Well, let's just call him what he is - a pap who photographs normal people. Paps do exactly what he does, they try to aggravate their subjects in order to get something ugly from them. Gilden shoots ''characters'', paps shoot ''celebs''. Is he a pap all the time? I wouldn't say so. His portfolio suggests that his aesthetic sensibilities go a bit further than just being 'in your face'. And there is also a case to be made that there's some artistic merit in taking the paparazzi approach to photographing normal people given our culture's obsession with celebrity.
As for passing moral judgement on him, I think we should put it into perspective. Sure, it's uncomfortable for his subjects and he's rude and everything. But that's not the end of the world. For most of these people having their picture taken by Gilden, while being somewhat uncomfortable, will not mean much.
Well, I respect Bruce Gilden for one reason... he's got balls. Sure, his method on the safe streets of NYC is one thing, but he has also photographed some pretty rough people that most of us wouldn't (Yakuza mobsters, prostitutes, and members of bike gangs). I wish I had his nerve.
But I bet that a camera up his rear would be much more meaningful to him.😛
I entirely agree with Nikkor AIS. I really enjoy Bruce's work, and I think you guys are in general being moralists. If I'm taking a picture and some gets annoyed with me, what is wrong with being annoyed back? As I saw in one video... one guy said "Hey, what are you doing?" Bruce: "I'm taking a picture!"
In a way Bruce stands up for all of us street photogs.
If you expect others to be respectful please be respectful yourself.
I'm not wanting to raise anything here but I love pointing out mild hypocrisies, pointing to others to remove their rude comments and then carrying on in even ruder manner yourself. If you expect others to be respectful please be respectful yourself.