Subscribe by email
Subscribe by RSS feed
Bruce Gilden – Artist or Thug?
December 31st, 2008I just watched a very entertaining video of Magnum photographer Bruce Gilden over at the Online Photographer. Then I read the comments, and I strongly suggest any of you with an interest in street photography do the same. The commenters, myself included fall on either side of the fence on this – either deriding Gilden’s technique or praising it (and those that don’t praise it, per se, seem to make excuses for it.)
Gilden’s a good photographer, that’s not at all what’s at stake. The man has balls, too. That also is not at stake. What people are reacting to is his modus operandi. Personally, i think the guy comes off as a jerk, and I think this short video – whether it accurately portrays Gilden or not, does raise some good questions about how we do what we do, and why.
My take? The guy, despite what he says, doesn’t seem to like or respect his subjects much and it shows. Black and white, garish images of people reacting to an agressive man with a battered Leica. His subjects look like characters, which is what he calls them, and I just don’t get much more from it than that he’s got his own agenda with no regards for the opinions of others or an ethic of his own (which he flat out admits.) Sorry, I’ll take being a kind, respectful human being over a disputed genius who engages in sociopathic (or at best misanthropic) behaviour in the name of art.
The whole thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I’d love to hear what you think. Plenty of room out there for different opinions. Watch the video HERE, read the comments, and then get back to me – what do you think? Artist? Jerk? Genius? Bully? Both? Neither?
I think if the guy was a performance artist doing a satirical bit on the sins of street photographers he couldn’t possibly have done it better. As it is I’m less confused about why people hate and fear photographers. Comments are open, but if this stirs strong reactions, let’s at least be respectful about it. From the short video I suspect Bruce doesn’t give a damn about anyone else’s opinions, but let’s be carefully not to villify the guy.
Who needs to vilify him? He does a good job of that himself. I just spent most of yesterday in the street shooting (see latest blog post). I came back with a whole set of really different images than had Bruce been shooting, but I can go back and have tea and re-shoot each one of my subjects. If that is what it takes to become a Magnum photographer, forget it. I’d rather have friends. Oh, and ethics do count, at least in my world.
WOW! That guy is sooo opposite of me. My sentiments are with Matt.
I think his attitude and apparent lack of respect for his subjects stink.
One day he’s gonna click the wrong person.
I think its funny that he jumps infront of someone & blinds them with a flash & a shot that any 1 could get with the same scare tactic. Its called ART. Now if he did the same thing & put his hand on them he would be arrested. Yeah I didn’t care for him at all. Only in USA can you get away with this. I’ll bet that if he tried that form of ART in other parts of the world we would never hear of him again.
Maybe I was expecting something more shocking after reading the preface above, but I didn’t find his approach that objectionable. It helped that most of his subjects just kept walking, but snapping a flash picture of a stranger doesn’t seem that surprising in the crowded, brusque New York street. If the subjects showed more discomfort or were in locations with a greater expectation of privacy and personal space, his approach would have seemed more uncomfortable.
The few times I’ve seen paparazzi scrums in LA, I’ve found them much worse. It’s dangerous in traffic — boxing people in, driving on the wrong side of the road, running lights — and ugly in person, where the photographers verbally abuse their subjects in an attempt to provoke extreme reactions.
Granted, Gilden is not take flattering of portraits of strangers that evince a personal connection to the photographer, but he is not manipulating the situation to show them at their worst.
Thanks for the link. I’m glad I saw that video… I commented over at TOP. You know I’m very concerned about ethics and I probably wouldn’t shoot that way (although maybe I will what with all the comments about Gilden’s balls) but I find his approach less offensive than covert street photography. At least he gives people the chance to say something or get angry. I also think the Internet has changed things for street photography. I mean, really, who’s going to complain about being included in a coffee table book, no matter how unflattering the picture? But a picture on The Internet? The horror! Especially for people not actually involved in online communities.
Oh, and I never thought of using my flash on the run like that… I’m definitely keen to try that!
