Magnum - is this

lotsa BS going on here, way off topic. Personal agendas that have nothing to do with photography, much less bruce gilden

photography. I don't like his stuff either, but "walk a mile in my shoes" etc, etc. where's Leica in all this?

Guys, implicit in the statement is that people in Harlem are more violent than people downtown. If that is not a stereotype (and one that is at total odds with my own experience) then I don't know what a stereotype is.

Edward, thanks very much for your post. I'm pretty sure that using a polite photographic style in Harlem is an enjoyable experience (exactly the same as it happens in European latin countries). I've been taking street-people photography in Spain, Portugal, Italy and France. Never had a problem, but I would never try to smash a flash on people.

'If someone literaly jumps in your face and shoots you in the eyes like 50cm away, don't you fell... "invaded"? Now imagine being done this w/ a flash.' - Rui

 

i would not feel invaded. i would possibly feel invaded by someone shooting me from a 100yards away with a 300mm lens. disrespectful is swearing loudly in conversation or into your phone while there are children around. directly walking up to someone and taking a picture, is not.

Thought experiment: suppose someone took a flash unit, WITHOUT a camera, and went around flashing people --

ordinary people, not involved in newsworthy events and not celebrities -- in the face from close up, just to amuse himself

by watching their reaction. Would you deem such behavior objectionable? Does attaching a camera to the flash make it

less objectionable?

 

If you personally don't consider it objectionable, as Matt apparently doesn't, do you think that some people reasonably

might?

 

For the sake of the experiment, assume, first, that the flasher simply bursts out laughing after startling his subject; then,

alternatively, that he goes home and writes down his observations about the people he has startled, intending to write an

academic paper. Does the purpose of his activity matter in evaluating whether his conduct is objectionable?

 

Enquiring minds want to know.

Rui Lebreiro wrote:

 

> It's not the pictures (even if i don't like most of them), the main issue

> here is the lack of respect, and the respect for people you see in HCB

> photography is far beyond his style. That is an essencial point on HCB

> (and magnum) principles!"

 

HCB took many pictures of people without asking permission first. Sometimes, he took pictures of people without their

knowledge. He touted the Leica's virtues - small size, quietness and so on. Bruce Gilden is also taking photos without

permission and, liked HCB, often producing results that the subject wouldn't think of as flattering.

 

The difference is that Gilden is brazen about it. That's not disrespectful. If anything, the fact that he sees no need whatsoever

to be furtive about what he does might be seen as laudable. (HCB often hid his Leica under his coat and taped over its shiny

surfaces to make it less noticeable.) HCB sought invisibility - Gilden does not. I wouldn't differentiate between their work based

on the respect they had towards their subject. HCB came to photography after a period of hunting and selling meat to locals,

didn't he? I don't think he saw his photography very differently. :-)

 

For what it's worth, I'm very taken by those pictures of Bruce Gilden's.

Here's one of the most famous of all American photographs:

 

http://ivyparis.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/07/24/weegee.jpg

 

Would you prefer tha Weegee had never taken it?

Ed, the photo you link to was taken at an opera gala, where the subjects expected -- even wanted! -- to be photographed.

That differentiates it substantially from the photos of Gilden's that some people here object to.

Yes, but the certainly are being demeaned in the picture.

 

And what about THIS one:

 

http://metamedia.stanford.edu/imagebin/Weegee-lovers.jpg

 

Intrusive? I think so.

Ed, as I see it, there are several separate issues here. One is whether the subject is being demeaned, another is

whether the publication of the photo is an invasion of privacy, and a third is whether the photographer's behavior is

objectionable in itself. I think it helps to recognize that these are different issues.

 

Yes, some of Weegee's photos can be seen as demeaning, and the one of the teenagers making out in the movie

theatre may be an invasion of their privacy, at least by modern standards. It raises difficult questions because they are

in public but also in the dark, and just what a "reasonable expectation of privacy" may be under such circumstances is

arguable. IIRC, the shot was taken with IR film and went unnoticed by the young lovers and the other moviegoers.

 

What turns many here off about Gilden is his BEHAVIOR when photographing, rather than the nature of the photo or

whether there is a technical invasion of a legal right to privacy. It is his behavior -- acting obnoxiously toward ordinary

people, as seen in the video -- that differentiates him from Weegee.

 

Gilden might be the nicest, warmest guy in the world under other circumstances, but in the video of him at "work," his

behavior strikes many of us as obnoxioius.

 

Take a moment to think about the thought experiment I posted above: if he engaged in the same behavior, but without

taking photos, what would you think then?

Jonathon..."Take a moment to think about the thought experiment I posted above: if he engaged in the same behavior, but without taking photos, what would you think then?"

