Magnum - is this

[fran__ois_p._weill]

Matt,

 

You are entirely entitled to have your personal opinion on Mr. Gilden's work, but the argument a committee of generally self appointed so-called art specialists recognized his work as valuable is something I personally decline as a valid argument.

 

I have time and again seen the small world surrounding the artistic world as a journalist (though in France and not in the US) to know what kind of persons gravitate in this swamp where you are more likely to encounter greedy merchants akin to alligators than the few true artists to entertain any illusion about the real value of their opinions. In fact, someone is more likely to be crowned by the title "artist" because what he (she) does is fashionable (which by the way is a sure sign of being a follower more than an innovator) and consequently has a high selling potential than through his (her) actual artistic talent, gift or imagination...

 

I prefer to refer to my own opinion and scale value, as far as the subjective part which is to determine if something is a piece of art or not.

 

But what is sensitive in the case of Gilden, is there are many objective signs of his lack of technical skills (or desire to use them)... This is this aspect I consider as trash. And when I see someone pretending to be an artist photographer who seems unable to produce anything but technical trash, I have a very objective reason to consider he or she might well be one of the pseudo-artists (and real "artistic crooks") who so well serve the greed of art gallery merchants with the only benefit to profit from their leftovers just like this bird I don't remember the name which picks its food from the alligators' jaws.

 

Now, I have too much respect for the profession of press photographer to admit someone who never conveys any valuable information in his work as a Press Photographer... And under this argument I fully second Rui Lebreiro on the ground Magnum has gone from a Press Agency to the role of an artistic agent for self-appointed "art photographers".

 

FPW

[bobtodrick]

FWP "I prefer to refer to my own opinion and scale value, as far as the subjective part which is to determine if something is a piece of art or not"

 

Oh my god...we have a boney fidee photeygraphic expurt here.

 

You are full of yourself aren't you?

[stephen_pitts]

Bob,

 

Chill out man. At least Francois took the effort to explain his viewpoint, rather strongly perhaps, but hence all the

more clearer. You just accused him of being full of himself. And who isn't who cares passionately about

photography? (Or any scientific or artistic endeavor for that matter?) I usually refrain from comments about

photography I don't like (but for some reason have no such inhibition over bad movies -- take IRREVERSIBLE, for

example) because it is a singular person behind the camera taking the picture. I think what Francois fundamentally

argues for what is more of an absolute standard (and please feel free to correct me Francois) not so driven by the

fickle trends of society. I didn't mind the video near as much as many of the commentators (I guess I am just a

voyeur) but can appreciate the articulation of those that may have issues with it.

 

I should mention that I met the accused a few years ago in the streets of New York and he is a really nice guy, so

maybe I have a different perspective. I don't likeit when he hates people smiling and yes, the effect of his

photography is a little bit like stage lighting from below (faces look scary since the lighting is so unnatural). In a

way, his approach is a bit abusive but so are the photographers been in the latest US presidential campaign. Its not

really justified, but you often face the opposite extreme in Europe.

 

Francois should have just said: "I know art when I see it." Anyhow, se leve.

 

Cheers,

 

Steve

[ray .]

"It's art."<p>"No it's not."<p>"Yes it is. You don't know your nose from your elbow."<p>"Trash I say, trash! And such a vile

human being. He'd throw his mother under the bus for a picture."<p>"He's a New Yorker for goodness sake, this isn't

Kansas we're talking about. If little old ladies want peace they should live in Kansas. Or Nebraska."<p>"Papparazzzmo.

National Enquirer stuff. Gritty black and white with flash. Whoopdeedoo. That takes talent?"<p>"It takes what you aint

got. But that stuff about NYC being more dangerous than Haiti... I gotta admit. That was a load." <p>"I'm tellin' you the

guy is a fraud."<p>"Whatever you say Mac."

