Damon DAmato Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 <p>Slate's review of the book is <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/behold/2015/07/15/bruce_gilden_s_face_an_up_close_and_personal_look_at_people_often_ignored.html">here</a>.<br /><br />“The basis of this project is to show people who are left behind,” Gilden said. “A lot of these people are invisible and people don’t want to look at them and if you don’t look at them how can you help them?"</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanKlein Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 <p>Freaky is always interesting and could sell. Everyone slows down when they pass an accident. But I wouldn't hang on my walls.. Not my taste.</p> Flickr gallery: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damon DAmato Posted July 17, 2015 Author Share Posted July 17, 2015 <p>Most of Gilden's street photography is not my cup of tea either, and I have to say this book is as Bruce Gilden as it gets, and in full color. <br />It's pretty polarizing stuff, I'd guess.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norma Desmond Posted July 18, 2015 Share Posted July 18, 2015 <p>I don't see it as freaky.</p> <p>I appreciate a lot of stuff I wouldn't necessarily hang on my walls. Just because I might not want to see it every day doesn't mean it doesn't have significance and meaning.</p> <p>Maybe the whole point is that it won't be most people's cup of tea. And that might be a reason to give it some consideration.</p> <blockquote> <p><em>I think that now everyone is being more judgmental, and a lot of people speak without knowledge.</em> —Gilden</p> </blockquote> <p>I understand what he's saying and think it's important.<br /> <br /> I'd probably approach a project like this very differently and with a very different visual sensibility, but I can get into the fact that he gives it his own in-your-face style. There's a place for that. I would try to express more empathy in the photos themselves and would probably take a somewhat "softer" approach. But that's me. I'm fine with Gilden being Gilden.</p> <p>While it may be provocative on some levels, I don't see much about it that's polarizing.</p> We didn't need dialogue. We had faces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanKlein Posted July 18, 2015 Share Posted July 18, 2015 <p>The review doesn't say that his book had more than just the shots. By themselves, they're freaky. If each picture had an essay about the person, that was personal and revealed him or her from the heart, then it may be important. We'll get to realize that our negative responses to people who don't look like us doesn't mean they aren't human and deserving of our respect. Like your essay on the farm with people who have mental challenges.</p> <p>You once told me that my picture of a fat person was exploitative. You may be right. So why aren't these exploitative? I have a feeling that not withstanding what Gilden said, his objective was (<em>not</em>) to get us to understand these people but to take unusual photos that would sell. I hope I'm wrong.</p> <p>I edited and added {<em>not}</em> which I forgot to include originally.</p> Flickr gallery: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanKlein Posted July 18, 2015 Share Posted July 18, 2015 <p>Also, every shot was taken in a way that highlighted every hair, blood vessel and other negative trait. He used harsh frontal lighting, high saturation and over sharpened the results to heighten these defects. I'm sure the people don't look this bad if you saw them in person. His photo methods on their own appear exploitative. </p> Flickr gallery: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damon DAmato Posted July 18, 2015 Author Share Posted July 18, 2015 <p>Polarizing, as in every discussion ever had in this forum about shooting photos of homeless people, etc. People who have shown up here talking about wanting to shoot on skid row for some sociological reason or whatever-- which seems to be what Gilden is claiming with these photos-- usually meet some pretty stiff opposition to the idea.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norma Desmond Posted July 18, 2015 Share Posted July 18, 2015 <blockquote> <p>You once told me that my picture of a fat person was exploitative. You may be right.</p> </blockquote> <p>I don't remember the picture, so I can't speak to it. If you'd want to post it, I might be able to tell you what about it felt exploitive to me and contrast it in some meaningful way to Gilden's photos. One reason these photos of Gilden don't come across as exploitive to me is that the people seem very aware of his presence and they seem to be freely participating in what he's doing. That speaks to me more of collaboration than exploitation.</p> We didn't need dialogue. We had faces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanky Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 <p>Didn't Arbus take a number of similar shots back in the 1960's? I guess it's getting harder to find new subject matter.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norma Desmond Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 <p>Yes, Damon, I've read many of those discussions. It's often the people in the discussion who are being polarizing more than the photographers whose photos are being discussed. The stiff opposition often coming forth in the threads you mention comes from the participants in the thread, not usually the photographers wanting to take photos. As Gilden says, there's no shortage of judgmentalism, and I'd include myself in some instances, but I've been more conscious of my judgments and am a little more open to what photographers have to offer, especially when I sense authenticity, even if it's not what I would do.</p> We didn't need dialogue. We had faces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norma Desmond Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 <blockquote> <p>Didn't Arbus take a number of similar shots back in the 1960's?</p> </blockquote> <p>The subject matter may be similar. The shots are not, IMO.</p> We didn't need dialogue. We had faces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanKlein Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 Fred, here it is. Is this exploitative? Or does it show society more concerned how we look rather than who we are? Maybe it's just a fun shot or a shot that shows a juxtaposition, a sort of Ying and yang of everyday living. Flickr gallery: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norma Desmond Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 <p>It could be all of those. I don't think you set out to be exploitive and figure you were just having fun. I probably said the photo was exploitive, and that goes beyond your own intentions. I see the fun here, but it comes at another's expense. The juxtaposition is the fun, and the photo seems to <em>poke fun at</em> rather than <em>connect with </em>which, as in-your-face as they are, Gilden's photos show . . . a connection, although a blatant and stark one. Your perspective in this shot is voyeuristic or at least that of an outsider, it's at a safe distance. Gilden is, at the very least, up front and personal even though there's a kind of blank quality to a lot of the expressions. What you rightly describe as his hyper-emphasizing veins and skin coloration, etc. comes across as part of that emphasis, part of his sense of LOOK HERE! When I've seen others, particularly here on PN, sharpen wrinkles in old people, for example, it somehow rings more hollow to me. Gilden seems to do it with a particular consciousness and consistent style. Others seem to be doing it simply to eek out pathos from their viewers. The last thing I get from Gilden is the imposition of pathos. He seems direct and unflinching but not begging for me to feel sorry for anyone. He's not trying to wring hollow emotions out of me as so many do when they sharpen wrinkles and hair to death.