More Vivian Maier

[awty]

Ms. Marks sounds like someone who is fascinated by Vivian Maier, and would have the contacts and resources to be able to put together an informative and useful book.
Whether she has actually done so, is to be determined.
After John Maloof's attempts to skirt responsibility in this matter, I welcome every contribution.

Realistically I dont think we will ever find out the full story, although there is still probably enough information to get close, the threat of legal action by anyone who got there noses out of joint would be enough to keep any publicists away.
The BBC docco was an eye opener for me, but thats none available now. I remember when they were interviewing the actual people who bought her initial storage lockers, their the ones who actually new the photos and negatives had value and new who to sell them to. The interviewer asked how much they made from the sales, they said something like $1600 and had the look like arent we the biggest losers.
The irony is that someone who seemed to be extremely anti capitalism ended up losing her lifes work to those she despised.......its all very sad.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

If Mr. Maloof wanted to make the world richer, he would have donated the negatives to a national archive of sorts, whichever would have accepted them, instead of mouthing around how great HE is by making all the money he can for sake of "making the world richer". Nobody can confirm at least a good chunk of whatever has been said about Maier, yet all of it said to sell and profit from, and for no other reason.

But you are correct, she is dead ... and unable to speak up.

As for Ms. Marks, I see no connection in her bio to credibility I would consider worthy of awe without fear.

Why would the negatives have made the world richer sitting in some obscure museum gathering dust? The profit motive got these great photographs out to the public in many forms. On the web, in books to purchase for your home and museums around the world. From what I've seen of the results, the owners of the photos did a magnificent job editing and producing beautiful prints that best depict the best of her life's work. Had she been alive, I think she would have been very happy with the way they did it.

That never would have happened if the negatives wound up in some museum who'd put them on display maybe once and then file them away forever. They may not even have known what they had and showed them to no one.

 

[Arthurwg]

Perhaps I was not clear enough. She is an example, perfect for what I was trying to say, of a photographer who takes a picture, then many more and in the end most look like the first one. I have one book of her images (and fully enjoy it), yet I will certainly not buy another for this very reason. Same applies to many many well known photographers BTW. At the same time I have never said a bad word about her images, just that there is a lot of documentary value in them which partly drives sales of books with her images and/or life story.

I think infatuation with Maier has a lot to do with purposely made enigmatic image of her as a person for no other reason, but to cash in on the finding of her negatives. For some that might be called shrewd, for me ... exploitation of a one who is no longer alive, who might otherwise want to speak up on her own story. Truth is we will never know what Maier was about or how she would have liked to be (or not) portrayed in the public.

It makes absolutely no difference how she would have liked to be portrayed in the public. Her pictures tell us all we need to know, and surely they are good enough for that. If you are interested in her bio that's OK, but irrelevant. And I wonder how you would compare her pictures to Gary Winogrand, another somewhat repetitious street photographer who often bores me. BTW, I have seven books of photos by Eugene Atget. Never bored with them.

At the same time, I detect a hint of jealousy in some of this criticism.

 

[George Mann]

At the same time, I detect a hint of jealousy in some of this criticism.

Given that Viv's work is virtually unmatched, it could be the case.

But everyone is entitled to their opinion.

 

[removed account4]

It makes absolutely no difference how she would have liked to be portrayed in the public. Her pictures tell us all we need to know, and surely they are good enough for that. If you are interested in her bio that's OK, but irrelevant. And I wonder how you would compare her pictures to Gary Winogrand, another somewhat repetitious street photographer who often bores me. BTW, I have seven books of photos by Eugene Atget. Never bored with them.

At the same time, I detect a hint of jealousy in some of this criticism.

arthurwg
one thing that people forget is that once a photograph is seen by the public it creates a life of its own and what any of us thing is irrelevant LOL
too bad haters don't realize their 15 mins of fame will be being remembered as being cranky!

 

[greg zinselmeier]

what is the difference between a Hater and those who prefer something else? ID think my 15 minutes of fame will be remmebered as " not being interested in her work" , For me its plain old fashion b"boring" work!!! I do not beleived I will be remembered for Calling Vivian Maher Or however you spell her name," being boring". O.k. There are alot of Ideas outside of photography, that many people claim as irrelevent! many of those ideas are, and not. at the same time. but either way, those for or against, will not be given their 15 minutes based or their support or repulsion of any given idea. your 15 minutes will be a testimate to "right place, right time" cheers.

 

[Pieter12]

what is the difference between a Hater and those who prefer something else? ID think my 15 minutes of fame will be remmebered as " not being interested in her work" , For me its plain old fashion b"boring" work!!! I do not beleived I will be remembered for Calling Vivian Maher Or however you spell her name," being boring". O.k. There are alot of Ideas outside of photography, that many people claim as irrelevent! many of those ideas are, and not. at the same time. but either way, those for or against, will not be given their 15 minutes based or their support or repulsion of any given idea. your 15 minutes will be a testimate to "right place, right time" cheers.

Your 15 minutes has already expired.

 

[pbromaghin]

Why would the negatives have made the world richer sitting in some obscure museum gathering dust? The profit motive got these great photographs out to the public in many forms. On the web, in books to purchase for your home and museums around the world. From what I've seen of the results, the owners of the photos did a magnificent job editing and producing beautiful prints that best depict the best of her life's work. Had she been alive, I think she would have been very happy with the way they did it.

That never would have happened if the negatives wound up in some museum who'd put them on display maybe once and then file them away forever. They may not even have known what they had and showed them to no one.

BINGO!

 

[Don_ih]

BINGO!

Yup. Profitability is what made those pictures available for everyone to see. Museums and libraries usually don't have the money to go though thousands of negatives, develop undeveloped film, or dig up any information unless the contributor is someone already "important".

 

[Sirius Glass]

If Mr. Maloof wanted to make the world richer, he would have donated the negatives to a national archive of sorts, whichever would have accepted them, instead of mouthing around how great HE is by making all the money he can for sake of "making the world richer". Nobody can confirm at least a good chunk of whatever has been said about Maier, yet all of it said to sell and profit from, and for no other reason.

But you are correct, she is dead ... and unable to speak up.

As for Ms. Marks, I see no connection in her bio to credibility I would consider worthy of awe without fear.

No one tells you how to run your life; you should learn from that.

 

[George Mann]

No one tells you how to run your life

I have news for you.

 

[Pioneer]

I have news for you.

It happens all the time...

 

[Arthurwg]

Making a profit from the work of others? That's called capitalism.

 

[pbromaghin]

Yup. Profitability is what made those pictures available for everyone to see. Museums and libraries usually don't have the money to go though thousands of negatives, develop undeveloped film, or dig up any information unless the contributor is someone already "important".

Some people just can't stand the idea that somebody (other than themselves) might make money on something. I doubt those people work for free, though.

 

[Pieter12]

Ms Maier did not have the connections or will to make money from her street photography. If not for others it would all be in a landfill somewhere. The fact that someone made money for her work is just an aside. At least they did not outright appropriate her work as Richard Prince does all the time. Or sell it as NFTs.

 

[MattKing]

I don't think anyone would have begrudged Mr. Maloof or anyone else who were able to make a profit if:
1) they actually had set out to try to do right by Ms. Maier while she was still alive; and
2) they hadn't tried to do an end run around the law about who owns the copyright over Ms. Maier's photography.

 

[Don_ih]

1) they actually had set out to try to do right by Ms. Maier while she was still alive; and
2) they hadn't tried to do an end run around the law about who owns the copyright over Ms. Maier's photography.

It's very hard to find someone who is not in the phone book, has no online presence, has no friends and no close relatives. In the BBC Imagine documentary, one of the buyers said both he and Maloof tried finding her but nothing showed up anywhere they looked until they saw an obituary. Maybe they could have looked harder but did they know how popular the work would be before she died? Did they have any real amount of money to invest in finding her?

As for copyright - I doubt many people care. Why should her relatives gain from the photography when it was the work of others that made it valuable? In this instance, what the photographer provided was raw material. It was selected, printed, and promoted by others. Her relatives had nothing at all to do with it. Perhaps legally, they deserve a significant percentage. Morally, however, they deserve none.

