"Face" -- A New Book by Bruce Gilden

[Spearhead]

<p>It's easy to see how the opinions Ian references are justified in <a href="

video.</a> He's an obnoxious person on the street. As he says, "I have no ethics." Good to know. It really does show in his photos, including a lot of his past work. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

They are people. They don't have to be seen as part of a theme of marginalization any more than if I were to do a portrait

of you without exploring some theme about whatever way you might get labeled by some. Now Gilden may have set this

up by talking about this population of people as a group but I'm now going beyond Gilden to respond to some of things

you and Marc have been saying.

[Allen Herbert]

<p> "As he says, "I have no ethics."</p>

<p>He creates gross cartoon characters of unfortunate folk taking away probably the only thing they have left their dignity; harasses others by putting a camera and flash in their face....</p>

<p>All in the name of personal artistic expression or how to fill your pockets by being a person without any ethics.</p>

<p>Then we wonder why Governments are starting to restrict and ban street photography.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

Phil, no, I have no problem with the label of "marginalized people." When I photograph people I consider marginalized, I

tend to focus on them and portray them as individuals. I don't, in doing that, deny their marginalized status but also don't

let that status hinder me from discovering and seeking out more. The blatant and consistency of Gilden's style doesn't

read to me as it does to others. Though I may not practice it myself, that kind of confrontation can be enlightening. Sure,

he may be making money but that doesn't mean he's not doing something of value. Would we be having this discussion if

he had presented what people consider a more ethical pprtrait of these folks? I have my doubts. I take his saying he

has no ethics with a grain of salt and kind of understand where he means to be coming from. The typical so-called ethical portrayal of a lot

of folks is the pathos-laden portrayal or the benign portrayal and he's trying to topple those acceptable notions. Others

take his statement more literally, and with a photographer like Gilden that may be a bit naive. I think he's saying he

doesn't care about accepted and polite notions of ethics. I think he's saying we don't have to treat certain people as

gingerly as we think. Nice portrayals, in many instances, don't really get us to notice. That's what most people want. They mean marginalized people no harm but they really don't want to deal with them or have them "invade" their space. How

many times have I heard, when I've talked about my boyfriends or sex life, "I don't mind you're being gay but do you have

to throw it in my face?" My answer is often, yes! I think that might be Gilden's answer as well.

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"Others take his statement more literally, and with a photographer like Gilden that may be a bit naive. I think he's saying he doesn't care about accepted and polite notions of ethics. I think he's saying we don't have to treat certain people as gingerly as we think"</p>

<p>Nothing to do with polite or naivety just to do with common decency. Treating people gingerly in this context reads to my thoughts... treating people without any respect or just how you want to. Where do we draw the line or is there a line? Is it okay to throw gay folk or any folk off buildings because of cult belief? A poor analogue but these things always start somewhere by someone pushing that line of common decency further and further back.<br /> .</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Then we wonder why Governments are starting to restrict and ban street photography.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Not just governments. It's clear in some video footage of Gilden that the subjects resent his total intrusion, lack of respect, and interruption. It's all part of what makes a lot of people resent street photographers. It's also worth noting that he likes to work in upscale neighborhoods photographing old people, businessmen and women, all people unlikely to do what they naturally want to do to him after his attacks. Let's see him shoot in Newark for a week.</p>

[Brad_]

<p>>>> It really does show in his photos, including a lot of his past work.</p>

<p>I'd also say with the few photographers I'm aware of that respect his process and photographs, some of those same aspects (lack of/or superficial connection, uncomfortable not-at-ease subjects, portraying little depth/complexity, no apparent empathy, etc) appear to show in their work as well - even though they may not employ Gilden's shooting process. At first I thought it was about emulation, but I really think it's more subtle than that.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Drawing the line.</p>

<p>Before I took this photo an old women, with heavy makeup was walking towards me. When she saw I was taking photos she turned her back and hurriedly walked away in the opposite direction. Obviously she did not want her photo taken which was fine by me as I respected her decision. I cannot help but think Bruce would have chased her down, distressed her, to get her photo for his art...if that what some call it.<br>

<br /> Im no paragon of virtue but like the majority of street photographers I know where to draw the line of common decency.</p><div></div>

[Allen Herbert]

<p> "he doesn't give people that choice because the photograph is made before people even realize it"</p>

<p>Look at the vid Jeff posted.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>We can discuses this for ever and a day.</p>

<p>But the bottom line is that street photographers have not got the best rep in the world...</p>

