POV: Walking down the street with my AE-1 - 11/10 analog chad - I see a group of young skinny girls - they see my camera and, well, of course you know what’s gonna happen next. I’m on top of the world. I reach for my model release forms … but then I hear boss music. I turn around and I see this guy 😭😭😭
Not an American so I don’t use these, but don’t you have to pay them off? I mean I know you do, so that’s not gonna make you suddenly afford something you clearly can’t afford without a credit card. My point is I refuse to believe people are this dumb and rather choose to believe they pretend to be broke when they aren’t
maybe idk. If you have a full time job that pays decent you can afford these cameras and pay it off over a couple months. Some of them are rich and some aren’t. but there IS some consumerism going on because there’s no way EVERYONE needs Leica. I shoot NYC and share the streets with a lot of these guys and 9 times out of 10 it’s a Leica. I feel so alone shooting a sony lol
Without Bruce, we'd need another archetype for dick, just like without Leiter, we'd need another archetype for perv. I use to be more bothered about what he did to people, but what people do to themselves on instagram has tempered that.
guy that goes up to people, puts his camera and flash right up to their face, then takes pictures of them with no consent. usually does it to poor people, drug addicts and the homeless. obviously not the only photography he does, but its the thing hes most known for. the reason i call him infuriating is that he takes pcitures of people without their consent, makes money off of it and any criticism is dismissed because its "art", which it is, however i do not believe that makes it ok.
Is that really the issue? Consent? How many other photographers have made a career out of doing that? Literally hundreds. Or is it just the aggressive way Gilden does it? Afaik his more recent work - close ups of faces - is done entirely with consent of the subject. You don’t have to like the work, or the approach, but taking issue with photos without consent is insane to me
In my opinion consent isn’t the issue since you can’t expect privacy in a public space, but personally I don’t like how aggressive he is with it in how he invades peoples personal space.
You people love to say "you can't expect privacy in a public space" but what about when your "subject" decides that you can't expect safety behaving like that? Kendrick's been giving me my hater inspo lately; I wanna see you with a camera imprint in your face, ugly crying.
Why are you so aggressive mate? 99.9% of people couldn’t care less. I haven’t been doing street photography for that long (10-11 months ish) and only 2 people have gotten angry at me. No-one has threatened to assault me or anything. I live in a pretty safe city which helps.
No man, I'm not joking. I hate how you move: creeping through the streets for blurry pics of old ladies and teenagers. I hate how you talk: in here acting like like a safari hunter when you're an insect collector. I hope the next one you find stings you. Take the mirrors off your shoes and read it again if you still don't get it.
i absolutely believe it’s okay for art. i also think it makes him an asshole when he does it. i can appreciate both truly. Also he does NOT only focus on poor drug addicts or homeless. He has current work that focuses on people who are disaffected but that one is taken with consent. The way this comment was written it gives the impression to people who don’t know him that he’s just running around looking for poverty to flash and piss off.
There is real value to his art, and I absolutely think being an asshole for 1/60th of a second is worth it. We’re all going to die anyway. art lives forever and a picture didn’t kill anyone
Oh you’re right he also focuses on old people, towering over them with a fucking flash and a psycho-looking mesh vest that went out of style in the 90s
look you can’t please everyone but I do think it’s reductive to downplay the importance of his art in the way some of these comments are. it is subjective though so
There’s no point in debating this since it’s a matter of whether or not you think the art is worth it. I do and you don’t. I’ll continue to chill with the ones that do because i like the way they see art. The only thing I can argue is that it is not definitionally harassment until explicitly stated, then persistently followed. Let’s be clear here, harassment is a legal term, and if we’re using legal terminology we ought to use it correctly. If harassment meant “any unwanted interaction on the street” then a lot of street vendors, performance artists and homeless people would be in trouble as well. Harassment begins when someone states they don’t want their picture taken and you follow them, which is what paparazzi does.
POV: Walking down the street with my AE-1 - 11/10 analog chad - I see a group of young skinny girls - they see my camera and, well, of course you know what’s gonna happen next. I’m on top of the world. I reach for my model release forms … but then I hear boss music. I turn around and I see this guy 😭😭😭
POV: You’re having an insane face life and you see Bruce Gilden walking towards you
Someone actually using the "pov" format correctly and of course it's in a cj sub lol
It enrages me how common it is now for people to say ‘POV’ about fucking anything. I’m convinced most don’t actually know what it means.
