Lets Talk about Bruce Gilden

By any objective measure Gliden is an artist.

With art, peoples' views are subjective. Disapproval and approval are both authentic responses.
 
I don’t particularly taken by his photographs.
Don’t like him very much either (from all the info I saw of him over time).

One thing though… I think that he is a thrill seeker, and his approach is based on pushing the situation as far as he can for the thrill of it.
I base this opinion on a fact that he photographed Yakuza mafia bosses, Siberian thieves and killers, and other similar characters, which can’t be safe.

https://pro.magnumphotos.com/Catalogue/Bruce-Gilden/2010/RUSSIA-Gangsters-NN1104966.html
https://pro.magnumphotos.com/Catalo...APAN-Tokyo-Yakuza-Japan's-mafia-NN110222.html

To small extent I can understand where is he coming from, having wondered around Detroit’s ruins (that’s 10-15 years ago, now you’d be hard pressed to find places like that) and photographing homeless people, although I never pushed as far, having wife and 2 kids 🙂

But I can only imagine the thrill… must be chilling and invigorating.
 
Roger Hicks said:
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.
Click to expand...

This summarizes is, I would just replace "much" with "the vast majority"
 
One cannot talk about Bruce Gilden without talking about Eric Kim, whose work is nearly identical in content, method and quality and therefore should appeal to the same public.
 
Roger Hicks said:
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?
Click to expand...

That's what I felt too, his work, if I can call it work at all, is by shallowly employing the "shock factor", flashing-unexpected-people-in-the-face (on street), posing the subject in an angle (when he posing his subject) to achieve that. and to my amusement, that seems to spark countless armature copy cat too, thinking they are into something revolutionary.

Put this in perspective, beating a kitten/puppy while taking a snapshot, and label my photography as my expression of "human vs nature" (man i got to think a nice label to sell that), or how about peddling taking naked pictures of children and pose them as "innocent" blah blah context to gain my "artistic" license?

Oh crap... I think I gone too far... better back to check out what camera to buy next, at lease I think my GAS is less harmful...
 
I'm a fan and have been since I first heard of him. It's a bit disappointing to find that Roger isn't a fan but life goes on.

And I must say I really don't get why people are bothered by his style. Do those people think that all anyone should photograph is "stuff", landscapes, and people that are always fully consenting to be photographed? Where would photography be without risk takers? Indeed where would society be without risk takers?

Personally I'm deeply challenged by anyone that can take photos of complete strangers anywhere. I'm still not able to get myself to do it despite years of trying. To do it well is even more impressive.
 
blw said:
. . . And I must say I really don't get why people are bothered by his style. Do those people think that all anyone should photograph is "stuff", landscapes, and people that are always fully consenting to be photographed? Where would photography be without risk takers? Indeed where would society be without risk takers? . . .
Click to expand...
There is a big difference between risk taking and being unpleasant and exploitative. I'm a great fan of Humanist photography, which certainly isn't to do with "stuff", landscapes, and people that are always fully consenting to be photographed. I just find Gilden's work vile and superficial. From what people have said here, it is possible to change one's mind. I just rather doubt that I'm going to, or that many people will. Hence my question about "what's to discuss".

Cheers,

R.
 
blw said:
Do those people think that all anyone should photograph is "stuff", landscapes, and people that are always fully consenting to be photographed?.
Click to expand...

No but invading someone's personal space in such a way just to shock them and photograph them is rude and cruel. I take pictures of complete strangers but i always try to stay out of their way and never intimidate them.
 
blw said:
Personally I'm deeply challenged by anyone that can take photos of complete strangers anywhere. I'm still not able to get myself to do it despite years of trying. To do it well is even more impressive.
Click to expand...

Picture was "meeeh" for me, to be honest I think the "fame" come from being "eccentric", you know, that "special" thing that you do that no one else does, everyone likes a story, drama sells.
 
The fact we're talking about him says enough really.

I admire people like him who develop a style and make a living out of it. That's a real contribution.

As Anton Ego said so memorably " the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so."
 
p.giannakis said:
No but invading someone's personal space in such a way just to shock them and photograph them is rude and cruel. I take pictures of complete strangers but i always try to stay out of their way and never intimidate them.
Click to expand...

Bruce Gilden suffers a reputation gained from a few clips on the Internet. Not all of his work is ambushing folks in the street. In fact, a very small portion of his portfolio has been achieved in this fashion yet the reputation lives on.
 
How do you think he pulled his "Faces" project off? I understand that he went to State Fairs for a prolonged period of time. So when he sees an "interesting character", he just asks them "Hey can I make a picture of you?", pulls them aside and makes pictures? Do you think he has an assistant how helps him find these characters, and do you think he pays his "models"? Given that he took photos of hundreds of amazing characters, this seems like a real project with substantial effort going into it. Certainly a deviation from his "in your face" street photography.
 
Paul T. said:
The fact we're talking about him says enough really.

I admire people like him who develop a style and make a living out of it. That's a real contribution.

As Anton Ego said so memorably " the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so."
Click to expand...

You can develop a style just like the "artist" who chained a street dog to the wall in a museum and let it starve to death. Not sure that "originality" deserves half the credit it takes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
  • Article Article
The Golden Age of American Photo Magazines: 1949-1989
Replies
16
Views
5K
Pál_K
Pál_K
J
35mm Still-Picture Photography: It began with scale focusing cameras! Back To Basics. Part 1, From the first to half-frame 35s of then and now.
Replies
10
Views
906
Jason Schneider
J
Back
Top Bottom