Bruce Gilden's tactics, repurcussions

[John Rountree]

I showed my students a YouTube video of Bruce Gilden working the streets of Manhattan. The question arose about his personal safety when taking photographs in such an invasive way. Does anyone know if Gilden has ever been assaulted as a result of the way he takes pictures?

 

[gb hill]

I doubt it. Most of his subjects look to feeble to raise a cain.

 

[Frank Petronio]

He's 7 feet tall 300 lbs built like an NFL player....

 

[Disaster_Area]

I know he's said he's gotten into a few scuffles in the past, but I don't think he's ever admitted to a major confrontation. I think it helps that he's an old man now.

I love street photography and I love his photos but can't really condone most of his tactics. I don't want to get into a "photographers rights" argument, most of us know what we can and can't legally do, but I find his seeming total disrespect for his subjects kind of grating... maybe it's because of the photographic work environment he worked in, "get the image at all costs"... I don't know.

There's a fine line between exercising your rights and pushing them in peoples faces. I think it's photographers like Bruce that are giving street photography a bad rap. Yes, photographing someone in public is legal, but at what point does ambushing someone with a camera and popping off a flash inches from their face start treading on other laws like "disturbing the peace"... wiki describes it as:

"Disturbing the peace is a crime generally defined as the unsettling of proper order in a public space through one's actions. This can include creating loud noise by fighting or challenging to fight, disturbing others by loud and unreasonable noise (including loud music), or using offensive words or insults likely to incite violence."

I would consider a close quarter camera and flash ambush as falling under that definition... if loud music counts, why not a bright light?

 

[boomguy57]

I have to agree with the previous poster. I find some of his photographs good, but I'm not a big fan of his overall. Plus, in every interview or video clip I've seen of him he comes off like a total dick. I don't know him personally, but he comes off that way. I think that's just part of his M.O., though, if you see how he photographs his subjects.

I am a big fan of street photography, but his style is too invasive for my tastes. Often, instead of getting an image of what's happening in the street, you're just getting his subject's reaction to him (and the flash going off in your face out of nowhere).

Just my $0.02.

 

[jsrockit]

I doubt it. Most of his subjects look to feeble to raise a cain.

Yeah, like the Yukuza in Japan... and Biker Gangs.

 

[Araakii]

This is NYC. What can people really do to you? Get him to shoot the same way in Afghanistan and see what happens.

 

[Disaster_Area]

Often, instead of getting an image of what's happening in the street, you're just getting his subject's reaction to him (and the flash going off in your face out of nowhere).
.

Agreed... sometimes I almost feel his photos don't qualify as street photography, just photographs taken on the street. To me, the goal of street photography is about capturing life on the street in a natural way. A lot of his photos have that "deer caught in the headlights" look, he's provoking and unnatural reaction.

And when you see clips of him telling a subject: "no, no... go back and walk past me again, but don't look at me" it's staging... is it any different than a nature photographer shooting at an animal farm or zoo with taimed subjects and then claiming his shots as "Wildlife Photography"? Many nature magazines and competitions won't allow this type of faked photo, so why should what Bruce does be considered street photography?

 

[boomguy57]

I'm totally with you on Gilden. I think some of his stuff isn't street photography either, and I've been saying it for years.

 

[ampguy]

So if your students plan on inciting violence by say getting in peoples faces, their photo subjects may not be their only danger...

In any case, please tell them to stay on the east coast. Thanks.

 

[agour]

His photos are good, but his attitude isnt. When hes like "I dont care about the question", sounds like he has his head up his own arse.

 

[daninjc]

Yeah, they should take away his street photographer license

I'm totally with you on Gilden. I think some of his stuff isn't street photography either, and I've been saying it for years.

 

[paulfish4570]

i just read some of his blog. he cares ...

 

[FrankS]

He's as obnoxious as a 2 stroke engine on a dirtbike.

 

[cosmonaut]

I think it helps where he does it, if he tried that in Atlanta he probably wouldn't last a week before someone handed him his teeth.

 

[jsrockit]

I'm totally with you on Gilden. I think some of his stuff isn't street photography either, and I've been saying it for years.

He's photographing in the streets... what makes it not street photography?

 

[emraphoto]

I doubt it. Most of his subjects look to feeble to raise a cain.

Except the Yakusa of course.

 

[nonot]

The repercussions of how he shoots seem to be a sort of cult-status fame, some interesting photos, and some great little web shorts on what seems to be a really interesting (if not conflicted) guy. I'm sure he's come to terms with the potential of being punched in the mouth for what he's doing on a day to day basis. I'd also hazard a guess that you could be assaulted for far less on the streets of NYC, or anywhere for that matter.

 

[paulfish4570]

his current project is foreclosed houses. i don't think they care about his flash.

 

[nakedcellist]

This is NYC. What can people really do to you? Get him to shoot the same way in Afghanistan and see what happens.

I remember him once saying that one of the reason that he was fearless when taking pictures on the street is because he actually did some photography in war zones. Anyway, I would never photograph like he does, but I did meet him once when I did the magnum workshop in Barcelona. I found him a very nice and funny guy.