Bruce Gilden's tactics, repurcussions

I think you all are missing the point of his work. I believe Bruce is highly respectful of the subjects he photographs.

"A photo either works or it doesn't. And if it doesn't it could be really horrible or it could be mediocre. That's a dialog that for me doesn't even need to be discussed because you see that it's good or it isn't. I'm not saying that everyone has my vision or my eye, but I'm pretty versed in what makes a good image." - Bruce Gilden

Bruce's street work is just a part of what he does, whether you like it or not. It informs his "other" work, as much as his street work is inherent in his journalistic work. For me, it is all the same.

There are more blatant examples of imagery that show how screwed up our world is. Whether you like it or not, I don't think Bruce's street work is "frankly garbage", or his other work is "virtually unknown". Either you are an informed viewer, or not. It is all out there to discover.
 
Paul Luscher said:
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).
Click to expand...

You clearly do not have any idea about how HCB worked, you assume that by his photographs he was a stealth photographer, overlooked and annonymous. But he wasn't when it got to people in crowds. He often made an image that looked like he was just an observer, but he could use his elbows in peoples ribs and his hips to shimmy and get into position just like Gliden does. You have a fantasy image of a gentler time that never existed, Gilden shows his working method, HCB didn't, but the two are not very far apart in the practice.

Steve
 
jsrockit said:
I just wonder what people think of him being a magnum photographer... I mean people say his work sucks and is overrated, yet he still is a member? I wish I sucked that bad.
Click to expand...

count me in the 'wish i sucked that bad' line up.


Bruce deserves every ounce of his success.
 
jsrockit said:
I live in Manhattan and if he did this to me, it would be the craziest thing that I would've seen in awhile... probably since a few RFF-ers and myself witnessed a sick old man trying to molest women and children on the 6 train.
Click to expand...

You're seriously going to equate Bruce being at most annoying for a split second, to someone trying to molest woman and children on a train? Really?

I don't know; I'm a native New Yorker and if I wasn't in to photography I probably wouldn't remember getting 'flashed' by Bruce for more than a few days.

It's really not a big deal, ladies and gentlemen.
 
One thing I do not like about his work is that its too often an example of a genre of street shooting that kinda goes - Shove a camera in someones face, click the button and if it is in focus its "reportage". If not its "art". Personally I think that is BS.

Just go to a web site and study some of HCBs street photos. Better yet go to an art gallery when they are having a HCB retrospective and study a large slab of it. (Many of his less known photos are to me even more inspiring and interesting). What you see in almost all cases is a kind of harmonious pattern of light and shadow, a nicely timed (dare I say decisive) moment when the button was pressed so that the grouping of elements in the image is well balanced. Once you realise that this is what makes the image interesting, you look for it in other images and when its missing, then the image is just a black and white snapshot - not art. And thats what I see too much in Gildens work - and that of many others.

To be a good image it has to be interesting. There is no art to shoving a goddam camera in peoples's faces and taking an image.
 
Paul Luscher said:
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).
Click to expand...

Really? Have you seen some of the clips of HCB at work? Obviously he did not blast people with a flash and he is more discreet in his approach, but the man wasn't exactly a wall flower. Look at how close he is to many of his subjects. Every one paints HCB as this zen photography; a little butterfly dancing through the streets, but apparently he could also be quite the ornery old Frenchman, who would go as far as pulling a pocket knife on you if you didn't back off.

Streetphotography is not a game of cricket. There is no way to do it and be good at it, without stepping on people's toes to some degree. That's the ugly truth.
 
If you take the time to browse through Magnum website, you'll see how the "in your face" shots are a small fraction of the work Gilden has done through the years. Most of which is amazing.

But definitely if you are looking for the balance and equilibrium of Cartier-Bresson's work, you won't find it in Gilden's.


peterm1 said:
Shove a camera in someones face, click the button and if it is in focus its "reportage". If not its "art". Personally I think that is BS.

...

There is no art to shoving a goddam camera in peoples's faces and taking an image.
Click to expand...
 
Hell, I'm so tired of hearing all this anti-gilden rubbish from people who put themselves on a moral high ground concerning an art form.

