Dave wrote... <<<<Street photography is to a great degree voyeuristic for the viewer as well as the photographer. If the photograph is outstanding it is no less so if it was set up. But with the knowledge of the setup it's no longer a slice of life, and it leaves the realm of street photography. As far as credibility, the photographer has to live with his or her deception. It's perfectly legitimate to fabricate a scene for a commercial assignment. But don't pretend it's a decisive moment.>>>> I think then, that we have established clearly that Doisneaus photograph, "Le Baiser de L'Hotel de Ville" (1950- 5 years AFTER Eisenstadt's kiss for Life Magazine BTW I'm still wondering about that one) is not an example of Street Photography. I ask once again, Did Robert Doisneau ever EVER ever publicly state that it was? I know that he was regarded as an accomplished practitioner of the genre and perhaps he was embarrassed to have done something so warmly received that seemed to have his stamp on it? I don't know... I just don't want to call him a fraud if all he did was keep his mouth shut. I believe the fun of street photographs is to enjoy them as evocatively mysterious documents that allow the viewer his or her own interpretation. I think it has been proven time and time again that it is generally best for photographers to keep their pieholes zipped. r <--- best neither seen nor heard... like a good little street photographer.