[peteradownunder]

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lv_qE_J_mHg&feature=related">shooter</a><p>I respect people that are into

getting a shot enough to get into people's faces. For all of his invasive abrasiveness - the gimmick kinda wears

thin after a while - in terms of actual image quality ( my opinion) <p> Its ok for fans of so called NY 'style'

to dig the dude though. For sure down here he couldnt do it - unless he was being followed by a video team - and

even then..I doubt he wouldn't get a smack in the chops. Even the link guy ( above) would find it harder -

although he has a looser style.<p> heh - I enjoyed watching him use a Hasselblad h series in street - so much

for it has to be a Leica to be unobtrusive -:)

[el_fang]

<i>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>

<P>USED to be. That's the operative word, isn't it - USED. If you think today's Magnum is still just a "press

agency" then you're way behind the times. Magnum started bringing in members who weren't "press" in the strict

or traditional

sense of the word more than 20 years ago, starting with guys like Gueorgui

Pinkhassov and Martin Parr (whom

Cartier-Bresson described in 1988 as being "from a different solar system"), and

continuing to this day with new members like Alec Soth and Alessandra Sanguinetti.</p>

<p><i>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.</i></p>

<p>Again - I don't think he or Magnum photographers like him are, or are trying to be, press photographers.

Agence France-Press is a press agency. EPA is a press agency. Reuters is a press agency. Photographers from press

agencies produce pictures that are little more than an object enclosed in a rectangle, that can be understood at

a glance by Joe Blow taking 2 minutes to browse A1 over his morning coffee.</p>

<p>If you try to approach the work of photographers like Gilden, Parr, Pinkhassov and Sanguinetti using the same

mindset with which you look at the front page picture of a newspaper, then you will be disappointed.</p>

[el_fang]

<i>And under this argument I fully second Rui Lebreiro on the ground Magnum has gone from a Press Agency to the role of an artistic agent for self-appointed "art photographers".</i>

<p>Again, please gets your facts straight - Magnum was never founded to be a "press agency." The sole reason for its original being was to protect the copyright interests of its members, giving them sole ownership of their images and allowing them to license said images to multiple clients and publications, a practice almost unheard of back in those days and pioneered by the original Magnum founders. This whole idea of Magnum being a "press agency" came about coincidentally because most clients back then tended to be newspapers and magazines. This was before photography came to be generally accepted as an art form, so galleries and museums were scarce on the short list of clients.</p>

<p>I find your lack of knowledge and calling of these people "self appointed art photographers" to be both ignorant and offensive.</p>

[el_fang]

This is the last message I will post on this matter because this thread was retarded from the get-go and I'd

rather go back to laughing at M8 owners. <a href="http://agency.magnumphotos.com/about/history"

target="_blank">From Magnum's own history page</a>:

<p><i>These four formed Magnum to allow them and the fine photographers who would follow the ability to work

outside the formulas of magazine journalism. The agency, initially based in Paris and New York and more recently

adding offices in London and Tokyo, departed from conventional practice in two fairly radical ways. It was

founded as a co-operative in which the staff, including co-founders Maria Eisner and Rita Vandivert, would

support rather than direct the photographers. Copyright would be held by the authors of the imagery, not by the

magazines that published the work. This meant that a photographer could decide to cover a famine somewhere,

publish the pictures in "Life" magazine, and the agency could then sell the photographs to magazines in other

countries, such as Paris Match and Picture Post, giving the photographers the means to work on projects that

particularly inspired them even without an assignment.</i></p>

<p>That's it. Nothing about being a press agency, or making "fundamentally honest" photographs, or "the horror of

using flash," or any other BS concepts some of you guys pulled out from your behinds.</p>

[Robin Smith]

This thread reveals the fundamental truth that about aesthetics there really is no argument or "degustibus non

disputandem est."

[bobtodrick]

Sorry Stephen, but all I was doing was expressing my viewpoint...strongly.

 

Yup, I have a problem when someone tries to tell anyone how their narrowminded viewpoint is the right one and should be recognized by all.

 

Even if it is well worded and strongly emphasized.

 

As the saying goes (more or less)...you can dress it up all you want, it's still a pig.

 

There's lot's of photographers work out their I don't care for...but far greater men than me have disagreed with my opinion...each to his own...it sort of is what makes the world an interesting place.

