All I will say is that my life is richer after seeing many of Vivian Maier's photographs and experiencing those moments she chose to savor. Whether or not she wanted to share those moments with us is something we will never know, but I for one am thrilled that John Maloof decided these photographs were worth "curating" and exposed them to the world. We're better for it.
"people who knew her had no idea she was a photographer"- except that she had a camera with her at all time and incessantly took images. So many untruths about V.M. have circulated. "She had a contrived French accent" - except that her Mom and Grandmom were native speakers, she attended 6 years of grade school in France, wrote annontations on her photos in French... "She never wanted her work to be seen, it was too personal" - except she approached a friend to have postcards made. "She was a recluse" - except she loved being around families and children and could take close-ups of complete strangers she met on the street. V.M. captured americana with striking black and white imagery. You can debate at end whether she was an "artist" or not. She was a natural. Her works appeal to many. They strike a chord for many. The sad thing was she lived in poverty toward the end of her life. The sad thing is she never got recognition for her work during her lifetime. The sad thing is that any Joe Schmoe can say whatever they want about her without the need of substantiating their opinion and without her being able to defend herself.
Her stuff is good. I don't care about curating degrees and the rest of the "high art" side of photography. Her work is good and she has a very interesting story. I imagine that if she had gotten her work out there during her lifetime, we would be having a much different conversation now.
@@lisafrolova3429 Except, he wasn’t talking about Vivian Maier, he was talking about the two gentlemen who got ahold of her pictures/negatives and the way they went about presenting her work to the public. Honestly, in the beginning, they sucked at it. They were amateurs. It was more important to them to keep control of her work instead of hiring the right people to help them.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion ... so here's mine. It was the BBC documentary of Vivian Maier that first made me aware of "Street Photography" as a thing. I was stunned by her eye for an image and, since my interest was awakened in this branch of photography, haven't seen much that I'd consider any better than her best images. I don't have any issues with what constitutes a curator. We should remember how close these images were to the garbage can and be thankful that we got to see them. I've seen so many thousand Street Photography images now and the vast majority lack what makes Maier's images so great, a dark and ironic sense of humour. The documentary made her seem humourless and tragic but her images contradict that, they have humour, irony, pathos and a wonderful sense of time and place. In summary I couldn't care less about the politics and legalities surrounding her work, Maier is long dead and doesn't care about which images we get to see, I just want to see them all and make up my own mind.
She captured a very unique point of view of life in the 60s that the world deserves to see. Had she truly not wanted anyone to see her work she would have left a will to say so, or destroyed the negatives. Dismissing the release of these images for us to see her talent because of the unworthiness of curator skills from the people who bought the negatives is no more than self serving photo snobbery all too common in this art medium.
It puzzles me how, on the one hand, you can say Vivian Maier was an "excellent" photographer and yet downplay the quality and content of her work as nothing special. While it is true that Ms. Maier did not show her work, it is documented that she was a very private person who revealed very little information about herself to anyone. We do know, however, that she did have postcards made of some of her French landscapes, and had correspondence with a printer in France which hints that she might considered sharing her work publicly. We also know the Vivian had expertiese in the darkroom and printed many of her photographs herself. From that we can see how she cropped and processed her photographs, as well as what she considered important in the photo, which gives us, at least an inkling of how she might have presented unpublished work. Whether the current, so-called, "curators" have the expertiese to interpret that is another story. As a result, we can agree, that Maloof may not be the appropriate "curator" of her work. Other than accidentally discovering her via boxes of her photographs, he has little experience as a curator. Even though he has a large collection of her work, there are at least a dozen other people that possess significant portions, which hardly makes Maloof the authority since there are gaps in the "timeline" of the work he possesses. Although we may never "find" Vivian Maier , her work is important and significant, just as she is important and significant as a photographer. Her value and expertiese as a photographer is evident from prints she created in her darkrooms and the subjects she chose to capture. Her images show care in choosing her subjects, her point of view, and how she balances the subject in relation to the surroundings, and the context she creates. You opinion aside, Mr. Forbes, we can be thankful at least, that Vivian Maier and her work has been brought into the light of day, to interest us, to fascinate us, and to inspire us.
