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.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.
Elvis made more money dead than he did alive.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.
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?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.
Elvis’ estate, not someone else who just found his music.Elvis made more money dead than he did alive.
I agree. Parents don't hire crazy people as nannies to care for their children.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.
Elvis is still with us. At least, that's what many of his fans say.Elvis’ estate, not someone else who just found his music.
Parents don't hire crazy people as nannies to care for their children.
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.Right, but the official estate or trust or whatever might do no better than a random person who finds things from an ethics perspective.
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.
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?
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.I have no interest in making prints for sale of someone else's photos.
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 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.
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.....
LOL… her executors would probable have done what yours and mine will probably do… trash it.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.
Perhaps.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.
I said "may have had"
But Van Gogh is so much more interesting once you learn he cut his ear off.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.
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?
After you die, your wife's next husband will be hoping so.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.
But Van Gogh is so much more interesting once you learn he cut his ear off.
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.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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?