Met Bruce Gilden this morning on the way to work...

Well, at least he's not taping his camera up, wearing a ninja outfit, and starting threads about "stealth" accessories. ;)
 
The point I want to really make about him, is that when he almost knocks someone over, he is not taking an authentic photo of that person and their world. He is taking a picture which he created by his behavior (Phillis Clarke, 2010) (Unknown, from another forum)

That's one of the things I don't like about his images... Instead of reality and real characters, he pretends worried or surprised people after his nearness with a flash almost hitting them, are characters, are peculiar, but no, they have been abused, and are not reflecting any real character. He's done other shots, but this is what he does the most and what he found generated controversy.

Gary Winogrand said any photographer should be honest in two ways. The first one is using the camera allowing it to do what it does best: reflecting reality. And the second one is reflecting that reality just the way it is. That can be said of Frank or Cartier-Bresson too... I don't care much about if Gilden is bad or not for making people be anguished or for pressing his scenes... What I don't consider honest is he pretends they are real characters.

Cheers,

Juan
 
Roberto V. said:
I think this is what he meant by getting paranoid, tht's probably why he said it wasn't directed at anyone.
Click to expand...

Hi Roberto,

I wasn't paranoid. Just there were members talking at a personal level about me, while I just talked about Gilden.

Mods had to delete their posts.

Cheers,

Juan
 
Juan I think you made your point...your negative comments towards him make up nearly half the thread. You're entitled to your opinion...but we heard it the first time.
 
Krzys said:
Juan I think you made your point...your negative comments towards him make up nearly half the thread. You're entitled to your opinion...but we heard it the first time.
Click to expand...

That's why in my last posts I preferred to continue giving richness to the thread by sharing other people's thoughts, and not only mine. Apart, what I just said had not been discussed on this thread...

Cheers,

Juan
 
Richness would be more material by and on Gilden to learn more about him and his work. Not the opinions of those on the internet.

I see flare, gusto and something different in his work. So I am going to praise the guy for being original and giving me something interesting to look at. The blurred background and ghosting of the dragged shutter with his flash highlighting the subject gives a dynamic to the street which cannot be achieved any other way (traditionally speaking of course). I like the look, how he achieves it shouldnt matter.
 
Last edited:
Krzys said:
Richness would be more material by and on Gilden to learn more about him and his work. Not the opinions of those on the internet.

I see flare, gusto and something different in his work. So I am going to praise the guy for being original and giving me something interesting to look at. The blurred background and ghosting of the dragged shutter with his flash highlighting the subject gives a dynamic to the street which cannot be achieved any other way (traditionally speaking of course). I like the look, how he achieves it shouldnt matter.
Click to expand...

That's great, Krzys... All I want is we can talk about Gilden and not about me or any other forum member... Thanks.

Cheers,

Juan
 
Then stop adding in silly little insults to Gilden and people who like his work won't start arguing with you....
 
Last edited:
It's OK, Rob... Thanks for your answer.

Krzys, you're very right. Apart from his methods he's generating attention long ago in a drastic way from a very basic visual point of view: the close, direct flash. The whiter, near, sometimes distorted faces... I'm not sure it adds dynamics to the scene, though, and it doesn't seem to me what in aesthetics is called originality... Originality often refers to a personal way of communicating universal values, while novelty in aesthetics is considered a "depeche mode" calling massive attention but not related to a work's deep content or even style... Originality doesn't need novelty...

Cheers,

Juan
 
Those of you who speak with such authority on "Gilden's style" from watching a few U Tube videos should review some of his other work. Like his two series on Detroit foreclosures or his early Coney Island work. I suggest some time at http://inmotion.magnumphotos.com/ will broaden your horizons.
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
It's OK, Rob... Thanks for your answer.

Krzys, you're very right. Apart from his methods he's generating attention long ago in a drastic way from a very basic visual point of view: the close, direct flash. The whiter, near, sometimes distorted faces... I'm not sure it adds dynamics to the scene, though, and it doesn't seem to me what in aesthetics is called originality... Originality often refers to a personal way of communicating universal values, while novelty in aesthetics is considered a "depeche mode" calling massive attention but not related to a work's deep content or even style... Originality doesn't need novelty...

Cheers,

Juan
Click to expand...
You take very interesting people on the street and present them in a way which no one else does, at least to such an extent...seems pretty original to me and it must work since a lot of people highly regard him. This is in a world where 98% of 'street photography' is of people's backs at traffic lights or folks sitting at the adjacent coffee table.

If you see a photo with an aesthetic of a person on the street shot with a flash in close proximity with a wide angle lens you will say that it is like Bruce Gilden....that speaks for itself.

And I think that ghosting and blurred backgrounds are dynamic effects...how can you say that they are not?
 
Bob Michaels said:
Those of you who speak with such authority on "Gilden's style" from watching a few U Tube videos should review some of his other work. Like his two series on Detroit foreclosures or his early Coney Island work. I suggest some time at http://inmotion.magnumphotos.com/ will broaden your horizons.
Click to expand...

Hi Bob, do you think no one amongst those of us posting, have seen previous Gilden's work?

At least in my case, those of us have...

He's done a lot of photography without flash, then the flash thing began slowly and in a less dramatic and public way, and I consider what I've been talking about here, his third stage. And if you consider he's not worried about his public figure, and if you consider he's a genious registering true characters, say it and I'll respect you... But it would be nice if members talk about Gilden instead of talking about those of you who...

Thank you, Bob!

Cheers,

Juan
 
Last edited:
Krzys said:
You take very interesting people on the street and present them in a way which no one else does, at least to such an extent...seems pretty original to me and it must work since a lot of people highly regard him. This is in a world where 98% of 'street photography' is of people's backs at traffic lights or folks sitting at the adjacent coffee table.

If you see a photo with an aesthetic of a person on the street shot with a flash in close proximity with a wide angle lens you will say that it is like Bruce Gilden....that speaks for itself.

And I think that ghosting and blurred backgrounds are dynamic effects...how can you say that they are not?
Click to expand...

Well, Gilden is mostly an unknown photographer, first...

I have been shooting, studying, and working in photography since I was 13: 25 years ago. Recently I studied three years of History of Photography including 20th century and recent photographers, and Gilden just doesn't exist. Maybe ten beginners have seen his youtube videos or other ten from New Your know about him, to exagerate but explain clearly what I mean... I had NEVER heard his name or read it and I read a lot. People that could say "that looks like Gilden" is a very narrow spectrum of photographers or public in the world...

Cheers,

Juan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom