5

After seeing landscape images from Flickr, Instagram, etc, seems like most people associate landscape with visual beauty (ray of light, long exposure water, highly saturated sky, misty fog, golden hour, etc).

Now this is the context of my question: I mostly shot street photography, and I think visual beauty is not a necessary element for it. Some prefer funny, juxtaposed compositions (think Martin Parr). Some like bizzare, journalistic-like approach (like Daido Moriyama). Some take shots of boring, everyday objects (like William Eggleston).

It seems that landscape photographers and street photographers have different mindsets, no? For landscapers, visual beauty is a necessary. But for street shooters, not that much.

  • An interesting remark, but what photographic problem are you trying to solve? – osullic Jul 24 '17 at 12:17
  • 1
    @osullic - they don't have to be trying to solve a problem, just asking a question. They are asking about what drives art in landscape and street philosophy. While this is subjective, there are ways to answer the question in a supportable way using examples of how famous art shows what you are talking about (as the asker did with supplying artists that relate to the question). – AJ Henderson Jul 24 '17 at 14:06
  • 3
    @AJ from photo.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask "You should only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face. Chatty, open-ended questions diminish the usefulness of our site and push other questions off the front page." anta40's question is an interesting one, which could be an interesting discussion; I'm just not sure that this Q&A site is the best forum for it. – osullic Jul 24 '17 at 14:37
  • Or maybe I'm just being too pernickety today ;) – osullic Jul 24 '17 at 14:50
  • 1
    @osullic - hmm, I'll have to bring that up on meta about getting fixed. That particular one is a boilerplate we can't alter and is shared by all SE sites. It is certainly a poor wording relative to some of the newer and more information discovery related sites where not everything is problem related and doesn't really seem to correspond with SE norms anymore on a practical level. – AJ Henderson Jul 24 '17 at 14:58
4

Landscape photography isn't always associated with visual beauty. As an example there is the "New Topographics" from the 1970s. This style of photography isn't exactly architectural photography but normally shows human altered landscapes presented in a straightforward non-romantic way. Some of the photographers use traditional landscape/architecture photography techniques, like large format cameras and B&W prints, but the subject might be a construction site.

Wikipedia has an article on the exhibit that coined the term "New Topographics"

  • Very interesting. I guess this fits into the so called "urban landscape". – anta40 Jul 24 '17 at 15:10
1

Here is a repeat of the only question in the post:

"It seems that landscape photographers and street photographers have different mindsets, no? For landscapers, visual beauty is a necessary. But for street shooters, not that much."

In general, photographers take photos of subjects that appeal to them (or at least appeal to their client base). Some take landscapes, some take streetscapes, some take portraits, some do studio work. These are not so much different mindsets as different areas of interest or different passions. Photographers will select the equipment, tools, cameras, processes, etc. to pursue their individual passions. None of these focus areas are inherently better or worse than another because they are all valid - at least to each artist pursuing them. So - yes - different photographers have different mindsets because they have different passions driving their work. (And by the way, beauty is not the end goal for all photographs - the photographer decides the end goal and pursues it.)

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.