I just said 'philosphical question' so I wouldn't get downvoted for sounding cynical.
Are you saying it is impossible to verbalize the 'point' of photography?
Regardless, sometimes photographs capture remarkable events or spectacular scenes, in which cases the point could be easily understood as 'seeing things you would have liked to have seen but didn't get the chance'
Now in this here collection, almost all the photos are just of strangers on the street. Something you can see everyday with your own eyes. So what is the point?
There are ten thousand answers to your question, but here's the most drab and pedantic of them: No, I absolutely cannot walk out onto the street and see a scene from the 1960s.
There was a fun essay once where someone pointed out the value of photographing everyday objects. Tools, cars, clothes. These are the things that you'll most wish you'd photographed, because they are the most ephemeral. The Grand Canyon looks much as it did in Ansel Adams' day. People look only a bit different than they used to. But the objects are gone. The streets and the buildings are gone.
Movies that capture the essence of a time and place are great for this too. Just re-watched Hitchcock's Vertigo last night and wished I could have stepped back into the San Francisco of fifty years ago...
I don't think it comes to that. My working definition of art is 'human creativity in matters beyond functional necessity' - and the point (ideally) would be to selectively present phenomena/experience for the betterment of the audience.
Here black and white images of everyday urban life have been selected as subject matter. Why? (obviously the images are well framed, but is that all there is to this art? Mechanical_Fish's answer above is reasonable, though)
This is why I recommended Clive Bell: for him the subject matter is irrelevant and what matters is significant form - that combination of colors and shapes that gives rise to an aesthetic experience. Many would say that achieving this aesthetic experience itself is the point. Alternatively, others argue that the subject of art (in this case urban life) allow one to get at the capital-t Truth and meaning of a thing or culture. Heidegger's "The Origin of the Work of Art" examines this with regards to Van Gogh's "A Pair of Shoes," also an interesting read. Of course the real point for anyone is deeply personal, and if you're questioning what that point is, for you there probably isn't one. And that's ok too.
That's why I asked the question - I genuinely wanted to know what other people valued in this collection. Just because I asked doesn't mean I don't have my own reasons for valuing/not-valuing it. I encourage anyone reading to say what they liked about it. Even just a poll of 'do you like them for the content' vs 'do you like them for the prettyness' would be interesting: sometimes it's just good to know what other people are thinking.
I love street photography - know many others who do also. Everyone has a different reason for being in this hobby, but FWIW I'll try to articulate my reasons:
- The capture of the preciousness of everyday life. So many of us wake up, trudge to work, trudge home, go get our groceries, etc etc all without ever noticing the little things in life. Part of why I do street photography is to catch and expose the fact that there are amazing things happening in the most mundane situations - that there are a million interactions and emotions crossing between people, even if, at the surface it's just a bunch of people on a subway train or a crowd walking down the street There are sparks of incredibly deep interaction, ephemeral and fleeting as they may be, all around us every minute. I like to capture and bring them out.
- Documentation with thought. We all have point and shoot cameras, and the prevalence of drunken pictures on Facebook is testament to the human desire to document. Most pictures though, aren't very well composed, and only convey the technical details of the event, and not the emotion that is undoubtedly embodied within. Part of why I love street is that it doesn't have to be extraordinary - sometimes you fall back to a role strictly that of the documentarian, but you can do it with more skill and thought than what most people can do.
(philosophical question)