</p> <p>By the way, I don't think you needed to have engaged the woman in your photo. You could have shown empathy or in some way participated or connected with her even from a distance. Or you could have used the distance as a question or somehow shown consciousness of the distance you were feeling. That's the trick, IMO, to that type of shooting. Instead, I believe, you opted for the easy way out, the ironic juxtaposition showing what the woman is not. It's a trap a lot of so-called street photography falls into. Find a man smoking a cigarette in front of a no smoking sign, or a woman entering a park whose fence has a sign that says "keep out." To me, those are no more than visual puns and not very challenging or thought-provoking.</p> <p>I think you have many much better photos in your portfolio.</p> We didn't need dialogue. We had faces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanKlein Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 <p>As I recall taking the shot, it was done off the hip so too speak. First off I'm not a street shooter. I find shooting people an imposition on them and shy away from it. A get-in-your-face Gilden, I'm not. But on occasions I do indulge. </p> <p>This one was taken in Manhattan at Grand Central Station. I had gotten off the subway and was heading to the street passing shops underground. The camera was on my hip in a belt case - used for work. The thing that hit me was the juxtaposition of this heavy-set women standing next to a running shop. Like a man wearing a fur coat at the beach. I had about three seconds to get the shot before she would move away. Compositionally I could have done a better job, but there wasn't time.</p> <p>I wouldn't call it a trap. I find that opposites do attract. The relationship of opposites that somehow just don't fit are the things that make photos interesting. Sometimes, that's all you can get out of a shot. If you were there, what would you have done to show the connection to her that you suggested?</p> Flickr gallery: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norma Desmond Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 <p>I can't speculate what I would have done. I likely wouldn't even have noticed her and, if I had, might not have been interested enough to take the shot. What I can do is show what I mean when I say I might have made more of an issue of the distance (which I think can sometimes, strangely enough, establish more of a connection). I think distance can help with storytelling which, to me, can provide a photo with a sense of involvement.</p> <p>[Perhaps this is voyeuristic to some or even a great degree, and my own voyeurism—and the position of voyeur in which the viewer might find himself—relates to the content of the photo which, for me, would also help establish a connection.]</p> <p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/15815972-md.jpg" alt="" width="679" height="391" /></p> We didn't need dialogue. We had faces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanKlein Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 The picture isn't too clear on my cell phone. What's the guy on the left holding and/or doing? I'm not quite sure how this picture makes your point. Please explain. Flickr gallery: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norma Desmond Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 <p>I did explain to the extent I think is helpful. It's probably tough to see on a cell phone. I suggest taking a look when you have access to a computer. He's holding a camera. You may not agree or see how the distance here works for me even when you can see it.</p> We didn't need dialogue. We had faces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norma Desmond Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 Phil, I have the impression that the photos are as much if not more trying to reveal things about the viewer to the viewer as they are revealing things about the subjects. We didn't need dialogue. We had faces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norma Desmond Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 I disagree but you make good points, ones worth considering. We didn't need dialogue. We had faces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanKlein Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 <p>It's difficult having empathy for just a face regardless of its wear and tear. Does anyone know if the book has captions about these people, personal vignettes, something, anything? </p> Flickr gallery: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhooru Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 <p>I like his idea, but using HDR and that kind of thing, you can make anyone look awful.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Taylor Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 <p>I have a friend at Magnum who thinks Bruce is a massive asshole. I think you have to be to take these types of photos.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norma Desmond Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 <p>See what I mean, Damon. It's not actually Gilden or his photos that are polarizing . . .</p> We didn't need dialogue. We had faces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanKlein Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 <p>Actually this book parallels the kind of photos and video essays that has gotten very popular on the web. <br> "12 Actresses Who have Gone from Pretty to Ugly"<br> "The 15 Hair Raising Moments caught at the Decisive Second"<br> <br />"10 Videos of the Most Terrifying Attacks of Sharks on People"</p> <p>So now we have Gilden's "50 People Who You're Glad you Never Dated"</p> Flickr gallery: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 <p> "especially when I sense authenticity, even if it's not what I would do"</p> <p> No authenticity in these images which are crudely manipulated revealing little of their real personality and character. Sensational images to attract controversial discussion without kindness to the individuals....all that is bad in street photography: honesty of the image replaced with crude marketing exploitation. </p> <p>Sad.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now