[fran__ois_p._weill]

El Fang,

 

For your perfect information, if the situation you describe regarding copyright laws is valid for the USA, it isn't under French law... The author of a photography under French law is the only legitimate owner of the copyright for the duration of his life and for 50 years if he (she) is deceased this ownership is transferred to his (her) heirs.

 

Under French law, the intellectual rights on a creation are protected even if the material is sold to another owner unless the author deliberately decides otherwise.

 

Magnum founders, who were for a part French or influenced by the French practice decided to impose this view as a protection for the photographers.

 

Nevertheless, most if not all Magnum founders were linked to press photography... 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.

 

Magnum shares of market in the press world steadily declined when the founders slowly disappeared and as the magazines and newspapers became less and less interested in "humanist" photography and war correspondent work.

 

In France, a photographer working for say, Sigma, is still the copyright owner of all his (her) photos but if these images (or better said the rights to publish these images) are sold to a paper 60% of the rights go to the agency (as a remuneration of their service) and 40% to the photographer (and these rights are considered a salary under French law if you are a photo-journalist, even a free lance).

 

Beside, there are different rules applicable when you work for a press organ (either an agency or a paper) :

 

If the job is the result of an assignment from the press organ, this agency or paper is obliged to take all the expenses and pay for the work done, published or unpublished... If you (or a photographic agency) sells a photography which is accepted, only the rights has to be paid excluding all charges even if it remains unpublished. If the paper wants to publish the photo with an exclusivity (which muust be limited in time by contract) it has to pay a premium. When the publication is effective, you're still the copyright owner and can re-sale this picture if the opportunity to proceed so exists. If this photography is published again by the same paper, this paper has to pay the publication rights again as you stay the only legitimate copyright owner unless you transfer these rights on a voluntary base and even if the picture is the result of an assignment from that paper.

 

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...

 

The fact is, for quite a number of years after Magnum was founded, there was a "Magnum style" which was never defined by a uniformity of photographic style but by a certain "idea" or philosophy of the image and its use.

 

Some may prefer the new magnum orientation, some like Rui or me can legitimately believe this is not a positive evolution and express their views accordingly.

 

I'm sorry to repeat once again a few things which I thought were easy to understand : I don't consider a valuable excuse to use the word "Art" to justify technical laziness or incompetence. I don't consider trying to search for a new artistic way of expression a valid reason for doing anything and trying AFTERWARDS to explain your inability to produce anything but pictures obviously botched by who knows what pseudo-intellectual (and generally "psychological") justification ...

 

Photography, as an art, was the main leverage for a complete revolution in painting, as the "subjective realism" of the painter was no more required and was far better expressed by photography. This generated two new forms of painting : the abstract way and new ways - which can be qualified as "surrealistic" - to render the subjectivity of the painter on his representation of a subject (cubism for example).

 

During the 20's and the 30's, some photographers tried hard to transfer surrealism in photography... This was a legitimate test. Practically speaking, this ended simply into a new way to use the light as a mean to create shapes and artwork but in so doing their authors became less and less photographers and more and more "photographists" ... So if this trend was a new and legitimate trend for graphic arts, it is obviously a dead end for photography as I (and numerous persons) see photography. Another trend was toward photographic abstraction. In fact these abstractions were simply the result of a particular framing or magnification (macro-photography was a main source to these abstractions too). In fact, these attempts were in a way nearer to photography as they were the images of a certain reality. As far as photography is concerned, they were still photographies as opposed to "photographisms"...

 

But, both kinds of approach were sustained by people visibly mastering the photographic technique. Their intentions were obvious, even if the result was strange or even shocking by classic standards.

 

The 50's (at least in Europe) were marked by a certain decline of these trends as humanist photography took the main place... I suppose mankind after the bloody World War 2 was in search of some humanity...

 

This figurative (but nonetheless subjective) approach was probably the golden age of photography, just because both the figurative approach was at the same time (and IMHO still is) the best possible enhancement for a photographic art which took its roots in the search for the reproduction of a certain expression of reality as perceived by a human eye.

 

Meantime, surrealism was living its end as a leading spearhead in art in the painting world and more generally as a dominant artistic philosophy.

