Saw "Finding Vivian Maier"

[Jaf-Photo]

@ 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

I don't see that it matters.

Clearly, her interest was in taking the photos, and she was good at it. A lot of great photographers have assistants who do all of their photochemical work. That doesn't diminish the value of their work.

For Meier, being a poor lodger for most of her life, it wasn't an option to have a darkroom or asisstants.

I got the impression that a lot of her undeveloped material was chromes, presumably because it was more expensive to develop.

 

[thefizz]

I saw the film last night and enjoyed it. My only problem with Maloof is that he didn't mention the other guys who also own some of Maier's work.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

I saw the film last night and enjoyed it. My only problem with Maloof is that he didn't mention the other guys who also own some of Maier's work.

And I saw today. Enjoyed it.
About prints, she had them done. In fact the film shows she had a preference for semi-gloss paper. It is on the instructions on the receipts she kept.
She did have a darkroom once for a few years or so. That came on the BBC documentary, which was very good. The BBC doc also shows some of her prints that belong to another collector.

P.S. The cinema I went to is digital and it was a small room. There were about 20 or less people.
Before the screening started there were a few of them on their iphones, ipads and so on.
After the "film" ended I bet some went straight to Ebay to find some Rolleiflex!
I hope they do!

 

[Bob Carnie]

Lots of vintage Vivian Maier prints at Stephen Bulger gallery right now, the show is fantastic. This would be images from the Jeffrey Goldstein collection.

Ron Gordon from Chicago is the printer and he is very good.

 

[hoffy]

I have managed to see the doco.

I'm really miffed by the crap heaped on Maloof. Seriously, if it wasn't for him, most, maybe nearly all of these images might be landfill by now.

Anyhow, I think the Maloof story was nothing but a sideshow. The story (as it should be) is about Maier.

What really struck me was the feeling, both by the photos shown and the interviews given, that we were watching the story of a lady who fell further and further into deep depression. In the end, I found the story rather sad, not because she never got to show her pictures, but because she was someone who's cry's for help were really never heeded and listened to. While it was very apparent that she had quite a connection to a few of the family's, others treated her not much more then just 'hired help'.

The other thing I found really intriguing was the quality of her work - for me, it is rather apparent that the photos she took in the late 40's through to the 60's and possibly the 70's certainly came up as quality photos. But you could also see that there was a marked decline in both subject matter from the few photos we saw from the 80's (not sure if we saw anything later then that). As a young woman, she certainly had a very good feel for capturing the street and I would say amongst some of the best work I have seen.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I'm really miffed by the crap heaped on Maloof. Seriously, if it wasn't for him, most, maybe nearly all of these images might be landfill by now.

I agree. It is easier to dump on someone than have an original thought.

 

[naeroscatu]

+1
don't care at all if this guy or that guy gets rich in the process; get real, look around. Most important is that we got to discover a talented photographer, nanny or no-nanny.

 

[cliveh]

Although I admire some of her shots, I can't help thinking there is much commercial hype behind the promotion.

 

[Peter Simpson]

Although I admire some of her shots, I can't help thinking there is much commercial hype behind the promotion.

The whole movie was funded by a Kick starter. I was one of the subscribers and have received all the advertised premiums. Maloof put a lot of effort into the film and the book, not to mention cataloging and printing Maier's work. I think he is entitled to make some money off his efforts.
I haven't seen what I would consider an excessive amount of hype. Advertising and reviews and a good amount of forum and web chatter, but none of it over the top. I think most of us agree that Maier's work deserves some attention. I personally like it very much, but I am not an artist or one who can comment on her artistic talent.

 

[hoffy]

Although I admire some of her shots, I can't help thinking there is much commercial hype behind the promotion.

Based on what I have seen, I'd go as far as saying that her work is certainly in the same league as the US street photography masters. One thing though, that they highlighted in the doco, is that she certainly copied or got inspiration from others of the era.

 

[Soeren]

I don't see that it matters.

Clearly, her interest was in taking the photos, and she was good at it. A lot of great photographers have assistants who do all of their photochemical work. That doesn't diminish the value of their work.

For Meier, being a poor lodger for most of her life, it wasn't an option to have a darkroom or asisstants.

I got the impression that a lot of her undeveloped material was chromes, presumably because it was more expensive to develop.

Hi Jaf I agree but please notice my post was an answer to post 51.
Best regards

 

[Nathan King]

The movie makes the rather arrogant assumption that art is a popularity contest waged by the public and initial misgivings of art professionals merely represent needless complication and should be worked around. While it is true that other photographers have had their work printed posthumously, curators have many other pieces that the artist signed his or her name to for guidance. In the case of Vivian Maier, we have no such established record of finished work to make an educated determination on stylistic or editorial choices.

