Vivian Maier

[Alan Edward Klein]

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....

She's dead so she has no feelings. Anything ascribed to her are our feelings, not hers. We have very few rights once we're gone. People write biographies about many dead people, some of them not so nice, some a lot better. Did some people make money on it., Well, sure. It would still be hidden if there wasn''t a profit motive. I think if she were alive and had a chance to comment, she would have been pleased that her work is being shown publicly and that people enjoy her legacy rather than being lost in an attic somewhere. Let's enjoy it too. Isn't it great that we can?

 

[Hassasin]

She's dead so she has no feelings. Anything ascribed to her are our feelings, not hers. We have very few rights once we're gone. People write biographies about many dead people, some of them not so nice, some a lot better. Did some people make money on it., Well, sure. It would still be hidden if there wasn''t a profit motive. I think if she were alive and had a chance to comment, she would have been pleased that her work is being shown publicly and that people enjoy her legacy rather than being lost in an attic somewhere. Let's enjoy it too. Isn't it great that we can?

This is pretty gross assessment of all the lies that have been said about her, or truths that have never made into th novel way of describing her life. Being dead removes all the once expected respect? Money making off of that is to be condoned then?

How do you know she would have been pleased seeing what is going on about her life, and in fact photography? You don't, and that is probably the only fact about your post.

Everybody has the right to turn a blind eye on anything, not everyone has to.

 

[Arthurwg]

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

If the story is correct, they would sue the publication where they're picture appeared. I would guess that a crime scene, for example, might be construed as a "negative context." But this is France, not the USA.

 

[chuckroast]

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, there's the Law Given and the Law Observed which tend to be rather different. If I am in France and shoot photos including recognizable strangers, but publish - say - in Australia, what are the odds said Frenchpersons will actually sue. The answer is probably nil, unless I become rich and famous thereby.

 

[chuckroast]

Was she a good photographer? Yes. Was she one of the greats? Not really.

"Great" by comparison to whom? The arts mafia likes to lionize people that align with their socio-political agenda irrespective of their actual ability. Examples include Dorthea Lange, Annie Liebovitz, Sebastian Salgado, Ansel Adams, and Sally Mann. That's not to say they were not competent photographers, just that their "greatness" was manufactured because they made the right politicial and social noises.

But Maier's work stands on its own - no agent, no gallery to pimp her work, no arts critics to make sure her work gets the nod - just the work on its own. That's remarkable in its own right.

Sure, it's raw, unorganized, unedited, and perhaps without full context, but at least the stuff I've seen, I think is superb. The lack of social and political filtering by a third party makes it so much moreso (clearly, she had her own social and political filters as we all do).

Full disclosure: I consider art in the service of commerce "advertising" and art in the service of politics "propaganda", and art in the service of contemporary culture "cotton candy". While each of these have created some occasionally lasting good work, it's rare that any of them have any real durability. Art for its own sake and only for its own sake is much more precious and rare. The truth is that because it is so hard to make great art, people resort to the aforementioned as a sort of short cut to try to become relevant, important, famous, influential, rich etc.


Oh, and Artists Statements are the height of self importance wherein the artist attempts to insert themselves in front of the art. Let the work speak (or not).

My 2 kopeks worth. YMMV. We can all still be friends.

 

[CMoore]

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

Drop ..... Winogrand, Arbus, Klein, HCB, Viviam Maier into that scenario.
"You" just wiped out their careers

 

[CMoore]

She's dead so she has no feelings. Anything ascribed to her are our feelings, not hers. We have very few rights once we're gone. People write biographies about many dead people, some of them not so nice, some a lot better. Did some people make money on it., Well, sure. It would still be hidden if there wasn''t a profit motive. I think if she were alive and had a chance to comment, she would have been pleased that her work is being shown publicly and that people enjoy her legacy rather than being lost in an attic somewhere. Let's enjoy it too. Isn't it great that we can?

Yes. Thank You
I enjoy her photos immensely.

She is dead, never published and has no say in it now.
If people want to argue that is some kind of injustice, that is fine with me.

But what is their point, ultimately........ that her negs and photos should never see the light of day.?

More than one thing can be correct at the same time.

She is one of the greatest photographers that ever was

 

[Louis Nargi]

She was a great talent

 

[Daniela]

Drop ..... Winogrand, Arbus, Klein, HCB, Viviam Maier into that scenario.
"You" just wiped out their careers

What? I can't imagine that someone would think that was the purpose of my comment, but I'll just assume I expressed myself incorrectly. I was specifically replying to a poster who implied that those limitations would make street shooting less appealing for him in France today...