 

During the 60's a large void began to appear in the artistic world... Artists were in search of something new and had visible difficulties to find it, but for the musicians. At the end of this decade, the habit came to "impose" to the public the researches of the artists as finished creations (mostly for the failure of many to reach a true new way)... This was the beginning of "artistic scams" as with no point of reference and everything having to be considered as "Art" (unless you were qualified as a reactionary) every kind of trash could be (must be) considered as art... Remember the "happenings" ???

 

May be, in another context, from this mess should have emerged remarkable things in the end. Unfortunately, merchants and marketers were there and for them $$$$$$ was the King and they just oriented the things to a "new market of arts". A new highly profitable market which was based on the credulity (or the greed) of totally incompetent rich would be amateurs (it was fashionable at this time to pass for an art amateur) or "investors" in art. And to satisfy the demand, these merchants with the help of the marketers developed the pseudo-intellectual and pseudo-freudian language to convince the rich suckers to buy... about anything and, anything also meant they needed a lot of "artists" to produce the necessary volume.

 

Few, very few, artists, let alone artistic movements born during these years will survive and most have already passed away as fast the fashion (also in the hand of the same people) evolved and the faster it evolved the better were the financial results for constant renewal...

 

It is so easy, El Fang, to say, "you despise this form of art because you don't understand it" to justify anything... Simply forgetting to demonstrate there is at least something to understand ! ... An image particularly should speak for itself. If an image, hence a photo, needs more than a few line of caption to explain where when and who (if necessary at all) to be understood (even in a subjective way) it's nothing but trash.

 

You may be more intelligent than I am, so just explain me the reason behind framing somebody with the right leg kicking the air in such way only his right side is contained in the picture which, in turn is even not respecting the horizontal placement ? Except the fact a bunch of merchants has decreed this is "art" because it has been shot by Mr. Gilden at the very same time any person learning photography and producing such a result will be told to learn how to properly frame a picture next time ? And tell me - except for the exceptionally slow synch speed of an M camera - why some pictures produce a double image of a person which is not particularly moving fast so no intention to indicate a movement can be discerned ?

 

Mr. Gilden can be the finest and gentle person on earth, this doesn't qualify him as a good photographer nor as an artist. Any of us can do exactly what he does with an M and a flashgun... Anybody cannot do what HCB, Doisneau, and many others did. Thanks to sheer luck or friends being the right people in the right place Mr. Gilden has been chosen by the small clique of art merchants which are leading the art market as an artist and it is their endowment which makes him member of the happy fews. Another advantage is his work can do no harm or trouble the established order. On the contrary to the work of the humanist photographers of the 1950's who, as simple witnesses of a reality which was more than often a kind of mute denunciation of the condition of life of ordinary people and moreover a kind of denunciation legible by anybody, were potential trouble makers...

 

Yes, El Fang, real art is more than often subversive by nature, something the poor tricks of fashionable pseudo-artists never are.

 

FPW

 

 

[bobtodrick]

Okay, I'll bite FWP...though I'll say it in a lot fewer words.

 

Again...you're saying you know more than, say the National Endowments for the Arts?. From which Gilden has won awards, amongst many others.

 

Yes...No?

 

If you say Yes...well you loose all credibility here. Really...all credibility.

 

If you say No...well than you contradict your own argument.

 

So which is it FWP...I can't wait for the answer.

[peteradownunder]

Making the argument that artist X or Y is favoured by Institution A or B and is therefore imbued with some kind of intrinsic greater worth - is like being naive enough to trust Moody's so called AAA ratings on so called sub-prime loans.<p> Its ok for you to be happy with the 'greater powers' that be - since you believe that they have some kind of infallible knowledge and insight - but that doesn't mean that everyone sees the world in your way. <p> Some peopel are naive and uneducated enough to say - the emporer has no clothes..

[Uhooru]

Its difficult to reason with a didact, but if someone declares somone's work unartistic and unworthy of Magnum, so be it. Everyone will survive the mistake. Just don't forget, that no one gets full membership into Magnum unless they are voted in by the membership. I suppose we can all be confused about ourselves, and certainly Magnum is not immune to that, but I think they have a right to define what their own photography is, don't they?