I think that what Ted is trying to say here, is that whilst some of Vivian's work is unarguably excellent in terms of quality, there is nothing gorundbreaking here. Bruce Gilden, Henri-Cartier Bresson and Joel Meyerowitz for example, are all individuals who have pushed the envelope of photography and street photography in particular. I have to agree with Ted and say that it is hard to see what Ms Maier has done that has not already been done elsewhere. However, we're all allowed to disagree, thats what makes the world interesting! ;)
Rebassed You don't even have an argument to make. You seriously need to do some research. Joel Meyerowitz not only pioneered colour photography but has done some excellent street work (including a great shot of an upset little girl framed in the open window of a car door and a photo of a girl in a bikini climbing over a chain fence, which had sinister overtones. Oh and then there's the photo of the African American standing with his Great Dane, a man in a suit glowering from nearby). He also took some incredibly moving photo's of Ground Zero. Bruce Gilden has taken some amazing photo's of the Japanese Yakuza, Coney Island and some clever portraits of unusual characters on the streets of NYC. I'm guessing you don't really do street photography. If you do, I'd be keen to know where your work is located, just to compare it to Meyerowitz and Gilden. Based on your comment above it should be pretty genre altering stuff! Ffs, you'll be saying HCB took snapshots next....
I think you are being overly sensitive here because Ted makes a valid point. Her work is outstanding but she did not do anything that had not been done before and that is not a knock on her. There is nothing wrong with not being an innovator but rather a technician. For instance, Joe Montana or Tom Brady (you could make an argument for them as the best to ever play QB ever) did nothing different than hundreds of other quarterbacks have done in the history of the NFL but what they did was better than anyone else was able to do it, even the innovators of the techniques that Montana and Brady used. Being a technician is a compliment and too much weight is put on innovation. I think Ted was complimenting her work while trying to say that the "curators" were using her work for their own gains while misrepresenting her work, process, who she was, and her influence. The "curators" seem to be trying to sell a product rather than giving a true representation of her work.
What she did was to take hundreds of intimate, beautifully crafted photographs with astonishing composition and, yes gentlemen, groundbreaking use of reflection and contrast. You can take it or leave it. But there it is. Groundbreaking. You probably think Van Gogh was overrated too. Good luck with that.
the work is valuable because it was not only excellent but captured everyday people and places in a very sincere way. it shows a by-gone era. The value of art has nothing to do with curation. The work stands on its own. She may not have had a chance to edit the photos and develop them the way a professionally trained photographer would have been taught, but why should that detract from her as an artist? she captured what she wanted to capture. The art is in the capture.
This video has bothered me for a long time. I finally just had to post a comment. There are two fundamental issues with it for me. The title and alot of what is said is about Vivian Maier but the real issues are with the "curators." He talks about fairness to the artist to choose her work but he is dragging her because of the "curator" she didn't pick either. Small aside, Tom Thomson didn't get to choose what was released either although his peers did. My second issue is that he knocks and criticizes her work but only by comparing her to legends. People who dedicated their entire lives, including education and work to photography. Some of the photographer named dropped, she was active long before them. She mastered photography at a time when it was very difficult and expensive, especially to do it as a hobby. The respect she deserves is because he's naming Adams and Mapplethorpe just to criticize her. If that is not a statement of excellence.
Dear Mr. Forbes, After watching your video, it seems that you have much more of an issue with how her work is presented after her death than with the actual substance of her work itself. If my interpretation is correct, then my question for you is: do you believe her work and POV as an artist should be lost to history because she wasn't able to curate it herself? That's kind of the impression the video gives off. She didn't edit so... what? What are the options? Should we put the negatives back is their boxes and never look at them? Destroy them? Morally, there's lots of debate about who should reap the financial benefits- and I completely think that's a valid issue to discuss- but from the pure "art" issue? From my POV, I'm glad her art was found and presented. And I also like that it's a collection in its entirety because it shows a real process for art- there will be some masterpieces and their will be some duds... probably more duds than masterpieces, but seeing the process in its entirety shows us her POV and also her insatiable need to CREATE. THAT is beautiful in and of itself. Cheers!
