Vivian Maier, BBC Imagine documentary

[cliveh]

How so?

Compare their images.

 

[Bob Carnie]

As I expected, nothing to back up your point of view.. you are my third person in almost 10 years to go to the ingnore user.
You keep good company, when you think of it 50000 members three on ignore.

Compare their images.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Compare their images.

This presumes that the individual performing the comparison reads photographs the same as you do. And can thus be expected to see the same dissimilarities that you have already seen. But since everyone's perspective on life is unique to each individual, that presumption is likely invalid.

So Bob's question regarding your unique perspective stands,

How so?

Ken

 

[cliveh]

This presumes that the individual performing the comparison reads photographs the same as you do. And can thus be expected to see the same dissimilarities that you have already seen. But since everyone's perspective on life is unique to each individual, that presumption is likely invalid.

So Bob's question regarding your unique perspective stands,

How so?

Ken

A ridiculous question as HCB is backed up by a worldwide historic consensus of opinion from millions of people, many of whom are more qualified to comment than I.

 

[Pioneer]

I think that this is something that only time will tell. HCB and Vivian Maier are very different photographers. The first has had many years to establish his credentials and it is clear that he is one of history's premier photographers. Perhaps, over time, Vivian Maier's work will also establish her as one of history's great photographers, I really don't know yet. To some degree that will probably depend on how well her work is promoted, and how well it is accepted. Talent certainly plays a part. A strong work ethic that produces a huge body of work is also a positive. A good story doesn't hurt either. But in the final say, continued success in promoting her work will probably be the most important. Right now it appears that the shows of her work have been well attended, it seems the books with her pictures are selling well, her website has a lot of hits, and there continue to be stories presented in the media. If that continues over time, then her name and her pictures will be established with the public. At that point I strongly suspect that she will be considered a great photographer by most, no matter what you or I think.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

A ridiculous question as HCB is backed up by a worldwide historic consensus of opinion from millions of people, many of whom are more qualified to comment than I.

But Bob's question was not about asking what the consensus opinion was of those "millions of people", it was a question about what was your individual personal opinion. Or more specifically, what dissimilarities you had already seen when comparing the two bodies of work that prompted your admonition to him to perform a similar comparison, with the unspoken expectation that he would see the same.

It is a basic premise of classical logic that one cannot successfully assert the falseness of an argument without being able to point to the truthful condition which gives rise to that falsehood. In order to successfully argue that Bob's argument is wrong, you must be able to back that position up by telling us what you believe is right. Simply offering the opinion of millions of others does not necessarily meet that metric.

Ken

 

[cliveh]

But Bob's question was not about asking what the consensus opinion was of those "millions of people", it was a question about what was your individual personal opinion. Or more specifically, what dissimilarities you had already seen when comparing the two bodies of work that prompted your admonition to him to perform a similar comparison, with the unspoken expectation that he would see the same.

It is a basic premise of classical logic that one cannot successfully assert the falseness of an argument without being able to point to the truthful condition which gives rise to that falsehood. In order to successfully argue that Bob's argument is wrong, you must be able to back that position up by telling us what you believe is right. Simply offering the opinion of millions of others does not necessarily meet that metric.

Ken

OK, I personally think that the work of HCB is in a different league to Vivian Maires in terms of composition, decisive moment, Zen photography, contemplation of space and vision, realisation of differential focus, perspective, lighting, geometry, framing, contemplation and respect of subject. But then this is only my opinion.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

But then this is only my opinion.

Thank you. That's all that was being asked for...



Ken

 

[lxdude]

Vivian Maier's take on Egypt. Remember though. This was culled from THOUSANDS of negatives spanning decades. This was what was carefully chosen as one of the minority of images to be put in a portfolio on the site named after her.

Which is really a criticism of the editor. We don't know what Maier thought of it. This might have been an accidental shot, for all we really know. Or just a silly shot.

As it is, I now can picture what a former boss of mine would look like on a trip to Giza.

 

[cowanw]

A ridiculous question as HCB is backed up by a worldwide historic consensus of opinion from millions of people, many of whom are more qualified to comment than I.

I have a book which is a compendium of a photo magazine's best articles.
One is of the 10 best photographers in the world as of the 1950's.
I can be pretty sure that the list contains names that are virtually unknown to most here.
Historic consensus changes and may be largely influenced by a relatively few people.
Also, judging by "world wide consensus", there is not much of value from anywhere but the US and Europe for the first 130 years of Photography.

I think that is a poor measure of worth, driven by celebrity and regurgitation of historical texts (Newhall) and business.
On the other hand there is no doubt that the driving force behind the attention to Vivian Maier is business.
Personally I am always glad when another unknown gets a bit of time in the light.
We will never know how she would have cropped her photos, We know HCB would if necessary, despite claims to the contrary
http://teachyourselfphotography.blogspot.ca/2011/10/behind-gare-st-lazarea-bargin-at-180000.html
I would welcome a print comparison regarding " composition, decisive moment, Zen photography, contemplation of space and vision, realisation of differential focus, perspective, lighting, geometry, framing, contemplation and respect of subject." But that is a doctoral dissertation or a book.
Honest disclosure: I think White is better than Stieglitz.

