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.
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.
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.
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.
So I actually think she would be here , most likely under an assumed name , jumping in here and there where she felt comfortable talking.
The only person with any authority (on the medium at least) was Meyerowitz and he barely said a thing.
You could tell they were really scraping the bottom of the barrel to make the Maier film.
In her case I get the distinct feeling that she wasn't making them because she wanted to. She was making them because she HAD to. As if she couldn't have stopped even if she had wanted to stop, and that the subject matter was largely irrelevant and just an excuse. I could be wrong, of course. But that's what I think I see.
but what he did say was important - Who is curating her work? Who is deciding what to print?
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?
I like VM's images, but I can't say that I like the modern prints. Intention is a great part of art. How do we know how she would have printed her work?
Patrick Robert James;1515371 $2000 for an unsigned VM image is a little ridiculous to me. You would be lucky to get that much from a Weston. AA's studio prints are far more genuine said:Agreed, and not nit-picking but your figures are a bit off. According to Edward-Weston.com,
"The prices of these Edward Weston photographs printed by Cole Weston currently range from $3000. to $15,000 based on the image and the availability. Edward's most popular images, such as Pepper 1930, Shell, 1927 and Nude, 1936 range from $9000. to $18,000. There are many other wonderful images still available in the $3000 to $4000 range."
Hackel Bury Lists Ronis' prints from $5500 to $6900. (and if I had that amount in disposable income, I might buy one)
But I agree, the hype surrounding Maier is almost unparalleled considering she was unknown five years ago. The fullness of time will decide if $2000 is an appropriate value for a Maier print. More than the hype, though, I bemoan Maloof's irresponsible hawking of her negatives on ebay. Of course, for those who see her as an artless hack, this is no great loss. Others may disagree.
Well considering 100,000+ of her negatives were not even developed it is not at all clear to me that she gave much thought to how they were printed. If you want them the way Maier liked them then leave them undeveloped in a public storage facility.
Seriously though I think you are looking at her work through your lens not hers. I am no expert on her but it doesn't seem to me like she would be too bothered by what size the images are printed at. She would probably be bewildered that anyone even cares about her work.
My lens? Not quite. What about her wishes? Maybe she didn't want the work to be seen. She never tried to show it herself by all accounts, even when, as Newt touched upon above, she lived with a photo editor.
Noble
I have to ask you this.. have you ever considered the commitment needed to take 10,000 rolls of 120 film, and expose them all??
I think you are missing a very simple logistical , financial and physical action that this woman took.
I would really like a measured response about how you would go about this simple task?
I have made over 100,000 thousand prints, it took me my career.
I would be interested to know whether you have come any where close to Vivian's production.
please do not include family vacations on your cell phone, but a real concentrated body of work effort.
To me it would seem her picture taking was a manifestation of some kind of mental disorder.
My mental illness statement wasn't just a cheap swipe at a departed woman. My understanding is many of the negatives were never printed and tens of thousands were never developed.
You are looking at it from you perspective as presumably someone without a mental illness. If you suspend disbelief and consider the possibility of mental illness none of this is remarkable or surprising.
Do you like her photos?
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?