"Face" -- A New Book by Bruce Gilden

[Uhooru]

<p>Yes.....phil, I'd love to see some of your work. Not to prove anything, but just because you have very gracefully wound your way through this whole discussion and I think your photos would really add to our little photo clache.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Hah, I knew it, when ever I try to say something serious it always kills the thread! </p>

[Brad_]

<p>Heh, Barry - your fault!<br>

I suppose this could be repurposed into a W/NW thread to keep it going.</p>

[Damon DAmato]

<blockquote>

<p>I suppose this could be repurposed into a W/NW thread to keep it going</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Come to think of it, I'm feeling invisible-- people don’t want to look at me. And if you don’t look at me how can you help me?<br /><br /><img src="https://farm1.staticflickr.com/455/20330259766_400d525c45_o.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p> </p>

[spanky]

<p>Damon, I can always spot you in a crowd! PS - Say "Hi" to Toni for me (but you already knew that.)</p>

[Brad_]

<p>Where's Allen?</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>"Faces" is very different from Gilden's street candids. I like some of his earlier street stuff, even if I wouldn't use that ambush approach. Well, maybe with family and friends, but they won't punch me.</p>

<p>At the same time, while I'm not averse to the grotesque - it's a valid form of humor - I'm not a fan of schadenfreude. If my notion of humor in candid snaps and offhand portraits causes the people being photographed to feel humiliated, or subjects them to ridicule from others, then it doesn't work. Life is often grotesque, absurd, extravagantly ridiculous. Nothing wrong with capturing and celebrating that aspect of life. But as the movie "After the Fox" aptly demonstrated, there's a muddy gray zone between a Fellini-esque celebration of the grotesque and merely ridiculing people. Auteurs beware.</p>

<p>"Faces" seems like Gilden's answer to Lucian Freud's saggy-face portraiture. Not a fan of either. But time may vindicate his approach.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Allen is off to Barry's W/NW face post methinks this has run its course..</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Yikes, I'm back!</p>

<blockquote>

<p> I'm not a fan of schadenfreude.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure Gilden's work is that, he's not really enjoying people's misfortune or making fun of them per say, (I don't think); I would think that would be more in the realm of Martin Parr. But his technique does accentuate grotesqueness. </p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Yikes Barry, me to.</p>

<p>I think that as candid photographers (really dislike the word "street" it has a ugliness to it) we are photographing folks who may or may not wish to have their photos taken. But we take the photograph.</p>

<p>Therefore I think we should offer towards those we photograph a degree of respect/dignity and kindness as a thanks for allowing us to express our freedoms and photograph the world as it is. But not hide truths.</p>

<p>Sensationalism. the circus....sells. Sells being the operative word. Max Clifford (in jail) claimed all publicity is good publicity....and he made a lot of money from folk who created a circus and they were called celebrities...we all love a circus.</p>

<p>So, Bruce is being sensational and has created his circus....the world is about pockets full of gold and Bruce is just joining in so he can get his share.</p>

<p>Just my thoughts: to date I have not sat on the font of all knowledge...so, they are just my thoughts.</p>

<p> </p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"Bruce is doing it all from the heart and art". Phil.</p>

<p>I believe and Phil, who is not his publisher, who does just want to turn a coin... Jeez, who cares a monkey about them... believes it is a noble act by Bruce who I suspect will never recieve a coin from his book...even one of those little dime things. All to go to those folk. Bruce the man with the big heart.</p>

<p>But folk will look at the gross manipulated of these images, and see these folk for the first time, a ugly looking lot that you really don't want in your....</p>

[Brad_]

<p>>>> Sensationalism. the circus....sells. Sells being the operative word.</p>

<p>That dovetails with the fact that Gilden's excursion into "Appalachia" was a commission from Vice Magazine, through Magnum. IMO, Magnum has been losing its relevancy over the years and is looking to bring its activities closer to consumers through a revamped business model. Parachuting Gilden into Appalachia for two days worth of contextless controversial photos seems to align with that goal. Wondering if some limited edition prints or venti-sized photo coffee mugs will be available in the gift store. I guess it won't matter that people who purchase them will have no better insight into the area than they had before, and likely will still mispronounce Appalachia.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>I think that as candid photographers (really dislike the word "street" it has a ugliness to it) we are photographing folks who may or may not wish to have their photos taken. But we take the photograph.<br>

Therefore I think we should offer towards those we photograph a degree of respect/dignity and kindness as a thanks for allowing us to express our freedoms and photograph the world as it is. But not hide truths.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Rationalization.</p>

<p>In the first paragraph, you note that people may or may not want to have their pictures taken. In the second paragraph you offer them a so-called kindness for "allowing" you your freedom to show the world as it is. But, in many cases, those folks have not allowed you anything. You've done what you wanted without any allowance from them, unless you've asked their permission and they've granted it. </p>

<p>I'm not saying there's anything inherently wrong with that and I do it myself. But I don't rationalize it away by claiming they've allowed me to do something or that I'm on some moral high ground because I'm not hiding the truth. I realize I'm taking advantage of people, or at least using them for the photo, when I take their photos without permission. I do it anyway. I think life in civilization is a give and take.</p>

<p>I don't deem such actions of candid photographers, taking photos of people they may not have received permission from, as good or bad. It is what it is. What it's not, though, is that they've allowed it. You've taken what you want. And so have I. I can live with it and be honest to myself about it. It might even create some tension, which is OK with me. It might even provoke negative feelings in me, which is also OK with me. I don't hide behind so-called truth to make it all nice and cozy.</p>

<p> </p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"I don't hide behind so-called truth to make it all nice and cozy" Fred.</p>

<p>Respect Fred.</p>

<p>You don't exploit them, and turn folk into gross character's claiming you are doing them good whilst you are about turning a coin.</p>

