Street photography: challenging the label's meaning and relevance

My problem with “street photography”

I hate the term, I think it's a stupid term, street photography. I don't think it tells you anything about the photographer or work. On the subject, I have a book out called The Animals. Call me the same—I'm a zoo photographer. I mean, it all really doesn't make any sense to me, you know? - Garry Winogrand

Garry Winogrand, 1969. The Animals. Museum of Modern Art.

I agree with Garry Winogrand's perspective from his 1981 interview with Barbara Diamonstein (source). I believe “street photography” lacks a clear definition and exists more as a convenient label than a meaningful descriptor.

As art historian and curator Bernice Rose observed in her essay “Allegories of Modernism: contemporary drawing” (source, pg. 15), while photographers worldwide may produce visually similar work due to photography's inherent nature as a mechanical documentation of the physical world, the cultural context and geographic location of the photographer still play crucial roles in shaping their unique perspectives and artistic choices.

Cultural and geographic influences

Despite our diverse cultural backgrounds and artistic intentions, our work is often called “street photography” without much consideration for what the photographer tries to express. As photography continues evolving in our increasingly globalised world, this categorisation will likely become more fluid and less meaningful. From following photographers in New York, I've noticed some photographers focus on character-based photographs simply due to the city's chaotic nature and its inhabitants. On the other hand, when I photograph in Hong Kong, I prioritise different things. Given its cultural differences, people may not stand out as much, so I focus more on cultural nuances and urban documentation of the environment. This lack of consideration of intention and background could relate to the lack of philosophical foundation in the term.

Historical context

Man Ray, 1932. Glass Tears.

A more useful approach may be to focus on the photographer's intent and unique perspective rather than trying to fit work into predefined genres. When I look at the history of art and photography, I see that the movements we now use for classification were driven by both reaction to previous forms and adherence to specific philosophies or manifestos—not by attaching a label to work for the sake of categorisation.

For example, the Surrealist movement emerged as a direct reaction to World War I's horrors (source). Yvan Goll and André Breton wrote a series of Surrealist Manifestos. Artists like Salvador Dalí and photographer Man Ray rejected rationalism by creating dreamlike works that challenged reality.

Early movements in photography, like Pictorialism and straight photography, emerged as responses to the art world's dismissal of photography as a legitimate medium, as noted by Peter Henry Emerson in his 1889 manifesto “Naturalistic Photography” (source, pg. 8).

Paul Strand, 1917. Photograph. Minneapolis Institute of Art.

Pictorialism embraced painterly qualities through darkroom manipulation and soft focus. Following that, straight photography, championed by photographers like Paul Strand in his 1917 essay “Photography and the New God”, advocated for true-to-life imaging to establish photography's distinct voice through the mind's eye.

From my experience, what truly matters isn't whether a photograph is considered street but what the photographer aims to communicate. Photography's power lies in its ability to capture moments, evoke emotions and tell stories regardless of where they unfold. Street photography is a term that has emerged as a convenient categorisation rather than from any artistic or philosophical necessity.

This perspective invites me to examine photography as a means of documentation and a dynamic form of artistic expression that transcends traditional categorisation. By focusing on the photographer's unique vision and message rather than arbitrary labels, we can better appreciate the depth and complexity of photographic work. This approach becomes particularly relevant when considering how modern technology has transformed the medium. This also challenges us to consider how digital technology and social media have transformed how we create and consume images. As evidenced by Winogrand's quote, the term has existed since the 1960s and persists today.

The impact of the digital age

In my experience, Winogrand's criticism of “street photography” becomes even more relevant in today's digital age. The rise of smartphones has transformed photography, blurring traditional boundaries and exposing how arbitrary these categories are. Social media platforms like Instagram have created their own informal categories through hashtags and trends. At the same time, editing apps make it easy to manipulate images instantly, further blurring the line between documentary street photography and artistic interpretation. When millions of people are documenting their daily lives through smartphone cameras, it calls into question the logic of categorising images by location rather than their artistic merit, emotional impact, or cultural significance - which drives home Winogrand's point about the term's meaninglessness.

This development raises an important question: if we accept “street photography” as a valid category, should we consider all these people documenting their urban experiences as unwitting street photographers? This observation reinforces the earlier argument that we should focus on photographers' intent and unique perspectives rather than convenient but ultimately meaningless labels.

Definition challenges

The problem with the term becomes even more complex when we consider how we interpret it differently. The vagueness of “street photography” is evident in its contested definition. While I've observed purists limit it to candid photography—unposed moments of human life—others include environmental portraiture, arguing that spontaneous photographer-subject interactions are equally authentic.

Jared Poole, 2024. Untitled. - Street photograph or not?

From my perspective, the confusion extends further when considering the role of the urban environment itself. Some photographers include still-life images of urban spaces—from architectural details to found objects—while others maintain that human presence, whether direct or implied, is essential to categorisation.

In practice, “street photography” has become a catch-all term for any photography that doesn't neatly fit into traditional genres like portraiture, landscape, or indoor still life. This ambiguity creates further ambiguity: does a photograph of an empty street qualify as street photography, urban photography, documentary photography, or all three? What about images taken in rural areas, indoor public spaces, or, as Winogrand asks, the zoo?

Looking at these boundaries in contemporary photography, I believe we're trying too hard to compartmentalise an art form that naturally resists rigid categorisation. Instead of relying solely on rational classification systems, why don’t we consider photography more conceptually, allowing for fluid interpretation across genre boundaries?

Moving beyond categories

Looking back at Winogrand's criticism, we can now see how abandoning rigid categorisations like “street photography” opens up more meaningful dialogue about the medium. Rather than getting caught up in genre debates, we should focus on understanding each photographer's unique vision, methodological approach, and how their work reflects and responds to their cultural environment. This shift would deepen our appreciation of individual works and elevate our discourse about photography as an art form - moving beyond simplistic labels to engage with the true substance of photographic expression. By all means, use the term (I do and will be!); it's all we have now, but be mindful that there is more to a photograph than its category.