 

[CMoore]

What? I can't imagine that someone would think that was the purpose of my comment, but I'll just assume I expressed myself incorrectly. I was specifically replying to a poster who implied that those limitations would make street shooting less appealing for him in France today...

I understood you.
I was just saying.......... if those names had been under those laws, we very well might not know their names.
Your post was just for reference................ i quoted the word "you" for good reason.

 

[Daniela]

I understood you.
I was just saying.......... if those names had been under those laws, we very well might not know their names.
Your post was just for reference................ i quoted the word "you" for good reason.

Thank you for your clarification!

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

This is pretty gross assessment of all the lies that have been said about her, or truths that have never made into th novel way of describing her life. Being dead removes all the once expected respect? Money making off of that is to be condoned then?

How do you know she would have been pleased seeing what is going on about her life, and in fact photography? You don't, and that is probably the only fact about your post.

Everybody has the right to turn a blind eye on anything, not everyone has to.

You're the one focusing on the negative. I'm focusing on the positive. Her rich work is now open to the public to be enjoyed by humanity. Should we bury Van Gogh's work after his death because he was a miserable depressive who cut off his ear while alive? Of course, people with profit motives made it possible. What's wrong with profit? Employers hire us because they want to make a profit and we're helping them. Should we all quit?

 

[Patrick Robert James]

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.

I was talking about the aesthetics of the prints, not the content of the images themselves. And the prints don't matter? What world have you been living in? The print is everything in the end. I suppose in this internet world the prints don't matter for most people, but they are the final intent of a photographer. But then again, she had no say in how her prints were scanned and uploaded either. Negatives are just starting points.

I am not sure where the resentment comment comes in, if that is even pointed at me or you are just making a blanket statement. Like I said she was a good photographer and as a result she should be well liked. I like a lot of her images too. I just don't like the commercialization after the fact which she has no say in obviously. I'd love to see the prints she made during her life. That would be fascinating. The modern prints, I'll pass. At least with the vintage prints she chose to print them.

 

[chuckroast]

You're the one focusing on the negative. I'm focusing on the positive. Her rich work is now open to the public to be enjoyed by humanity. Should we bury Van Gogh's work after his death because he was a miserable depressive who cut off his ear while alive? Of course, people with profit motives made it possible. What's wrong with profit? Employers hire us because they want to make a profit and we're helping them. Should we all quit?

Hear hear. The filtration of past art, literature, etc. through modern pieties is one of the many diseases inflicted upon us by postmodern philosophy. We can appreciate the art of someone without necessarily accepting all their views, history, behavior and so forth. This retroactive application of contemporary ideas upon historical artifacts has caused no end of mischief.

FWIW, I can admire the accomplishments of the Roman Empire even though they ruled with cruel savagery. (In keeping with the meme that all men think about is the Roman Empire.)

 

[CMoore]

Thank you for your clarification!

It was my fault.
Simply quoting the word "you" was weak on my part

I should have taken a whole nother 60 seconds to say
............I am just quoting your post for reference.
You are discussing the law as it applies to "Modem day amateur photographers" and how they might work within those confines.
Your post has nothing to do with the careers of people i will mention below..

There is my apology.
Are you happy now..... you heartless bastid

 

[chuckroast]

It was my fault.
Simply quoting the word "you" was weak on my part

I should have taken a whole nother 60 seconds to say
............I am just quoting your post for reference.
You are discussing the law as it applies to "Modem day amateur photographers" and how they might work within those confines.
Your post has nothing to do with the careers of people i will mention below..

There is my apology.
Are you happy now..... you heartless bastid

If you kids don't settle down, I'm gonna send you to the darkroom to mix chemicals and load 35mm bulk film ...

 

[CMoore]

If you kids don't settle down, I'm gonna send you to the darkroom to mix chemicals and load 35mm bulk film ...

I could use A LOT more experience with loading bulk.

 

[Daniela]

If you kids don't settle down, I'm gonna send you to the darkroom to mix chemicals

As long as it's not mixing D76 from scratch...

Are you happy now..... you heartless bastid

Yep!

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

Thank you! I didn't know that existed!

 

[MattKing]

Any discussion about whether a dead person has "feelings" that can be hurt by slanderous allegations seems to forget the fact that their is a Trust in place for the benefit of Ms. Maier's estate and the Trustee may have a very strong interest in the financial effects of any such allegations on the earning potential of that Trust.
Dead people have $$ interests that people sue to protect - just ask the Trustees for the estate of Elvis Presley or a myriad of others.

 

[chuckroast]

Any discussion about whether a dead person has "feelings" that can be hurt by slanderous allegations seems to forget the fact that their is a Trust in place for the benefit of Ms. Maier's estate and the Trustee may have a very strong interest in the financial effects of any such allegations on the earning potential of that Trust.
Dead people have $$ interests that people sue to protect - just ask the Trustees for the estate of Elvis Presley or a myriad of others.

But the former has to do with emotional harm (much harder to show damages, I would think), whereas the latter is entirely a matter of economic harm (which ought to be easier to demonstrate).

Not being argumentative, just inquisitive on how the law might deal differently with the two cases.

 

[MattKing]

But the former has to do with emotional harm (much harder to show damages, I would think), whereas the latter is entirely a matter of economic harm (which ought to be easier to demonstrate).

Not being argumentative, just inquisitive on how the law might deal differently with the two cases.

Depends on the jurisdiction.
Around here, and I expect much of the world, "emotional harm" is worth just about squat - it is money that matters in courts of law.
Of course, a lot of monetary damages can flow as a direct consequence of "emotional harm".

 

[Arthurwg]

"Great" by comparison to whom? The arts mafia likes to lionize people that align with their socio-political agenda irrespective of their actual ability. Examples include Dorthea Lange, Annie Liebovitz, Sebastian Salgado, Ansel Adams, and Sally Mann. That's not to say they were not competent photographers, just that their "greatness" was manufactured because they made the right politicial and social noises.

But Maier's work stands on its own - no agent, no gallery to pimp her work, no arts critics to make sure her work gets the nod - just the work on its own. That's remarkable in its own right.

Sure, it's raw, unorganized, unedited, and perhaps without full context, but at least the stuff I've seen, I think is superb. The lack of social and political filtering by a third party makes it so much moreso (clearly, she had her own social and political filters as we all do).

Full disclosure: I consider art in the service of commerce "advertising" and art in the service of politics "propaganda", and art in the service of contemporary culture "cotton candy". While each of these have created some occasionally lasting good work, it's rare that any of them have any real durability. Art for its own sake and only for its own sake is much more precious and rare. The truth is that because it is so hard to make great art, people resort to the aforementioned as a sort of short cut to try to become relevant, important, famous, influential, rich etc.


Oh, and Artists Statements are the height of self importance wherein the artist attempts to insert themselves in front of the art. Let the work speak (or not).

My 2 kopeks worth. YMMV. We can all still be friends.

Well, I would love to see a list of those "artists" who meet your criteria.

 

[chuckroast]

Well, I would love to see a list of those "artists" who meet your criteria.

I wasn't really speaking to my own "criteria", only in opposition to the idea that people made famous by by the arts mafia as being particularly good and - more particularly - that people not under the influence of said arts mafia are unimportant.

Vivian Maier was a rare talent and should be so regarded.

 

[Don_ih]

I was talking about the aesthetics of the prints, not the content of the images themselves. And the prints don't matter? What world have you been living in?

There are no "aesthetics of the prints" without the "content of the image". That's reality. Also, there's no saying what she would have chosen to print if she had had much of reason to. She wasn't getting photobooks published, wasn't supplying prints to magazines or galleries, she didn't have clients. But she did choose to take exactly those photos. And, as much as a print is "everything in the end," there is no print without first pointing the camera, adjusting exposure, and tripping the shutter.

I am not sure where the resentment comment comes in

What I meant was the people who argue that she should not have commercial success, on whatever basis, sound resentful (so not specifically a response to your comment). Whether that basis was "people are only interested in her story" or "people only like how the photos capture a lost time with outdated fashion and old cars" or "she didn't get to choose which of her images should be presented" - doesn't matter. There's not really much reason to talk about that commercial success if talking about her as a photographer or talking about her pictures. That success was never hers - it belongs to the people who pushed her work into the public eye and promoted it. Those photos are her work, no matter who printed them or how.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Any discussion about whether a dead person has "feelings" that can be hurt by slanderous allegations seems to forget the fact that their is a Trust in place for the benefit of Ms. Maier's estate and the Trustee may have a very strong interest in the financial effects of any such allegations on the earning potential of that Trust.
Dead people have $$ interests that people sue to protect - just ask the Trustees for the estate of Elvis Presley or a myriad of others.

I wasn't referring to slander. I was arguing that it seems strange to me to say a dead person's feelings might be hurt because some editor today cropped her picture in a way she might not have approved if she was still alive. The point I was making is that feelings for how a dead person might feel about things are our feelings, not theirs. Of course, there are financial issues that may apply and do in this case such as who owns her work. I believe that was all settled in court.

As far as slander of a dead person, I think we should all be careful in what we say about the dead just on human terms. However, I'm not sure what the law allows. Some pretty bad things have been said about people after their death. Elvis was called a drug addict and that drugs killed him. Did anyone sue?