 

[removed account4]

what is the difference between a Hater and those who prefer something else? ID think my 15 minutes of fame will be remmebered as " not being interested in her work" , For me its plain old fashion b"boring" work!!! I do not beleived I will be remembered for Calling Vivian Maher Or however you spell her name," being boring". O.k. There are alot of Ideas outside of photography, that many people claim as irrelevent! many of those ideas are, and not. at the same time. but either way, those for or against, will not be given their 15 minutes based or their support or repulsion of any given idea. your 15 minutes will be a testimate to "right place, right time" cheers.

greg
I wasn't talking about people who think VM's work its boring.

if you read this thread ( or the others in the "photographers" area ) you might see what I was referring to.
Its usually a litany of complains not limited to calling someone a no talent hack writer or fauxtographer or someone who is part of the system — higher arts education, or the galleriati / glitterati — or a shameless promoter et c.
lots of haters out there being loud and proud. it gets kind of tiring.

her family situation seems to be similar to mike disfarmer's //. they only cared about him or his work after he became more than a nobody.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Why should her relatives gain from the photography when it was the work of others that made it valuable? In this instance, what the photographer provided was raw material. It was selected, printed, and promoted by others. Her relatives had nothing at all to do with it. Perhaps legally, they deserve a significant percentage. Morally, however, they deserve none.

+1

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Vivian-Maier-Developed/Ann-Marks/9781982166748

Meanwhile, not sure if anybody went to S&S's page and read the excerpts? It's not great. Mostly a chronological account of what happened/when, following the contact sheets.

This can matter in the greater scheme of things as source materials, but in terms of developing an argument, fostering a deeper understanding, it's not there.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

If previously unknown relatives, now known, are discovered, wouldn't the courts determine the break out of any profits that they are entitled to? That wouldn't happen if Maloff hadn't brought the photos to the public. We wouldn't even be discussing this.

 

[MattKing]

As for copyright - I doubt many people care. Why should her relatives gain from the photography when it was the work of others that made it valuable? In this instance, what the photographer provided was raw material. It was selected, printed, and promoted by others. Her relatives had nothing at all to do with it. Perhaps legally, they deserve a significant percentage. Morally, however, they deserve none.

Either copyright has value, or it doesn't. It amazes me when I see photographers discounting the value of copyright.
There are mechanisms in place to deal with intestacies. They are often awkward and slow, but they do reflect a societal value that says something like: if someone dies without close relatives and without a Will, it should not be either the government or those who seek to profit from the deceased who get their hands on those things of value that belonged to the deceased at the time of her death.
And if the issues had been dealt with appropriately, which admittedly would not have been easy, there would have been ample opportunity for Mr. Maloof and the others to have profited well for their efforts. They certainly owned the negatives and prints and movies themselves, and those items were necessary in order to harvest the value they did.
I truly wouldn't care if Maloof and the others received almost all of those profits - that is often the case with publishable and distributable art.
And by the way, it isn't clear to me that it would have been all that difficult to find Ms. Maier while she was alive. There certainly were a number of her former charges who were still engaged with her prior to her death.

 

[Roseha]

I'm not familiar with the new book, but I'd like to mention that I did see the BBC film which I think is way superior to Mr. Maloof's version, and it's available on Amazon Prime and Google Play under the title "The Vivian Maier Mystery". Apparently the name change has led to some people not finding it. I do like her work very much.

 

[marcmarc]

The issue I have with the whole Vivian Maier story is how Maloof rushed her work into the marketplace to sell. He knew nothing about photography, he was actually looking for vintage pictures of Chicago when he discovered Maier's work which had gone to auction after her storage lockers were cleaned out and he posted some pictures on flickr and discovered he might have something. I remember when she was the topic of all conversation in street photography groups and here in Los Angeles a gallery held a huge exhibit of the work that had been developed and printed by that time. I went to see the exhibit and walked away feeling a little sad about the whole thing because it was clear Maloof was out to make a quick profit while the story surrounding Maier was hot. I mean she had some great images at the exhibit but there were also a lot of not-so-great images in my opinion, just like with any other photographer. I never bought his assertion that his priority was to honor Maiers work and bring it to the attention of the world. If that were the case I think he should have waited until all her film was processed and the results critiqued by experts and then he would have a body of her best work. However, he wanted to make money which I don't actually fault, it's just his dishonesty about it. I mean if I remember correctly he even traveled to Germany or somewhere after he tracked down her nearest surviving relative and got them to sign over whatever copyrights they may have held. That pretty much tells you where Maloof's priorities were.

 

[Don_ih]

It amazes me when I see photographers discounting the value of copyright.

This isn't really discounting the value of copyright, which has a legal meaning and will be upheld or not. My comment was mostly against condemnation of Maloof and others who have profited from her work. They have promoted her work to the point where it is profitable. They invented her as a photographer.
Perhaps by strict copyright inheritance, all publishing rights should go to a family member. But that does not diminish the contribution Maloof and the others made to making her very well-known.