Magnum - is this

[rui_lebreiro]

gilden's work might be considered better or worse, but w/ such an attitude towards people, no thanks!

 

one only fells the need to remove the video of a shooting action if using a method like this

 

if not, check out james natchey. His video is so famous, everybody has seen it. And people get delighted not only w/ the fantastic photos he captures but also HOW he does it, w/ such an amazing respect for people, for their sorrow, for their loss. So much respect that one get's amazed how people let him be so close the the action (and such deep emotion action) and keep shooting.

 

... maybe gilden could learn something from it.

[jose_angel]

Funny... we must have something in common... a Natchwey`s image (the one with the three childs behind a tree when a helycopter takes ground in El Salvador) has been my computer`s desk image for a long time...

[bobtodrick]

So Rui...you're in effect saying that everyone should photograph to a limited subject matter/style seeming determined by you.

 

Sorry...not a world I'd want to live in.

 

You really should read Animal Farm/1984.

[rui_lebreiro]

Bob,

 

You are making your own assumptions. I didn't say that.

 

As I said before, when photographing people, respecting them is a matter of principles, not of "style".

 

Now, if someone thinks it's "cooool" to do what gilden does (which IMO is disrespecting people)... ok, different principles from mine. I respect it... just don't agree with it.

[doug herr]

Explicit or not, there seems to be two questions involved in most responses:

<P>

<B>1. Is Gilden's working style shown in the video disrepectful?</B><BR>

and if the answer to the first question is affirmative, <BR>

<B>2. Do the end results justify the means?</B>

<P>

I expect that the answers to these questions are sufficiently subjective that agreement is unlikely.

[bobtodrick]

Rui: "Now, if someone thinks it's "cooool" to do what gilden does (which IMO is disrespecting people)... ok, different principles from mine. I respect it... just don't agree with it".. I can agree with that.

 

"... maybe gilden could learn something from it"...why should he?

 

That's my point.

[rui_lebreiro]

<i>"... maybe gilden could learn something from it"...why should he? </i>

 

 

we can always improve ;)

[sprouty]

I personally don't find his actions rude and there was no evidence that any of the people he took a photo of thought

so either.

 

<P>

And the point you seem to miss Rui, is that your standards for acceptable behavior are not universal.

[rui_lebreiro]

but i accept my standarts are not universal

but please accept i can have my own standards

 

in the beginning i've said "am i an "old traditional guy" (a 35 years old one) or some of you share my thoughts?"

so you can see i was already supposing some might agree w/ me, others wouldn't

[sprouty]

You accept that your standards are not universal? Do I really need to go back and point out where you've attributed your standards to HCB, Magnum, and all of Europe?

[rui_lebreiro]

I never said "Europe" thinks like me. I said here in Europe, namely in Latin Europe, he risks getting beaten, and

that's true. Also someone mentioned other places.

I get the idea the exception here might be NY people, who seem to be, how should i say, more "permissive"?!

 

I never said HCB has my standards.

However everyone knows his photos, his videos, and his quotes...

And the following quote couldn't aply better to Gilden's work:

"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."

 

anyway, you think what you want.

i think what i want

we all live happy, and take many pictures :)

[sprouty]

<I>"I never said "Europe" thinks like me."</I>

<P>

Well here is what you wrote:

<P>

<I>"...people in latin european countries (spain, portugal, italy) are very friendly, open, sincere, trustfull...And being

like that, so trustfull, of course also would fell offended in behaviours like those of Bruce Gilden."</I>

<P>

Seems pretty straight forward to me.

[bobtodrick]

Rui...you do seem to be 'changing' what are saying (or thinking) as the thread evolves.

 

Really, there isn't much point in pursuing this any further, is there?

[rui_lebreiro]

Bob,

 

I didn't change a think. I think what I've said time and time again. Sorry if i perhaps was not so concise in

some cases.

 

In fact you are right, there's nothing more to say: some of you share my initial thoughts, others don't, which is

pretty natural.

