Disaster_Area
Gadget Monger
Why so much ire over the way someone chooses to work? Does he come over to your house and berate you for shooting without flash, and from your hiding place behind a bush?
No, nothing so direct, but it's photographers like him that give street photography a bad name. If even half the photographers seeing him work think he's an ass, then I bet 100% of the non-photographers do. After encountering him, or seeing him at work, next time they see someone taking pictures on the street, they take their anger out on them.
And I don't think you have to hide in bushes to be "invisible". Like a previous poster noticed, no one being filmed in the documentaries seem to care about the videographers, they tune them out because they're not right in their faces. Look at Winograd for instance (wish I could find a link to the documentary I'm thinking of)... he doesn't make any attempt to sneak around, he just walks around taking pictures like there's no one else around. If he gets a reaction at all, he's already a block away and you see the people kinda stop and look back confused. He doesn't get in peoples faces, he just kind of blends into the crowd.
Don't get me wrong, I love Bruce's journalistic work, it's stunning... but when he brings that journalistic "Get the image at all costs, damn the consequences" attitude that made him just a successful photojournalist to street photography, it makes us all look bad.
DamenS
Well-known
LOL - I get your point and that it is partly in jest, but - as we all know - being part of an "Elite group" or being famous or to be considered "well-loved" are not necessarily the best and only predictors of actual talent.
The reverse also applies - how many people do you know who you think are more talented in a certain field than the famous people, or people who are heads of organisations in that particular field etc. ?
For instance - I think Adam Sandler is a really bad actor - and merely a competent comedian (at best - his "stand up" is FAR worse than most real "stand up" comedians). Yet he is considered one of the best, and is part of that exclusive group of high paid (he was the HIGHEST paid) comedians who are famous. Am I necessarily wrong to suggest he is not as talented as many other comedians I have seen ?
Part of these things is so often "timing" ... you get in on the "ground floor" of a movement and it is easier to become well-known and it is harder to not take you seriously - I believe this is called "street cred" - but once again - not necessarily a direct correlation between "talent" and results (marketing, who you know, persistence, aggression, good timing - all of these things are important), and once a particular "mantle" has been conferred you just watch the fawning thoughtless fans and know the idolatry shan't be lost unless a LOT of brave people say "the Emperor has no clothes" and it's no longer cool to know you you are and like what you do ...
PS. DON'T get me started on Eric Kim !!
DamenS
Well-known
LOL - good point. Prior to the post you were responding to, I'd been thinking Shakespeare was an AMAZING poet because he wrote amazingly well, and then I found out he was just praised for being "similar" ... I'm shattered because I'M similar to lots of people in some ways and have not yet been recognised as a prodigious talent yet ...
Honestly, none. I know people who THINK they are, but they are not. Most people make very quick judgements about someone's work and think it is easy and that they can do it. However, nobody seems to understand the hardwork and dedication it takes... and you need to be unique in some form or another. It's not good enough to simply be able to copy people's work from the past and make a few good photos.
dogbunny
Registered Boozer
Just two thoughts.
If I knew nothing about his tactics, I would still be impressed by his images.
If you are going to use a ten second video clip of a famous photographer getting hit/shoved/nudged by a woman as proof that his methods are inadequate, maybe you should demonstrate through both your art and your sacrifices, just so I can see what real art looks like. I'd love to see.
If I knew nothing about his tactics, I would still be impressed by his images.
If you are going to use a ten second video clip of a famous photographer getting hit/shoved/nudged by a woman as proof that his methods are inadequate, maybe you should demonstrate through both your art and your sacrifices, just so I can see what real art looks like. I'd love to see.
DamenS
Well-known
Jeepers - just have a jaunt around Flickr for a while if you don't know any talented people who are better than any famous people (or watch Adam Sandler and Jim Carey doing "stand up" on You Tube - which is how they garnered their fame, or at least the initial impetus to their careers - and compare that to someone less much famous - let's say Jimmy Carr and Adam Hill).
Thinking something is "Easy" does not necessarily have anything to do with adjudging someone as being bad ... and there are probably people doing "hard" things who are not rolling in fame and praise too ... Not all people who think Gilden is not a paragon of talent are saying that what he does is easy.
There will also be many people who think Gilden is talented but will hate him for his methodology. This is fine and fair.
