giganova
Well-known
Bruce Gilden has often been criticized for his brutalist, "in your face" (literally) photographic style, the way he approaches his subjects (often giving them no chance to object being photographed), and how he is exploiting people and their looks at the underbelly of society. A "modern freak show" is a term that is often used to describe his photography.
Yet, his photos are truly unique, extremely memorable, and he has boldly addressed social issues head-on in a way very few photographers have succeeded. Plus, he has managed to stay relevant for four decades. And that I find remarkable.
What's your take on Bruce Gilden?
NYC street photography:
Coney Island:
Haiti:
Faces:
Tokyo Yakuza:
Detroit:
Yet, his photos are truly unique, extremely memorable, and he has boldly addressed social issues head-on in a way very few photographers have succeeded. Plus, he has managed to stay relevant for four decades. And that I find remarkable.
What's your take on Bruce Gilden?
NYC street photography:
Coney Island:
Haiti:
Faces:
Tokyo Yakuza:
Detroit:
Last edited:
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
I don't really know if he has stayed relevant. But he has done plenty of work that isn't just running up to and setting a flash off in the face of octogenarians, and some of it is rather good.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Why?
Either you like his work, or you don't.
Has he really "addressed social issues"? Much of his work is cruel, crude, exploitative and vile. But if that's the sort of thing you like, well, that's your problem. What is there to discuss?
Cheers,
R.
Either you like his work, or you don't.
Has he really "addressed social issues"? Much of his work is cruel, crude, exploitative and vile. But if that's the sort of thing you like, well, that's your problem. What is there to discuss?
Cheers,
R.
mdarnton
Well-known
Some day he will assault someone who is not small and old, and that person will flatten him. I will shed no tears. Magnum dropped a couple of notches in my book when I discovered that he was a member and that they apparently have no standards regarding the behavior of the people who use their name.
finguanzo
Well-known
My answer to the topic question was going to be, let's not. Too late.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Fair dinkum. I just think that he alienates far, far more people than you (entirely reasonably) suggest. That's despite having seen more of his work than I can easily stomach. Which is perhaps your point.
Cheers,
R.
OurManInTangier
An Undesirable
Conflicted.
As many, demonstrated by Roger and Michael, I feel unease (perhaps a far too genteel term for some) at Gilden's approach to producing his images. It goes against everything I've been raised to deem acceptable in how one should treat other people.
That said, I believe there is a need for the type of confrontational, cynical, hard-eyed and rib poking work that the likes of Gilden, Parr and currently Wallace ( Dougie) are producing and have produced. It can be cruel, crude, exploitative and vile and very hard to accept let alone view but life is often these things and all too often these are forced upon us by others; be they the 1%ers, the conglomerates or the all too well invested. Puns aside, a bright light does need to be shone into the darker depths of our society and the resulting photographs will probably be confronting, ugly and unpleasant to witness.
All of the above works well for me at least when describing Parr's, albeit very middle class, distaste for Thatcher's Britain and his desire to highlight what he thought were the negative affects on British society. Wallace appears to be attempting to highlight the vast disconnect between the super rich and the rest of us in a society ready to rip apart anyone for an extra million on the already amassed billions. Which does leave me with Gilden, the one that has never really convinced me that what he has shown is saying anything more than 'look at these guys, weird huh?' So perhaps I'm just missing something nuanced or should just get on with the fact he helped make ugly and harsh something that we as viewers were more ready to accept in our consumed imagery and not simply ignore.
So, cast a cynical and questioning gaze across all aspects of our society and not just on the weaker members and I see a need, a required balance to a humanist approach....but I'll still be conflicted about it.
As many, demonstrated by Roger and Michael, I feel unease (perhaps a far too genteel term for some) at Gilden's approach to producing his images. It goes against everything I've been raised to deem acceptable in how one should treat other people.
That said, I believe there is a need for the type of confrontational, cynical, hard-eyed and rib poking work that the likes of Gilden, Parr and currently Wallace ( Dougie) are producing and have produced. It can be cruel, crude, exploitative and vile and very hard to accept let alone view but life is often these things and all too often these are forced upon us by others; be they the 1%ers, the conglomerates or the all too well invested. Puns aside, a bright light does need to be shone into the darker depths of our society and the resulting photographs will probably be confronting, ugly and unpleasant to witness.
All of the above works well for me at least when describing Parr's, albeit very middle class, distaste for Thatcher's Britain and his desire to highlight what he thought were the negative affects on British society. Wallace appears to be attempting to highlight the vast disconnect between the super rich and the rest of us in a society ready to rip apart anyone for an extra million on the already amassed billions. Which does leave me with Gilden, the one that has never really convinced me that what he has shown is saying anything more than 'look at these guys, weird huh?' So perhaps I'm just missing something nuanced or should just get on with the fact he helped make ugly and harsh something that we as viewers were more ready to accept in our consumed imagery and not simply ignore.