<p>Bruce is not really doing us any favors with his, harassment....and that what it is, of folks going about their business on the streets.</p>

 

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"of any use to the people that were photographed. Or are they being used, simply for the sake of a discussion"</p>

<p>Used simply to make money.</p>

<p>There, what else would you like me to say........ sort of getting bored with the Bruce thing.<br>

.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Pushy sales person Bruce trying to sell you a vacuum cleaner who wont leave your house unless he gets a sale. The only way to get him gone is a bucket of water over his head or set your German Shepherd on him: like I said getting bored.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>The question is whether this or any discussion resulting from the photographs is of any use to the people that were photographed. Or are they being used, simply for the sake of a discussion.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Phil, a relevant question. The discussion may be of more use to viewers than to the subjects. And that's an OK result as well. I don't know that photographs necessarily have to benefit anyone and if they do benefit someone I don't know that it has to be the subject. A discussion like this is helpful in many ways if not directly to the subjects involved. <br /> <br /> In terms of showing the individuality of anyone who is being shown as part of a subculture or group or minority or marginalized population, there's also a question there, I think. I don't think individuality always has to be shown even though, as I said, I do try to do that with my own work. I think sometimes it can be all about the group or label. And, even if marginalized populations have been shown before, different approaches to them can be adopted. While I'm very much aware and empathetic with individual rights and individualized treatment, I think there is often a compelling interest of the group or community that can be at odds with the rights of individuals. And I think "using" people to start a discussion can be OK even if they're not directly benefited. I think they indirectly benefit if awareness is increased and I think these discussions, if we listen to and learn from each other, can increase awareness. In the gay political movement, I sometimes did feel used as an individual, but was also OK with it. It just seemed a necessity at times.<br /> <br /> Another thing that strikes me about Gilden's work in this series is the extremity of it. He is, indeed, hyper-presenting these folks. I do wonder if it makes me look at some people differently, though. In the respect that he has exaggerated things so much that, now, the reality doesn't quite seem so extreme and may even seem less threatening or less foreign. It's often the way politics and particularly radical politics play out, and I'd consider Gilden a radical. <br /> <br /> The civil rights movement certainly benefited from King's non-violent type of protest but the more radical elements played an important role in making King seem more moderate to those who would have otherwise thought even King to have a radical agenda. Same for gay rights. Mainstream gay activism was much more reasonably presented than what ACT UP did by closing bridges and disrupting meetings and traffic. But by being willing to get attention by causing people major disruption, other groups that seemed less threatening than ACT UP got the attention and respect they deserved. In a way, the radicals were making a lot of sacrifices and actually were helping the cause even though they were often accused of hurting it. I think Gilden is purposely going over the top because he knows we have over the top reactions to these folks. By causing us to take another look, the already perceived flaws and ugliness that might have caused us to turn our heads from these people when we see them on the street may seem much more palatable than what Gilden has presented us with. I take Gilden to be saying, "This is what you've been seeing in your mind's eye. Now that I've confronted you with it, look again."</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"Phil, lets hold hands and walk together on this one".</p>

<p>So, Bruce spotted an old lady with a face made up like a porcelain doll would not have hunted her down to take a very interesting photo for his collection on revealing invisible people.? Really, the man without ethics....who's inner self expression/money and art is paramount. He could use her to present his unique view on humanity....if she was really lucky he would turn her into a cartoon character. No of course he would not do that...or, would he?</p>

<p>Have a honest real world think.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>" I take Gilden to be saying, "This is what you've been seeing in your mind's eye. Now that I've confronted you with it, look again."</p>

<p>Is that what he is seeing Fred... look at this gross parody of a human being because that is what you are really seeing? Sad for humanity if we can only relate to a crap photo shopped image. Is that what we are about Fred? Us humans as crap photo shopped parodies of humanity?</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"I want to be moved, not steered. There's a subtle but palpable difference between the two"</p>

<p>I will go with that. A big difference in my opinion especially steered in a very unkind way.</p>

<p>It was very early in the morning. Fred, in his shorts made a run for the local store to get his favorite bagels for breakfast. Then from around a corner Bruce popped up with his camera and flash and took a photo of Fred's whiskers, purple shorts, red eyes and all...it had been a late night.</p>

<p>Fred felt special and was thrilled to bits;)</p>

 

[Allen Herbert]

<p>It was thrilling...Bruce. But if it was some Joe Nobody...Hmm.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"Seems like you're oversimplifying things a bit there just to make a point"</p>

