rui_lebreiro Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 after seeing a video about Bruce Gilden's work in NY, i never went to visit magnum photos site again(this video: ) even if some few photos look nice, i think the intrusive and desrespectfull style is just not up to magnum standardsor should i say, the original magnum standards even using a flash w/ a leica M... that's a sinof course all of us remember famous Cartier-Bresson quotes about the horror of using a flash:"Avoid making a commotion, just as you wouldn’t stir up the water before fishing. Don’t use a flash out ofrespect for the natural lighting, even when there isn’t any. If these rules aren’t followed, the photographerbecomes unbearably obstrusive" am i an "old traditional guy" (a 35 years old one) or some of you share my thoughts? regards,rui Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fran__ois_p._weill Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 Well Rui, Just the illustration of what I said in my message on the thread about Cartier-Bresson... This guy is looking for extraordinary characters and complains about the similarity of dressing of people nowadays in his favorite part of Brooklyn... And he uses a flashgun... HCB way was the exact opposite, stay unnoticed as long as possible, and photograph ordinary people in normal or extraordinary but significant situations or attitudes... But what paper is now interested in the true life of ordinary people ? Most of Bruce Gilden's photographs are for me nothing but trash... Both artistically and technically. I don't know how such people can live from their images... The fact he used a flashgun with a Leica M for such work is just another non-sense... Flash for flash Weegee's work with a 4"x5" Speed Graphic was far better and far more revealing... Even if the events recorded were far from ordinary life of ordinary people, they were images of a certain reality. FPW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el_fang Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 <i>after seeing a video about Bruce Gilden's work in NY, i never went to visit magnum photos site again (this video: )</i> <p>You're going to dismiss the work of an entire agency just because one (of several dozen) member's work doesn't appeal to you? OK. Your loss, I suppose.</p> <p><i>even if some few photos look nice, i think the intrusive and desrespectfull style is just not up to magnum standards or should i say, the original magnum standards</i></p> <p>Just what are the "original magnum standards" according to you? Magnum was founded in 1947 with the express purpose of placing control of the pictures (copyright) in the hands of the photographers, preserving their original authorship and encouraging individual styles. Whether or not you agree with Gilden's approach, his style is his own and appears to me to be perfectly in line with the purposes of Magnum's original reason for being.</p> <p><i>even using a flash w/ a leica M... that's a sin</i></p> <p>One of the reasons it was deemed a "sin" to use a flash on a Leica M, I suspect, was the horrendously slow flash sync (1/50) of the cloth shutter. So instead of just admitting "this shutter is quiet but it sucks for daylight flash fill," people came up with the excuse that "it's a sin."</p> <p><i>of course all of us remember famous Cartier-Bresson quotes about the horror of using a flash: "Avoid making a commotion, just as you wouldn’t stir up the water before fishing. Don’t use a flash out of respect for the natural lighting, even when there isn’t any. If these rules aren’t followed, the photographer becomes unbearably obstrusive"</i></p> <p>That was Cartier-Bresson's approach. I, for one, am glad he wasn't stupid enough to impose his own views and philosophies on every prospective Magnum member, otherwise we'd have today an agency of Cartier-Bresson-parroting lemmings indistinguishable from each other.</p> <p>I remember once hearing a story from a Magnum member about a photographer who applied for membership but was denied. The irate photographer cried out "But look! My pictures look just like Cartier-Bresson's!"</p> <p>"Yes," the Magnum member said. "And in some cases I can't tell one from the other. But there is a difference: While your pictures look like Cartier-Bresson's, Cartier Bresson's pictures look like no-one else's."</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el_fang Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 <i>am i an "old traditional guy" </i> <p>No, just someone who needs to expand his horizons a little. If I took the same approach as yours but applied it to paintings, I'd only be looking at and appreciating prehistoric cave art, while dismissing the work of Michelangelo, Rembrandt, Van Gogh, Vermeer, daVinci <i>et al</i> as "not being up to the original standards."</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtk Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 Have Magnum Members "applied" for membership or has that been extended to them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtodrick Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 I'll second everything that el Fang says. It's like saying one can't appreciate anything American because you don't like Bush. Just plain, well maybe stupid is a bit harsh. I like some of the images...partly because they DON'T look like so many images that are blatant copies of the HCB style...I'm starting to cringe everytime I hear someone say they are trying to be unobtrusive so they can catch 'the decisive moment'. Blather. John, it may have changed in the last few years, but when the book 'Magnum: The Legendary Photo Agency' was published (1996 or so) it appeared that you had to be sponsored to get in. So it sounds like a bit of both...you could probably 'apply' (through a letter/portfolio) to an existing member, who would then recommend you to the agency. But that may have changed. There was one funny little quote I remember from that book. It said that every year Magnum gets, literally 1000's of photographers enquiring on how to get in. They have a cap on membership, at the time about 150 photographers, many of them had great egos, meaning that their was lot of infighting and disagreement on how the agency should be run. The quote said (and I can't for the life of me remember who said it)..."Every year their are a thousand photographers trying to get into Magnum...and 150 trying to get out!