Saw "Finding Vivian Maier"

[pbromaghin]

I had heard he was a picker that bought the storage locker contents and started to promote them. Nothing wrong with that. But $ is the foundation of all he does.

I would not characterize him as a picker. He was planning to write a book on the history of a Chicago neighborhood, found this large lot of photographs at a sale and bought them, thinking they would be useful to illustrate the book. He was buying them to use them, not to re-sell.

 

[EdSawyer]

he was definitely a picker, aiming for profit.

 

[Alan Klein]

I don't understand all these ad hominem attacks of "he's a picker" and "he was aiming for a profit." Like you work for nothing?

 

[omaha]

The rub for me comes from what I perceive as a lack of authenticity from Maloof.

If he were to present himself as he is, I'd have no issue. Instead, he is trying to present himself alternatively as a street photographer and a documentarian. There is nothing wrong with that, in and of itself, of course. The problem comes in that he is explicitly leveraging his arbitrary good fortune in discovering Maier's work to "jump ahead" in those fields, rather than paying his dues in those fields independently.

 

[Alan Klein]

Why is there a "lack of authenticity from Maloof"? Why is "Maloof not paying his dues....to jump ahead..." a problem? In any case, what do these things have to do with the artistic and other value of Maier's photography?

 

[Bob Carnie]

plus one

Why is there a "lack of authenticity from Maloof"? Why is "Maloof not paying his dues....to jump ahead..." a problem? In any case, what do these things have to do with the artistic and other value of Maier's photography?

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Interesting perspective:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303978304579473381260992254

 

[omaha]

what do these things have to do with the artistic and other value of Maier's photography?

Nothing, of course. I'm discussing the movie, not her photographs.

 

[pbromaghin]

What the flaming hell is wrong with making money? Does anybody think for one second that we would ever have seen one single image from Vivian Maier if somebody couldn't make a buck off it? The whole pile would be in a landfill right now. I say good for you, John Maloof, milk it for every penny you can get.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I didn't see the movie (don't really care frankly) but the whole episode to me reeks of pure greed. The only legitimate prints are the ones she either did herself or had done during her life. Everything else Maloof did is his interpretation as someone with no background in photography. It isn't like Maloof knew what he had when he bought them either. IIRC he was selling negatives on ebay until the whole Maier thing took off. That is what he thought of them. Opportunistic is the best was to describe him. Interesting to me IIRC is that he "found" her two years after he bought the negs, and right after she died. Hmmm.

This is just opinion, but I don't find Maier's work to be all that extraordinary. I think it is nostalgic, and she made some excellent images as would anyone who photographed constantly over decades, but I wouldn't call her "great" by any stretch of the imagination. There is nothing groundbreaking about her images. Compare what she did to Callahan or Siskind. Not even close. Take a look at her contact sheets. It is random spraying.

I think in the end a lot of people (especially photographers) gleam on to this story because they think that maybe after they die someone will care about the photographs they took during their life. It is a sort of misplaced hope that what they do really matters in the end. An extension of the ego if you will.

I expect everyone will attack me now. Oh well.

 

[omaha]

I don't find Maier's work to be all that extraordinary.

This is an aspect of the story I do find quite fascinating.

I don't know how one tells "quality" street photography from junk, or anywhere in between. I spent time years ago as a photojournalist, so the "capture the story" aspect of street photography always appeals to me. I find a few of Maier's images to be very captivating, because of that effect.

But the genre today seems to be filled with unoriginal copycats...people who think going to an "urban" environment, taking a zillion photos with their DSLR, running them through Nik SilverEfx to convert them to grainy B&W and PRESTO! Instant art. That doesn't work for me.

And maybe that is Maier's central allure. Say what you will about the photos, they are certainly authentic. In an Instagram world, authenticity matters.

 

[sir_mamiya]

Vivian DID NOT print anything herself!!

 

[MattKrull]

Vivian DID NOT print anything herself!!

Define "print herself." She made approximately 3000 prints according to the documentary (I could be offon the number, my memory is not perfect).