He produces photos of people that are only obtainable by way of how he does it. That is all there is, there is no 'right' or 'wrong' way to practice photography.
Do you think other photographers like martin parr etc. (who get no bad rep. at all for their distance from the subject) were actually much further away or handled the camera so differently to gilden? The fact is that they didn't. There is nothing wrong with getting close, just don't go taking it out on someone else because you yourself lack the confidence or the ego to get that close.

Thank you,
🙂
 
Bruce is always a hot topic. I think he is an excellent photo journalist, his documentary images quite superb. I have heard he is a very friendly and jovial guy too though his street shooting videos come off differently. As far as his flash in the face photography, I don't like it for how invasive it is. Is it his own style and form of art? Yes.. but I would not seek to emulate that "boo!" look he gets from shooting in people's faces with flash. I admire the man's other work which really is why he's Magnum and people whether they like his street photography or not, should look at what the man is really about.
 
Neare said:
Hell, I'm so tired of hearing all this anti-gilden rubbish from people who put themselves on a moral high ground concerning an art form.
Click to expand...

Hell, I'm tired of rubbish from people who think that art is free of moral considerations. Its not. Nothing is.

These foolish ideas that art should never be judged, ever, are born of fear. You think people don't see any value in any art, so you feel the need to defend all art no matter what.

I'm not afraid. I know my art is worthy, I don't give a damn about anyone else's and if some 'artist' is an asshole, I'll say it. I have no obligation to defend people who I find repugnant, just to 'defend art'. If that's what's required to be an artist, this uncritical acceptance of any rubbish that anyone wants to call 'art', then I don't want to be called an artist.

If some 'artist' murdered someone and called the mutilated corpse a 'sculpture', I swear, some of you guys would find some excuse to defend it. I'm frankly surprised someone hasn't tried it yet, and I bet we will in my lifetime. How about this: instead of artists climbing over each other to find ever more strident ways to shock a public that sees no value in their work, how about we find a way to connect people to our work by producing something that actually has some cultural value beyond mere shock.
 
Bob, thank you for the other links to Gilden's work. I will show that to my students when we meet on Tuesday. I played the Gilden video, a Cartier-Bresson video and Garry Winnogrand video to show different ways of working, not as a commentary on their skill or merit as a photographer.
 
John: may I suggest the movie "War Photographer" by Christian Frei starting James Nachtwey if you need to fill a period at school. It was nominated for an Oscar, won a Peabody and nominated for an Emmy. It is simply one of the best movies about photography I have seen. It will definitely open students eyes.

In fact, anyone who has not seen War Photographer should rent it and watch it.

John Rountree said:
Bob, thank you for the other links to Gilden's work. I will show that to my students when we meet on Tuesday. I played the Gilden video, a Cartier-Bresson video and Garry Winnogrand video to show different ways of working, not as a commentary on their skill or merit as a photographer.
Click to expand...
 
250swb said:
You clearly do not have any idea about how HCB worked, you assume that by his photographs he was a stealth photographer, overlooked and annonymous. But he wasn't when it got to people in crowds. He often made an image that looked like he was just an observer, but he could use his elbows in peoples ribs and his hips to shimmy and get into position just like Gliden does. You have a fantasy image of a gentler time that never existed, Gilden shows his working method, HCB didn't, but the two are not very far apart in the practice.

Steve
Click to expand...

Wow. All I know is wrong! 😀

Cheers,

Juan
 
daninjc said:
If you take the time to browse through Magnum website, you'll see how the "in your face" shots are a small fraction of the work Gilden has done through the years. Most of which is amazing.

But definitely if you are looking for the balance and equilibrium of Cartier-Bresson's work, you won't find it in Gilden's.
Click to expand...

I was specifically speaking about his street photos not his magnum portfolio. (I made this clear in another post but did not repeat it in the post you quote from.) Just not my style - I like to look for a little more poetry in images. I grant you freely that his portfolio work is much better IMHO.
 
“Photographers are like a box of chocolates... you never know what you're gonna get.”