 

[jvo]

If I like a picture, I like a picture. It doesn't matter who took it. And if I like an artist I like an artist whether they've been overexposed on the internet or not.

My problem with Maier is I've never seen anyone say she accomplished anything extraordinary. To me it would seem her picture taking was a manifestation of some kind of mental disorder. If you walk around with a camera and take thousands upon thousands of pictures over the course of decades there are bound to be some winners. That is not the hallmark of a great artist. I do like the fact she documented a lot of mundane things. I like documenting things too. I wouldn't call a lot of what I do fine art though.

yup in a hundred 100k there would be some winners - EXCEPT that those who have seen whole contact sheets say she never took multiples, only one exposure. i wish i had one tenth as good an eye!!!

 

[Steve Smith]

I do like the fact she documented a lot of mundane things. I like documenting things too. I wouldn't call a lot of what I do fine art though.

Photographs of the mundane usually only become interesting with the passing of time when viewed in context with current trends and fashions in clothing, cars, etc. The glimpse into the past is often what gives old pictures their appeal regardless of any additional attributes such as good composition and technical quality.

To me it would seem her picture taking was a manifestation of some kind of mental disorder.

I think the same could be said of many artists.


Steve.

 

[Bob Carnie]

I have seen 33 originals, they all were sensitive urban scenes, one self portrait, which she obviously was fond of doing. I believe that its very important how the thousands of negatives are edited and presented. Time will judge her place, I just happen to think it will be pretty high up in the rankings .

yup in a hundred 100k there would be some winners - EXCEPT that those who have seen whole contact sheets say she never took multiples, only one exposure. i wish i had one tenth as good an eye!!!

 

[Noble]

yup in a hundred 100k there would be some winners - EXCEPT that those who have seen whole contact sheets say she never took multiples, only one exposure. i wish i had one tenth as good an eye!!!

What does that have to do with anything? Are you saying if you shot 100,000 negatives with no duplicates you couldn't come up with keepers?! Brute force papers over all kinds mediocrity. I've stated this before in this thread. Way before Maier was an internet sensation and lay people marveled at my portfolio I would tell them if you are semi competent, take enough pictures, and edit carefully you will have a decent portfolio. I never imagined someone putting that philosphy on steriods and cranking out 100,000 negatives.

Truth be told I can't fully assess her as an artist. A lot of it isn't even developed yet. I am not going to come to a final conclusion on the quotient until there is some honest idea about the denominator.

 

[Bob Carnie]

I've stated this before in this thread. Way before Maier was an internet sensation - Nobles words

I am confused with this statement... this is a recent thread, when do you think Vivian Maier's work was discovered?

I believe with the effort of exposing 100,000 individual images, one will develop an eye.

Have you heard of Fred Herzog? His story kind of reminds me of Vivian, quite different but similar, he is still alive.

 

[dpurdy]

Perhaps she was obsessive and compulsive and somewhat socially odd but she put that all to good use.
An interesting part of the story is that the negatives were originally divided into three parts by the guy who sold them. Three different individuals bought them.
Maloof started selling his part on ebay until people demanded he stop. Then he started a flickr page and people told him the work was great and then he started producing it
and had exhibits and made a book. Only then did the second guy seeing how famous she was becoming start producing his part with exhibits and books.
I went to a talk by the second guy and saw a show of the work and it became clear how important was the editing by these buyers. The second guys exhibit seemed to me not nearly
as good as the first set. Then in the talk the second guy admitted editing out a whole series of her work shooting down into garbage cans because he didn't think people would be interested in that.
The third part of the work has yet to be produced. the guy who bought it is sitting on it and no one knows how much work he has or how good it is.

 

[Bob Carnie]

My friend is in the first group of people who bought from Maloof off Ebay.

 

[Toffle]

Tough crowd.
Some of you folks should turn off your computers and make photographs.
(like I'm doing riiiiight now)

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Tough crowd.
Some of you folks should turn off your computers and make photographs.
(like I'm doing riiiiight now)

But its a great way to feel better about one's own lame photography by slamming someone else's. Especially someone who throughout her life could not give a flying rat's ass about what anyone thought of her work. How dare she!! Based on the tone of these forums lately I'm surprised no one called her work a complete waste of film.

One thing for sure: no one's gonna discover any of our work after we're long dead and start publishing books about what geniuses we were!

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

While it may be a difficult pill for some here to swallow, I'm pretty darned sure Ms. Maier had never even heard of APUG.

Ken

 

[Noble]

But its a great way to feel better about one's own lame photography by slamming someone else's. Especially someone who throughout her life could not give a flying rat's ass about what anyone thought of her work. How dare she!! Based on the tone of these forums lately I'm surprised no one called her work a complete waste of film.