 

Sorry Jonathon, but 'experiments' like this are pointless. If you wish, we could discuss the merits of flashing someone in the face with a cameraless flash, but it's a pointless 'experiment' BECAUSE GILDEN DID HAVE A CAMERA.

 

Let me put forth a thought experiment. Okay, so we pretty much all agree that the Iraq war was based on a totally wrong assumption of weapons of mass destruction. Thousands upon thousands dead, one country in physical ruin and another (the US) in financial ruin (partly due to war costs). Okay, here's the experiment....lets pretend there were weapons of mass destruction...it would all be worth it, wouldn't it?

 

Anyone else see the ridiculousness of such 'thought experiments'.

Three things about Bruce Gilden.

 

#1 I like a lot of his work.

#2 I wish my niddies were as big as his when it came to taking photos.

#3 If he comes off as unlikeable for me it's his "I don't want to answer questions" statement and the "you don't own the street" stuff. Talented but arrogant.

Got hang in here with the Fangster... Just because someone doesn't understand or appreciate Gilden's style or concerns, or doesn't like it, its pretty silly to then write-off many completely unique and discreet photographers with completely different points of view, shooting methods and photographic interests. One might learn a little about he background of an agency or a photographer so they could draw conclusions instead of leaping to them.

The proof is in the pudding. I think Mr. Gilden has taken quite a few great photographs in his day. He is a street shooter and has captured life. I find it odd he should be critisized here so agressively. His photos are timeless. He might seem to be a pain in the ass to some of his subjects but that's his style. He brings home the bacon.

i wonder if he ever set the flash off in an epileptics face, i'm sure that would give him a great photo rxn. If someone leapt out in front of me and took a photo of me like that while i'm walkin down the street minding my own business there'd be doctors lookin for parts of that flash gun where light is never supposed to shine.

Do i like the look of some of his photos, sure, the guys got an eye for a photo and and if he was really talented he could do it without setting flash guns off in random peoples faces as they are going around town minding there own business, he doesn't even approach people after to ask if they minded, would they like to see their photo, is it ok for him to use their image? People have their own reasons for privacy-walkin to the store to buy a newspaper shouldn't make you "fair game".

Obnoxious git that can take a decent photo, shame he doesn't have the ability/talent to do it with a bit of niceness

It's always amusingly ironic to hear someone threaten (illegal) assault and battery against someone who does something (legal) that they don't like, while complaining that the person they'd attack lacks niceness or civility.

delighted to give you a smile mike! Sure a threat is only a broken promise! And fair point, blind forums are no places for promises. Though my rebuttal would be that i didn't instigate it:)

 

...anyhow I think my main point should have been perhaps a bit clearer, if he was civil to his subjects, even if he only took 20seconds to explain what he's at or give them a contact card, i'd think fair enough, but he doesn't take that time, which is a shame as civility is most often reciprocated and people would only be to happy to let some well known photographer take their picture. And there is always that genuine, like it or not, risk, of catching that one poor sod who is ,literally, photo(light) sensitive-with a flash going off so close.

 

I'd also add just because something is legal doesn't make it right

Something I'm curious about. I'm a New Yorker. Born and raised there, and I'm firmly in the pro-Bruce camp.

I'm wondering if this is a cultural thing. Is there a relationship between one's proximity to NY and one's

approval of him?

 

If you are a New Yorker, you'll know that having Gilden point his flash at you is not that much more distracting

than any of the other loud noises, screaming people, flashing lights, and other distractions that one gets

whenever you step into the street.

 

So let's take a poll. Who here is from the Tri-State area? Who is from Europe or the South? And where do you

stand?

As someone who has actually been on the receiving end of such intrusive "street photography," as well as someone

who takes photos (including self-portraits), I have to point out that many responses in defense of Mr. Gilder are

speaking from behind the camera. Behind the camera, you are protected. You are not the subject. Your image is

not being exposed for the world to see. You are not antagonized. You hide behind the legality of your action,

while losing sight of the intrinsic humanity of the photographic medium. It is all too common, I think, for

photographers to forget what it is like to be photographed. But ultimately, that is not the reason why I take

issue with Gilder's work.

 

The fundamental problem, as I see it, is not a disrespect for the subject. The disrespect is for what I call

"the photographic moment," that fraction of a second when the shutter is released and the image is rendered by

photons striking the recording medium. One must respect the inescapable truth that the image portrayed is but

the tiniest slice of a continuum, ever-changing in time and space. When Harold Edgerton pioneered strobe

photography, he took ultra-short exposures as a way of revealing the inherent truth of what was happening on

timescales not normally experienced by humans. His choice of subject matter often involved common, everyday

objects, because it was through seeing the extraordinary trapped within the ordinary that gave his images impact.