[mike dixon]

<i>so just explain me the reason behind framing somebody with the right leg kicking the air in such way only his right side is contained in the picture which, in turn is even not respecting the horizontal placement ? Except the fact a bunch of merchants has decreed this is "art" because it has been shot by Mr. Gilden at the very same time any person learning photography and producing such a result will be told to learn how to properly frame a picture next time ?</i><P>

I guess if it violates the "rules" taught in Photography 101, it can't possibly be art.

[stephen_pitts]

Bob,

 

No disrespect, and your previous point above (in response to my comment) is well taken -- but let me spare FWP

and just say that because the NEA endorses something, it doesn't mean its art (using your same logic actually).

Maybe lots of stuff that the NEA endorses I wouldn't consider art (I don't know because I haven't seen it). All

credibility now lost?

 

Anyhow, again, as I said earlier, I do not find Gilden's work nearly so offensive as others do here (and in reasonable

doses, actually somewhat interesting). But FWP's comments regarding some of the RECENT "modern" art scene I

think are telling and generally informative.

 

FWP's argument goes back to Plato's "The Cave." FWP is arguing for an "absolute" standard of photography and

your're (perhaps) arguing for a "relative" one. Remember most people in the cave thought, for example, that a cow

sounded like a horse and only those that could escape could see otherwise (and that the same animal always made

the same sound). Lots of "experts" in the dark debated otherwise... FWP is not arguing, as is common trap in this

type of debate, that he is to be the absolute arbritrater of what is photography, but that there are absolute standards

that one can apply (you can debate what they are). Certainly, FWP has pointed out a few of the potential guidelines

for such standards (composition for one).

 

I wish that you would have been to the latest Freize ("Modern") Art Fair in London a few weeks back (maybe FWP

spend too much time there!). I think you would have more sympathy for our "un-pithy" Frenchman's views.

Afterwards, I felt like going to my garage, grabbing an old tyre, sticking three toilet plungers on it (equally spaced, of

course, hey whatta think -- I'm stupid or sumpin?), spray painting it yellow and heading back to the exhibition to try

and sell it (propped under the appropriate gallery's name, of course). Oh, except, somebody already did that (and I

don't have a garage in London). Okay, maybe better yet, I'll take a gigantic picture of a bunch of people looking at

the yellow-painted toilet-plunger tyre and blow it up on the wall (because it'll help guide others to see the unique and

intrinsic nature of the yellow painted toilet-plunger tyre). This actually my original idea (whadda think?). Anyhow,

don't worry, this yellow-painted toilet-plunger tyre is a great investment -- costing over £10,000, because its so-and-

so's yellow-painted toilet-plunger tyre -- and they'll even deliver it which is nice since I don't own a car and wouldn't

want to be seen in the tube (or anywhere else) with that thing!

 

As Kenneth Clarke explained in "Civilization," the one thing left behind by any society that they cannot lie about is

their Art. Just think about how true that statement really is...

 

Cheers,

 

Steve

[fran__ois_p._weill]

Mike Dixon:

 

>> I guess if it violates the "rules" taught in Photography 101, it can't possibly be art. <<

 

He who dosen't want to understand something is difficult to debate with...

 

The problem is not violating "rule 101" but WHY did he violate "rule 101".

 

My feeling is he violates rules only because in our time (like very well described by Steve) it suffices to violate rules to be qualified as an artist, not because he wanted to express ANYTHING... So the violation of rules is Art by definition...

 

Sorry not to agree with this way to see the things... and to consider such behavior as an "artistic scam"...

 

FPW

[fran__ois_p._weill]

Bob :

 

>> Okay, I'll bite FWP...though I'll say it in a lot fewer words.

 

Again...you're saying you know more than, say the National Endowments for the Arts?. From which Gilden has won awards, amongst many others.

 

Yes...No?

 

If you say Yes...well you loose all credibility here. Really...all credibility.

 

If you say No...well than you contradict your own argument.