One thing for sure: no one's gonna discover any of our work after we're long dead and start publishing books about what geniuses we were!

This is not about "slamming" someone's work. This is about discussing the rubric by which you anoint an artist "one of the greatest" of all time. By default if you say they are the greatest or one of the greatest that means you rank them above all or most others. Many of us could argue you are "slamming" the work of everyone else if you aren't looking at the situation holistically.

And why is it that there are some people on this forum that feel if they disagree with someone's reasoning for ranking a third party's art work that must mean the person they disagree with has a crappy portfolio. Guy's if you have a point make it. Don't just blast portfolios you've never seen. I've seen people with incredible portfolios say incredibly stupid things. Critiquing a portfolio you've never seen is an odd way to take the moral high ground.

Based on the tone of these forums lately I'm surprised no one called her work a complete waste of film.

Jesus Christ!

For the record I think the vast majority of people on this forum think Maier's portfolio contains a lot of nice pictures. We are merely having an esoteric fine arts debate about her being one of the greatest. Take it easy.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Hi Ken

This brings up something that I find interesting.

I have all of Fred Pickers Notes, in the 70's and 80's I worked at photography as a printer and lived and died by his notes and some of the photo mags of the time. It was my only connection to the outside world of photography.
She is of an era even before the FP notes and she worked it seems relentlessly at exposing film, Was there a photo culture in Chicago at that time ??
But since the days of internet, APUG, Large Format has replaced The Notes and Camera Mag's as a place to talk to others interested in photography.

So I actually think she would be here , most likely under an assumed name , jumping in here and there where she felt comfortable talking.
I am one who thinks the new Ansel Adams, HCB, Brassai or August Sander may be talking on one of these forums.
It is international, it is all encompassing photo talk, and yes full of knobs but still a great place to learn.

Bob

While it may be a difficult pill for some here to swallow, I'm pretty darned sure Ms. Maier had never even heard of APUG.

Ken

 

[Pioneer]

This is not about "slamming" someone's work. This is about discussing the rubric by which you anoint an artist "one of the greatest" of all time. By default if you say they are the greatest or one of the greatest that means you rank them above all or most others. Many of us could argue you are "slamming" the work of everyone else if you aren't looking at the situation holistically.

I agree that we are not attempting to "slam" anyone's work. Not mine, yours, Maier's, or anyone elses. That much we can agree on.

However, I am still confused about this holistic rubric that we are supposed to be applying to Vivian Maier or HCB (or Weston, Adams, et al.) I will be the first to admit that I am not an expert on what "art" really is but I do know that there are those out there who consider Steve Ditko's work on Spyderman to be great "art." What standard of performance has been used in that case is probably up for discussion as well. But, if you consider art to be, the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, then in my opinion, Vivian Maier's work certainly qualifies IMHO.

Now, where she stands in relation to other photographic artists is a completely different question, but that seems to be where this thread has been going. It has been stated that she is not in the same category as Henri Bresson, and because of that she does not qualify as "great." That, IMHO, moves our discussion away from any "artistic rubric" and turns it into a popularity contest instead. I do believe that much of her work was considerably above the norm, so I consider her to be a great artist. Now, is she as great, or greater, than some of the other artists whose names have been mentioned? I do not know.

To go any further I guess we need to know what standard of performance needs to be met to reach greatness?

 

[Lionel1972]

Just saw the BBC documentary. Awe inspiring to say the least! My jaw dropped at the sight of many of her photos that I had never seen before. All of them touched me in a way or another. Especially when you get to see some of them in sequence from the same roll. Her hit rate was truly phenomenal! She was not a pro, and thus couldn't afford the luxury of shooting rolls after rolls on a subject, trying to get lucky. She pre-edited her work in her mind by making each frame count. That's why I hope we can get to see an as much complete body of work of hers as possible. To my mind she is the essence of a pure artist, working only for her own satisfaction. Discovering her and her work is a tremendous lucky event in the history of photography. I believe her recognition will only grow with time. She documented a place and time with a unique eye like no other photographer, no matter how talented or recognized, could. Her body of work is priceless.

 

[Michael W]

I have all of Fred Pickers Notes, in the 70's and 80's I worked at photography as a printer and lived and died by his notes and some of the photo mags of the time. It was my only connection to the outside world of photography.
She is of an era even before the FP notes and she worked it seems relentlessly at exposing film, Was there a photo culture in Chicago at that time ??

In the 1950s people like Harry Callahan and Aaron Siskind were teaching at the Institute of Design in Chicago, where one of the founding directors was László Moholy-Nagy. Ray Metzker was one of the students there in the mid to late 1950s. There was a lot of strong and innovative photography being produced in Chicago in that era, and I would assume there was a wider awareness of it in the city, but don't have any evidence for that. I think art and photography magazines would have been the main source of information for the general public back then. It would be interesting to see what publications were available in Chicago and the types of articles that were included in them.