Bruce Gilden...

deantaylor · May 18, 2015

BG explores his street ethic, with a sample from the London show...

The article from 'Vice' notes: His work is about getting up-close-and-personal, about creating photographs that are upfront without being confrontational... Editorial license aside, much of his work, however, does have a 'confrontational' tension in it: e.g., the startled look, the fear in the subjects knit brow, anxious eyes, etc.

Another example might be this capture:

http://is.gd/7EVnfo

At what point does the need to locate a subject lapse into intrusion, manipulation, maneuvering, etc., of the person on the other side of the lens--call it the seduction of exploitation...for example, some of Arbus' work appears downright vicious, dehumanizing, etc....

Norma Desmond · May 18, 2015

some of Arbus' work appears downright vicious, dehumanizing, etc....

</blockquote>

I know many think this is the case and I've heard a lot of folks, photographers and non-photographers alike, share this sort of sentiment. While I can understand it, I don't agree with it. Not at all.

To me, her work seems honest and engaged, not vicious or dehumanizing. Is Arbus manipulating what she's portraying or is she, perhaps, NOT manipulating what she's portraying where people would prefer she had. Would we prefer she nicened it up, made it all more palatable? If she shot with sympathy and pathos, perhaps in elevating light and heroic poses, would this be acceptable? And would it be manipulative? I think some things are shocking to our sensibilities when we're not used to them and no one was used to seeing quite so plainly what Arbus was showing. But that's a good thing, not a vicious thing. Her honesty, both behind the camera and in talking about her work, is refreshing. Arbus seemed to have been attracted to and OK photographing worlds she admittedly didn't understand. We all encounter those worlds. How many of us are willing to enter them and let the world see what we're seeing without much filtration. How many are willing to be at one with their lack of understanding and even portray it? Being able to authentically show what you don't understand takes guts and openness, which any photographer is wise to be aware of. Admitting this and still doing it, to me, requires empathy, which I'll take over sympathy and/or pathos any day.

lex_jenkins · May 18, 2015

"...some of Arbus' work appears downright vicious, dehumanizing, etc...."

</blockquote>

It seems anything but to me. Arbus' photos occasionally seem a bit grotesque, but never exploitative or lacking in empathy. She simply seemed fascinated with people as they were, completely accepting of anything she saw, without trying to prettify anything. I get the impression that she thought trying to pretty up her subjects would be implying there was something wrong with them the way they were. Nope, she liked 'em just fine the way they were.

Gilden, on the other hand, isn't satisfied with people as they are. He wants to confront them, get into their faces, and see them as they might be when pushed out of their comfort zones. It's more performance art than photography.

I realize Gilden is enjoying some hard earned notoriety and respect, but his approach is beginning to come across as schtick. Or maybe the problem is with his fanboys. Adulation such as "one of the badassest badasses in the business" when we're talking about candid photography of people seems to call for a finger down the throat to vomit up that superfluous testosterone.

I find his claims a bit disingenuous, that he considers the people he photographs in that ambush style to be his "friends". Even by NYC standards (and I grew up near NYC and spent a lot of time in the city), that's not how you treat "friends". It's deliberately provocative, and he gets the results he's after. It's paparazzi style applied to the common man, the ordinary person on the street. It's performance art, in which the approach is as essential as the end products, the photographs. It's a mix of Candid Camera and <a href="

Happy TV</a>.

Gilden's approach with strangers would get his ass kicked in my hometown, Fort Worth. It would get my ass kicked, and I'm from here. But with friends, sure, it's okay. I've used that in-your-face direct flash style for years among family and friends at home and parties, long before I heard of Gilden. But <a href="https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=larry+fink&safe=off&biw=1027&bih=743&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=92ZaVf6yH43VoATggoDIBg&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAg#safe=off&tbm=isch&q=larry+fink+social+graces&revid=1041639879">I stole it from Larry Fink</a>. And I rarely show those photos to anyone but the victims because I'd like to keep them as friends.

On the other hand, I'd enjoy a few beers with Gilden. He reminds me of people I grew up with in NY. We could probably argue and still be friends. Arbus would be less fun at a party. She seemed mopey. She seems like the type to take offense and get her feelings hurt because we had a difference of opinion about favorite movies, and hold it against me for years.

deantaylor · May 18, 2015

Arbus' photos occasionally seem a bit grotesque...

Right! That is the point--we're referring to human beings here depicted in Arbus' (and others, of course)

captures as--your succinct, apt term: 'grotesque,' i.e., a human being in an exploitive depiction.

to dehumanize: to deprive of human qualities, personality, or spirit [Merriam-Webster].

It appears condemning, humiliating, i.e., a kind of a sadistic voyeurism on the part of DA.

To put this into context: physicians attend school for--what?--15-20 years before they practice,

but when they fail or falter, they are held responsible. Artists, no matter the critical esteem bestowed,

ought to be held to the same rigorous standards, ethics, etc.