Well, he’s certainly an interesting man. Someone I probably won’t ever want to have tea with, along Matt B.’s line…of course, he probably isn’t the tea type. A good strong black coffee to me. He wouldn’t be the type of person I would want to hang out with, or really have any respect for as a photographer. Sure, his photos may be “real” and they may be “art” but they aren’t, IMO, beautiful.
I guess it all comes back to…he’s not my cup of tea.
Memo to self…
When visiting NYC….grin extensively.
Since he is a commercial photographer who clearly publishes and sells these photographs, the question of model releases comes to mind.
All of his subjects are clearly identifiable and the photos are clearly of them – not their surroundings. What is the scoop on model releases for his shots – anyone have a clue?
(just for the record – i don’t like his style – it just bought to mind an interesting question)
J
I think there’s no doubting his skill & qbility to produce good photos and i’d certainly class it as art but the man is a muppet. What I find surprising is that NY has a reputation for being a tough city and yet he walks out intact. Perhaps that’s his choice of relatively passive subjects but certainly he wouldn’t survive an afternoon around here.
I’m not averse to doing street candids myself so perhaps it’s a little hypocritical to say these things as all candids are an invasion to some degree but I just see a total lack of respect for the subject and a complete lack of consideration for anyone but himself. As passive as my nature is, I wouldn’t hesitate to crack him if he stuck a camera in my face like that. I’d see it as moral equivalence and let fly.
Gilden said “You know, I’ve been photographing in Manhattan since 1981. And it’s changed a lot… I haven’t changed, but the place has.”
Yes, I’ve taken it a bit out of context, but can’t help wondering if this is what happens to a person who resists change for nearly 30 years.
I saw this video a while back (forget the site now) and it did not sit well with me. These aren’t so much candids as they are reactionary images. Perhaps it is no better or worse than “guerilla photography” (clandestine, whaterver) but I’m not sure you’re really getting at the truth of people.
I try to remember El-Sawy’s quote:
Do What Salgado Does : …Sebastiao Salgado was quoted as saying:
If you take a picture of a human that does not make him noble, there is no reason to take this picture. That is my way of seeing things.
Alex, Great quote. Sums it all up for me. I wish I would have said it.
He get away with this only because he’s in New York. Any other city in the world and he’d have his teeth scattered on the street. He’s also a hypocrite….saying all these people are his friends. I don’t thing he’s ever had a real friend or he’d realize just how misguided his ideals are. And he most certainly has ethics, despite what he says. They are the ethics of an egotist – I am right when it suits me and you are wrong when it doesn’t suit me. I do pity the man.
I first seen this in May and was shocked at his approach. It’s not something I could or would even consider doing myself but it’s hard for me to judge unless I was the subject (victim?). I would like to think that it would confuse me more then it would bother me.
I’m not a fan, I don’t care for his work and his method is borderline objectionable for me but remains harmless.
I’m thinking about the comment above on paparazzi. Very different and I don’t understand how it remains legal. I find Gilden to be bold but the harassment is quick – only leaving the person confused on what just happened as they continue on their way.
Clarification….
I’m not implying that New York is not a tough place. However…New Yorkers are used to other New Yorkers being in their faces and even rude. I saw how some of his subjects reacted…they did not even stop or hesitate when he jumped in front of them. They just kept on walking as if it was any other day in the city. By being in a city like NY, he has at his disposal a population of desensitized subjects that he can take advantage of…and that’s exactly what he does…take advantage.
“If you take a picture of a human that does not make him noble etc…”
I’m not sure I agree with that. By applying this kind of reasoning, you are basically doing a form of propaganda, which doesn’t translate what humanity is. As a photographer, do you have to take side, push an agenda? It also begs questions about the integrity of one’s work. We’re not talking about taking pictures of flowers, but of people. You certainly don’t have to make them look bad, but you don’t have to make them look good, if you’re not paid for that or you’re not on a mission. Nobility, as a is not something you convey onto people’s character. They are or they are not. And I will not change that with a camera. Why should I “make” someone into something is not?