His work does not disrespect the photographic moment, because he was revealing, not distorting, the underlying

nature of what was being captured. By using strobes to freeze time, he simultaneously reminded us of its

inexorable continuity. Gilder's photographs don't do that for me. Indeed, they feel...cheap (and I'm not

talking about Leicas or gallery prices, neither of which have any bearing on the value of the image itself).

 

It is one thing for a photographer to deliberately set up or manipulate his surroundings in order to evoke (and

subsequently capture) a desired result. It is an entirely different matter to have such callous regard in doing

so. When I walked down the street one day, I was quite literally chased by a group of photographers (presumably

a class of students, led by their so-called teacher), and referred to only in passing--"see how he walks with his

headphones in his ears," and "he might represent the image of mass media consumption," etc. I continued to walk

briskly, ignoring them, and they followed me for about 30-50 meters, snapping happily away, never addressing me

personally (for fear of "contaminating" the subject). Does anyone really care to defend this behavior as the

modus operandi of a legitimate photographer? Disrespect for me, the subject, aside, does it really respect the

art? I think not, because if you do legitimize it, then you must also validate tabloid photographers and

pedophiles who use telezooms at the beach. You must also recognize the worth of every phone camera shot posted

on MySpace. That is, you must validate every photograph and every photographer as equally deserving of being

exhibited in the finest galleries in the world.

 

For any given action, image, concept, or phenomenon, there is always at least one individual who finds artistic

value in it. If you approve of Gilder's work, then so be it. You have your reasons and they are no more

questionable than the reasons of those who disapprove. But what is so often overlooked is the idea that art is

nearly always less about the work than it is about those who perceive it, and in particular, what their

perceptions say about them.

<i>That is, you must validate every photograph and every photographer as equally deserving of being exhibited in the finest galleries in the world. </i><P>

Maybe I'm just a little slow on the uptake this evening, but I seem to be missing several steps of logic between "accepting the validity of Gilden's approach" and "accepting that every photograph is equally deserving of being exhibited in the finest galleries in the world." How does accepting the validity of a particular approach make every result of that approach (and every other possible method) a masterpiece?

<i>i wonder if he ever set the flash off in an epileptics face, i'm sure that would give him a great photo rxn.</i>

 

<p>So much fail in this thread. Epilepsy? Wow. Photosensitive epilepsy is typically precipitated, in the few

(less than 3%

of all American epileptics) who are sensitive to it, by PATTERNS of flashing lights, typically video games and TV

screens. Although I suppose it's theoretically possible for a red-eye reducing pre-flash pattern (from, say, a

point-and-shoot) to induce a seizure in those so predisposed, I don't think there's been a single documented case

of an actual occurrence. If you can point out a credible source (say, an article in a peer-reviewed medical

journal) then I'll stand

corrected. Until then, please don't spread misinformation, and do leave the med-speak to people who know what

they're talking about.</p>

 

<p><i>I think not, because if you do legitimize it, then you must also validate tabloid photographers and

pedophiles who use telezooms at the beach.</i></p>

<p>Your statements are such a complete failure of logic and common sense that I don't even know where to begin to

rip you apart. I'll have to come back to it.</p>

Edward I'm a native N'easter having spent most of my time somewhere inbetween Boston and Providence, RI. Attitude wise those towns are near little extensions of NYC. I understand the East Coast mood which Bruce demonstrates well. A while back I probably wouldn't find his attitude so outrageous but after 2 1/2 years here in a much more polite Austin I can't say I miss the East Coast rudeness. I'll never forget getting lost in NYC. Rolled down the window and asked a guy how to get back to I95. He replies. "Hey buddy what do I look like an effin information booth"? nuf said.

<I>"Hey buddy what do I look like an effin information booth"?</I>

<P>

You got off easy...

<P>

But seriously, I wonder how many of you complaining about this lack of respect and invasion of privacy would be back here tomorrow <I>bragging</I> if Bruce Gilden ever stuck a camera in your face and took your picture.

@ el fang -Photic- and Pattern-induced Seizures: Expert Consensus of the Epilepsy Foundation of America Working Group...I'll take my burn on that and eat humble pie for that part of my statement:) Apparently 5 flashes in a strobe like pattern is the usual min trigger if photosensitive, learn something new every day:)

Epilepsia. 2005 Sep;46(9):1423-5. if you want a peer reviewed backup to throw at the next person who makes my mistake!

Ed, I'm a native New Yorker and current resident, too. I see a world of difference between what you call the city's

distractions and Gilden's deliberate intrusions, just as I see a difference between someone who accidentally bumps into me

and someone who deliberately jostles me.