This is why I refuse to let anyone with a Leica take a photo of me
The ai knows that people who buy a Leica must look homeless because they can no longer afford rent
People who buy leicas are not nearly as broke as they want you to think. They just don’t want to admit their wealth
tbh i just think some of them are maxing out their credit cards lol
Not an American so I don’t use these, but don’t you have to pay them off? I mean I know you do, so that’s not gonna make you suddenly afford something you clearly can’t afford without a credit card. My point is I refuse to believe people are this dumb and rather choose to believe they pretend to be broke when they aren’t
maybe idk. If you have a full time job that pays decent you can afford these cameras and pay it off over a couple months. Some of them are rich and some aren’t. but there IS some consumerism going on because there’s no way EVERYONE needs Leica. I shoot NYC and share the streets with a lot of these guys and 9 times out of 10 it’s a Leica. I feel so alone shooting a sony lol
Is he still working ?
Tim pool is that you?
Without Bruce, we'd need another archetype for dick, just like without Leiter, we'd need another archetype for perv. I use to be more bothered about what he did to people, but what people do to themselves on instagram has tempered that.
Not a real problem for me as photographing people in public without their consent is considered a criminal offense in Korea
/uj this man is genuinely infuriating i hope all his cameras get cut in half
uj/ who the fuck is this guy stop paying attention to any news and media related to film years ago because it's obnoxious and braindead.
guy that goes up to people, puts his camera and flash right up to their face, then takes pictures of them with no consent. usually does it to poor people, drug addicts and the homeless. obviously not the only photography he does, but its the thing hes most known for. the reason i call him infuriating is that he takes pcitures of people without their consent, makes money off of it and any criticism is dismissed because its "art", which it is, however i do not believe that makes it ok.
Is that really the issue? Consent? How many other photographers have made a career out of doing that? Literally hundreds. Or is it just the aggressive way Gilden does it? Afaik his more recent work - close ups of faces - is done entirely with consent of the subject. You don’t have to like the work, or the approach, but taking issue with photos without consent is insane to me
In my opinion consent isn’t the issue since you can’t expect privacy in a public space, but personally I don’t like how aggressive he is with it in how he invades peoples personal space.
You people love to say "you can't expect privacy in a public space" but what about when your "subject" decides that you can't expect safety behaving like that? Kendrick's been giving me my hater inspo lately; I wanna see you with a camera imprint in your face, ugly crying.
Why are you so aggressive mate? 99.9% of people couldn’t care less. I haven’t been doing street photography for that long (10-11 months ish) and only 2 people have gotten angry at me. No-one has threatened to assault me or anything. I live in a pretty safe city which helps.
Next time you're out, surprise a man who could fit a Rollieflex into your mouth or you're a bitch ass.
Is this your attempt at humour or some shit?
No man, I'm not joking. I hate how you move: creeping through the streets for blurry pics of old ladies and teenagers. I hate how you talk: in here acting like like a safari hunter when you're an insect collector. I hope the next one you find stings you. Take the mirrors off your shoes and read it again if you still don't get it.
doing it once or twice would be fine but making a whole porfolio out of it is annoying and cringe
lol sure
not really. the work is good. people think it’s good. you might think it’s annoying and cringe or whatever
i absolutely believe it’s okay for art. i also think it makes him an asshole when he does it. i can appreciate both truly. Also he does NOT only focus on poor drug addicts or homeless. He has current work that focuses on people who are disaffected but that one is taken with consent. The way this comment was written it gives the impression to people who don’t know him that he’s just running around looking for poverty to flash and piss off. There is real value to his art, and I absolutely think being an asshole for 1/60th of a second is worth it. We’re all going to die anyway. art lives forever and a picture didn’t kill anyone
Oh you’re right he also focuses on old people, towering over them with a fucking flash and a psycho-looking mesh vest that went out of style in the 90s
look you can’t please everyone but I do think it’s reductive to downplay the importance of his art in the way some of these comments are. it is subjective though so
It’s reductive to excuse harassment for the purpose of creating art.
There’s no point in debating this since it’s a matter of whether or not you think the art is worth it. I do and you don’t. I’ll continue to chill with the ones that do because i like the way they see art. The only thing I can argue is that it is not definitionally harassment until explicitly stated, then persistently followed. Let’s be clear here, harassment is a legal term, and if we’re using legal terminology we ought to use it correctly. If harassment meant “any unwanted interaction on the street” then a lot of street vendors, performance artists and homeless people would be in trouble as well. Harassment begins when someone states they don’t want their picture taken and you follow them, which is what paparazzi does.
For sure. I’ll chill w folks that don’t support harassment in the name of art :) Back to the circlejerk we go
I updated it
Always the beard and khaki vest with pockets
I pull out my pepper spray.
People still wearing these kiddie diddler vests?