DA, (and others) it appears, had something less than an 'ethic' than a drive, a will to succeed.

I'm from NYC as well--fifty years, born and raised, on the mean streets. I've experienced the 'vicious,'

and I know from the 'street ethic': it is unforgiving, often brutal...you get caught up in it,

like a Metropolitan war zone...to pretend it is not there is disingenuous at best, and dangerous

at the other pole.

The need, then, is to monitor one's milieu, one's self, to avoid going over to the other side, i.e.,

to forfeit one's one humanity in the struggle.

We are what we eat. Take care, then, lest we assimilate ourselves into a dysfunctional, dystopian

environment, artistic and otherwise. It is crucial that artists--photographers, writers, etc.--have

this dialogue...

Norma Desmond · May 18, 2015

Take care, then, lest we assimilate ourselves into a dysfunctional, dystopian environment, artistic and otherwise. It is crucial that artists--photographers, writers, etc.--have this dialogue...

</blockquote>

Oy vey.

The first sentence is a bit over the top for my tastes.

The second part is more interesting. I agree, and I doubt Lex would disagree, that it's crucial for artists and photographers to have dialogues about ethics, both internal and with others. And it might be nice and even possible to come close to some agreement on some basic ethical principles. But it would be naive to think we are all going to agree on exactly how those ethical principles should be applied in various situations, such as when art and aesthetics are involved. So don't be surprised if people as ethical and as thoughtful and as experienced in city life and who've had as many ethical dialogues as you come to different conclusions about the ethics of various photos and photographic approaches and styles. I don't think you or Lex or I are likely to assimilate ourselves into a dysfunctional, dystopian environment and I advise you not to worry that others disagreeing with your take on Arbus are likely to do so either.

lex_jenkins · May 18, 2015

"...I doubt Lex would disagree, that it's crucial for artists and photographers to have dialogues about ethics, both internal and with others."

</blockquote>

Absolutely. Otherwise I wouldn't bother participating in these discussions. It's not just to reiterate what I already believe without possibility of being persuaded, or because I like the noise my keyboard makes.

And while I wouldn't use Gilden's approach, I'm kinda glad he does. Besides applying the paparazzi approach to ordinary folks - which is pretty amusing when you think about it - it's more relevant now than ever when we're under continual surveillance. At least he's taking an up front, personally involved approach. It's an interesting way to make people think.

Allen Herbert · May 19, 2015

A Circus.

We all like a Circus....

Street Photography....methinks not.

Uhooru · May 20, 2015

"...some of Arbus' work appears downright vicious, dehumanizing, etc...."

</blockquote>

Arbus did sometimes shed subjects for her editorial assignments in a bad light such as Viva etc. But generally I don't find her work vicious or dehumanizing. Quite the obverse. She spent lots of time and energy tracking down subjects, getting to know them and photographing them in ways they themselves wanted to be seen. If anything she humanized these people. The work was shocking to some in her day because she showed people that most of the general public never saw except in freak shows and circuses. She presented them as the people they were. I think "exploitive depiction" is in the eye of the beholder. And I'm not sure what you mean that to be anyways. It sounds like something "bad", but at some level we all exploit whatever we use in any photograph. So I'm not sure what the problem is.

deantaylor · May 22, 2015

I think some things are shocking to our sensibilities when we're not used to them and no one was used to seeing quite so plainly what Arbus was showing. But that's a good thing, not a vicious thing.

Right, and 'some things' are vulgar, crude attempts at exploiting human beings in order to make

a name for ourselves (in addition to 'making a good dollar'--okay?) in the NY art community. We don't

accomplish our 'career goals' in New York City with reticence and goodwill...rather, we accomplish same by the

'exchange value' of our 'product.'

To argue, then, that DA was a disinterested naif, who was doing the socio-cultural milieu a service with

these...'studies'--in the way that, e.g., Lewis Hine was exposing child labor in America--is something akin to denial.

All, then, the observer would need to do, then, is to "get used to them," and all is well! Is that the argument?

The first sentence is a bit over the top for my tastes.

A [expletive here] stream of words, you find troubling--but, Arbus' calculated intrusion into the lives

of the institutionalized--in order to meet her career goals--this is less bothersome, eh? Well, maybe, Fred 'G',

you simply need to get used to them--a bit...

deantaylor · May 22, 2015

The work was shocking to some in her day because she showed people that most of the general public

never saw except in freak shows and circuses. Are you people unconscious--or, what? That is the f... [same expletive again] point!

Dearest, ambitious Diane, in what can only be described as a 'career move,' had calculated that

new product was to be had by photographing the suffering institutionalized--this is what she had in

mind the whole time: bringing to the photographic 'market' new product! Get it?

exploit: 1) to make productive use of : <exploiting your talents> <exploit your opponent's weakness>

2) to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage <exploiting migrant farm workers>

[Merriam-Webster].

This is the definition--i.e., the dictionary definition--of the verb, "exploit." It is not an opinion--it has

utility in communication.

