looking back at his magnum portfolio it does seem ‘big flash + into ppl’s face’ pays off to creat a certain effect, what he discribed as bringing charactors more into the foreground. but how much of his photos are to do with careful framing to project the relations inbetween the objects? It could be a luck factor + some framing I guess.

I enjoy shotting myself. but usually i either spend time with my ‘objects’ until they take me as a part of them, and feel nature about me being around, or me fade into the background for some time trying to capture things without people noticing. I guess the debatable question is to do with an ‘invisible photographer’ and a photographer with strong present, and to what degree the later is okay.

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.

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.

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…;-)

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.

“Good photographer”? Not to my mind. Not if the definition of “good” includes having respect for your subject.