<p>Perhaps, but you sort of know.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"Allen, it's a stretch to compare not being too much concerned with ethics in the context of street photography with throwing people off buildings by religious extremists"</p>

<p>Not really. Moral injustice....and we know what they are.</p>

<p>It is the smaller things which should challenged and spoken out against....before they become a bigger thing. The bigger things only happen because we do not speak out against the smaller things and stop them growing into bigger things.</p>

<p>Lines in the sand.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"Allen, it's a stretch to compare not being too much concerned with ethics in the context of street photography with throwing people off buildings by religious extremists"</p>

<p>Okay, Bruce becomes the word in street photography. All those wannabe street photographers want to be Bruce...sort of like HCB worship. So, they rush out with their Canon/Nikon DSLRs with flashes and poke them in folks faces. Apart from them becoming involved in violence the Governments of the world will see them as a nuisance at best and will ban street photography.</p>

<p>A essential freedom will be taken away from the world.</p>

<p>Seems far fetched?</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"It's this kind of reasoning which drives the fanatics, the ones who operate in fear. Being on the opposite side of it is all the same"</p>

<p>Best to silent, Phil. We both don't want to be seen as fanatics or be operating in fear...you have talked more than me...makes you more of a fanatic and a scary cat.</p>

<p>Finger on our lips.</p>

<p> </p>

[Brad_]

<p>Some of the Gilden justifications above remind me of a common response some photographers use when photographing the helpless/disadvantaged/unseen on the street. And that is, "I'm helping by raising awareness." Right. Much more often than not it's because as a group they're easy targets; a way to photograph people in a "raw and gritty" city environment up close without getting popped in the head or chased down the street.</p>

<p>Though a different situation, the raising awareness by making them visible justification smells similar here. If Gilden has a track record or history of advocacy for the poor/disadvantaged, has been involved with various social programs, has helped in other ways such as fund raising, even having a meal or two with them listening to their stories, worked in a meal center, etc., I *might* believe the motivation is to truly help others by raising awareness.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>I want to be moved, not steered. There's a subtle but palpable difference between the two.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Excellent point, Phil, especially pointing out the difference which is not always so subtle. Though I appreciate being moved, I can also appreciate being steered. I think a lot of photography and art steers. Andy Warhol comes to mind. Frank Capra's and John Ford's films often had elements of propaganda, extremely well done. Leni Riefenstahl: great photographer and filmmaker; awful person and motivations. Totally manipulative but what a sense of the human body and its power. I think Salgado, mentioned above, steers. I think radicalism tends to steer, often more than it moves. And that has its place.</p>

 

[Norma Desmond]

<p>While it might be interesting to me what so-called good works a photographer does, it's not determinative of much to do with how I would view his photos. It's personality stuff, more process stuff. I don't care, in terms of assessing his photos and their effects, whether he chats with his subjects for a few moments before shooting them or shows them kindness and raises funds for their plight. He might still take standard-fare and repetitive, soulless pictures of them. He might make significant connections and yet still not be able to show that connection in his photos. So I might admire him as a person and still not think his body of work accomplishes much. I'm also not talking about what his motivation is. I'm talking about what the effects of his photos might be, regardless of his motivations. This is, to me, as much about me as a viewer as it is about him as a photographer. I may be trying my hardest to find some value in and use for his photos. I have no moral qualms about doing so, about looking for some good.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Brad, I've been viewing some of the work and writings of Shelby Lee Adams. All I can say is I can really see how he has inspired you in his approach. His approach of love of his culture and the individuals makes his work very different than BG's and is an interesting contrast. The question is to look at his photos and BG's and see if the difference in approach is visible in the photographs. Some of Adams are also very stark as well though not distorted as Gilden's are because some of the people in Appalachia have pretty rough faces and lives. But the respect is felt more in Adam's photos and I'm not sure I see anything in Gilden's besides HDR distortion and a challenge to the viewer which reflects his personality. Adam's photography reminds me more of Bruce Davidson, who also spent a lot of time building relationships with those he photographed and in fact has maintained friendships with several of them, he wants to show the subjects as people in the context of their lives. "East 100th Street" is a great example of that approach as is "Subway"I don't want to demonize Gilden, I think he's an important photographer and has taken street photography in a certain direction. Its just not a direction I'm overly interested in. Thanks Brad and Marc for the heads up on Adams, a real score!:)</p>