A lot of people understand when someone mentions ‘street’ photography, however, throw out ‘urban’ when referencing photography and people tend to get a perplexed look on their face (somewhat similar to that ‘huh’ expression when a dog turns its head). So, what do we mean when we talk about urban photography then?
To define urban we must first discuss what street photography is so that we may point out the differences and the need for differentiation. Street photography is most commonly referred to as photography of subjects/people within (public) cityscapes in a manner reminiscent of documentary photography. Often the street photography is connected to the golden period of photography from the 1890s until about the 1970s—the age where portable cameras were de rigeur. Of course most photographers interested in street are aware of such masters as Cartier-Bresson (and his trusty Leica—often the camera of choice for street shooters), Weegee (real name Arthur Fellig with his crime-scene b/w photographs), as well as others such as Robert Frank, Arthur Leipzig, and Garry Winogrand (to name but a few), all who captured (or are famous for capturing) images of people. Other street photography masters include Brassaï (famous for his work Paris at Night), Lee Friedlander, and Eugene Atget whose works are mostly of street landscapes with people sparse or completely absent in the work. And this is where the problem begins.