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rui_lebreiro Posted October 23, 2008 Author Share Posted October 23, 2008 I get your point. 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! I can tell you if Bruce Gilden ever tries this ... "approach" in European latin countries, we risks getting beaten. And it's pretty obvious why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt_m__toronto_ Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 "I can tell you if Bruce Gilden ever tries this ... "approach" in European latin countries, we risks getting beaten. And it's pretty obvious why." well that certainly says a lot about the people living in those countries... anyway, i don't think it's too disrespectful. some people may not want their picture taken, but gilden's approach is up front. would these people in european latin countries like a photographer taking their picture any better if it was from a distance with a telephoto? there's a lot of things out there in the street that a lot of people don't like. (smokers, beggers, loud talkers, slow walkers etc) get over it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leslie_p. Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 original standards = disrespecting your subject (human beings)? In this case I don't think you should compare his approach to painting..but that's just me. I'm quite taken back by his arrogance and intrusive behavior. What is funny and almost unbelievable is how he yells at those he photographs (when they smile or react to a man shoving a camera in their face). I don't really think this guys "style" of photographing is one that really opens peoples minds. There are plenty of photographers who find "characters" without this semi-abusive method. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtdnyc Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 Rui, I wouldn't judge all of Magnum by the work of Bruce Gilden, but I have to agree with Francois's judgment about his photographs. Gilden's work and technique often seem to be infused with disrespect for the essential humanity of his subjects and thus seems to run counter to the history and spirit of Magnum. Maybe they include him so that the work of their other photographers will look so much the better by comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_shriver Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 They certainly are "in your face" photos. Both ways -- of the subject -- of the viewer. The Yazuka (Japanese mobster) shots are gutsy. The Haitian ones have a different point of view. But he is merciless on the folks at Coney Island, but Coney Island is a place for real people, not just pretty people, one of the most non-elite beaches in the world. The pictures say something, they have a message. You may not like the message, but a message is part of art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtodrick Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 I think that the fact that Gilden is a member of Magnum, that he has numerous books published and that he has one three awards from The National Endowment for the Arts (amongst many other awards) probably does not care too much about what is being said here. I am amazed at the attitude of late that goes..."I don't like that so it's bad'. How about 'different strokes for different folks'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rui_lebreiro Posted October 23, 2008 Author Share Posted October 23, 2008 Bob, Maybe being "a member of Magnum", as you say, doesn't mean as much as it did in the past. Try not to see it as a snob saying by me (i'm really noone in photography), but as an opinion i hear more and more in photographers these days. The image of Magnum is the image of their photographers. Rui Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rui_lebreiro Posted October 23, 2008 Author Share Posted October 23, 2008 Matt M, If you still didn't have a chance of seeing it for yourself, people in latin european countries (spain, portugal, italy) are very friendly, open, sincere, trustfull. You can chat 10 minutes w/ someone you just met, and have them invite you to lunch w/ their family. People tend care about others, even if strangers on the street. And being like that, so trustfull, of course also would fell offended in behaviours like those of Bruce Gilden. Rui Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtodrick Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 Rui...never said being a member of Magnum doesn't mean as much now as in the past. What the quote was refering to (in jest) was that there were so many egos involved in Magnum that it was difficult to be a member...everyone had their own ideas of what the agency should be. Again...when you have as many awards as Gilden to your credit...then I'll listen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cpj Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 Please, sending us to a web page with 50 video stills on it and trying to find out which one you are talking about is not helpful. If you have to comment on something of "importance" to the rest of the Leica world, at least give us the precise URL so we can find it. