Bruce Gilden's tactics, repurcussions

He seemed 'reasonably' well behaved when he was over here a year or so ago. Maybe he reigned himself in a bit.

If this video is anything to go by he does seem to have selected people who (as GBH says) 'look to feeble to raise a cain' when he's popping his flash in the street.
 
jsrockit said:
He's photographing in the streets... what makes it not street photography?
Click to expand...


Not every picture taken on a street is "street photography", if for instance you shot a wedding or a fashion shoot outside on a street, it wouldn't be considered street photography. I don't know of any official definition, but the general consensus seems to be that Street Photography is the art of capturing life on the streets in "natural" way... ie as if the photographer was invisible. Every photographer is going to change the reactions of people around him to some degree, unless you're using some kind of spy camera... but Bruce induces such an unnatural reaction, and even stages shots to a point where I don't feel he's describing life on the streets, he's creating something that wasn't there before.
 
Disaster_Area said:
Not every picture taken on a street is "street photography", if for instance you shot a wedding or a fashion shoot outside on a street, it wouldn't be considered street photography.
Click to expand...

Obviously... but he's not doing weddings or fashion.

I don't know of any official definition, but the general consensus seems to be that Street Photography is the art of capturing life on the streets in "natural" way... ie as if the photographer was invisible.
Click to expand...

There is no official definition. I feel there doesn't even need to be people in the photos for it to be street. Invisible? Many well known street photographers are not invisible.
 
I guess this is the first "Gilden is unethical" and "if he came here hed have a camera down his throat" post of the year..? Im sure there will be at least another 20 before the year is over..
 
Disaster_Area said:
. I don't know of any official definition, but the general consensus seems to be that Street Photography is the art of capturing life on the streets in "natural" way... ie as if the photographer was invisible.
Click to expand...

Ahh, the old invisible photographer delusion.

Maybe thats what rubs some camera users up the wrong way, he is not under the illusion that being there and making a photograph is a neutral act. Instead he takes responsibility for his actions instead of lurking. There are an awful lot of street photographers that don't hide their actions, Bresson, Winogrand, Frank, Weegee, to name but four from many others that have gone before Gilden, and all jumped out on their subjects in a similar way. Gilden works with his subjects in a way that in itself is about the bustle of the street, he is a part of that bustle, he is the bustle. Its not much different to Martin Parr's work, each chooses to say 'I'm here', an honest approach considering the stealth techniques some people adopt in the name of street photography.

Steve
 
I don't believe in any of the invisible photographer stuff (it's like cinema verite - the presence of a recorder changes the scene, as does the act of composing and editing - invisibility is impossible) but I question what many of Gilden's street-flash shots (or Kim's) actually say about 'the street' or 'the city.'
There are momentarily striking images even in that quickie Kim video - a wide-angle, close proximity and low angle will do that - but I rarely find that they tell me story (or if you don't believe photography can tell a complete story, even start to).

(His yakuza and biker gang work, as mentioned, are a bit different).
 
jsrockit said:
Yeah, like the Yukuza in Japan... and Biker Gangs.
Click to expand...

...didn't he pose the Yukuza?

Regardless, there's got to be something about him - his personality. Whether he did pose them (Yakuza) or not - they somehow warmed up to him I'm guessing....

Reminds me of my colleage that can tell a patient "...you're a d!ck &you're gonna die..." only to have them bring her a box of Godiva chocolates the next day.
 
jsrockit said:
I understand, but I guess I'm just a wimp. I don't usually hang-out with criminals and thugs.
Click to expand...

Not saying your a wimp. I don't like the idea of flash in people's faces either. I just like the way Eric does it more so than Bruce. At least he uses politness & style. I think Eric's photo's even look better. JMO.
 
cosmonaut said:
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.
Click to expand...

In New York, guns are illegal to own, carry, or use. In Most of the rest of the USA, guns are legal to own, carry, and use. In Indiana, someone would just shoot him, and his large size wouldn't do a thing to protect him. Half the people here have concealed carry permits, and a lot of others carry (illegally) without one!
 
FrankS said:
Oxymoron ?
Click to expand...

If Eric was a female then yea I guess so.:D Just a simple way to keep from getting ones face smashed. IMO a random street photo isn't worth the argument. Then again, if your out doing this kind of shooting I'd think confrontation of any kind is expected. Probably why I don't shoot much street & stick to landscapes & random stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom