Magnum - is this

[darren3]

I'm sorry, but I can't see this as street photography. His technique is about as obnoxious as one can get. I'm not saying

he's a jerk, but I am saying that he has the style of one.

 

In my own professional opinion, street photography is one of the purest forms of photojournalism. "Street" photos should

show as little influence from the photographer as humanly possible. Blasting a flash in people's faces from point-blank

range is just foul.

[james_r2]

Stated by B. Gilden in the youtube vid.

 

Interesting discussion here:

 

Street has been traditionally defined as capturing a moment - the HCB method.

Unlike trad street style, Gilden is actively participating in the image.

 

His in-your-face technique, and barked commands to not smile, elicit reactions from the subjects - they are NOT

captured during private moments in public spaces - they are literally caught, and as Gilden's images frequently

show, as unflatteringly as possible, by Gilden creating the event as surely as any studio photographer does.

 

He seems to be going for the sugar rush of shock value, which puts him more in the camp of fashion or art

photographers, than trad street shooters.

Gilden is the true subject in his images - the viewer's reaction to the images is partly or wholly formed by

their awareness of, and reaction to, the off-camera behavior of the photographer. The subjects then, are merely

props for Gilden's ego.

 

He gets some great images, but comes across in the video as an obnoxious, and slightly eccentric misanthrope, who

seems to view his fellow New Yorkers as objects to be manipulated, not as real people to be captured in a

timeless moment.

[peter_wang6]

My comment about validation did not directly apply to Mr. Gilder. It was in reference to the experience I had. At least Gilder doesn't mob his subjects with an entourage of fellow photographers, and for that I suppose his subjects should be thankful. I was literally hounded by at least a dozen people flashing cameras away at me, and I'm about as unremarkable as anyone can imagine. The point is that when you accept that kind of behavior as part of the spectrum of photography, then where do you draw the line? If there are no boundaries--anything for the photo--then what does that say about us as human beings, and about the art?

 

In what way is Gilder's approach to the subject substantively different than, say, that of a paparazzo working for TMZ? I would even go so far as to say the latter is more respectful of their subject, as they at least have no illusions of the aesthetic merit of their work. Taunting and startling your subject does not in itself make you an artist, nor does it make your photos art. It makes you a self-aggrandized psychopath with a camera. And at least the paparazzi don't pretend their work is anything more than what it is--a cheap shot, rather than cloaking it in the mantle of street photography.

 

You don't have to defend or respect someone else's work just because other seemingly important people have done so. That is how we have so many famous but crappy photographers in this world, and just as many brilliant yet unrecognized ones--because of the groupthink of a self-professed elite that has crowned its own. Prominence in the art world is not about merit--it is about business and marketing.

[michael_markey]

Interesting. Not a technique that I would recommend anywhere in the UK. If the local populace did not get to you first (you certainly would not need the Billingham to take your kit home) the Plod (police) would be down on you like a ton of bricks !

Do not do street myself but I hear that if you so much as raise a camera in public these days especially near a civic building you will find yourself in trouble. Perhaps other UK forum members may care to elucidate.

[Tony Rowlett]

Here's another interesting if not elegant technique: Howard Stone, http://www.backfire.co.uk/

[orvillerobertson]

Having met Bruce Gilden, though definitely not intimately, quite a few times over the past 10 years, he would eat up this thread

since it's all about him. In fact he would register as defender and attacker just to keep the discussion going. As Madonna (I

think) once said, "good publicity or bad publicity, it's all publicity"

[pablito_pistola]

fyi, he has photographed in Haiti, a very dangerous country, and also done work on the Yakuza in Japan. Not folks you wanna mess with.

What Orville says rings more true than anything else posted above, afaic...

[brouk]

Gilden has balls. Hats off to him. He's done it enough times to know what sentences work best to shake potential trouble situations.

 

That being said, I liked some of the shots but in the great scheme of things at least only in this video it looked like a hunt for freaks, quick shots with wideangle lens that are then sorted out on the light table and those that happen to accidentally work are kept.

[adrian_nasti]

I like his work, and I admire his balls (something I could never do) and I suspect that there is an almost reasonable expectation in NYC that there will be photographers, film-makers, tightrope walkers etc wandering about in a very public environment. Hats off to him.

 

From a technical standpoint, what sort of M body is he using (looks like an MP or an M4?) and what brand/make/model of flash does he have? It looks larger than the camera...

[adrian_nasti]

As an aside, I also think it is interesting that in the video, he tends to target "certain" subjects - i.e. females and the elderly. At one point a large tough bald looking dude is in his filed of view and Gilden doesn't do anything....

 

Whilst I accept he has taken images of some tough customers in the past, I suspect that those subjects may have had some inkling that he was going to photograph them (pure speculation on my part)

[jbm]

Rui, fantastically stupid post. Really. Your post is among the least intelligent I've read in a long time.

 

Gilden does come across as obnoxious and intrusive in that video...but to toss the other fine Magnum photographers out because you do not like Bruce Gilden's approach is just silly and stupid. Look at Michael Subotzky's photos from South Africa or anything Alex Majoli has done. They make articulate, compassionate photographs. And we have no idea how they make them, how they relate to their subject. That is part of the risk you take in appreciating photography, you have no idea how the person pulling the trigger relates to their subject.

 

I've been a New Yorker for ten years...just making the transition to a different city. Gilden captures Gotham in all its glory and depravity better than almost any other photog, period. As a Manhattanite, I've been disturbed by much more than a flash going off in my face on a sidewalk. And if a blast of light happened to rock me out of my mental space, so be it. I am sure most resilient New Yorkers recovered from Gilden's flash before passing the next hot dog stand. I loved living in New York because I felt like I was part of the big show. If Gilden barks commands and blasts a flash of ow and then, that's the price we pay.

 

I would never have the scrotal contents to photograph the way Gilden does, but we should all be thankful that he shoots the way he does.

 

I don't know Bruce Gilden and can't pretend I would like him if I met him but his images, like most of the Magnum images, are great.

 

Incidentally, Rui, YOUR images are great, and I do not care how you obtain them.

 

There's room for all of us.

 

Jay

[jimsimmons]

Edward, for your survey of where we're from... I grew up in a town in Arkansas. I spent a few years in art school in LA. I spent my 20-something winters in Arkansas and summers in NY. I had a few people reacting to me in NY, but believe me, growing up on the Ozarks with long hair in the late '60s teaches you a thing of two about being hassled. You learn to run or stand your ground. I'd talked myself out of plenty of fights before I started shooting pics in Manhattan. As for now, I live live in Wellington New Zealand, one of the friendliest places on the planet.

[pablito_pistola]

Folks are unbelievably short sighted. They see a video on youtube and accept is as some sort of "truth". Remember this is edited and directed and that videos, like pictures, reflect the POV of their maker.....duhhh.....

[el_fang]

Gilde<b>n</b>, Mr. Wang, Gilde<b>n</b>. A gilde<b>r</b> is craftsperson who covers things in gold and silver. If

you're going to talk about "respect" then at least learn to spell somebody's name correctly.

 

<p><i>In what way is Gilder's approach to the subject substantively different than, say, that of a paparazzo

working for TMZ? I would even go so far as to say the latter is more respectful of their subject, as they at

least have no illusions of the aesthetic merit of their work. Taunting and startling your subject does not in

itself make you an artist, nor does it make your photos art. It makes you a self-aggrandized psychopath with a

camera. And at least the paparazzi don't pretend their work is anything more than what it is--a cheap shot,

rather than cloaking it in the mantle of street photography.</i></p>

<p>Apparently much of the rest of the world disagrees with you. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art"

target="_blank">Art: the process or product of deliberately and creatively arranging elements in a way that

appeals to the senses or emotions, especially beauty.</a> And this just in: <a

href="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1517607220080216"

target="_blank">LA gallery portrays paparazzi photos as art form</a>.

<p><i>You don't have to defend or respect someone else's work just because other seemingly important people have

done so. That is how we have so many famous but crappy photographers in this world, and just as many brilliant

yet unrecognized ones--because of the groupthink of a self-professed elite that has crowned its own. Prominence

in the art world is not about merit--it is about business and marketing.</i></p>

<p>Who's defending? It's pretty short sighted, if not downright stupid, to disqualify anyone's work because of

the way they happen to approach a subject. So you don't like something and don't consider it art from your own

narrow point of view - fine. Most people have a broader view of art, and they don't subscribe to your tinfoil hat

theory of art world mechanics.</p>

[kens]

I think Gilden's approach is interesting. I'm sure he's learned to deal with the occasional bad reaction. If he didn't think it

had been successful for him he wouldn't still be using it. Maybe it wouldn't work in other cultures, but he's not using it in

other cultures; just in NYC. If it works for him there more power to him. As for flash blasting, I don't think there are any

rules. You do what you need to to get the results, short of causing harm of course. And if he was causing harm he'd be the

first to hear about it.

[peter_wang6]

My apologies for not getting the name right. I must have misread it. "Gilder" is also a legitimate surname, and yes, I know perfectly well who a gilder is. Sorry.

 

As for what "art" is, I find it amusing you should parrot a dictionary definition of art, ignoring all the while that the definition itself has inherent vagaries that renders your response impotent. The most obvious problem is the subjectivity of art. Not everyone agrees on whether a given process or product has artistic merit. Therefore, the definition does not tell us anything about whether a given work is art or not, because it is up to the viewer to decide for themselves. It is not up to majority rule, nor is it the exclusive domain of art critics or art historians to decide for others what is or is not art. And while it may be rather quaint to see a group of LA paparazzi hold up their work as art, that is for the individual viewer to decide. I still hold to my claim that as a group, they do not view their work as art, at least not in the same sense that a fine art photographer views their work as art. Some, as you pointed out, do. But I think the vast majority of paparazzi view their work as getting the photo under any circumstances. It is a job, nothing more. Can a job produce aesthetically pleasing results? Can a job produce art? Of course.

 

And that brings me to my final point, which is that I am not disqualifying the work of Mr. Gilden simply because of his methodology. I disqualify the photograph on the grounds that it is fundamentally dishonest, and lacks aesthetic value to me. However, and you might be surprised by this--I would say that if there is anything artistic about his work, it is NOT the photograph itself, but his actions that lead up to it. That is to say, the real art lies in how he skulks about and flashes unwitting people in the face. The photo is only the lifeless remnant of what is in fact performance art. A rather curious, provocative, offensive, and non-consensual form of performance art, but art nonetheless. The photos, however, are utterly meaningless. I would even go so far as to say that Mr. Gilden himself would agree with my assessment.

 

There are photographers right on this forum that take far, far more interesting pictures, in my opinion. And you have no right to tell me otherwise. You can call me whatever you want and disagree with me all you want, but you have no right to dispute my judgment. I recognize that his work may be valid and interesting to others. But I have provided my reasons for believing otherwise.

[matt_m__toronto_]

peter, please show me a 'fundamentally honest' photograph.

[peteradownunder]

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/33093861@N00/2977475608/" title="poladroid by Peetey, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3040/2977475608_29f8a26a06.jpg" width="411" height="500" alt="poladroid" /></a><p>ps - another peter

[el_fang]

<i>As for what "art" is, I find it amusing you should parrot a dictionary definition of art, ignoring all the

while that the definition itself has inherent vagaries that renders your response impotent. The most obvious

problem is the subjectivity of art. Not everyone agrees on whether a given process or product has artistic merit.</i>

<p>All well and good, but if you agree that art is subjective, then why are you expending so much energy trying

to convince me or anyone else what is art and what isn't?</p>

 

