San Francisco - June & July
i’ve been trying to crank out at least one SF based diary entry a month, but didn’t get around to it in June because of travel and whatnot. the photos from June are the last three in this sequence. the pictures of the house were from a neighborhood called Anza Vista, which I unintentionally wandered through one Monday afternoon before getting pizza at The Mill. I had to find a way to kill 30-45 minutes because as I got in line to order my pizza, I realized I half knew the person standing in front of me. Instead of simply just talking to them, I left before they noticed me. I decided to walk up the biggest hill I could see, which was the aforementioned neighborhood. Anza Vista - named after a spanish explorer, who maybe have “discovered” this neighborhood the same way I did, by avoiding an acquaintance in line for beans & lard, or preserved meats. Not sure what they ate back then.
Most pictures I take in the city are from times I wander without a destination in mind. I try to walk 4-7 miles a day to keep my head clear and stop my body from deteriorating. I carry a camera and take pictures of things happening in front of me. sometimes I take pictures of people, other times I do not. I’ve always had disdain for the term “street photography” because it doesn’t mean anything to me. the way I take pictures now is no different than it was when I lived in Santa Cruz and took pictures of horses on the coast and whatnot. I carry my camera, and take a picture of something that speaks to me. it’s bizarre to me that, now that I live in an urban environment, people call it “street photography.” I also don’t think it’s fair to call photography that is candid “street photography.” There was a period of time at my studio in Santa Cruz where I was obsessing with taking pictures with a game camera. This is about as candid as it gets, and also fits the description of being in a public place. I don’t know, I think about this a lot when I’m walking. Lately when people ask “what type of photography do you do,” I usually say “It’s loosely documentarian,” which also doesn’t feel true either, but is a nice cop-out so I don’t have to answer or explain why I think classifications are a bad thing.
These thoughts aren’t particularly unique. Winogrand and Friendlander, the grandfathers, also didn’t like the term. People call Robert Frank a street photographer for god’s sake. Not trying to compare myself to them, but rather make a point that terms and genres are meaningless. genrefication is boring and creates separations & camps where they are unnecessary. i understand that it can help in building communities, but generally speaking, people break photography down into 5-10 different classifications (when i lived in santa cruz, people referred to my work as “landscape” photography…). this is very different than music, where genres are ever-evolving. just exist and point your camera at shit that interests you and take a picture. don’t let a genre define you. classification is separation. It seems like a lot of people who live in die by these terms suspiciously similar photos to everyone else in their cohort. try to chase an authentic feeling and bring it to life by printing it in a way that takes you back there. when you get it right, it feels even more true then when you saw it the first time.
Again, I don’t think my view is particularly unique, nor do I think these photos are fantastic. this is just a diary of thoughts and pictures.