Is the work being sold today truly the work of Vivian Maier in every sense? Should a young man possessing no formal art education have nearly complete editorial control over an artist’s work?

P.S. Before I am accused of age discrimination I should mention that I am exactly the same age as John Maloof, but wise enough to know what I don't know.

 

[Bob Carnie]

John is being assisted by some very great editors.. Howard Greenburg is involved and his gallery is highly rated in the world as well as his opinion.

The movie makes the rather arrogant assumption that art is a popularity contest waged by the public and initial misgivings of art professionals merely represent needless complication and should be worked around. While it is true that other photographers have had their work printed posthumously, curators have many other pieces that the artist signed his or her name to for guidance. In the case of Vivian Maier, we have no such established record of finished work to make an educated determination on stylistic or editorial choices.

Is the work being sold today truly the work of Vivian Maier in every sense? Should a young man possessing no formal art education have nearly complete editorial control over an artist’s work?

P.S. Before I am accused of age discrimination I should mention that I am exactly the same age as John Maloof, but wise enough to know what I don't know.

 

[Nathan King]

John is being assisted by some very great editors.. Howard Greenburg is involved and his gallery is highly rated in the world as well as his opinion.

That's great news. The movie made it appear that he tried to pitch the work to MoMA, they didn't want it, so he thumbed his nose at the professional art world.

 

[Bob Carnie]

No quite the opposite.. From what I know, all the owners of the collections big and small are very serious in their attempts to bring this work forward.

Yes mistakes can , will, happen on that journey but they are only human, like us here. I am sure there is nobody here that would not make mistakes.. myself included.

QUOTE=Nathan King;1683637]That's great news. The movie made it appear that he tried to pitch the work to MoMA, they didn't want it, so he thumbed his nose at the professional art world.[/QUOTE]

 

[Toffle]

Yes mistakes can , will, happen on that journey but they are only human, like us here. I am sure there is nobody here that would not make mistakes.. myself included.

I am all for the entrepreneurial spirit here. It takes business smarts to recognize the opportunity, and more than a little courage to see the job through. I doubt that I would have been up to the task.

I do believe that Maloof did make at least one serious blunder, though. As others have mentioned, he sold a number of individual negatives on ebay to cover some of his early costs. I have no idea if the purchasers of these negatives had any idea of the care needed to preserve negatives, or if some (potentially) masterful photographs have been lost. Without a doubt, though, whoever owns one of these negatives has the equivalent of an attic-find Picasso. (well, maybe not quite so valuable. ) At any rate, they could easily recoup their original investment by selling professionally made prints through a (hopefully) reputable dealer.

Cheers,
Tom

 

[Bob Carnie]

One of the first Ebay purchasers is a good friend of mine and she absolutely knows how to care for photographs and she is one of the collections known to the VM inside circle/
QUOTE=Toffle;1683689]I am all for the entrepreneurial spirit here. It takes business smarts to recognize the opportunity, and more than a little courage to see the job through. I doubt that I would have been up to the task.

I do believe that Maloof did make at least one serious blunder, though. As others have mentioned, he sold a number of individual negatives on ebay to cover some of his early costs. I have no idea if the purchasers of these negatives had any idea of the care needed to preserve, or if some (potentially) masterful photographs have been lost. Without a doubt, though, whoever owns one of these negatives has the equivalent of an attic-find Picasso. (well, maybe not quite so valuable. ) At any rate, they could easily recoup their original investment by selling professionally made prints through a (hopefully) reputable dealer.

Cheers,
Tom[/QUOTE]

 

[RNoll]

I watched the movie with Comcast's On Demand feature for $4.99. I had heard about Ms. Meier from fellow club members, when I was still a member, stating that they were going on a field trip to a local museum to see some of her work. I didn't go. I wasn't interested that much in street photography. Then I bought a Voigtlander R3a and decided street photography might be fun.

So I rented the movie and sat fascinated watching it. I think it was a well put together documentary. The parts about Maloof didn't bother me in the least. It was part of this story. I recommend people see it, especially if they are interested in historical photography.

Since seeing it, I talked to my fellow photographer friend at my day job and discussed the mystery surrounding her behavior. I felt that Maloof found the whole thing a mystery and that is what he wanted people to come away with after seeing the documentary. I haven't seen any of Ms. Meier's photographs in person, but that's not saying much since neither had she... except for maybe the postcards from her home town.

