Shoot the inbreds..
Written by David White“You have a lot of people who look like they are inbred. And they don’t mind being photographed.”
So says Bruce Gilden in today’s Guardian magazine. Now, I like Bruce’s work. But I have just lost a lot of respect for a man who says:
“Russians are smart and very dangerous. I could do great work in Russia. You have a lot of people who look like they are inbred. And they don’t mind being photographed.”
The online version of the story does not have the opening image that the magazine has today…a full dps of a screaming Russian man ( inbred or not, I don’t know).
Gilden admits to setting that image up, because it “reflects a wider truth about the abject reality of the Russian countryside”
Bollocks.
He knew it would make a good opener, and the magazine went for it. Lazy.
And you can make your own mind up as to whether it’s cool to ply your alcoholic subjects with vodka. Personally, I wouldn’t. But that’s just me.
Discussion (11 Comments)
Can’t wait to read what he says about Derby, which he just shot for the FORMAT festival.
Isn’t Gilden a bit tongue in cheek when he gives an interview?
Do you think you can get a response from Magnum? That would give them a chance to provide context if that is at all possible.
Sounds like the story was shot before the research was done and Gilden got exactly what he was looking for.
That is the problem, the trust in self authored genius has been utterly eroded. Russians are individual people too.
Go to Russia and you will see massive wealth gaps, a relatively small middle class, conservative social values, a lack of meritocracy, a very difficult transition from communism to capitalism etc etc. The effect of this has been really hard on most of the russian people – especially those left behind in rural locations. Why not show that in your images if you talk about it?
At least shoot what you want but stop the lazy intellectual justifications for it as it would have been much better if you just said, “these people have it tough” and nothing else. Just call it “Portrait of Russian Gangsters” or something.
Well done Bruce – All those great shooters/editors/curators working hard to release the good in this beautiful medium trying to get get a break have just had it made harder for them because of this lazy stereotyping from those already inside the club. You are a sociologist by education so you must know better.
As a member of the audience I think it is a shame as your brilliant contribution to photographic history does not deserve to be tainted in this way.
Is it time photojournalists stayed behind the lens?
Slow down, guys. You can never take anything Gliden says at face value. He’s a professional provocateur — photographically and otherwise. As the pop culture cliche of a few years back would put it, he may not be an asshole, but he loves to play one on TV.
Look at the article in the Guardian. Look at how his words are used. Look at the damage being done – not by what I say but by the comments on the online piece itself.
Is it the audiences fault for not understanding the genius of Bruce as a “professional provocateur”?
Why play an “asshole” in front of the media if he is not one? Because he is Bruce Gilden? What is the point of provoking in this way? Is he getting high fives in Magnum offices for being “just being Bruce” again? “Oh its Bruce and that tongue in cheek racism again!” Or are the friends of Bruce going to come out and say “I know Bruce personally and I can assure you that he is NOT racist” despite calling an entire nation a “bunch of inbreds”.
Having experienced some pretty basic forms of racism from an industry constantly telling the world that they are giving a voice to the less developed world – and many of you shooters do some magic stuff – I don’t see the benefit of another middle aged white male shooter in the establishment making statements like this in any situation let alone publicly.
Destroys some of the good work being done to use photography as a medium of engagement instead of judgement.
Gilden work is strong enough and unique enough that you can forget what he says and look at the work. It tells you all you need to know about his point of view of people and society, the words are just a distraction. Or a selling point.
Gilden’s subsequent career as a photojournalist is a one-sided conversation with his flawed dad. “I idolised my father. He screwed me around. The reason I stick a flash in people’s faces is to get back at him in some way.”
his whole career is based on this? really??
“Gilden work is strong enough and unique enough that you can forget what he says and look at the work.”
Is being “strong” and “unique” enough to justify stereotyping in public a whole nation as “dangerous” and “inbred”?
Is this a good way to “sell”?
my point was and is that the discussion is side tracked by talking about his words and whether or not he is a shameless self promoter, or does it to get back at his dad, or to raise the hackles of readers – he is one of a relatively small number of photographers whose work is strong enough that if you want to know who and what he is about just look at the work.
Does strong “justify” the end product here? Personally I would say no but that doesn’t change the fact that the images are a far clearer view of who he is than his words, not to mention that because the images powerful (or we wouldn’t be exchanging thoughts here) there is something to be learned about image making. Even if only that getting images often means confrontation.
@ robertgumpert
Yes – I agree. The images certainly do give us “a far clearer view of who he is” now.
On the issue of his images being strong. That is very subjective. What if one does not like his images? I certainly do not. I find the compositions cluttered and clumsy compared to his other works and I am still utterly enthralled by the directness of his Yakuza work.
This series of work is photographically, journalistically and ethically problematic at best and lazy stereotyping on what is left of the magical Magnum brand.
Makes me think, how do you sack someone in Magnum if they lower their standards and put the brand qualities of Magnum and what it represents to photography at risk? (I am NOT calling for Gilden to be sacked!).
I ask myself this: In what other industry are you allowed to get away with being able to talk about other nationals like the way he did against Russians and not be censored for it?
I am not sure one can distance the choice of when to click – the images themselves – from the personality as I find the images express his idea of Russia as a nation of inbreds perfectly.
The cult of individual authored genius does not excuse their behaviour. What next, a brilliant train driver who does not like Chinese or Indians on their train is OK if they can drive a train safely?
Race is certainly a powerful emotive issue and with power comes great responsibility. I am offended and my russian friend looking at these images was most certainly offended. Maybe it is because neither me nor my russian fellow audience member are photographers, nor a white male from another generation from the developed world, judging the developing world as inferior. I don’t know as I think the deficiency is so obvious to most out there that I do not need to find excuses for being offended for this view of the world.
Thank you for debating – the process of debate is as important as ever in this transitional period of the medium!
New Cliche #24 http://manchesterphotography.blogspot.com/2010/11/new-cliches-of-photography-24.html