Uhooru · May 23, 2015

Dearest, ambitious Diane, in what can only be described as a 'career move,' had calculated that new product was to be had by photographing the suffering institutionalized--this is what she had in mind the whole time: bringing to the photographic 'market' new product! Get it?

</blockquote>

I get what your not getting. I simply disagree with your moralistic self-righteous and off hand dismissal of her work. It is an absolute non-issue as to whether her work has an element percieved by you and admittedly at the time, others, as exploitive. I know she had many detractors in the photographic and magazine world on that point. But look at those who supported her and her work. As I said before, all work is exploitive on some levels. You can go ahead and demonize the work by reducing it to a mere "career move", which is b.s. and you should know better, or you can try to understand that as calculating as D.A. may or may not have been, that she herself was a bit of a freak acting out her own needs and explorations. Any major contributor to a field always has to bring through some exploit something new, that is part of progress. Further you totally and conveniently leave out the level of involvement with people and time and energy it took for her to get those photographs. I think your view is unnecessarily cynical in the extreme. Yes she wanted to explore off the beaten path rituals and individuals. She explained it herself if you care to research it. Or you can choke on the pejorative aspects of exploitation and miss the entire meaning of what Arbus did. Its your call as to how you want to take it, but I would suggest if you suspend your outrage for a moment, study her a bit and look at her photos from her stated viewpoints, (assuming you haven't), you might find some amazing gems.

MarieH · May 23, 2015

I adore Diane Arbus, I don`t see her work as exploitative. I think most if not all of her photos are with consent.??? She spenttime with all her subjects, from what I knowand have read.

ray . · May 29, 2015

Interesting topic. I don't think it's possible to exist without being exploitive.

deantaylor · July 25, 2015

Lex Jenkins, Fred and Barry Fisher: pardon the fit of pique--not excused, but explained by having encountered the aggression exhibited by Diane and Bruce (the Donny and Marie of predatory photography). On re-reading the entire prior page, one discerns a frustration in play when terms like 'exploit,' 'dehumanize,' etc., are given short shrift. My attempt to clear the hurdle of what was perceived as patent denial needed the objective distance that time provides...To wit:

Having an ethic implies a moral boundary one establishes: 'this far and no farther', despite the likelihood of having to forego lucrative 'rewards'... Conversely, the attitude that asserts, 'anything that enters the cityscape--anything--is in my domain, and is fair game,' is not a moral ethic so much as an unprincipled business drive. There are instances in people's lives where one simply does not intrude--full stop. If one encounters a casualty of our remarkable (to say the least) ongoing class war, we either intercede, if we are able, or look away. Common decency dictates that this is so! Directing our idle gaze upon the walking wounded--a displaced member of the community--when we have absolutely no intention of intervening in a material way, is a mark of the insensitive, the callous, or worse, the malicious: we are either part of the solution or part of the problem. In this instance, we are adding insult to grievous injury. Further, to then conclude that we will document the victim in order to market same--and, continuing, to attempt to rationalize one's venal behaviour by arguing to knowledge ('they don't understand my "art"') is deceitful. It is degrading and humiliating for all parties. To insist DA was engaged in a moral fight to purge a dark persona, when she went about it by intruding upon the institutionalized--and documenting them, as if they were lab specimens she might inspect at her leisure--is self-indulgence at another's expense. But it is not an instance of art as moral chronicle and discernment of societal failure and dire dysfunction, to ameliorate same--it is, in fact, its own chronicle and example of societal failure and dire dysfunction. DA (and like-minded colleagues) does not improve her milieu: she merely replicates the crisis by creating another victim. To argue, then, that she 'asked for permission,' is akin to engaging a minor in illicit acts, and claiming consent was given. Similarly, to insist, 'but, how can you possibly know that no good ever came of her work,' is specious, desperate 'reasoning.' Inadvertently, some good might occur via almost any suspect, wrongheaded behaviour. To claim attribution, then, from the misdeed to the 'good,' is misguided, at the very least. It is categorically wrong to exhibit another human being in the light of the 'grotesque'--we do not do this! We do not do this for monetary gain, we do not do this to purge neuroses, we do not do this via the imposture of 'art.' It is a heinous affront to the community! To then argue that everyone does it, or it is unavoidable if we wish to 'progress' is the pernicious 'logic' of those Ivy-League guardians of the status quo who have brought us to the precipice (TV watchers will be at a loss here). Here. Of exploitation of others: everyone does not do it. Again: everyone does not do it. It is not necessary for the community--quite the contrary. exploit: 1) to make productive use of : <exploiting your talents> <exploit your opponent's weakness> 2) to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage <exploiting migrant farm workers> [Merriam-Webster].

Uhooru · July 25, 2015

There is nothing I see in the rant above, that obviates what I stated before. I don't think DA's subjects were victims, that's your judgment and quite telling.

Sign In

Bruce Gilden...

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in