So, cast a cynical and questioning gaze across all aspects of our society and not just on the weaker members and I see a need, a required balance to a humanist approach....but I'll still be conflicted about it.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Simon,
Highlight/underline: These are the magic words as far as I am concerned.
Cheers,
R.
giganova
Well-known
Dear Roger --
I agree with many of you that his aggressive street photography style deserves a punch in his face from time to time, no question, and I find it highly unethical. But jumping in front of people, ambushing them and firing a flash into their faces is different what he did for his "Faces" project. He singled them out, asked if he can make photos, they (allegedly) consented and: posed for the images. These persons wanted to be seen.
Sure, it's just like Picasso, either you like his work or you don't, what's there to discuss, right?
Not in my opinion. But he is putting the images out there and speaks at great length in interviews about the issues the people in his photos are having. Putting the images in front of viewers is an important step in getting the ball rolling. I have his "Faces" book and regularly show it to friends. Their reactions are very interesting: shocked at first, speechless, sometimes disgusted, but the longer they look at the images, the more they think about the people, wonder how they got into these situations, feel sympathy for them, discuss how "wealthy" societies like ours can be so unjust, cruel to some. I think his photos are a gateway into discussing social issues, and as such, I value his contribution.
Cruel, crude, exploitative is what you think, assuming that this is what I like and then concluding that I have a problem is condescending and offensive.
My apology, I thought this is a photography forum where we can -- once in a while -- discuss photography. How silly of me!
I agree with many of you that his aggressive street photography style deserves a punch in his face from time to time, no question, and I find it highly unethical. But jumping in front of people, ambushing them and firing a flash into their faces is different what he did for his "Faces" project. He singled them out, asked if he can make photos, they (allegedly) consented and: posed for the images. These persons wanted to be seen.
Colin Corneau
Colin Corneau
I respect him. He is an artist who knows exactly what he does and follows it with passion.
He makes strong, singular and unique images. Last time I checked, the world wasn't exactly beating down my door for what I do...his images are different but it is apparent that his vision is based on a much more solid, substantive foundation than voyeurism or mockery.
He makes strong, singular and unique images. Last time I checked, the world wasn't exactly beating down my door for what I do...his images are different but it is apparent that his vision is based on a much more solid, substantive foundation than voyeurism or mockery.
leicapixie
Well-known
Gilden has addressed "social issues".
Bruce is known though for his flash in the face!
I believe he is a sincere photographer.
I had a short chat with the man, some years ago.
He appears to be a typical abrasive New Yorker of legend.
Yet many of his images esp. in NY, are of folks well known to the man!
Some hate his work, others admire.
Until I watched him talk about his work and a personal chat, i was with the hate group.
HCB phoned Martin Parr when he was selected to join Magnum.
Martin Parr also a flash addict, was told by Bresson, now retired, "I hate your work!".
Or similar. Only the Good Lord knows what HCB would think of Gilden.
Bruce is known though for his flash in the face!
I believe he is a sincere photographer.
I had a short chat with the man, some years ago.
He appears to be a typical abrasive New Yorker of legend.
Yet many of his images esp. in NY, are of folks well known to the man!
Some hate his work, others admire.
Until I watched him talk about his work and a personal chat, i was with the hate group.
HCB phoned Martin Parr when he was selected to join Magnum.
Martin Parr also a flash addict, was told by Bresson, now retired, "I hate your work!".
Or similar. Only the Good Lord knows what HCB would think of Gilden.
giganova
Well-known
Haha, I would wear that as a badge of honor and make it my slogan!
Pablito
coco frío
The work varies. The Foreclosures series is not cruel or mean like some of his other work. I'd hate to be him, though, and I like so called "typical abrasive New Yorkers."
Pablito
coco frío
You think the Yakuza qualify as small and old?
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I didn't understand him. He acts like jerk on video. This was turning me off, until I saw his photo which is last shown here. I read the story at the Leica blog and it opened my mind.
Where are many copycats of him, but only he does it. He shows us what all people are beautiful. BG is great portraitist. One of few great ones.
Where are many copycats of him, but only he does it. He shows us what all people are beautiful. BG is great portraitist. One of few great ones.
AusDLK
Famous Photographer
He's a great guy, very friendly, approachable on the street if you ever see him, fun to talk to, has terrific stories to tell. Not a particularly good workshop instructor unless you want to emulate his style. His body of photographic work speaks for itself. If you don't like it, tough. I'm honored to know him.
p.giannakis
Pan Giannakis
I 'm glad someone said it - I've become very politically correct recently and i can't say things like that any more.
p.giannakis
Pan Giannakis
i am not sure how to read this comment, I agreed with Mr Hick's description about Gilden's work and described as political correctness the fact that i hesitated to say it first.
Are you referring to my 'lack of spine' for not saying it first?
fireblade
Vincenzo.
I like him, not that Bruce cares.
DanskDynamit
Well-known
I don't like his photographs.