 

So which is it FWP...I can't wait for the answer. <<

 

Who are those persons who judge this or that author should be considered as an artist ?

 

Gallery owners, "artists" being originally recognized as such by other gallery owners ? And on what criteria ?

 

I think there is an international "art mafia" which have confiscated the monopoly of telling what is art and what is not art. This mafia is leaded by MERCHANTS who don't give a d..m in art and are just governed by profit.

 

Wake-up ! this is a MARKET like anything else these days.

 

The target of this market is rich fondlers, mostly totally uneducated in arts (or for that matter anything else than stock exchange subtleties), just the contrary of the "mécènes" who lead the art market at least from the Renaissance to the post WW-2 period and were rich too but educated and real amateurs of art. These people want to maintain the illusion they are interested in art, up to date in their mind and "in" (the fashion)... These people will swallow any pseudo-intellectual argument to justify anything to be art, including the yellow toilet plunger mentioned by Steve ! And for the merchants, this is an unfathomable source of profit... It is far easier to find people who are ready to paint yellow a toilet plunger and play the role of "The Artist" in this comedy than to find a new Michelangelo or even a new Cartier-Bresson and they are far more numerous... That's all.

 

I prefer to refer to the old saying I heard time and again from most of the (true) artists I had the chance to approach, interview and sometimes photograph : "Art is 10% inspiration and 90% sweat"

 

Whatever is the way an artist choses to express himself, whatever the style or the genre, behind him there is an expert craftsman who is gifted of this impossible to describe with words "plus" which makes all the difference between an artisan and an artist. Perhaps, in this impossible to describe "plus" there is the capability to violate rules and invent new ones which is the trade mark of creation, but the result itself should show clearly the intentions of the artist behind this violation of rules...

 

I don't consider me as an expert, let alone an arbiter... I clearly indicated the fact I don't like Mr. Gilden's photos doesn't interfere in my judgment. For example I don't like Debussy's music but I won't say he was not an artist for that reason. I just say there are OBJECTIVE reasons why I don't consider Mr. Gilden's work as something interesting, let alone a piece of art. The equation is simple : he IS NOT a good craftsman so he cannot be an artist. He violates all the rules not to tell us something but because it is fashionable and profitable these days without any other reason you can find from SEEING his images and he has a totally lazy way to take pictures. If there is sweat in his work it is the one generated by his gesticulations, certainly not by searching the best approach and even less : caring about the minimum technical standard in photography.

 

I'm not a worshiper of the golden number in composition, there can be many reasons to ignore this rule but with Gilden it is clear on many pictures that the next step is simply not to include the subject in the picture !

 

And at this stage, Bob, you, like the other defenders of Gilden, have been unable to give me any PERSONAL reason why this man framed these pics this way (I mean YOUR interpretation, not the ones eventually suggested by self appointed experts). Nor you can explain the reason why he used an M with a slow synch speed which leads to double images of a subject obviously moving slowly if moving at all.

 

Not a single one of his defenders has been able to counter my argument about the fact he is in fact tackling the SAME subject with all his pictures : the reaction of passers-by to a gesticulating operator flashing them by surprise. And not a single one has been able to comment on the fact his approach and his results are well within the reach of 5 year old using a Brownie Starlet and a flashgun (without being told to look in the finder).

 

Sorry but this kind of "artist" is for me just like a balloon inflated with a bottle of gas by the balloon seller (i.e; : the Art merchants). Puncture it and you will end with a few useless remnants of the envelope. There is no substance in these pictures which will have ended in the dustbin of any serious photographic schools with this comment : "Perhaps you should envisage a reconversion to plumbing or as a clown in a circus..."

 

I maintain, only our era has permitted people like him to pretend to be an artist... Even the worst "pompier" style painter of the 19th century, who was never a true artist, is more gifted and at least is a passable craftsman, something Gilden is obviously even not.

 

FPW

[matt_m__toronto_]

FPW,

you keep referring to some poorly framed picture of a man with his leg cutoff. i think you are viewing the pictures he took in that short span of time in the video, and judging gilden's entire body of work by those few images possibly?

