Vivian Maier

[skylight1b]

He who controls the copyright controls the narrative.
But before Maloof gained control of the copyright with a partnership with the state there was a BBC documentary that had a bit of a different story. Seemed to paint her as a very intelligent, self determined woman with interviews with a lot of people who new her. She spent a lot of her early years in France, her early photography was of around the French village where she lived, she had connections with local photography groups and political groups. Its France people do that. She also travelled extensively through Asia and Europe after her mother died in the late fifties.
That documentary is buried now from legal threats and probably never again see the light of day. Pity because it was very interesting and made way better sense than the nimble minded slightly crazy nanny story.
It was amusing in the BBC documentary when they interviewed the people who actually bought up her lockers and bundled up the contents to sell to Maloof and others. They were asked how much they made and they said $1600 and looked like weren't we the most stupidest people.
Also remember she was still alive when this was happening, was around 80 still living independently, she meticulously kept all her documents and records, made notes about everything, made moving film recordings and audio recordings and yet we are told no one tried to contact her while she was alive. Two years she lived for after her lockers were sold off, no one tried to track her down. Lived continuously in the same neighbourhood for her retired life, film was taken to the same places for processing, lots of people new of her. Blind Freddie would be able to find her.....then a few months after she slipped and bumped her head and died soon after, someone decided to look for her.....

Do you remember the name of this documentary? Through my university library connections, I was able to find one called "The Vivian Maier Mystery". Either way, I think I will watch this soon.

 

[loccdor]

I like many of her images, some are brilliant, others I could take or leave. Much the way I feel about hundreds of photographers I follow online. Being a superfan of any one photographer strikes me a little as being a music guy that mostly just listens to the Beatles. So many different flavors out there to enjoy.

 

[awty]

Do you remember the name of this documentary? Through my university library connections, I was able to find one called "The Vivian Maier Mystery". Either way, I think I will watch this soon.

Vivian Maier: Who Took Nanny's Pictures?​

I found a 10 minute exerpt of the hour long documentary, would be great if you could find the whole film. This was done in 2013 not long after her death.
This is just a short excerpt of bits and pieces.

 

[MattKing]

I've posted before about Professor Bannos' book, which is excellent: https://books.google.ca/books?id=cPglEAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[CMoore]

I saw that Vivian movie on Youtube about 10 years ago.
They interviewed some of the kids she had charge of.
More than one said she had been...... "Physically Abusive" with them.
From what little they said, i gleaned it was..... pinching, slapping, hair-pulling types of things.
Not punching, kicking, beating scenarios

Anyway, the movie was fabulous....... just awesome. I think it was little over an hour..... seemed like 15 minutes went by.

In a way, she operated in a vacuum.
Unknown, understated female, often with small kids, looking down into a box, not straight through and SLR.
It really was the perfect storm.

Had sheen been "successful and famous"........... this would have all shaken out differently.

Obviously i never met her, not for one second ......... but my gut tells me there is a heart-breaking story wrapped up in Vivian Maier.
Maybe more than one..... i dont know

God Bless her

 

[skylight1b]

Vivian Maier: Who Took Nanny's Pictures?​

I found a 10 minute exerpt of the hour long documentary, would be great if you could find the whole film. This was done in 2013 not long after her death.
This is just a short excerpt of bits and pieces.

It shows that as the alternate title, so I think that's the one! I have particularly privileged forms of library digital resources, but I would recommend anyone who is looking for this to check their library. The BBC may not be able to broadcast this anymore, but there are often ways to find these kinds of things under the guise of educational resources.

 

[Pioneer]

I find her story interesting but I find her photographs absolutely captivating. There is a reason her art became so famous.

 

[zaneman]

This might be the Vivian Maier documentary of interest:

 

[Arthurwg]

On the street, in public- no, you have no privacy right. Because you're in public! The laws are fairly clear on this; read through some of the information al asmp.org to find out how things actually work with respect to copyright, privacy, etc.

This maybe true in the United States, but not so true elsewhere. In France, for example, everyone has an absolute right to their own image. Any use of that imagine is actionable.

 

[CMoore]

This maybe true in the United States, but not so true elsewhere. In France, for example, everyone has an absolute right to their own image. Any use of that imagine is actionable.

If you shoot a bicycle race in Paris, and you sell the photo, can you be sued by every, recognizable spectator in the photo.?

 

[Daniela]

I've posted before about Professor Bannos' book, which is excellent: https://books.google.ca/books?id=cPglEAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Awesome. Thank you!

