More Vivian Maier

[Alan Edward Klein]

It's not that she necessarily didn't want to show anyone, she may not have had anyone to show them to. I feel the same about my own photographs, I rarely show them to anyone, have only printed a fraction of what I have, and while I dream of having my own exhibition, the thought of it terrifies me as well. That being said, if somehow after I died my photos ended up in the hands of someone else who thought they were great and worth printing, exhibiting, and selling, that wouldn't bother me at all. To be fair though, I'll probably state in my will (once I have one) what I would like done with my photos beyond them being tossed into the trash, which is the most likely thing to happen, since, like Vivian, I am unmarried and childfree. The rest of my family has no interest in photography, so I doubt anything will happen with them beyond my lifetime.

Rachelle: The fact is most pictures we all make will wind up being discarded. What I've learned is that the best way to give them value is to enlarge a few of your best and frame them for hanging or sitting on a coffee table. Then give them as gifts to friends and family you love and care about and who love and care about you. They will be so appreciated. The process will warm your heart. They might even be put on their walls hanging for years to come and pass on to others. Take portraits of them and their family and do the same.

I produced a video slide show of my cousin's album where she had her mother and father's pictures from the 1940s when they had just gotten married. I scanned and edited the photos making them brighter in Lightroom and producing a video slide show using Premiere Elements. I added some Big Band music from Glenn Miller and Benny Goodman and burned DVDs for her and her sister.

These are the treasured photos most of us can leave that really have value. Trying to be a Vivien Maier or Ansel Adams is a fools' errand. Gift your photos now and enjoy the happiness they give others today. Remember, with all of the hullabaloo, Vivien never got to see her fame. Alan.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

It stinks, but it’s how it goes. Thinking about it, you see things like this fairly often when it comes to the estates/trusts of artists. People frequently die without their “affairs in order” regarding the specifics of how any assets should be handled. Either that, or in cases where the person is well known, famous, successful etc. the affairs may be in order but not really represent the wishes of the person due to all the crafty management involved. In any case it’s up to the people in charge to decide what to release, hide, publish, license etc., obviously for maximum profit, barring rare cases. And then, as always, marketing is at play. The more mystique you can create, the more interested people are, generally speaking (whether the art is great or not). Reality is usually lost or at the very least embellished/spun/interpreted etc.

Elvis made more money dead than he did alive.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

It's a fool that looks for logic, consistency, fairness or morality in copyright law. People corral whatever they can get away with and laws vary arbitrarily around the world. In the case of a single-artist activity like painting and photography, everything should instantly revert to public domain the moment that person dies. Physical artefacts that outlive them should be treated as any other possession. In the case of films and musical recordings, it's more complex as there are multiple claims of originality, but that's another discussion.

What if someone felt your house should revert to the public domain when you die? Why is private property in the form of copyright or patent any different?

 

[BrianShaw]

Elvis made more money dead than he did alive.

Elvis’ estate, not someone else who just found his music.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

What do you mean by "behavioral issues"? because she doesnt conform to your ideals of what a woman should be, she's not somebodies pet. Theres no proof that she had any mental illness, this is purely speculative. She managed to live independently right into her 80's, not bad for a supposed crazy person.
We do not know the circumstances of her losing her storage lockers, she may of been relying on someone else paying who decided not to, she may of not got the email about a price rise, there's multitudes of circumstances that could of resulted in her losing the locker. People lose them all the time, just got to see those reality tv programs buying storage lockers with treasures in them.
She was most likely still working on what ever she was working on, lots of people still work into there 80's, good old queen Lizzy was born around the same time and still going.
You say hoarder, I show the photo to my wife and she says looks like someone with a storage problem. Most businesses offices 30 years ago looked worse than your photo, my accountants office still does. The woman was meticulous in her photography, in her dress and no doubt her keeping of records.
Does it matter? probably to more people than you think, if it didnt we wouldn't be getting a book written by a market speculator to promote the current marketing strategy of her works.

I agree. Parents don't hire crazy people as nannies to care for their children.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Elvis’ estate, not someone else who just found his music.

Elvis is still with us. At least, that's what many of his fans say.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Parents don't hire crazy people as nannies to care for their children.