<p><i>Therefore, the definition does not tell us anything about whether a given work is art or not, because it is

up to the viewer to decide for themselves.</i></p>

<p>And there are many viewers have no problems deciding for themselves that Bruce Gilden's work is art. Your

point is?</p>

 

<p><i>It is not up to majority rule, nor is it the exclusive domain of art critics or art historians to decide

for others what is or is not art. And while it may be rather quaint to see a group of LA paparazzi hold up their

work as art, that is for the individual viewer to decide.</i></p>

<p>Well yes, it is up to the individual (and I am an individual) to decide. So you decide it's not art, and

someone else says it is. Why are you trying so hard to convince people that it's not?</p>

 

<p><i>I still hold to my claim that as a group, they do not view their work as art, at least not in the same

sense that a fine art photographer views their work as art.</i></p>

<p>Have you read their minds? How do you know that they don't view their work as art?</p>

 

<p><i>However, and you might be surprised by this--I would say that if there is anything artistic about his work,

it is NOT the photograph itself, but his actions that lead up to it. That is to say, the real art lies in how he

skulks about and flashes unwitting people in the face. The photo is only the lifeless remnant of what is in fact

performance art. A rather curious, provocative, offensive, and non-consensual form of performance art, but art

nonetheless. The photos, however, are utterly meaningless. I would even go so far as to say that Mr. Gilden

himself would agree with my assessment.</i></p>

<p>I've read many stupid things on this forum but this masterpiece just about takes the cake.</p>

 

<p><i>There are photographers right on this forum that take far, far more interesting pictures, in my opinion.

And you have no right to tell me otherwise. You can call me whatever you want and disagree with me all you want,

but you have no right to dispute my judgment. I recognize that his work may be valid and interesting to others.

But I have provided my reasons for believing otherwise.</i></p>

<p>I'm not disagreeing with you, because you can simply say it's not art and that's your own judgment and

prerogative. It's just that the reasons you give for your stance are hypocritical and much of what you say

(including your claims that you can read people's minds) is just downright delusional. I'd seek professional help

if I were you.</p>

[fran__ois_p._weill]

Sorry El Fang,

 

But for once, I disagree with you...

 

Magnum used to be a Press Agency. A press photography is deemed to convey information if it conveys it with art, it is a valuable bonus, not the main object of the job.

 

I will simply forget any objections on the use of a flashgun for the moment. But as I see Mr. Gilde's pics in this video, they are for me totally void of any kind of information, because they don't convey anything on the ordinary NY citizens in their ordinary life (kind of ethnological work...) or anything about a specific event.

 

Technically speaking, they are objectively very poor and what I cannot describe but as a cheap trick to make this pics look "different" or "unusual" which consists in framing the subjects in a deliberately non-academic way (I have nothing against taking pictures a non-academic way if it enhances the meaning or the aesthetic qualities of the work) in a totally meaningless way has been seen thousands of times since the late 60's, and is for me just a way to make pseudo-amateurs of art (with a comfortable bank balance) speak at length about the "freudian message" conveyed by these horrors as exposed by the greedy and astute seller of the next Art Gallery and - even more important - sign the big check to own these "precious art works"...

 

The author himself (Gilden) even confirms the fact he was ever looking for the uncommon, unusual behaviors when he complains about the similarity of dressing of people nowadays when compared to an earlier period...

 

This might have been a good "ethnological" subject when the way a lot of people dressed was so individual and peculiar. But on the contrary, the ethnological fact of today is just the opposite. So, the true information which is to be conveyed is just this "uniformity"... As a Press photographer, this is just what you HAVE to convey to the general public...

 

Now the flash problem...

 

Someone referred to Weegee's work... The very nature of his work was entirely different from what is generally described as street photography. Weegee's work was to record dramatic events which, though may be common place in a large city - are no part of the life of ordinary people in their ordinary occupation. So, to a large extent, the use of an "invasive" (a word I prefer to the word aggressive) technique was legitimate... The event was more important than the people. In classic street photography, what is conveying true information is the depiction of the ordinary life in the street, so the subject should act naturally in his (her) natural environment. If the photographer which should remain a "passive witness" as much as he can be, brutally intrudes - for example using a flashgun and gesticulating in front of the subject - he or she alters the behavior of the subject(s) in such way what he (or she) actually records on the film is ever the same subject : how people react to the intrusion of a photographer with a flashgun gesticulating in front of them ! ... What is the interest of the multiplication of this experience "ad-libitum" ?

 

Mr. Gilden can do that as long as he pleases, some people can see this as "art"(or be fooled enough by fashion to see that as art), this isn't the problem... But he cannot pretend to be a press photographer and I consider he has no place in a Press Agency.

 

FPW

[bobtodrick]

And that attitude FWP is exactly why you would never be asked to join Magnum.

 

One of the attributes Magnum seem to celebrate is their diversity.

[fran__ois_p._weill]

Bob,

 

Diversity doesn't mean acceptation of trash... and pseudo-artistic scams.

 

FPW

[sprouty]

Perhaps they'll reconsider; given you have such open mind...

[matt_m__toronto_]

i don't know you FPW, so i will not assume anything, but gilden is a respected photographer with a body of work appreciated by a lot...myself included. you don't come off too well when you call it trash.

 

cheers

[fran__ois_p._weill]

Sp

 

Sorry not to passively buy as something artistic anything trashy looking or unusual because this has become fashionable from the late 60's on...

 

Sorry to consider press photography as a part of a chain destined to inform people

 

In fact sorry to retain just a small part of logic and critical spirit in a world everything is specially constructed to make people believe anything as they are told, provided it is fashionable and part of the sovereign rule of PC...

 

For me to be open minded is to have no *PRE*-conceived opinion, not to abdicate your right to judge something after having seen, studied or used something.

 

The appreciation of an artistic talent (or absence of... for all intent and purpose) is highly subjective. However, seeing the pics of Gilden are poorly exposed, barely in focus and deliberately poorly framed without any perceivable reason to make the P.C. men (s'cuse me "persons") of today believe they are the work of an "artist" and excuse a total lack of technical skills (or any effort to use them) is no rocket science or the effect of an exacerbated lack of open mind, as these are objective elements.

 

So is the fact these pics don't represent anything valuable in terms of informations on the subject(s), events or mood of our time (except perhaps what extent of misinterpretation we have reached in the concept of freedom in Art) ... All the essential things which differentiate a press photography from another kind of photography.

 

Gilden's behavior and artistic pretensions make me think of the world famous painter Salvador Dali... The man was odious, infatuated and sometimes even clown-like... But there is a fundamental difference between Salvador Dali and Gilden : the former was really exceptionally talented ! ... As a side note, I must confess I don't like Dali's paintings very much, but I'm open minded enough to recognize his talent as real, even if the result is not to my personal and subjective liking.

 

Now, I like most of what Picasso did and particularly his "Toros y Torreros" series... I have seen the preparatory work for them (which are as figurative and realistic as one can do and make you see the level of the Master in classical drawing) and how he simplified the extremely complete and complex preparatory drawings to retain only the essential lines and the movements ! ... This series is artistry to the highest and noblest degree... Picasso demonstrated a capability of expressing with a few lines and few colors all the aspect of his subject, this is a true example of dominating a technique to the point it is no more directly apparent in the final result but it is indeed present... But from the preparatory work, you can actually see the path he took to produce a masterpiece. You can trace back the reason for every line, every color.

 

Where can you see such an effort in the haphazard framing, exposure and lighting from Gilden's work ? They just make me think of the first pictures my son took at 4 the very first time I give him a camera in his hands.

 

Once again, I'm not a censor, Mr. Gilden is obviously entitled to take pictures as he pleases and as long as he wants... But I'm too entitled to judge him as a very poor or lazy photographer producing trash and trying (apparently successfully) to fool other people on the ground everything is to be accepted when it is called "art" (even by the author himself !).

 

FPW