intuition of the photographer connecting with the flow of energies and feelings of others around her or him.

So, it is about language. But it is about more than the words we use to describe our activities as street photographers. It is about an attitude toward other people and the environment we are working in. It is about a willingness to be open to the sub-conscious wishes of others and just knowing at a deep intuitive level what is and what is not okay.

I talk a lot about sharing moments with the people I photograph. By this I mean a two-way sharing that takes place as I feel the rightness of making a photograph of a person or group of people. In this respect those other people are very much my partners (as in having an equal participation and 'investment'), collaborators with me in the process of creating a photograph that is then a true representation of that moment.

Street Photography really is a team effort isn't it?