 

to answer why the leg was cut off-while i am not familiar with the image you are talking about, i can guess that it was not done on purpose. gilden's shooting style is very fast, and sometimes horizons will not be perfect, and legs/arms will be chopped off. his images are not just 'startled' faces in the streets as you suggest.

 

for an experiment, go to this link please:

 

http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/C.aspx?VP=XSpecific_MAG.PhotographerDetail_VPage&l1=0&pid=2K7O3R1482X4&nm=Bruce%20Gilden

 

the following are the images that struck me as interesting:

 

1,4,5,8,12,21,22,25,30,33,35,37,40,48,49

 

what do you think? do any of them strike you as interesting? his style is unlike many other 'street photographers' and maybe that is what i find refreshing about his 'non artist-educated' style.

[bobtodrick]

Stephen, I agree with you completely.

 

What I have against some posts here (and I'll not pick on FWP this time...I totally appreciate the commitment he has to his beliefs) is the thinking that because "I don't like it, so it's not art".

 

I seem to recall that art is subjective. I know what I like, I know what I don't like. Nothing Warhol did excites me...in my opinion Campbell did their soup cans first and better. But all that really says about me is that I don't understand what he was trying to accomplish.

 

Some here (okay, FWP) can 'word it up' all they want...it is still just their opinion, and trying to convince me how wrong I am by going on and on incessantly does absolutely nothing to change my opinion.

[mike dixon]

<i>Not a single one of his defenders has been able to counter my argument about the fact he is in fact tackling the SAME subject with all his pictures : the reaction of passers-by to a gesticulating operator flashing them by surprise.</i><P>

Have you even looked at a selection of Gilden's work? <a href="http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/C.aspx?VP=XSpecific_MAG.PhotographerDetail_VPage&l1=0&pid=2K7O3R1482X4&nm=Bruce+Gilden">His gallery on the Magnum website.</a>

[mike dixon]

I now see that Matt posted the same link while I took a break during the composition of my post.

 

Here's another link to his work on the Magnum blog: http://blog.magnumphotos.com/2008/02/it_should_be_a_dream.html

[nksyoon]

Here's another view of Gilden's current work:

 

http://insight.magnumphotos.com/essay/foreclosures

[fran__ois_p._weill]

When someone commit a mistake it is all too normal he admits it...

 

I admit the very poor selection included in the original video was in no way conducive to an objective appreciation of the work of Mr. Gilden.

 

Indeed Matt's link was on this point far more convincing I was unjustly charging Mr. Gilden than any theoretical statement about my alleged lack of open mind... My excuse to all my contradictors... and Mr. Gilden. A lot of the pictures from Magnum selection are very good and marked with a lot cynical humor I can't help to appreciate...

 

However, I maintain that even within this selection some pictures should have been eliminated at the editing stage, for lack of minimum *TECHNICAL* standard.

 

Anyone having tried the difficult practice of street photography knows a certain proportion of shots will be substandard on this side (more than often the ones which - if successfully exposed, framed and focused - would have been the most interesting, Murphy's law I think). That's part of the game. And there is no dishonor (IMHO) to eliminate them without the slightest self-indulgence.

 

To answer Matt more precisely about the cut man, it is not just an arm and a leg which is missing but all the left of the individual, with a lot of empty space the other side of the frame... Yes Matt, shooting like an assault rifle may sometimes produce such a view... The problem is it wasn't eliminated at the editing stage.

 

May I add as a final word I think if I were Mr. Gilden, I would have asked for the removal of this video from the net... The selection of pîctures is awful and doesn't reflect the work of the photographer.

 

FPW

[jose_angel]

Hmmm, I agree with Francois about the convenience of removing the video from the net... It was my first thought after

looking at it. It has somekind of "fun objective" but result in disagreement with the method (the original topic of this

thread) and doesn`t make justice with the --astounding-- rest of Gilden`s work...

 

All artists, even the most recognized ones have good and bad work. Salvador Dalì is the finest example of this idea:

his very best work doesn`t justify all the huge ammount of silly things signed by him... where the only "value" is that,

the signature (I must say I`m an unconditional devotee of Dalì).