It will be interesting to see where Eric Kim is in 5 years time (given your "not enough to copy" theme). I think you have entirely too much faith in humanity (and too little in "mass media" and timing and ...) and that Eric Kim (who is ALREADY sponsored by Leica) will be almost as popular as the majestic Ken Rockwell within a few years (internet = fame and fame = power). He will be the hero of a new generation of street photographers and when you say "nah, don't like him", people will probably point out that what he does isn't easy and you're just jealous because YOU couldn't do it ...
Well, this is personal opinion right? Adam Sandler and Jim Carey had something unique for their time ... if you deem it good or not doesn't matter. Many people thought it was good enough. I never cared for Sandler at all, but Jim Carey was good on In Living Color IMO. (Believe me, I get you. As a fan of underground music for many, many years, the stuff that 'makes it' drives me nuts).
Have you ever thought that you might not be a great judge of talent? Perhaps you think too highly of your opinions. I'm not saying this is true, but it may be worth looking into. Sure there is good stuff on Flickr, but perhaps it is derivative? or not of its time? My point was that you don't get onto Magnum because you did a few good photos. BG might not be your thing, but it doesn't mean he sucks.
Huh? So, you know me know? I tend to not be into mainstream stuff and am deemed negative by many people. However, as I have grown up and left my art school ramblings behind I have learned that just because I'm not into it, doesn't mean I cannot understand why it appeals to a mass market.
There will always be talented people who don't make it. I argue that talent is not enough. I've seen many talented guitar players who are bitter because they think they are better than someone's who has made it. Generally, they are thinking technically better...better chops. However these guitar players have no clue how to make a good song and have no conceptual ideas. Sometimes having ideas and knowing how to move forward with minimal talent is better than having a ton of talent and not knowing what to do with it.
Andrea Taurisano
il cimento
Definitely true, and maybe more and more often the case in our world.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
It seems there are two different groups who are opining here:
1) there are those whose total photo education come from reading posts here on RFF and watching YouTube videos.
2) there are those who have a much broader education.
DamenS
Well-known
Jim Carey was VERY good on "In Living Colour" (and I like many of his movies too - it's just that he got there through his stand up, which was ...).
If you understand me, and you are a fan of Underground Music and the stuff which "makes it" makes you nuts, then I am happy. You HAVE understood my point.
Yes, I might not be a great judge and you might not and blah, blah, blah, but have you considered that when fame and success are so often predicated by the largest mass of people, what makes you think that the largest masses of people are BETTER judges than us ? I wish that were the case and humanity would be better off, but ...
Maybe the guitar player that doesn't make it, or the Flickr photographers who don't make it are lacking a few components of success (they might be "derivative" - it is at least as possible as it is impossible), but maybe it is just that LUCK is required (timing, knowing the right people etc.), maybe they miss the requisite drive and ambition. Which actually illustrates my original point which is that your comment that he must be good to be in Magnum (or rather that you would like to "suck as bad as him") can be countered by using you argument in reverse and showing it to be fallacious: that those who aren't famous aren't good.
You didn't care for Sandler, nor do I; but in saying that we are WRONG about his lack of talent because many people DO like him is entirely disingenuous. Maybe they are wrong even though they are of greater number. How many men thought the world was round, or there was such thing as gravity ? The world must have been right, and they wrong.
Talent is NOT enough to make it - but once again reverse it - this DOESN'T mean for a second that all who HAVE "made it" are talented.
Really simple concepts here. If people on Flickr aren't recognised because they are "not of their time" then you are agreeing with my point (once again - simple reversal) that there MAY be an element of timing in this - and that someone of lesser talent can become famous (or a part of "Magnum") due to their sense of timing. I like Edgar Allen Poe as a writer and he was barely acknowledged in his time. Talented ? I'd suggest he is a better writer than Stephanie Myer - but maybe she'll be better remembered in the future - who knows ?
PS. I don't think Gilden "sucks" - I said exactly what I actually meant ... I think he is over-rated (these two things are NOT the same) and I think I do not like him from what I have seen and heard of him being interviewed etc.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
Good post, and I take your point. May I try to summarise?
The autocratic fallacy: that one person's view is better than one hundred's.
The democratic fallacy: that one hundred peoples' view is better than any one person's.
Neither works, and there can be no definitive answer to anything that comes down to subjective taste and judgement.
Which means everybody's taste is better than everyone else's.