This might be the Vivian Maier documentary of interest:

Great find! To be watched before it gets taken down

This maybe true in the United States, but not so true elsewhere. In France, for example, everyone has an absolute right to their own image. Any use of that imagine is actionable.

Yep, there was a whole thread about this somewhere here.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

He who controls the copyright controls the narrative.
But before Maloof gained control of the copyright with a partnership with the state there was a BBC documentary that had a bit of a different story. Seemed to paint her as a very intelligent, self determined woman with interviews with a lot of people who new her. She spent a lot of her early years in France, her early photography was of around the French village where she lived, she had connections with local photography groups and political groups. Its France people do that. She also travelled extensively through Asia and Europe after her mother died in the late fifties.
That documentary is buried now from legal threats and probably never again see the light of day. Pity because it was very interesting and made way better sense than the nimble minded slightly crazy nanny story.
It was amusing in the BBC documentary when they interviewed the people who actually bought up her lockers and bundled up the contents to sell to Maloof and others. They were asked how much they made and they said $1600 and looked like weren't we the most stupidest people.
Also remember she was still alive when this was happening, was around 80 still living independently, she meticulously kept all her documents and records, made notes about everything, made moving film recordings and audio recordings and yet we are told no one tried to contact her while she was alive. Two years she lived for after her lockers were sold off, no one tried to track her down. Lived continuously in the same neighbourhood for her retired life, film was taken to the same places for processing, lots of people new of her. Blind Freddie would be able to find her.....then a few months after she slipped and bumped her head and died soon after, someone decided to look for her.....

Vivian , printed herself and belonged to a camera club of other enthusiasts. She traveled more extensively than most of us. She built a relationship with a french printer and together they produced over 5000 small fibre prints that are quite lovely.( these images are more landscape travel orientated) A significant portion of them were donated by John Maloof to an organization in Chicago Area, but there are still over 3000 prints in private hands.
All of the negatives I have seen are from Chicago, but I have seen the small prints.

I didn't know these things about her. It sure makes her seem different than the usual story she was a reclusive nanny who didn't have a life.

 

[zaneman]

Awesome. Thank you!

Great find! To be watched before it gets taken down

You're welcome. I use Firefox browser with the add-on "Easy Youtube Video Downloader Express" to archive videos.

 

[Carnie Bob]

I've posted before about Professor Bannos' book, which is excellent: https://books.google.ca/books?id=cPglEAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

I had a long conversations with Pamela Banno's before all of the hype started, she was very serious about finding the truth about this woman so it is documented correctly. There are aspects of this
story that have not been told but with time may.. All I can say is the lawyers at Cook County were shameless over this.

 

[Carnie Bob]

I didn't know these things about her. It sure makes her seem different than the usual story she was a reclusive nanny who didn't have a life.

Hi Alan , quite the opposite she was full energy and frankly did not give a shit what others thought of her, How many of us have shot thousands of images , traveled the world. A lot of photographers I meet are ex professionals who have made a ton of money elsewhere and make extremely boring photographs and I think I prefer Vivian's approach.

 

[Arthurwg]

If you shoot a bicycle race in Paris, and you sell the photo, can you be sued by every, recognizable spectator in the photo.?

I believe the answer is yes. I have heard that people can jump into a news photo in order to sue later.

 

[cliveh]

I believe the answer is yes. I have heard that people can jump into a news photo in order to sue later.

I find this difficult to believe. Who is going to bother to sue? How recognisable are they? Are they portrayed in a negative context?

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Awty brought up the most pitiful part of the whole fiasco earlier in this thread. They had to know she was still alive. Two years of "looking" for her and they couldn't find her? From the getgo the people with her work were trying to make money from it, damn the consequences, and the law.

The only legitimate work of hers would be the prints she made or had made during her lifetime. Even then, how do we know what she would have selected to show? Everything new is just sad, made for the modern aesthetic. If she had no input into what was shown or printed, then it isn't legitimate regardless of the romantic ideas that people have. If she wanted the work to be shown during her life, maybe she would have tried. It isn't up to people who have no clue what her wishes were to produce the work now. I find the whole thing shameful. If you look at the images that were produced recently then at the old prints (they are in one of the videos) the new prints just look modern, and have nothing to do with the vintage prints. Aesthetically they are not even close. And the modern prints are large. Of course they are. More $$$$$.

Was she a good photographer? Yes. Was she one of the greats? Not really. People sure like a good story even if it isn't doesn't track with reality. Money to be made don't you know....

 

[Hassasin]

I find this difficult to believe. Who is going to bother to sue? How recognisable are they? Are they portrayed in a negative context?

Well, anybody can sue anybody for anything these days. Just not enough lawyers to handle all the cases.

People do jump in for a photo op, then sue for not getting a piece of it, people purposely run into others then sue of damages, car insurance fraud has been going on for long years with on purpose run ins, in the 80's there was a drunk driver who lost control of his car, crossed the street and rammed telephone booth killing the person inside making a call. AT&T got sued for putting that booth in that place, or that person would have otherwise been alive, It's a long history of judicial "justice", opportunistic, illegal, but happening in the courts of law every day world wide (USA used to have near monopoly on this some decades ago).

I find it difficult to believe it's still news to anyone.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

I believe the answer is yes. I have heard that people can jump into a news photo in order to sue later.

I find this difficult to believe. Who is going to bother to sue? How recognisable are they? Are they portrayed in a negative context?

Sorry Arthurwg, but, if we are talking about France and other places with similar "right of image" laws, your assumption is not quite accurate.

The right of image is limited by the right of information (or freedom of the press). If a photojournalist or videojournalist is shooting a public event that's newsworthy — that is part of a news story — he doesn't need people's consent even if they are recognizable.

As this is getting too much off context — back to Vivian Maier! — I posted the reference towards the actual law here:

Law regarding photographing people (right of image) in France

Posted this in the recent Vivian Maier thread, but it was too much off topic. Giving it its own thread instead. Here's the complete text regarding rights of image of adults in France, from the French government website. There is a separate section regarding minors. It is necessary to have...

www.photrio.com

 

[Pioneer]

Hmm! Won't be headed to France anytime soon.

 

[Don_ih]

Everything new is just sad, made for the modern aesthetic.

Interesting to say, but the prints are of the negatives she shot. She composed the images, got the film developed (or not). Making a print involves choices but the content was already there on the film. So what you're saying doesn't amount to much, really. People aren't judging the images on the basis of their presentation as much as on the content and composition (which is more the relational layout of aspects of the content than the way the photo is printed).

I'm inclined to agree she was not one of the "greats" but it's mostly due to her outsider status. No one ever promoted her vision while she was alive - including her. The greats have all been promoted in every conceivable way possible - and most of them are "great" on the basis of a handful of recognizable photos. It's impossible to say what her output would have been if she'd been part of the photographic community. Perhaps she would have become more stale, like the former pros Bob mentioned above. Or perhaps she would have reached Arbus status. Everything is speculation. But the fact remains a lot of her photos are objectively good and many people find them meaningful.

Ignoring that only sounds like resentment.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

I'm inclined to agree she was not one of the "greats" but it's mostly due to her outsider status. No one ever promoted her vision while she was alive - including her. The greats have all been promoted in every conceivable way possible - and most of them are "great" on the basis of a handful of recognizable photos. It's impossible to say what her output would have been if she'd been part of the photographic community.

This is an excellent point. I would add that, contrary to just about every other photographer of importance, she has no say as to which photos of her are shown, how they are shown and in which order they are shown.

Photographers have always been obsessed about editing. Editing is an important part of a photographer's style, in the sense that the choices that he/she makes — what he wants people to see — become who he wants to be seen as photographer, becomes his style. All photographers shoot photos that aren't "them". These, they don't show.

As Geoff Dyer has pointed out, Vivian Maier is a rare occurence: a photographer that gains consideration and fame, immense fame, posthumously. Only other example I can think of is Atget, although he was immensely considered and admired by the Surrealists at the very end of his life, which is how Berenice Abbott learned about his work. Vivian Maier didn't have the benefit of have a Berenice Abbott to edit, to pick and choose the best to see. Go through the Atget archives and there are a lot of very ordinary, uninteresting photographs. Abbott, and those who followed, like Szarkowski, knew better.

There was no money to be made with the photographes of Atget. No so with Maier. So we're getting a lot, hoping that "a lot" doesn't become "too much", and hoping whoever Vivian Maier thought she was as a photographer doesn't get lost or diluted in it all.

 

[Daniela]

Hmm! Won't be headed to France anytime soon.

There's plenty of stuff that can be done within those constraints! I know there are a couple of photos in my gallery that could get me in trouble, but for the most part, a lot can be done to keep people anonymous

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I shot this in the Louvre in Paris. Can anyone sue? How about Mona?