The biggest mystery to me is what she was thinking just secreting aways the stolen moments in peoples lives, just in negatives. Was she a time traveler, retrieving images of the past? A spy for a secret Russian American city? Why did she take so many self portraits? Was it to check her focus settings? To see how nondescript she was on each excursion? Did she always take a self portrait on each roll of film? Was that to identify her as the photographer or was it to complete the story the roll was to tell later? After all when we see street photography subjects, we are seeing only half the interaction. We don't know if the reaction of the subject is due to the environment or the photographer's presence. Or was she just a crazy person with a camera?

The parts about her mimicking other famous photographers, like ManRay, Arbus and such is a valid comment, but goes unexplained. How did she know of those artists work? In all of her belongings left behind there weren't any photographs from those artists, no notes saying that she had seen their work. I would have liked to have heard her voice more in the documentary since she recorded audio quite a bit, and by the way, she didn't sound crazy in them.

Looking at her self portraits was sometimes disturbing to me. She dressed as a man, quite often wore wide brimmed hats and long baggy coats. She looked like one of those caricatures of an old man ready to expose themselves naked to unsuspecting people on the street.

 

[ajmiller]

A Vivian Maier Collector Opens Up About Posthumous Printing, Maier’s Only Heir, and Her Legacy

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Since seeing it, I talked to my fellow photographer friend at my day job and discussed the mystery surrounding her behavior. I felt that Maloof found the whole thing a mystery and that is what he wanted people to come away with after seeing the documentary. I haven't seen any of Ms. Meier's photographs in person, but that's not saying much since neither had she... except for maybe the postcards from her home town.

Looking at her self portraits was sometimes disturbing to me. She dressed as a man, quite often wore wide brimmed hats and long baggy coats. She looked like one of those caricatures of an old man ready to expose themselves naked to unsuspecting people on the street.

You should see the BBC documentary. It answers some of your questions and shows some of the prints she had made. Even so, John's movie shows the receipts for d&p and her preference for matte papers.

I didn't feel her dressing as odd on her 50s and 60s self portraits. In fact, I enjoyed them!
BTW, she was the same age as Her Majesty and one year younger than my father.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Stephen Bulger Gallery has a show on right now that includes vintage small prints.. They look like the drugstore fibre prints my Mother use to get. Looks glossy and have that serated edge that was popular then.
They certainly are not custom prints but the type Kodak would make for you in the day on fibre paper.

You should see the BBC documentary. It answers some of your questions and shows some of the prints she had made. Even so, John's movie shows the receipts for d&p and her preference for matte papers.

I didn't feel her dressing as odd on her 50s and 60s self portraits. In fact, I enjoyed them!
BTW, she was the same age as Her Majesty and one year younger than my father.

 

[Mike Crawford]

Finally saw the film last night as well as re-watching the BBC film earlier this week. Many, many thoughts so not going to go too much into it, but would have been good to have more opinion from people more directly involved in the photography scene; photographers, curators, critics and such. As Maloof was co-director and co-producer, will probably have to wait for the next film to get a more balanced view as long as produced by someone outside the circle. Joel Meyerowitz cropped up in both, and while he questioned in the BBC film, who was editing the work, otherwise who was telling the story of Maier through her work, his comments in the second were more to champion her, though who is to say how much of his interview was used in the film. Would have been good to have some more heavyweight people give their opinions such as Abigail Solomon-Godeau who has written a very interesting text on Maier.
http://lemagazine.jeudepaume.org/2013/09/vivian-maier-by-abigail-solomon-godeau/

 

[Jaf-Photo]

Regarding Maier's life and personality.

It's not necessary to understand the artist to understand her art. Many of Meier's photos have a direct impact on the viewer, with more layers to be discovered. Presumably, we've seen the best ones and there may be many duds, but that's true of most photographers. She clearly was an accomplished photographer who knew about exposure and composition She could capture light, expressions, moods and convey ideas.

I don't think she was much of a mystery or mentally ill for that matter.

I suspect she was just a reserved woman of unlucky circumstances, who maintaine her integrity. She was financially and socially disadvantaged in an era when those things really mattered. She was a hired help with few possessions of her own. Even much of her clothes obviously came from her wealthy employers as gifts or hand-downs.

But she made no secret of her leftist leanings and insisted on privacy even in lodgings, which weren't her own.

It's also quite evident that she felt that it was improper to photograph strangers in the street. She seems to have been ashamed of it, which is echoed by many people in our modern age. Imagine what it was like a generation ago. That probably explains why never showed her photos and used false names at the photo shop.

If she had been mentally ill, she obviously would not have been trusted as a nanny.

Be that as it may, Many of her photos really work. That's all that matters now.