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rui_lebreiro Posted October 23, 2008 Author Share Posted October 23, 2008 CPeter, It's right on my first post: Rui Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsimmons Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 Having bumped into Bruce Gilden while we were both photographing in Manhattan in, I think, 1977, I can say that he can very nice to people he photographs. I have pictures of him very engaged in conversation with an elderly woman he'd just photographed. They are having a good time chatting up a storm. He wasn't shooting with a flash that day, but I was. He was shooting his 28mm, and I a 40mm, so I could afford to be a little further away. ;-) And, Rui, I can also report that Bruce did as you say your Europeans do - he invited me, an absolute stranger, to his home for a meal and to meet his lovely wife. He is an intense guy, but he's also a nice guy. You heard it from someone whe's met him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ned1 Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 I've also worked with him. He is one of the nicest guys you will ever meet. I also realize how different peoples reactions to photography can be. I was utterly stunned when I first saw his work. I was just knocked out by it. The wit, the irony, the sarcasm, and the pure insight into the human condition. I never realized before that you could make pictures like that. My reaction when it comes to him and Magnum was "why can't there be other innovative Magnum photographers like Bruce?". A lot of Magnum photographers like to play it safe. Gilden doesn't play it safe. And yes, he uses a flash, so what? His technique with it is ferocious. What is it that we want? I lot of pretty pictures that remind us how nice the world is? I guess some of us want that. How sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el_fang Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 <i>In this case I don't think you should compare his approach to painting.</i> <p>"WHOOSH!" said the point as it flew over Leslie P's head.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emraphoto Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 well, to my utter suprise i am going with pretty much all mr fang had to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s_r_c Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 I imagine William Klein working much the same way. It's a valid and interesting style. Like Phillip Jones Griffiths vs. Martin Parr. Both phenomenal eyes; polar opposites in style and approach. I think it's largely a demeanor thing. Or a New York thing. I'd have been stabbed in the stomach ages ago if that's how I shot. But I wouldn't, so I don't, and I'm not in magnum either. And haven't tried to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rui_lebreiro Posted October 24, 2008 Author Share Posted October 24, 2008 Jim and Edward, I have no problem believing Bruce is a fantastic person and that can be very nice to people. It's not the person, it's the style. I don't know about you, and I even believe in NY it's "ok" if you shoot a flash on someone's face. In Europe it isn't, it's rude and desrespectfull. I'm aware his style is a new tendency, ok. I don't appreciate it but I respect others do. Anyway it makes me sad to see Magnum when that way. Others might say Magnum is open-minded doing it. Opinions... :) Rui Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jose_angel Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 "I'm aware his style is a new tendency, ok. I don't appreciate it but I respect others do." Not as new. There are high audience TV programs (probably with the highest share ratings) that desperately look for this effect, to show the most "human" (in the lowest sense of the word) reactions. The more ridiculous, ugly, rare, reaction the better food for some kind of spectator. The journalist use the subject without respect, like a mere object to get his/her material to sell. Good-maners usually are an obstacle. A false friendliness and somekind of phylosophical art motives and verbal dhiarroea are their excuse. The most used trick is to make the subject mad, to catch him/her unaware, to ask him (TV) stupid, upsetting or bothering questions and record the reactions. When creativity lacks, foolishness appear. I think this is a clear sample of the photography version. This could work in some places where people could have not been so abused in this way. In the "Latin european" countries people that are aware of this "creations" hate to be part of them. Also, in this cities people don`t feel as anonymous like NY people, thought. There is a saying that reflect this... "The best of NY/London/etc. is that you can wear a flowerpot over your head and nobody will notice it". I definitely prefer HBC style. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jose_angel Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 "Anyway it makes me sad to see Magnum when that way. Others might say Magnum is open-minded doing it. " Well, perhaps Magnum is not so different than other agencies. They are a co-operative, and his members could have more or less succesful work and ways of working. If this photog wouldn`t have shown his way of working surely much more people will be pleased with him and his photography, thought. The issue is that they wanted to make profit of his videos too, and some people feels dissapointed after looking at this one... 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