Most of the big successful galleries and collectors (with the help from trained curators) have turned artists work into a commodity. They buy /monopolize the work of an artist so they can control that particular artist's market. These galleries and collectors choose what we see and they control the flow. It's been happening for decades. Call it sleazy, call it what you want. Vivian Maiers career is no different but started post-mortem with the help of a couple of flea marketers with the help of the internet. For Vivian Maier, all worked out for the best on many levels. Her rise is totally unconventional on all counts. She was a nanny and a bold photographer. She is now a famous artist. I am very happy these gentlemen saved her negatives from the landfill. She beautifully captured my childhood by photographing her surroundings. I will be forever grateful for her super talent and all of the folks connected to her story.
Astonishing how many commenters below don't appreciate how much Ted Forbes DOES appreciate Vivian Maier's work. He has not slagged her at all. He has simply expressed misgivings about how the somewhat unqualified curation of exhibits and books has diluted the impact that her work, at its frequent best, should quite properly have. I think Ted overdoes this point ... because, Ms. Maier no longer being with us, there is no escaping the necessity of presenting her work without her having the opportunity to sieve it through her own most considered judgment. As for the quality of the eyes that have done the curation, Ted is not impressed - and he is entirely entitled to his (highly qualified) opinion. And that opinion has a positive motivation ... the wish to see Ms. Maier presented in the best light possible. Ted is a positive presence among all those presenting videos on photography. As a rule, he sees the best in each artist. This video is no exception to that commendable tendency. What criticism he feels he must offer is not directed at the photographer, whom he praises highly. Nor does it come marinated in the kind of malice in which critics often unconsciously indulge. It reflects his attempt to fairly assess the whole process that has seen an unknown but talented photographer brought from obscurity to public renown. Ted brings a high level of thought and sensibility to his videos. Not everyone will agree, but I find this video wholly in keeping with his best work.
Obviously, you have a problem, you are confusing her work with what other people have done with her work since her death, marketing and all. Personally, I admire who she was, solitaire and secretive, her keen eye for observation and finally her snapshots. Simply beautiful, describing an era long gone.For the rest, I don't give a damn as long as the original prints are kept intact. Thanks Vivian!
Two things about the Vivian Maier story are worthwhile to me. 1. She was very good, and many of us enjoy looking at her work. 2. Her story, both what we know and don't know. The fact that it raises many ethical questions is part of the charm for me. Perhaps that is how she has been groundbreaking. I think many of us would not want someone scouring fhrough every photo we ever took - kind of scary. Still, when I look at her work, even though it is edited by someone else, I feel I am seeing someone experiment and find their way as a photographer and also can see a bit of myself in her view of the world. I am mostly glad I get to see what she worked so hard to create.
Vivian Maier was an amateur photographer coming from an unrelated background with a much worse camera than any other famous street photographer... no to mention that "she" was doing a man's thing at that time, so if someone was able to overcome all these things to create a large, consistent collection of high quality shots with a fresh and sharp style (hardly inspired in someone else at that time) i'm sorry but that person is a GENIUS
@fabiyeah I don’t see anything amateur in Vivian Maier photography : with no community or feedback or support and being a woman in my estimation she outdid 99.8% of all professional photographers . In my mind she is a photographer’s photographer
For some context, some of her best street work to me appears to have been produced as far back as the early 50's. This is at least 10 years before Winogrand's best work. If this was released back then she would have been one of the truly great pioneers of the art IMHO. Sadly there must be more people I'd say who were producing quality like this at the time and whose work has never and will never see the light of day. I'm sure glad I'm able to see some of Vivian Maier's work and I judge it by what else was being produced at the time. Her work is at least as good, if not better than anything I've seen from that era. An absolute street photography masterclass.
Also the reason the reaction to these images is "Where have they been?" is because this isn't just art, and it is amazing art....but it is also a rare glimpse into what daily life was like during the times that she lived, it's our history candidly recorded.