 

By the way, just let me tell you I've received several emails of people who shared my opinion but didn't want to

post here, apparently due to having the idea of unconsequente and "too warm" discussion going on.

I don't have that idea: everyone placed their thoughts, some more "warm" than others, the important is respecting

different opinions.

 

Again, i respect Gilden, and everyone who apparently love his work and even support his "style".

I just don't like it.

[sam_motskin]

there was no evidence that any of the people he took a photo of thought so either"

 

He seems to be careful in choosing whose face he's going to fire his flash at. For the most part they all look old

and/or non violent.

[sprouty]

<I>"He seems to be careful in choosing whose face he's going to fire his flash at."</I>

<P>

Yes.

<P>

<I>"For the most part they all look <DEL>old and/or non violent</DEL>."</I>

<P>

"interesting"

[rui_lebreiro]

<i> He seems to be careful in choosing whose face he's going to fire his flash at. For the most part they all

look old and/or non violent. </i>

 

Hum, after all he's aware ;)))

[sam_motskin]

"interesting"

 

Firing a flash in the face of an old woman and frightening her. It does not even cross his mind that he may permanently damage her eyesight. If somebody calls this "interesting" I call him a cynical coward

[sprouty]

<I>"...permanently damage her eyesight."</I>

<P>

Please, now you just sound silly.

[matt_m__toronto_]

'frightening her' - she didn't look frightened to me. you guys live in a world of pillows and cotton candy or what??

[philippartridge]

He is a disrespectful intruder, and that is being kind to the perpetrator. He is acting like a paparazzo towards private individuals; in many parts of the world, he may end up sustaining some serious physical damage. Is this New York? I thought that was a tough place..

[el_fang]

<i>These rules were applicable in France since 1944, so to say, at least for the French founders of Magnum, the

copyright protection was certainly not the main reason to associate...</i>

<p>So are you saying that Magnum is telling a lie in its own history page? If you want to throw such an

accusation, don't veil or sugarcoat it. Just say it right out. Also, you seem to forget that there are things

called <b>contracts</b> that can modify or even invalidate rights granted under law, as long as both parties are

in agreement and said agreement does not itself violate any laws.</p>

 

<p><i>Nevertheless, most if not all Magnum founders were linked to press photography</i></p>

<p>Like I said, only because press was the main avenue for photography back in those days.</p>

<p><i>The 20 years old "innovation" you are referring to is as far as I'm concerned a regrettable concession to

our times, and mainly a financial operation far removed form the original spirit of Magnum.</i></p>

<p>So you'd rather have a dead Magnum as a victim of its "original spirit" than one that survives by changing

with the times? This sounds a LOT to me like the die-hard Leica fans who wish that Leica would ignore digital

completely and just stay with the film market, because somehow digital isn't in the "original spirit" of Leica.

How do you feel about the fact that many Magnum photographers do advertising and corporate photography on the

side? Is selling coffee in order to fund personal work also "far removed from the original spirit of Magnum"?</p>

[fran__ois_p._weill]

Douglas asked us :

 

>> 1. Is Gilden's working style shown in the video disrepectful?

and if the answer to the first question is affirmative,

 

2. Do the end results justify the means? <<

 

To question 1 I'll answer YES but only to a certain extent... Seeing what the video doesn't show in its awfully poor selection of Gilden's work in terms of results, one can have a better understanding of Gilden's vision of the human being : where most street photographers show a certain kindness toward our species, Gllden's photos show a deliberate expression of the worst side of it and he goes toward caricature instead. Gilden's vision IS disrespectful toward the human being in general... But should we reject any forms of caricature under the rule of P.C. ?? He has a very cynical view of people and his approach seems to be in accordance with this general disrespect...

 

From this point on, we are forced to resort to each of us subjective appreciation of this work...

 

Either we feel these - undoubtedly successful - caricatures a useful exercise or not...

 

They made me laugh (I mean the ones on Magnum site) but do they bring something in understanding our species, our world ?

 

I don't think so, mainly because they are critics of individuals with no particular responsibilities on governing this world and they are at best only partially responsible for their physical disgrace...