<p>" But I don't rationalize it away by claiming they've allowed me to do something or that I'm on some moral high ground because I'm not hiding the truth"</p>

<p>They are allowing you to photograph that simple to understand. If too many complain of anti social behavior then the freedoms we enjoy will be gone...sticking your DSLR with a flash in someone's face could well be considered ant social behavior. And it is...and you would not find it thrilling.</p>

<p>Try doing it in Russia.<br /> .</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Freedoms are very hard fought for but easily taken away....it is always the few abusers that the many pay the price for.</p>

[Uhooru]

<blockquote>

<p>That dovetails with the fact that Gilden's excursion into "Appalachia" was a commission from Vice Magazine, through Magnum.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yeah, that post makes a good point, but then on the other hand as a professional photographer working with an agency, he is going to get assignments and take them, its his job. VICE knew when it hired him, that they would get BG's take with the photographs. One of my favorite books is Newton's "A Gun for Hire" where he basically said he made a conscious decision to never turn down a paying gig. <br>

This doesn't obviate any of the discussion about the photographs, or the ethics, I'm just saying that when client hires a specific photographer, especially from agencies like Magnum Photo, they are basically asking for that photographer's "stamp" they will put on the project. Without being in BG's skin, I can't really say if it was just a job, so he didn't really give a hoot or not, but it seems so doesn't it? But I don't blame him for taking the job, that's what people who earn their living from a profession do.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>A lesson in common sense not fear. The real world not a fantasy on the web.</p>

<p>1. How many countries is street photography banned?</p>

<p>2. How many countries in Europe is street photography banned?</p>

<p>3. Did the Europe Union recently try to pass a law to ban all photographs of public buildings?</p>

<p>6.In the UK a few years ago the government was looking to pass a law banning street photography.</p>

<p>Why, because of complaints by the general public.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Allen and Fred, the thoughts about candids are interesting. I'll parse it this way. I think Fred is correct, when he says responding to your post:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In the first paragraph, you note that people may or may not want to have their pictures taken. In the second paragraph you offer them a so-called kindness for "allowing" you your freedom to show the world as it is. But, in many cases, those folks have not allowed you anything. You've done what you wanted without any allowance from them, unless you've asked their permission and they've granted it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But I also get what Allen is saying:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Therefore I think we should offer towards those we photograph a degree of respect/dignity and kindness as a thanks for allowing us to express our freedoms and photograph the world as it is. But not hide truths.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think the main thing is in candids, the photographer is the one who really decides what the various lines are and if or when to cross them, and then live with that decision as the subject usually won't know about it.<br /> I think I've taken two photographs in my time that I'm ashamed of. One was of a fat guy on the beach at Venice that I only took because he was sunbathing on a towel and he was really fat. (I am portly myself) He saw me take the photo and I don't like the fact that I only took it because of his size. The other is a photo I took of a really heavy woman walking away from me, conjoined by a large window sign of a sexy woman licking her lips. I saw the conjoining of the two and took it without thinking. Later I realized that both photos were creating humor, but in a really degrading way to the individuals. This was indeed, as Lex said, Schadenfreude. There may be more, who knows, I can be a sarcastic punk, but those pop to mind and I don't like the fact I took photographs that were obviously making fun of people. I'm usually taking photos of people because I'm curious about them. However, if a photograph should hit on a larger subject, then I am not embarrassed if the individuals come off in less than a flattering light. I'm not particularly a flatterer when it comes to my pictures, which sometimes piss off my friends, but not too much:) </p>

[Brad_]

<p>>>> But I don't blame him for taking the job, that's what people who earn their living from a profession do.</p>

<p>I don't blame him at all. My post was more about Magnum's changed business model and willingness to take on that project. I suspect for Gilden it was just another job as it's difficult to imagine him coming away with a deeper understanding of Appalachia, which is immense geographically, in two days. And of course, for the purposes of the project, it is not required that he, or apparently Vice's viewers, come away with a deeper understanding of the region.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p > </p>

 

<p>Allen and Fred, the thoughts about candids are interesting. I'll parse it this way. I think Fred is correct, when he says responding to your post:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In the first paragraph, you note that people may or may not want to have their pictures taken. In the second paragraph you offer them a so-called kindness for "allowing" you your freedom to show the world as it is. But, in many cases, those folks have not allowed you anything. You've done what you wanted without any allowance from them, unless you've asked their permission and they've granted it.</p>

<p>Think you are missing the point.</p>

<p>They are allowing you to take candid's because if too many complain then the authorities will stop it. That simple.</p>

</blockquote>

 

[Uhooru]

<p>Yep, it must be difficult from them transitioning from a print documentary base to a web based model and shorter attention spans amongst editors. I wonder how much editorial work they are really doing there these days for magazines and the like. It seems more like personal themed projects, but then I don't really know what the guys do for bread and butter, as it were.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Allen, do you get hassled if you photograph in the tube?</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Brad, sorry, I misunderstood what you were saying. Yes, it would be interesting to know if VICE asked for Gilden or if Magnum offered him up? Certainly VICE had to know what they'd be getting, at least I would think.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"Allen, do you get hassled if you photograph in the tube?"</p>

<p>I've never been hassled, Barry. Sounds BS but true.</p>

<p>Perhaps because Im like that other bloke who could walk water or I look so big and bad. I just do my thing without any thought for anything else. Maybe Im percieved as a bad boy best avoided....hey," its good to be bad", and I drive a Jaguar....obviously the biggest badest one:)</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>errr, is there water in the tube? i suppose. So if I go in there wearing my "V" mask (or masque) would MI5 hit the panic button? More importantly, should I ever be able to make it to London, will you show me a proper pint?</p>