Did she go into a dark room and make the prints herself? No. Did she have prints made at a lab (like most people did), yes she did. In the film they even show some postcards she had printed. They have letters she wrote to the lab (in France) that printed those post cards, asking if the printer would be interested in making prints for her while she lived in America.

...

After posting how I was going to wait for this to end up on Netflix I checked out the film's webpage and found out it was opening in my town the next day, so I went and saw it. I enjoyed it. I think I walked away with just as many questions about Vivian Maier as I went in with, but they are different questions.

 

[omaha]

Interestingly emphatic first post there, sir_mamiya!

 

[cliveh]

Vivian DID NOT print anything herself!!

But did she need to?

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

I think I walked away with just as many questions about Vivian Maier as I went in with, but they are different questions.

I agree, which I believe is a positive aspect of the film. Given the fact the Vivian is no longer with us and the different people who remember her in different ways from different time periods I thought it appropriate that the viewer was, in many ways, left to decide for themselves who and what to believe.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Vivian DID NOT print anything herself!!

And your point is???

 

[Shawn Rahman]

I don't understand all these ad hominem attacks of "he's a picker" and "he was aiming for a profit." Like you work for nothing?

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

It arrived to the UK:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28123706

 

[rbrigham]

I saw this today and very much enjoyed it
there was lots of information that i did not know about the story perviously
Mr Maloof seemed pretty genuine and had gone to a lot of trouble to find information

I have no idea what the other 3 people with large amounts of Vivians photos are doing with them



"Quote Originally Posted by sir_mamiya View Post
Vivian DID NOT print anything herself!! "

sir mamiya

did you know her personally ?

it seems to me that very little is known about this lady
for all i know she had her own darkroom somewhere which has yet to come to light

likewise i do not know you and you may well be the greatest photographer the world will ever see

robin

London

 

[Jaf-Photo]

Maybe I'll see the film on bluray.

But at least it's doing two good things. It's promoting Meier's photos, which are very good. And it's raising the profile of street photography.

I also think there are three reasons her photos still work. She had an eye for puctures, she used good cameras, she used good films.

No Ilford, no, no.

 

[ChuckP]

I have no idea what the other 3 people with large amounts of Vivians photos are doing with them

robin

London

I just saw an exhibit from the Jeffrey Goldstein collection at a local art center: http://www.theartcenterhp.org/exhibits/past-exhibits

These were smallish, I believe 12x12 in, darkroom prints made for exhibit. The printing was excellent. I was blown away by how sharp the prints appeared. If a Goldstein collection exhibit is nearby I recommened seeing it. Print prices were mostly $2200 but a few higher. Not sure who buys these unsigned prints at that price.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Same people who would buy an August Sander print.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Why is there a "lack of authenticity from Maloof"? Why is "Maloof not paying his dues....to jump ahead..." a problem? In any case, what do these things have to do with the artistic and other value of Maier's photography?

Alan you are very right.
This came up on the news section here: Dead Link Removed

The School of the Art Institute of Chicago (SAIC), one of the nation’s leading art and design schools, announced the establishment of the endowed Vivian Maier Scholarship Fund. The need-based scholarship was made possible by generous donations from Ravine Pictures’ John Maloof and Charlie Siskel, and art gallerist Howard Greenberg.
Because Vivian Maier’s work has changed lives—John’s in particular—we are forever indebted to her. That is why a share of the proceeds from sales of her work and the film Finding Vivian Maier are used to create an endowed and permanent scholarship—the Vivian Maier Scholarship—at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, an institution that was important to Vivian. Every year, young photographers will receive financial assistance allowing them to pursue their art with some of the economic burden lifted, thanks to Vivian Maier. This will be another one of Vivian’s gifts to the world and another part of her legacy.

 

[Soeren]

@ rbrigham #51
IIRC no prints was found or if ony very few. A letter was found she wrote to the owner of the photostore i her mothers hometown in France asking him about printing her work. According to her words she knew her work was good. She was a collector but among her belongings no enlarger or other darkroom equipment was found, or at least no comments on such in the program. No of the famelies she worked for mentioned anything about her having a darkroom. And last a lotof her work was still undevelped film after her death. So I think its save to say she didn't print anything her self.
Best regards