 

This leads me to your second question, and, obviously, in this particular case I tend to answer no... THIS end doesn't justify the mean...

 

There are - IMHO - certain circumstances where the event, the situation, covered by a photographer justify to pass over the respect of the image of the subject and even its dignity (like in Weegee's work for example), or when the individual, even caricatured, is not in fact the actual target, but his (her) behavior. So he or she becomes an"example" more than individual. And, finally, there are public peoples like politicians, stars... who - deliberately exposing themselves to the limelights and being the incarnation of the ideas, the image or the decision they take, doesn't deserve any respect during their public appearances. And for these categories of people, I think the photographer has a right to act as the "public eye" and get the picture by any (legal) means.

 

Obviously, there are limits too, even with personalities : these limits used to be fixed in France by the courts in a fairly balanced way : the protection of the private life was insured in all cases and for any individual, but "Joe Smith" (or better said in this case Jean Dupont) could not forbid a street photographer to shoot him in public places freely as he (she) has no "public image" to defend. But some restrictions were applied when personalities were the subjects : even in public places, the courts considered as long as these personalities were not in their public role, they had the right to an additional protection and their authorization was required for publication.

 

Unfortunately, P.C. fashion became so pregnant that today a "Joe Smith" can claim his self-image has been degraded by the publication of his photo even if he was portrayed in a public place... And IMHO, this is a gross infringement to the right to inform and the notion of public place. Because for me "Joe Smith" has a right to protect his private life, but when in public places he is just an anonymous between thousands of others and has no "public image" to defend. So the new attitudes of the courts are also a factor of disappearance of the street photography as a genre here and obviously a new Cartier-Bresson or a Doisneau will have a lot of difficulties to emerge today...

 

In the end, YES photographers need to adhere to an ethic but this ethic should not be conducive to censorship or self censoring their right to shoot. a compromise must be devised between the eventual subjects and the photographers which protects the right of both and the right of the public to an uncensored information.

 

To each of us to determine if Gilden's work can fit into this compromise.

 

FPW

[fran__ois_p._weill]

El Fang :

 

>> So are you saying that Magnum is telling a lie in its own history page? If you want to throw such an accusation, don't veil or sugarcoat it. Just say it right out. Also, you seem to forget that there are things called contracts that can modify or even invalidate rights granted under law, as long as both parties are in agreement and said agreement does not itself violate any laws. <<

 

No, that the legitimate preoccupation about copyrights were concerning only PART of Magnum founders...

 

Now, as many Americans, you seem to consider YOUR U.S. LAWS are applicable in every part of the world, which is FALSE...

 

Under French law any agreement or part of an agreement which violates or contradict a general disposition of the law (called a public order disposition in French legal terms) IS VOID BY NATURE, even with the consent of both parties.

 

In the precise case you are referring to, unless the contract specifically specifies the copyrights are transferred to the buyers, the general disposition applies. So, the French law authorizes this transfer, and this transfer is not considered a violation of "public order disposition of the law", but the will of the original owner should be EXPRESS and is NEVER IMPLICIT.

 

It is fairly unusual for a French (and most European) photographers to transfer the copyrights to the buyer of their photos, they only cease a right to use them and this is a remarkable protection for them.

 

Today, Press groups and some agencies are trying to modify this state of affairs and align the copyright law to the one prevailing in the US... They are meeting a considerable and almost unanimous resistance from all authors (photographers, but also writers alike).

 

One of the preoccupations not explicitly emphasized in Magnum story on the Net is the desire of their founders (from whatever country they originated) to dispose of the means to be freed from the press groups and the then mostly big telegraphic agencies pressure on the kind of subjects they can cover and the way they should be able to cover them. Seeing the then dominant political side the Magnum founders came from, it is clear this had a major importance in their desire to associate and share facilities each of them were unable to afford individually.

 

This side of the story may be embarrassing nowadays as Magnum is no more mainly directed toward Press work and most probably no more as clearly politically oriented as it used to be in the founder's era.