I’ve had similar thoughts, Luc. I love the spirit of what Salgado is saying, and i think you rightly need to place it context of HIS work, HIS ethic, and the reason HE has for doing what he does. On the other hand, there is much about the human race that is not noble and still needs to be witnessed. You can’t make a man appear noble if in fact he’s a villain, and while we’re complex beings and rarely only one or the other I think there are times when the lens is called upon to reveal something that is true, but other than noble.
In my case, I am not a photojournalist, I have the luxury of choosing what I shoot, and in most cases it’s the more hopeful side of things. Where Salgado’s quote touches my work is the guiding principle of not working harder to get an image that reveals something deeper than the low-hanging fruit that is poverty or disease. Anyone can take a mediocre photograph of something shocking and allow that shock to do the heavy lifting. It takes someone more to show something more beneath the dirt and the hurt. When I shoot the subjects I shoot, revealing a hidden nobility, something at the core of all of us, is important and Salgado in his context, and mine, hits the hammer on the head. For other contexts there are perhaps other principles that apply first – like the need to witness events where nobility is completely absent.
But in the end, we all have a unique vision, and where this comes back to Gilden, I still think he’s a jerk, but clearly he’s doing what he does and getting results – ie, he’s showing the world how he sees the world, and his technique has integrity with his ethic, which is – apparently – fairly dark and intrusive. So while I don’t like his ethic, or the way it he shoots, or even the resulting images, I do respect that he’s shooting his vision, and that’ something.
But I still don’t like it.
Happy New Year David to both you and your entire family and please travel safe. I can’t wait to meet you in person, I know I’ll be better for it.
I don’t care one bit for what this man does. There is such a thing as personal space. What ever happened to common courtsey. Kindness and being polite? Have we come that that? Not even caring what people think about ourselves anymore? It’s a shame.
Do you remember the days after 9/11? For a brief, very brief period of time we remembered these values towards one another and predictably they flew out the windows. At least I have some hope come Jan 20th.
Very Best,
Tom
@ Luc – good points and I believe we talked about some of the same factors over at the Collective.
I’d say if you are a photojournalist, reporter, etc, etc. then you are responsible for telling it like it is and I agree with your points. Hitler, Mussolini, Idi Amin would be tough guys to find nobility in.
But this brings to mind and interesting, and much longer topic. If you are concerned about adding nobility where none exists, can you also add, or increase upon a subject’s distastefulness without also being accused of propaganda. As a reporter you should report as a dispassionate source – This is the news now make up your own mind. Yes this flies in the face of human nature and in what some people feel the news should do for the common man, but, again, longer topic for another time.
But let’s face it Mr. Gilden isn’t a really photojournalist or reporter. He’s ambushing many of these people and casting them in an intentionally harsh light (direct flash, crazy angles, etc). Why? So we get a good laugh or chuckle or feel good about ourselves for a little while? “At least I’m not that guy!!”
Is it art to make people flinch, blink and look odd.
There is a way to capture “ugly”, odd, insane, or any number of conditions that allows the nobility of the human spirit to show through.
In the end all photography could be considered propaganda. Its been said many a time – “A photograph reveals just as much about the person tripping the shutter as it does the subject before the lens.”
I’m not sure the question is nobility so much as honesty. You can make a person do anything if you’re given the time and will, but in my candids i’ve tried to take an image of a moment in life. As a reporter you could photograph someone killing another person and it would still be a moment in life. Either would be an honest reflection and nobility doesn’t come into it, you’re showing truth and reality. What this guy is doing is falsifying reality and passing it off as truth. His photos are lies in that respect, even though they show a real aspect of human nature.
If I was to take a candid of you at this moment then it would show you being happy, or perhaps sad. If I shocked you by sticking a camera and flash inches away from your nose, then i’m not capturing that, all i’m capturing is your reaction to me sticking a camera in your face. As art or life, it’s a trivial even insignificant statement. “People look shocked when you jump in front of them with a camera!!” Hmm, Yes. That’s a no-brainer. And in other news….
