Maier, like HCC and almost ever other street photographer’s work, to me is more valuable as a historical record than an art form. As such, most of it bores me to tears while selected images resonate as something worth looking at.
A waste of time for the viewer and a waste of time and energy for the photographer. Not worth a second glance. But HCB still knocks me out. His pictures are worth many long looks. Who did it better?Whose time? Yours or the photographers? And why single out HCB? Much of his street photography was just as mediocre as any. He didn't invent the idea, but doggedly pursued the intent to capture a great composition candidly, on the fly. There are many since who have done it as well and probably technically better.
Maier, like HCC and almost ever other street photographer’s work, to me is more valuable as a historical record than an art form. As such, most of it bores me to tears while selected images resonate as something worth looking at.
Please explain.It is intriguing to me how the early public version of Ms. Maier tended to create an expectation of her photography.
I've posted in the past about Professor Bannos' book about Ms. Maier. I was particularly interested in her descriptions of numerous examples where Ms. Maier appears to have been mistaken for a professional photographer and obtained access to things like movie openings with the stars being present and newsworthy events like the aftermath of the 1969 Chicago riots.
It is intriguing to me how the early public version of Ms. Maier tended to create an expectation of her photography.
Please explain.
Succinct.
Yes, all this is known, at least by those who have read some of the now many books about her. However, none of this changes the overall perception of being a loner and anti-social. Being so does not preclude her from trying to get celebrity and news-worthy photos. After all, what did she do with them? She did not attempt to sell them or otherwise distribute or publish them. The only instance I know if of her wanting to distribute her work is by having some postcards made in France (and I don't think any of that was her Chicago street photos). Plus if she bought cameras, film and processing, she would have to have regular engagement with camera store employees.Succinct.
The early public perception of Ms. Maier cast her as a loner and somewhat anti-social - observant but not engaging with others. And in addition, as a photographer not interested in sharing her photographs.
But her being drawn to loud, highly public events like Hollywood openings or newsworthy events like the aftermath of riots, when combined with her ability to be able to talk herself past the barriers that are intended to keep people out, say to me that she was probably quite different than that, and had different aspirations for her photography.
Professor Bannos also relates information about her attempts to get more of her photography printed for the purpose of sharing, plus her regular engagement with a few people in Chicago and area camera stores.
If you go into looking at her photography with a preconception about her, I think you appreciate it in different ways.
Succinct.
The early public perception of Ms. Maier cast her as a loner and somewhat anti-social - observant but not engaging with others. And in addition, as a photographer not interested in sharing her photographs.
But her being drawn to loud, highly public events like Hollywood openings or newsworthy events like the aftermath of riots, when combined with her ability to be able to talk herself past the barriers that are intended to keep people out, say to me that she was probably quite different than that, and had different aspirations for her photography.
Professor Bannos also relates information about her attempts to get more of her photography printed for the purpose of sharing, plus her regular engagement with a few people in Chicago and area camera stores.
If you go into looking at her photography with a preconception about her, I think you appreciate it in different ways.
For me, I find that when I know more information about a photographer it does influence my appreciation of the photographer's work.Let me add that, at least for me, her character does not influence my appreciation of the work. That goes for just about any artist in my opinion. Most have personality flaws, some very serious.
I think part of the problem with Maier is that Maloof published too many photos, not just her best. It required better editing. Even HCB's work, when you view it on the web or elsewhere, is the same pictures over and over again. How many times have you seen that guy hopping over the puddle? How about Eggleston's tricycle? How many of Ansel Adam's work is famous? Again, the same stuff over and over.A waste of time for the viewer and a waste of time and energy for the photographer. Not worth a second glance. But HCB still knocks me out. His pictures are worth many long looks. Who did it better?
Yes, most of it bores me as well, But I do think HCB rises to a level of high fine art. Kind of like Goya.
Only people who love themselves take so many self-portraits as she did.Succinct.
The early public perception of Ms. Maier cast her as a loner and somewhat anti-social - observant but not engaging with others. And in addition, as a photographer not interested in sharing her photographs.
But her being drawn to loud, highly public events like Hollywood openings or newsworthy events like the aftermath of riots, when combined with her ability to be able to talk herself past the barriers that are intended to keep people out, say to me that she was probably quite different than that, and had different aspirations for her photography.
Professor Bannos also relates information about her attempts to get more of her photography printed for the purpose of sharing, plus her regular engagement with a few people in Chicago and area camera stores.
If you go into looking at her photography with a preconception about her, I think you appreciate it in different ways.
Francesca Woodman, is the ultimate response to that (may she rest in peace).Only people who love themselves take so many self-portraits as she did.
I'll add Lee Friedlander to that list. And I've never had the impression that he was overly in love with himselfFrancesca Woodman, is the ultimate response to that (may she rest in peace).
And of course, Cindy Sherman has done pretty well with self portraits.
For me, I find that when I know more information about a photographer it does influence my appreciation of the photographer's work.
.
I think the Eggleston clan has given up on serious editing. They seem bent on publishing every last image, or at least it feels that way.I think part of the problem with Maier is that Maloof published too many photos, not just her best. It required better editing. Even HCB's work, when you view it on the web or elsewhere, is the same pictures over and over again. How many times have you seen that guy hopping over the puddle? How about Eggleston's tricycle? How many of Ansel Adam's work is famous? Again, the same stuff over and over.
.....About her influences, who knows? Did she ever look at anyone's work, .....
True, and I seem to be liking his work less and less as a result.I think the Eggleston clan has given up on serious editing. They seem bent on publishing every last image, or at least it feels that way.
I'm in the midst of reading the new biography titled "Vivian Maier Developed" by Ann Marks. This book is very thoroughly researched and there's plenty of family of origin backstory. It's very clear that Vivian intentionally arranged her life so that she had plenty of time for photography and that her personality was particularly well-suited to taking what many of us might consider rather impolite or insensitive street snaps. Her pictures speak for themselves and I have a hard time imagining such an approach in our paranoid and self-conscious public culture of today.
. How can she get acquainted with the works of other photographers, who may be living in other distant cities, and perhaps holding art exhibitions in other cities?She may have seen work by Paul Strand - that could have been inspirational. It's also possible that her using a camera in the street grew naturally out of an initial interest in photography and a lack of subjects. To get around that, she may have gone looking for interesting photos.
She lived in cities and could have seen any number of small or large gallery shows. She took a photo of Dali in front of MOMA - so she was obviously there. Also, something to notice about that: she was forward enough to ask for the photo. A lot of comments suggest that, because of the waist-level finder, she was essentially invisible while taking her photos - or because she was a woman she went unnoticed. I think she was quite a bit more in charge of what she was doing than that. You don't get such good close photos by being a wallflower.
Right, I totally agree with you.I think street photography is often a waste of time unless you're HCB. . Most street photos earn a passing glance if anything. Ms. Me Maiers pictures are an exception.
I like to think of her as a singular talent.I do like much of Ms Maiers work. About her influences, who knows? Did she ever look at anyone's work, or was she just inspired by her own vision. It is not necessary to be consciously derivative or influenced by another artist, one can develop on their own. A lot of what we think we know of anyone's work or life is not necessarily accurate. Many photographers control their public and private lives very closely.
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?