 

Now, the reasons for the existence of a structure, whatever this structure is, is primarily to operate as a tool. Magnum, as a tool for Press photographers to express themselves by the choice of subjects and the way they treat this subjects while maintaining a high standard of quality IS DEAD.

 

This is not a technical question like the Leica M8 vs other cameras. This is a political and economical question which is not influenced by available technology...

 

Either you agree with the present state of affairs, where for example after being simply barred from exerting their profession (Grenada, first Gulf War) war correspondents are now "embedded" by force and strictly under control for fear they reveal the truth about what is going on today in Iraq and Afghanistan like they did in Vietnam and the fact most papers are more interested in paparazzi work than any serious subjects (moreover if these subjects are critics of the way the world is going and may hurt and make the general public "something is rotten in the kingdom of Denmark") and you consider this evolution is positive (which means you don't care about the existence of a free Press) or you realize the fact Magnum has changed its target to become a commercial affair like any other one is a disaster in itself and the surviving of the name has become a mockery which simply reveals the present state of the Press in our world.

 

I don't agree with this present state of affairs, I don't think Magnum is responsible of this state of affairs, but I consider rather sad, they evolved to become ghosts of what they used to be to survive commercially instead of fighting to a last stand, their flag still proudly weaving in the defense of their original principles and a true free Press.

 

I quit the Press work when I realized I had either to cover subjects I considered trash or was no more able to earn a living as being alone to raise my son, I couldn't accept war assignments anymore, these being the last resort to cover really serious matters (it is even worse today).

 

Today's Press is no more governed by the will of its readers, it is entirely governed by those who advertised through it, advertisement having become the main source of profit for Press groups. Anything considered damaging for the advertisers is consequently banned. Do you really think if "Life" was still published and had as a main advertiser - say Halliburton - they will publish an documented article demonstrating the implication of this company in the starting and the continuation of the war in Iraq ? Do you really think the accomplices of present financial disaster who also are generally big advertisers (and sometimes owners) of the main Papers will allow to publish a photographic report on the social consequences of this failure, while the text documents the responsibilities of them in this situation (a pretty good original Magnum subject it seems to me) ?

 

This is Hearst group and "Citizen Kane" everywhere ! ... Not a free press. Magnum accepted to survive this evolution by evolving into other spheres, I don't consider this attitude reflects the courage and dedication which were the trade mark of its founders... For me, Magnum is already dead and only the name survives today.

 

You are entirely free to disagree, but I'll stand with my position.

 

FPW

[stephen_pitts]

"This is Hearst group and 'Citizen Kane' everywhere!..."

 

Yeah, FPW, I hate the dominant liberal press too... The amount of extremely biased coverage regarding the US

Presidential election being a prime example. I'm an eighteenth century Liberal myself which means something much

different than a Modern Liberal; but either way it would be nice to have a more balanced press (its far too dedicated

to PC causes -- maybe thats because many of the reporters themselves happen to be much more to the left than

their customer base -- where's that dominant marketplace when you need it?).

 

By the way, I fear Bob has left this discussion (I think I need his help right now), so before you decide now that the

camera (or yourself behind one) is the great arbitrator of truth, you'd should think hard about this thought when

somebody else is behind the lens -- there is nothing as deceiving as a camera or a photographer on a crusade.

There was an extremely gifted, famous German photographer who staged incredibly powerful images near the

begining of WWII. Were her pictures the "truth?" Unfortunately, many were fooled into thinking so.

 

Bruce Gilden, as you can see elsewhere in his work, is undoubtedly more liberal than myself (the great majority of

artists are; we can discuss why in some other forum). Yet, in defending both his work -- and your concerns

regarding it -- I never brought my own political and economic beliefs to bear. I admired some of his work (although

frankly I do have similar issues as Philip Partridge does above) and yet also was sympathetic to your notion that

there may be absolute standard to art (like photography) but that such standards were clearly open to debate.

 

If you really want to see a seminal work on the role of art and media in modern society ala the Hearst Group and

Citizen Kane, might I suggest the Fountainhead? (the movie version, that is).

 

Cheers,

 

Steve