It isn’t my style but it’s interesting. He’s like a hit and run photographer – smacks you in the face with camera and flash and then he’s gone. So it’s perfect for who he is and what he’s trying to capture; he captures it well. Do I find it offensive or disrespectful? Not really. Would I want him snapping my photo with that god-awful lighting? Not particularly. But if he did snap me like that I don’t think I’d punch his lights out.
I think it’s an interesting method, if rather intrusive and confrontational. I’m not interested in praising, excusing or criticizing his method, but I think it merits examination.
Myself, I seem to spend a lot of time trying to make myself invisible, so I can capture people in their “natural state”, that is to say unobserved. Photography by nature seems something of an intrusion, so it’s no wonder that a number of cultures in the past and present view photography as an invasion or somehow stealing something from the subject. In a sense I suppose it can and does.
From a practical perspective a photographer is only capturing the light that bounces off of a subject, but I think we all know it is somehow much more than that simple description, even if we can’t quite grasp all the properties involved. But sometimes it is a kind of assault, so perhaps the way Gilden goes about it can be viewed as a slightly more honest and direct form of an assault then someone who stands back shooting quietly from a distance. Perhaps Bruce is simply more direct and forthright about what he captures and takes away from a person without their consent. He’s all in their face disrupting them and shaking them out of whatever little world they happen to exist in, at least for that moment. It seems his photography is all about capturing that moment of interference and the reaction it generates. By invading a person’s space he forces them to register him and his photography in their consciousness, and for that moment their life has been altered. His method is an exaggeration that seems to club his subjects over the head with the theory which states that the mere act of observance alters that which is observed.
Where as many of us are preoccupied with allowing people to go about their business and anonymously and sometimes covertly capturing them in that moment, Bruce creates an encounter where he is an active participant. In fact, I think it’s safe to say that the moment he captures could not exist without his participation. It reminds me of the way Hunter S. Thompson went about writing journalism, from his perspective there really was no story until he became a part of it. Hunter deliberately provoked a reaction, and from that reaction he found his starting point for the creation of the story. It seems similar for Bruce and his style of photography, there simply is no picture to take until he interposes himself within the context of his subjects consciousness.
And of course everyone reacts to this intrusion differently, which gives us at least some small insight into that person. Admittedly it is only momentary and in some sense a manufactured insight with hardly any independent context whatsoever, but I think from an artistic perspective there may be some genuine validity to the insight he creates.
If nothing else his style seems to have the virtue of being unique, after all how many people photograph other human beings as if they were wild life, trying to remain unseen because it tends to spook the animal. But most humans, through years of conditioning in the developed world at least, are far more tolerant of photographic observation and physical interference than your average wild animal, so you can get away with this kind of thing much more easily.
Not too many people are interested in startling or provoking a tiger or bear, specifically because they don’t want to deal with extremely hazardous consequences should you be foolish enough to try such a thing at close range. But most human beings by comparison are tolerant enough that you don’t have to worry about being killed and eaten, at least with most people anyway.
And as some commenters mentioned, in a very real sense Gilden is doing much the same thing that paparazzi do to famous people. Of course paparazzi are almost universally hated and despised, but they only do that confrontational provocative stuff because there’s a big market and really good money in getting photos of celebrities with shocked startled looks on their faces. If a photographer could get a $27,000 check for a picture of the average person off the street like this, doubtless we’d see shutter jockeys lining up to do this kind of work.
By the way, visiting the site I noticed that Bruce has been to Haiti, I grew up in South Florida and am quite familiar with Haitians and Haitian culture, and I would love to go to Haiti and the Dominican Republic to do both nature photography and to photograph the people of Hispaniola. It’s a fabulous island with an amazingly rich cultural history that over centuries has fused European and African influences in ways unlike anywhere else on earth. And in my humble opinion produces some of the most beautiful and visually interesting people on the planet. More photographers should go there and capture what they see so that the rest of the world can perhaps better understand what a unique and important place it is. And I think the Caribbean in general, its islands and people, have been largely photographed in only the most superficial and commercial fashion. It is a place of wonderment and mystery that I believe has yet to be fully explored and experienced from a number of perspectives.
David, while I agree there’s no need to vilify this guy, I see no benefit to highlighting his self-indulgence style. The media is full of stories of people being disrespectful of one another. Why do you want to add to that? If photography is really about vision, why not stay focused on developing the vision and let the ogres of the world go their own misguided way. This post does nothing but highlight the discomfort people can cause one another. Thanks, but no thanks; I get too much of that already.
The first person he photographs – an elderly lady – is an assault. . she lifts her hands in a defensive manner, and is scared. . . would he appreciate someone doing that to his elderly mother? I think not. On the hand, he is New Yorker, and I don’t find his actions that surprising. I found some of his images entertaining – is that art? – and others I thought were great captures of that Cartier-Bresson decisive moment-esque. Ultimately, I believe the images have to be judged on the content, not on the method in which they were taken. . if we hadn’t been able to see his work method, I think we would have thought the images were brilliant, almost Arbus like. We don’t have to like the photographer, but we can still enjoy the photographs.
Also interesting to note, how many positive comments are on the page that is hosting the video. . .
Ron – I don’t want to highlight this man’s self-indulgence, but use it as a springboard for discussion. Of particular interest to me is the need for photographers to discuss ethics, even if we do not come to the same conclusions. I very much believe that HOW we do things is relevant. So discussing it is where we begin – in the realm of ideas. Surely a discussion of vision includes ethics if our vision itself comes from our ethics. I’m not sure it always does, but I suspect so. And really, if highlighting the ugliness of Gilden’s technique disuades others from doing so, that’s a good thing. Can you imagine trying to create portraits in Ladakh after a photographer like Gilden has just assaulted the village? I doubt Gilden himself uses these techniques in places he shoots like Haiti (could be wrong) but there are plenty of agressive shooters out there and it would be great if there were fewer.
Doug – I think the methods are important, though where each photographer draws the line is, I suppose, up to him or her. In my own creative life I work under the paradigm that ugly methods produce ugly photographs – even if others don’t see the difference, I do, and I want my work first to have integrity. Furthermore I think that how we do things – in Gilden’s case, agressively – has an impact on the image – in Gilden’s case it’s subjects often reacting to the intrusion.
All – Thank you for the dialogue. I love these discussions even if we never come to an accord. It’s encouraging to me to see photographers talk about the ideas behind image-making and not just the technology. I think those that engage in the ideas become better photographers and that benefits us all.
Thanks for your feedback, David. I agree with what you said. I had such an aversion to Gilden’s approach that I was ready to gloss over it quickly. I actually think we’re all given a healthy sense of ethics, but many people lose theirs along the way. I had the sense that was what happened with Gilden. He struck me as a man who was not having much success using a respectful approach to people and so he resorted to something sensational (read: desperate), hoping maybe he’d find something that works. I think there are better approaches. And no, I did not watch the entire video. I caught his point very quickly and decided to tune out.
Wow is all I have….
Now go to the top of this page and look at the image on the top left. That person is showing gratitude at having his photo taken and has his hands folded in respect and a smile on his face – that’s what its about.
Sumit
Hey, just thought you might be interested in this video, in which Mr. Gilden takes a slightly less inflammatory stance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWEzm2disjM.
“I have no ethics”.
No argument here.
So he has a different way of taking pics. I have been yelled at more than once for getting to close while shooting- usually at sporting events. I don’t know if I would be that close to the subjects but the images are real because of that. I have questions of legality of using the images without permission.
In general a good photog with his own way of shooting.
With regard to legality, images used for editorial purposes do not require a model release but if used for commercial/advertising would require the subject’s permission.
“Good photographer”? Not to my mind. Not if the definition of “good” includes having respect for your subject.
As for teh guy,I’ll go with teh jerk adjective… for his “art”, but more than that for his attitude.
But I have another question on teh matter (and please bear with me if it is too basic.. I just take photos for me and for fun… never made a penny of it). My question is in terms of copiright, or tight to publish or use immages for which I am sure there was no consent for. Is that allowed? or can some subject come to him and ask for say money if he ever published their shot in a web, book, etc?
Thanks,
ET
I see the comments here are pretty full of people who aren’t appreciative of Bruce Gilden’s work.
I’ll raise my hand and say that I am, indeed, a fan of Bruce’s work and style. And I’d even say that he’s impacted me recently in how close I’ll get to my subjects. Though I am not carrying a flash to stun them. Since I’m using an old TLR, most people don’t even know when I take their photos.
Bruce will tell you himself, his work is not portraying a natural record of life on the streets of New York. Over and over he will use terminology that tells you that this is his artistic interpretation of what life is like on the streets of New York. He sees in black & white. The use of flash helps to isolate the subject and intensify the mood of how he sees them. If they all look like drones to you sleepwalking throughout the city, then his controversial technique has helped to enable his artistic intent.
Boundary pushing artists are seldom appreciated by their contemporaries. I do believe that history will be a much kinder judge to Gilden.
Never heard of David Chemin, but sure heard of Bruce GIlden. Ran into him today while working on a project in Times Square, cool / funny guy, genuinely nice too. But of course misunderstood by people that are not at his level.
He was doing his usual thing, it is odd, but honestly, it is a good fit for the streets of NYC and like he says, his bedside manner is good. He will stop and talk to people if they have questions after being photographed just like I will.
Personally, his style is not my style, but neither is pretty / advertising / personal ad / zed card looking photos of people in countries other than my own…;-)
Thanks for the balanced perspective on things. The drawback of meeting someone via a medium like video is that you meet them only inasmuch as the video allows you to.
I don’t at all doubt that he could be kind, and he has work that I really admire. But I think the misinderstanding doesn’t come from whether others are, or are not, on his level. I think the reactions you see here are by people reacting to his methods and simply finding them distasteful. We all have the freedom to create our work as we please, to some degree, but we also all have the freedom to look at, and evaluate, the work and process of others – particularily of others so accomplished – and see if it can inform the path we’re chosing.
I’m a pretty open guy, love people and want the best for them. The same thing in me that wants Bruce Gilden’s subjects treated with kindness is the same thing in me that wants a guy like Bruce to be given his due regardless of his tactics. But at the end of the day, in this project of his, our methods differ. I’m ok with that, sure as heck that Mr. Gilden is OK with it. But whether Gilden is well-known, or I and my readers are not, has nothing to do with whether we take a long look at Gilden as presented and react to him.
Anyways, that went on longer than it should
Just wanted to reply and thank you for the thoughtful comment.
Well put David, and if it helps with the perspective any, up until you posted this, I was from the opposite school. I sure knew who you were but Bruce Gilden? Hadn’t a clue who he was.
Seeing this pop up again on my blackberry this morning, I hadn’t actually connected the two things until then but, I think it comes down to what you were saying the other day about art, it’s all subjective and down to personal opinions.
Ascribed status, be that self-ascribed or otherwise, it matters little with the classic example of that being the case of the Pierre Brassau exhibition in Sweden back in the 60’s. That one left many an acclaimed critic wandering off into the sunset, whistling a happy tune and trying to look nonchalant.
[...] is a rather lengthy and lively debate going on over at David DuChemin’s blog on “Bruce Gilden – Artist or Thug?” Gilden, as you will see if you view the video linked HERE, uses a very intrusive style of [...]
I just want to say that I like Bruce Gilden work he is Magnum photographer and his work is art, that’s it, but I start to see you portfolio…I didn’t see nothim really great in your work. I think you just want to promote yourself, do books or be member of NAAP and the Scott Kelby troop not make you a better photograher…