NickGee Loc: Pacific Northwest

I suspect most if not all of you who are into street photography are familiar with Bruce Gilden (how could you not!). I wonder, though, if you've seen this wonderful walk-along in New York's Times Square. He' a real commando.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkIWW6vwrvM

sb Loc: Florida's East Coast

I wonder how many times he has been hit - with a hand, a purse, or a cane? He is very much an "in-your-face" street photographer, and all those folks "lost in thought" probably get pretty ticked off when he steps in front of them and fires his flash in their face. Great work, though... although in one scene he tells the two men "not to smile". Well - they WERE smiling, so that is how he should have captured them. Not everyone in NYC walks along lost in thought, frowning.

Nancysc

There is a video on YouTube with Garry Winogrand doing the same thing. Winogrand, however, did not wear a photographer's vest nor a hat. He used only one camera, no flash. He worked really fast and didn't engage the people he photographed. He took thousands of photos in an hour or so, and when he died there were thousands of unprinted negatives, and hundreds of undeveloped film rolls.

fantom Loc: Colorado

Winogrand doesn't sound like the flaming jerk Gilden is. Gildy is not a commando, he is a silly clown in photog's attire trying to get a reputation in order to peddle his crappy shots. He seems like a wannabe victim who is trying to get someone to cold cock him so he can sue them.

He gives all reputable street photographers a bad name.

fantom Loc: Colorado

This publicity seeking boor disgraces legitimate shooters. Hopefully someone will open a man hole cover in front of him while he is doing his silly schtick and there will be one less useless annoyance in the world. Does he have his own youtube channel yet...

Don't answer, the less I hear about this drip the better.

Remember what the man said about the best pickpocket or spy in the world is the one no one notices, so pls don't give me propaganda about what a marvelous talent he is.

NickGee Loc: Pacific Northwest

Odd about all the hostility. Likely not a very likeable fellow (nor was Avedon, nor Robert Frank), but his body of work speaks for itself. You get the sense that Gilden doesn't really care what you think of him. Ultimately, it's about the work, not the man.

fantom Loc: Colorado

You're right it should be about the art/work not the man. Look at Vivien Mayer, Brassai et al. At his very best gilden is mediocre. He's a perfect example of trendy with no substance, but to each his own. If you like him, swell. I don't.

NickGee Loc: Pacific Northwest

I certainly respect that you do not like Bruce Gilden's work (many don't), but to suggest that his work is mediocre, and that he's "trendy with no substance" is just (put politely) not well informed. You may not like his work, that's fine, but arbiters at the NY Foundation for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Arts, the Guggenheim Foundation, plus curators at dozens of galleries and museums, the publishers of over 20 books, membership in Magnum Photos ..., well, you get the picture. So again, it's fine not to like his work, but "trendy with no substance"? A bit wide of the mark, I'd say.

Wishing you and all a wonderful new year.

fantom Loc: Colorado

Let me clarify, its trendy with virtually no substance. It appeals to a segment of the market that exists for the sake of appeal to that segment.

The organizations you mention are very similar to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, the organization that awards the "Oscars". Everyone knows how fair, unbiased and accurate that group of PR, profit-mongering, self-promoting, liberal mercenaries is.

Is it a surprise that the New York Foundation of the Arts gives KUDOs to a home grown NEW YORK "artist"? An artist, who by the way, seems to embody all of the stereotypical characteristics that are frequently attributed to New Yawkers. The same for New York's Guggenheim.

Don't believe me? Go to the National Endowment for the Arts site and look at the first picture you see. They are celebrating a new concept----men appearing in the Nutcracker Suite ballet, under an, oh so clever, name. I assume some call that art but I see it as prostitution and commercialization of a recognized traditional accomplishment. That recognition is not a surprise coming from a politically biased and controlled govt. organization.

And then there are the lambs to the slaughter followers who bask in their cultural self-importance by endorsing the selections of the sources you mention. This is not to say that these groups never get it right but they do tend to favor the trendy and off beat for a number of reasons.

For one, they cannot keep endorsing the same things over and over and need to "broaden the field" with new ideas and trends. New ideas and concepts can be valuable and interesting, but when their motivation is merely self-promotion, commercialization, shock value or the off-beat, their continued use becomes tiresome, trendy and mediocre. Any artistic value they may have is lost or diminished in the overexposure and aggrandizement.

Speaking of tiresome, I am tired of this no final answer nor agreement discussion and will do something more useful like going to shovel snow and packing the car.

Thanks for the best wishes as I am planning to have a wonderful year and the same to you.

Oh, and, don't forget that the dream of the nineties is alive in Portland, Portland, Portland.

Cyberkinesis70 Loc: Northern Colorado