...Mike
[edit]And that fame and fortune are fickle beasts indeed.[/edit]
Last edited:
DamenS
Well-known
LOL - good summary. I was trying to keep Logic (big "L" not little "l") out of it, but wasted 10 trees worth of writing space in doing so ...
sanmich
Veteran
It is far from being the first time we are asking about Bruce Gilden way of photographing on NY streets, but it only now strikes me why he acts that way:
IMHO, a very good part of his results are not because he is close and uses flash (of course this is that too). The expression on a lot of the faces he captures is a reaction to his "attacks". Often, people are simply stunned by him jumping on them with a camera on his face and waving a flash in one hand, and it shows on the picture.
IMHO, a very good part of his results are not because he is close and uses flash (of course this is that too). The expression on a lot of the faces he captures is a reaction to his "attacks". Often, people are simply stunned by him jumping on them with a camera on his face and waving a flash in one hand, and it shows on the picture.
sanmich
Veteran
Amen....:bang:
May I try to summarise?
The autocratic fallacy: that one person's view is better than one hundred's.
The democratic fallacy: that one hundred peoples' view is better than any one person's.
Neither works, and there can be no definitive answer to anything that comes down to subjective taste and judgement.
Which means everybody's taste is better than everyone else's.
...Mike
[edit]And that fame and fortune are fickle beasts indeed.[/edit]
Summed up perfectly.
Paul Luscher
Well-known
I prefer the HCB method. He took great shots with available light only, and without jumping in people's faces.
I'd rather work that way--and even better, not be noticed by anybody at all. It's behavior like Gilden's which gives street photogs a bad rap, which is reflected on the rest of us (speaking from personal experience).
I'd rather work that way--and even better, not be noticed by anybody at all. It's behavior like Gilden's which gives street photogs a bad rap, which is reflected on the rest of us (speaking from personal experience).
Yes, I try to look at both sides of the coin these days and try to realize that I might not always be right.
I happen to think Magnum is a pretty damn good collective of photographers past and present. So, to me, it means something to be a part of that group. I cannot equate Magnum to Hollywood or mainstream entertainment. Yes, I agree on the timing aspect. There is no way around that.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
I find it hard to believe that one guy standing on a few street corners in NYC a few days a year could possibly do that much harm to everyone else working on the street in say, Chicago, Berlin or Toyko. Or even in New York. If anything his being out there and in their faces might make the public prefer (or even not notice) those who lurk and shoot. There are plenty of people everywhere, doing every kind of job who can seem as equally abrasive as Gilden can at times (in these clips anyway). Does that give all Paint Store workers or all Fed-Ex drivers or all Nurses a bad name? Not at all.
And I think unless one is interested in street photography you don't go searching for YouTube clips of Gilden, Meyerowitz, Winogrand or even Ansel Adams. I know lots of photographers and far more non-photographers and I can only remember a single YouTube video about street photography coming across my Facebook stream- and that was Vivian Meyer. Bet she was a real b1t¢h. Maybe she's Gildens mom?
DamenS
Well-known
That only just struck you ? That's actually the main reason I don't like his photos - that stunned or surprised look ... it's not "observing the action's of others" it's forcing yourself INTO the photo, by influencing the outcome so greatly.
I am not saying this is a bad thing - it is certainly interesting on a few levels, but it does lend a "sameyness" to the photos and it is just a personal aversion or belief - that one should not influence a scene to that extent in street photography (which is an entirely personal thing - I believe Street should be a derivative of "reportage photography", maybe with the slightest artistic bent, that they should be "found objects" rather than "created objects", but there is no justification for that, or reason why it SHOULD be that way ... it's just the way I like it).
However, I DO think that the level of interference with other people's lives is a bit rude (Social Convention and all that, eh what, chaps ?), and whilst that is also subjective, it is probably the more important thing here when it comes to people who rail against Gilden.
DamenS
Well-known
Ansel Adams did abrassive street ??! Now THAT'S a YouTube clip I wanna download !!
As regards one person standing on a corner a few days a year, that is wrong - you think Gilden does street photography 10 days out of 365 ? Do you think that he is SOLEY responsible for it, or might it be possible that people who admire him have copied his methodology and attitude - he's famous enough that there would be a few ... certainly not enough to change the world, but do you think a gamut of aspiring street photographers "emulating" Gilden is a good thing, or that it enhances street photography in the mind of the public ?
Of COURSE bad eggs give a whole profession a bad name - especially if they are famous. Do you truly believe that politicians and lawyers are all bad, or is it just a few bad ones who have ruined it for the rest of them ?
Heck, weren't the LA riots related to certain police and a ground swell of anger at perceived racism ?