I think we're way past calling someone with an obsessive-compulsive disorder "crazy people", no? And we also can agree that having an OCD in no way impedes one's ability to take care of children.

That Vivian Maier may have had at least a benign form of obsessive-compulsive disorder is not a stretch considering the contents of her storage units. For us, it becomes interesting when we ask whether or not it had an influence on why she photographed and what she photographed.

 

[BrianShaw]

Right, but the official estate or trust or whatever might do no better than a random person who finds things from an ethics perspective.

The estate/trust probably doesn't give a fig about ethics, and is focused on income generation as their end-goal. Many random people finding potentially valuable stuff probably isn't primarily interested in ethics either.

 

[Don_ih]

It's interesting how closely your approach matches Maloof's: bought some negatives, scanned and printed a few, didn't know the wishes of the likely deceased photographer, share pics online. If I'm remembering the story correctly that's what Maloof did until people more knowledgeable than Maloof informed him (thankfully) about the importance of the work.

Well, I'm pretty sure someone else put photos on Flickr and Maloof was selling prints on eBay. I have no interest in making prints for sale of someone else's photos.

That Vivian Maier may have had at least a benign form of obsessive-compulsive disorder is not a stretch considering the contents of her storage units.

Is there any reason to venture armchair diagnoses of her psychological disorders? Does anyone gain anything from doing that? If she was not diagnosed while alive, she's not available to be diagnosed now. People can have many different reasons for doing the same things.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Is there any reason to venture armchair diagnoses of her psychological disorders?

I said "may have had", not saying she did. The reason this verb tense exists is precisely so that we can venture on a bunch of things that we're not certain of but are plausible in the context. And yes we do gain from doing that. Specifically, when posited as a question, not a fact, we gain in our understanding of human nature. I find Vivian Maier's photographs very interesting. But I also find the relationship - or possible relationship - between the person and the photographs, or and photography (i.e., the reasons she photographs and why) also very interesting. I wouldn't say that about all photographers whose photographs I admire.

 

[warden]

I have no interest in making prints for sale of someone else's photos.

Me neither. Sounds like work. Stumbling upon a trove of culturally significant art might change the stumbler's life in a way they would rather it not.

 

[MattKing]

The estate/trust probably doesn't give a fig about ethics, and is focused on income generation as their end-goal. Many random people finding potentially valuable stuff probably isn't primarily interested in ethics either.

I helped many people set up estate trusts over the years (that is what Wills do) and I helped many people administer trusts that were set up for others.
The importance of the settlor's (that is one of the technical terms) wishes and intentions was considered in varying degrees by everyone.
Even when the trustee (executor) is a trust company.
Income generation is often part of that intention, but it isn't always the major part.
I am reasonably confident in my guess that if Vivian Maier had named as her executor(s) one or more of the grown up children who had once been in her charge and who had been trying to help her later in life, they would have tried to do something protective with at least part of her photography.
When it comes to nannies with unusual behavior, I wonder if some of the people posting here saw Mary Poppins in their youth, and took entirely the wrong lesson from it.....

 

[Alex Benjamin]

When it comes to nannies with unusual behavior, I wonder if some of the people posting here saw Mary Poppins in their youth, and took entirely the wrong lesson from it.....

Hey, I still believe a spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down, don't knock it!

 

[BrianShaw]

I am reasonably confident in my guess that if Vivian Maier had named as her executor(s) one or more of the grown up children who had once been in her charge and who had been trying to help her later in life, they would have tried to do something protective with at least part of her photography.

LOL… her executors would probable have done what yours and mine will probably do… trash it.

Elvis, who we were talking about in the post to which you responded was already famous, recognized for his works, and a known revenue source. Plus he had heirs identified who were entitled to continue that venture.

I appreciate your knowledge and experience but I think you’re talking a completely different scenario than we were. Speculation about unknown and unidentified heirs is interesting but just speculation. Not sure it’s really productive to the conversation, though.

 

[MattKing]

LOL… her executors would probable have done what yours and mine will probably do… trash it.

Elvis, who we were talking about in the post to which you responded was already famous, recognized for his works, and a known revenue source. Plus he had heirs identified who were entitled to continue that venture.

I appreciate your knowledge and experience but I think you’re talking a completely different scenario than we were.

Perhaps.
But I prefer to concentrate on the bits of relatively heartening information out there - the care that some of those former charges did at least attempt to extend toward her.
As an example, the ones that paid out of their own pockets at least some of her storage bills as she neared the end of her life.
I wonder if any of them became avid and/or professional photographers?

 

[BrianShaw]

Clearly, by action they loved and cared about her by paying storage fees. And by action they didn’t seem to care about her photography at the time… did they?

I wonder if her heirs ever ate pork. It’s a curiosity but irrelevant.

 

[Don_ih]

I said "may have had"

That is what postulating is. Diagnosis is not definite - it suggests a possible condition, as supported by evidence. When you say she "may have been" whatever way, you then influence how people approach and interpret her work - just as "these photos were taken by a nanny - isn't that amazing?" does. And I'm saying that it is equally possible to see these attributes (characteristics and conditions) as an excuse to justify why X should show her work to the world when she seemingly did not want to.

"Oh, she didn't want to because she was an ignorant nanny."
"Oh, she didn't want to because she was mentally ill."

I'm not denying her story is interesting. But it is a story. Practically no one is a story.
I'm not denying the value of her photos.
But I don't think there's much to be gained by speculating on her psychological state. It's fictionalization.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

That is what postulating is. Diagnosis is not definite - it suggests a possible condition, as supported by evidence. When you say she "may have been" whatever way, you then influence how people approach and interpret her work - just as "these photos were taken by a nanny - isn't that amazing?" does. And I'm saying that it is equally possible to see these attributes (characteristics and conditions) as an excuse to justify why X should show her work to the world when she seemingly did not want to.

"Oh, she didn't want to because she was an ignorant nanny."
"Oh, she didn't want to because she was mentally ill."

I'm not denying her story is interesting. But it is a story. Practically no one is a story.
I'm not denying the value of her photos.
But I don't think there's much to be gained by speculating on her psychological state. It's fictionalization.

But Van Gogh is so much more interesting once you learn he cut his ear off.

 

[snusmumriken]

Such a lot of 'Dismal Johnnies' on this thread. I'm looking forward to reading the new biography of Maier (pre-ordered, but release date postponed to February 2022, at least here in the UK), and would be glad if I also owned many volumes of her photos. They don't seem repetitive to me. Anyway, it's not as if she was unadventurous: apart from the 6x6 Rolleiflexes and b/w film, she worked in 35mm, colour, cine, audio ...

For me, it is also fascinating to explore why she didn't achieve any recognition for her photos during her lifetime, and why she kept on taking them without even developing the films. Approval and motivation are issues that must bother each and every one of us, unless doing commercial photography.

 

[Arthurwg]

Rachelle: The fact is most pictures we all make will wind up being discarded.


Are you suggesting I won't be rich and famous after I'm dead?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Are you suggesting I won't be rich and famous after I'm dead?

After you die, your wife's next husband will be hoping so.

 

[Sirius Glass]

After you die, your wife's next husband will be hoping so.

 

[removed account4]

But Van Gogh is so much more interesting once you learn he cut his ear off.

not really
I don't really care that he cut off his ear
I am more interested in how and what he saw and how he chose to paint it.
with regards to VM I don't care that she filled a storage bin with her stuff,
or that some suggest she was a hoarder but that she photographed the world in a way
that was different than the next person,
EDITED to avoid ...

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

not really
I don't really care that he cut off his ear I am more interested in how and what he saw and how he chose to paint it. with regards to VM
do people care that she filled a storage bin with her stuff, that some suggest she was a hoarder or that she photographed the world in a way
that was different than the next person, oh, and that she was one of the millions of women with a camera that never really got any representation or
notice because she was a woman and not some rich white guy.

EDITED

It seems the fact she was a nanny and maybe nuts is generating more posts than her photos. Van Gogh's missing ear is more interesting to most people than his paintings.

EDITED

 

[Pioneer]

I just finished the biography written by Pamela Bannos and it was very good. Of course it ends sometime around 2015 and more has happened since then but I don't think I'll bother with another biography at this point. Interesting as the story may be the photographs are far more interesting.