They don't call it "street" photography for nothing. The timid need not apply.
 
Bob Michaels said:
John: may I suggest the movie "War Photographer" by Christian Frei starting James Nachtwey if you need to fill a period at school. It was nominated for an Oscar, won a Peabody and nominated for an Emmy. It is simply one of the best movies about photography I have seen. It will definitely open students eyes.

In fact, anyone who has not seen War Photographer should rent it and watch it.
Click to expand...

Completely agree. A wonderful movie on a wonderful photographer (who lifts the concept of having balls in photography to a pretty higher lever compared to firing a flash while strolling in American or European streets..)
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
Hell, I'm tired of rubbish from people who think that art is free of moral considerations. Its not. Nothing is.

These foolish ideas that art should never be judged, ever, are born of fear. You think people don't see any value in any art, so you feel the need to defend all art no matter what.

I'm not afraid. I know my art is worthy, I don't give a damn about anyone else's and if some 'artist' is an asshole, I'll say it. I have no obligation to defend people who I find repugnant, just to 'defend art'. If that's what's required to be an artist, this uncritical acceptance of any rubbish that anyone wants to call 'art', then I don't want to be called an artist.

If some 'artist' murdered someone and called the mutilated corpse a 'sculpture', I swear, some of you guys would find some excuse to defend it. I'm frankly surprised someone hasn't tried it yet, and I bet we will in my lifetime. How about this: instead of artists climbing over each other to find ever more strident ways to shock a public that sees no value in their work, how about we find a way to connect people to our work by producing something that actually has some cultural value beyond mere shock.
Click to expand...

Chris...
I know you have a very genuine approach to your subjects and it shines in your photographs, which is very admirable, but not everyone has to take that course of action. Comparing the morality of using a flash and murdering someone is a terrible example when describing how people defend "art". I know you say "some of you", but I'd really like you to find one person who would. It sounds more emotionally charged than rational. I think purposely turning on your high beams at night in traffic is probably more accurate, but even then a little more dangerous than flash photography on the streets of NYC. I think Bruce is more genuine about portraying his subjects than you think he is. I also doubt very much that he is trying shock people with his approach. His vision is more around capturing something intrinsic about human nature that cannot be captured any other way than the approach he takes. He even says that last point in an interview.

I don't think being an artist eliminates you from moral responsibility, but there's plenty of lines to be drawn over environmental issues with materials, animal rights issues over animal products used in certain materials and products, documentary ethics and portrayal of "the real", gender issues that can be attached to specific shots.....and the list goes on and on. Where do you drawn the line? Who decides where that line is? It's an entire book on it's own. A flash that might go off in your face is on the very low end of the moral spectrum in my opinion.
 
jordanstarr said:
Chris...
I know you have a very genuine approach to your subjects and it shines in your photographs, which is very admirable, but not everyone has to take that course of action. Comparing the morality of using a flash and murdering someone is a terrible example when describing how people defend "art". I know you say "some of you", but I'd really like you to find one person who would. It sounds more emotionally charged than rational. I think purposely turning on your high beams at night in traffic is probably more accurate, but even then a little more dangerous than flash photography on the streets of NYC. I think Bruce is more genuine about portraying his subjects than you think he is. I also doubt very much that he is trying shock people with his approach. His vision is more around capturing something intrinsic about human nature that cannot be captured any other way than the approach he takes. He even says that last point in an interview.

I don't think being an artist eliminates you from moral responsibility, but there's plenty of lines to be drawn over environmental issues with materials, animal rights issues over animal products used in certain materials and products, documentary ethics and portrayal of "the real", gender issues that can be attached to specific shots.....and the list goes on and on. Where do you drawn the line? Who decides where that line is? It's an entire book on it's own. A flash that might go off in your face is on the very low end of the moral spectrum in my opinion.
Click to expand...


A flash going off in someone's face unexpectedly can cause a person with Epilepsy (like me) to have a seizure. Just sayin' Not that anyone cares. Bruce is an 'artist', after all. If he did that to me, once I was released from the hospital, I'd sue that SOB for everything he owns and ever will own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom