More Vivian Maier

[MattKing]

Thankyou

 

[Pieter12]

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

1. You are implying that because she was just a nannie, she must be ignorant--quite judgmental.
2. She most probably had emotional issues, but she was functional.
Lastly, why did she take photos that she did not share, display or collect in albums? There was an obvious urge for her to take photos, but why? She is quoted somewhere as saying that she knew some were quite good, so she knew they were at least of some artistic if not monetary value. Toward the end of her photographic career, she did not even have the film processed. Could be because she couldn't afford to (but she could buy film!), making one wonder what the motivation was or if it had just become an obsessive habit. No one can or should diagnose her without knowing her and in her absence, but she left plenty of clues as to possible conditions.

 

[removed account4]

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.

its really too bad because the cutting off his ear is the least interesting part of the Van Gogh story. to me at least it is more interesting how he saw the world and chose to express himself in a way that was authentic to him. it is obvious that most people would gravitate to the fact that she was a nanny or maybe had some issues. its easier to talk about that "stuff" than talk about the photos. probably a lot of men are upset that a woman is getting some glory because you know, she was just a crazy nanny ... &c.

 

[Pieter12]

probably a lot of men are upset that a woman is getting some glory because you know, she was just a crazy nanny ... &c.

There are and were plenty of "crazy" or at least disturbed male and female artists in history. No one should let that influence the appreciation of their art. As a matter off fact, good art is probably made by more "off-balance" or disturbed individuals than what might be considered normal by society in general.

 

[BrianShaw]

Sigh… I think this thread is losing focus.

 

[Pieter12]

Sigh… I think this thread is losing focus.

Since when does any discussion on this forum hold focus after 11 pages and almost 3 weeks? I'm surprised the subject and mention of Ms Maier still comes up.

 

[BrianShaw]

Since when does any discussion on this forum hold focus after 11 pages and almost 3 weeks? I'm surprised the subject and mention of Ms Maier still comes up.

Who?

 

[Alex Benjamin]

it suggests a possible condition, as supported by evidence

I don't think there's much to be gained by speculating on her psychological state. It's fictionalization.

If I read you right, there's absolutely no way to understand someone once that person is dead. To me that's absurd. You can't have definitive answers, of course, but the only way you can get close to the human being behind the creator is to speculate from the facts that are presented to you, and constantly question your speculations to see if they hold up to these facts.

Has nothing to do with fictionalization, has everything to do with curiosity about human nature, and empathy.

 

[snusmumriken]

not really
I don't care ... that some suggest ... that she photographed the world in a way that was different than the next person ...
EDITED...

But she did!!!

 

[Don_ih]

1. You are implying that because she was just a nannie, she must be ignorant--quite judgmental.
2. She most probably had emotional issues, but she was functional.
Lastly, why did she take photos that she did not share, display or collect in albums? There was an obvious urge for her to take photos, but why? She is quoted somewhere as saying that she knew some were quite good, so she knew they were at least of some artistic if not monetary value. Toward the end of her photographic career, she did not even have the film processed. Could be because she couldn't afford to (but she could buy film!), making one wonder what the motivation was or if it had just become an obsessive habit. No one can or should diagnose her without knowing her and in her absence, but she left plenty of clues as to possible conditions.

I don't think you quite got the meaning of what I said in what I wrote. I wasn't saying she was ignorant. I wasn't saying she was mentally ill.

If I read you right, there's absolutely no way to understand someone once that person is dead.

No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is, in this case, any such speculation is based totally on third-party accounts from people who thought she was weird. You are basing a psychological diagnosis of a solitary person on the words of people who are not qualified to support your claims. Her difference from them was enough to influence the way they experienced her. You can discuss all the events of her life and all her known words and actions without labelling them with the Popular Psychology rubber stamp kit. You gain nothing by forcing people to interpret her as yet another reclusive, probably paranoid, anti-social, possibly bipolar, maybe ocd - or whatever other label-of-the-month you happen to have on hand. It is not informative or descriptive.

Her actions. Her words. What she created. That is what is available.

 

[removed account4]

But she did!!!

I know.
I was responding to Alan's comment that people were focusing on other things about her and her life rather than on her images
(like focusing on VvG's ear and not his paintings ) ..

 

[Don_ih]

I know.
I was responding to Alan's comment that people were focusing on other things about her and her life rather than on her images
(like focusing on VvG's ear and not his paintings ) ..

Most of the focus has been on Vivian Maier herself, ever since her photography became known. Most people don't have much to say about photos - but they have lots to say about the person who took them. And, frankly, no one ever talks much about a photo without saying it is his photo or her photo. A photo that stands on its own usually leads the person to ask "Who took that?"

 

[16:9]

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?

Aside from the obvious differences, that's quite a deep rabbit hole that ultimately depends on defining what is a 'thing'. Is the image (whatever that is) more or less of a 'thing' than a photographic print of it? Either way, should it not be licenced per view at the point of consumption? My point is that the world would be a much more civilised and enlightened place if everything wasn't so hell-bent on commodification. If humans were better, public domain would be held in the highest regard - not viewed as a bargain bin of unwanted curios.

 

[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 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 ...

I agree her work like Van Gogh's is the main issue. The only point I was making is some people are gossips and like to know about that kind of stuff more than what they do and what they accomplished. Of course, we also study who artists are, where they grew up, and how they became what they were. That also makes their artwork more interesting to many. Of course, in my case, my life is just as uninteresting as my photos.

 

[George Mann]

You can discuss all the events of her life and all her known words and actions without labelling them with the Popular Psychology rubber stamp kit. You gain nothing by forcing people to interpret her as yet another reclusive, probably paranoid, anti-social, possibly bipolar, maybe ocd - or whatever other label-of-the-month you happen to have on hand. It is not informative or descriptive.

You forgot eccentric.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

its really too bad because the cutting off his ear is the least interesting part of the Van Gogh story. to me at least it is more interesting how he saw the world and chose to express himself in a way that was authentic to him. it is obvious that most people would gravitate to the fact that she was a nanny or maybe had some issues. its easier to talk about that "stuff" than talk about the photos. probably a lot of men are upset that a woman is getting some glory because you know, she was just a crazy nanny ... &c.

Although more men may be photographers, I believe more women proportionately, shoot more intimate and personal pictures, which was her style. Women have a sense of feeling, especially when photographing people, that men often lack. Men are concerned with technique and resolution. They're pixel peepers. They'd rather discuss how nuts she is rather than what her photos do to them. Women care little about those things. They're concerned with connections and the heart, the very things that make people and street shots valuable.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

Getting out and shooting pictures is a lot more interesting to many than being cooped up developing and printing and sorting through pictures.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Aside from the obvious differences, that's quite a deep rabbit hole that ultimately depends on defining what is a 'thing'. Is the image (whatever that is) more or less of a 'thing' than a photographic print of it? Either way, should it not be licenced per view at the point of consumption? My point is that the world would be a much more civilised and enlightened place if everything wasn't so hell-bent on commodification. If humans were better, public domain would be held in the highest regard - not viewed as a bargain bin of unwanted curios.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's property. Thou shalt not steal.

If that's good enough for God, it should be good enough for us. I'm sure you didn't mean it in the harsh terms I stated it, so I apologize for that. My point is that copyrights and photos are property like anything else. We shouldn't be going around taking what belongs to others by claiming it's in the public domain. In the US, copyrights and patents are actually guaranteed in the US constitution, so important our founders thought they were. It's bad enough photographers are getting paid peanuts for their work today in many cases, Do we really want to take away what's left?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Most of the focus has been on Vivian Maier herself, ever since her photography became known. Most people don't have much to say about photos - but they have lots to say about the person who took them. And, frankly, no one ever talks much about a photo without saying it is his photo or her photo. A photo that stands on its own usually leads the person to ask "Who took that?"

I would rather spend my time looking at her photographs.

 

[cowanw]

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

You lost me here? What does this mean?

 

[BrianShaw]

You lost me here? What does this mean?

The post immediately prior was wondering about a completely, and equally, irrelevant question.

 

[Mike Lopez]

Although more men may be photographers, I believe more women proportionately, shoot more intimate and personal pictures, which was her style. Women have a sense of feeling, especially when photographing people, that men often lack. Men are concerned with technique and resolution. They're pixel peepers. They'd rather discuss how nuts she is rather than what her photos do to them. Women care little about those things. They're concerned with connections and the heart, the very things that make people and street shots valuable.

This post could not possibly be more wrong.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

any such speculation is based totally on third-party accounts from people who thought she was weird. You are basing a psychological diagnosis of a solitary person on the words of people who are not qualified to support your claims.

I actually have no idea what other people said about her. If you read my posts, you'll find nothing of sorts. And, for the empth time, I did not diagnose her (jezz!). I diagnosis is saying You have a disease. Not: You exhibit such and such behavior traits that could be linked to such and such known disorder. I didn't call her crazy - she was far from it -, didn't even call her eccentric (a meaningless word if any).

Fact is she collected (some say hoarded) piles and piles of newspaper clippings. I'm not taking this from what someone said, I've seen the pictures of them. I don't know what they were about - I'm quite curious, actually: random stuff? about certain people? about certain places? politics? All I know is the simple fact she did this could signal the possibility of obsessive compulsive behavior. To what extent, I don't know. It just makes me curious, not only about who she was, but, because she was a extremely good and interesting photographer (in my mind), about whether or not it had an influence - if she indeed had a bit of obsessive compulsive tendencies - on her photography and the way she viewed the world. This is simply being interested in the creative act, its motivation and the people creating. It's being interested in human nature.

Now, an obsessive compulsive disorder ain't that serious. Mild cases, it's not even considered a mental illness. Most people exhibit some traits of it, to some degree. Except photographers, of course, who never obsessively collect stuff they don't really need...

 

[awty]

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

Vivian forfeited her lockers (there were at least 3) in 2007 and they were all bought up by one business that buys storage lockers and flips the contents for profit (like storage wars) he new there were collectors of old photos so he bundled them up and sold them in lots, primarily to Ron Slattery, Randy Prow and John Maloof, made around $1500 on them. It gets a bit sketchy for the next 2 years, theres a little selling between collectors. Then in 2009 Vivian goes for a walk slips and bumps her head and dies a few weeks later. Then the photos come out of the wood work as they thought if they had the negatives then they thought they had copy right. Im not sure whether it was Ron or Randy that went to court over it and lost, then skipped to Canada. The copy right issue is why the galleries couldn't show the photos. Maloof suddenly got really good at finding people and found a Maier in a little village in France, paid a second cousin a few thousand dollars for copy right as being the closest living relative. Made a self promotional documentary to gain interest and proceeded to show in galleries. This became another law suite as it wasn't defined that the cousin was the closest living relative, seems she had more. The state ended up taking control of copy rights and made a "secret deal" with Maloof that allowed him a share in the profits and covers him against any legal prosecution. Since then the major other players have come on board to.
This biography is written by a marketing analyzer with no prior credible writing abilities, so you should factor that in when reading the book.
The sad fact is theres enough information out there that someone credible could put together a reasonably accurate portrayal of the woman and then we could get a handle on what she was on about. Unlikely to happen now as it probably doesnt fit the current marketing of her picture.

 

[Don_ih]

the simple fact she did this could signal the possibility of obsessive compulsive behavio

What I am saying is that your statement right there, when heard or read by someone else, counts as a diagnosis and influences the way the reader (hearer) interprets Vivian Maier's photography. And I don't think it's a valuable observation. If it's synonymous with "collected massive amount of newspaper clippings," it's superfluous. If it's not synonymous, it is itself an interpretation which will bring a number of possibly totally irrelevant ideas into relation with Vivian Maier's work.

When an authority voices speculation, most people hear something proposed as fact. People talking on documentaries get the title of "authority" by virtue of their inclusion.