A couple things: First, I have learned more about photography from AOP than from any other single source. I appreciate that +Ted Forbes is so willing to share his knowledge with those of us who are so willing to learn. Secondly, I understand that this is one person, with a singular perspective, and certainly personal opinions. I think we should allow for this in our viewing of this video. Whether or not Ms. Maier was a great photographer is not the center of the debate here - the idea that other's are choosing what is being seen of her work seems to be more of an issue and one that I personally agree with. Having said that, I also understand that once a person dies how others display their work is no longer under their control. Unless there were written instructions on how the work was to be published it's kind of up for grabs to whomever ends up with it - sad, but true. Whether or not the gentlemen who are "curating" her work are professional curators, they are the ones who have made the choice on how they think it should be made public. Certainly every subscriber here has their own opinion on how they feel that should have been approached, but at this point what we feel about it is meaningless. We can't change what has already been done. The (long-winded) point I'm trying to make is that Mr. Forbes is simply expressing his opinion on what he feels about how Vivian's work has been handled, and that he likely would have taken a very different approach. Cut him some slack - he has just as much right to express his thoughts as you do. You don't have to agree with him, but at least try to be civil.
Hi Ted, As a female photographer myself, I have found it difficult to find significant female photographers to be inspired by. I found VM's work an honest look at the world she moved within. Whilst I take your point about that "others" curating her work, because I know how fussy i am with my own work, I do however identify with VM's position in life. She would have more than likely not have the contacts or even perhaps the confidence to propel herself into the art world. She was by all accounts a working class girl, was not encouraged to show her work, more than likely had some form of depression and as a woman of that era never felt that she had the talent to succeed in this area. It has been my experience that unless you have some of the elements of contacts, support or confidence many female artists work remain unknown. I really like her work and have enjoyed seeing her story telling. Who knows perhaps this was of her making, is it possible that the prolific amounts of work she produced was in itself her piece of art. That a talented women passed through this world unknown and has made the point that women are often not seen. Just say! I really like your program and your narration, thanks for your thoughts on this, it is well worth a discussion. cheers Rose
I so agree with your point that she did not know how to manage to make a step into the "being seen platform" because of lack of confidence, no support and her status. The effort to construct a dialog would have consumed her creativity in that fancy art world as she was so private and sensitive lonler. The letters to the little printing house in hometown in France shows that she had the intention to be seen. She was a creative person moved by her inner source depicting her own world and reflecting it. And for me thats what makes her work exceptional that Creativity is for everyone - its not for the curators and its not a profession -- its a "feeling" , its a sense - its a part of us.. Today she would probably could use all the tools of the digital world to be seen....Her passion to create emerged her little room with all those boxes so that she would even seemed to be insane... And she was not.
Interesting video. 2 things. 1. You make about half of your case against they way that her work has been handled, stating that she had no editorial input or ability to cull the collection. Since she is dead, I'm not sure how that is relevant. There are Picasso notebook sketches in museums all over the world, work that I am sure he never intended anyone to see. I know that Goldstein is only printing the negatives using the technology that was available at the time the pictures were taken. It seems to me that both people are making a conscious decision to do this thing the right way. 2. I actually purchased a Goldstein image - because I liked it. I think that art critics miss the boat a lot of times. Can't Vivian Maier be measured as a great photographer because so many people love her work? I get a little tired of the "I know everyone likes it, but they aren't as educated as I am" routine. I think it was Pop Photo magazine that absolutely ripped Robert Frank's "The Americans" when it came out. Look how that turned out. I think that many of the people that are discounting Vivian Maier are annoyed that the has found popular culture. To many artists, that is the worst thing that can happen.
Ask any artist, photographer, writer, etc and they'll tell you that the idea of someone else being in charge of their work is their worst nightmare. Picasso sketches are presented as preliminary sketches - but had he died unknown, how do we know those sketches wouldn't be presented as cropped and finished works? And we know what those sketches are and what they became because Picasso heavily documented his process and was well known, so we know that this is a sketch of his friend or a doodle of his wife, etc. We have absolutely zero knowledge of Vivian's life, her intentions, her influences, her ideas, etc. The issue here isn't about "I'm smart and no more about photography than you plebs" it's literally an artist expressing reticence because her work has absolutely zero input from Vivian herself and is being developed, cropped, printed and shown by someone who has literally no idea of her intention. Did she want to under expose this shot? Did she want this one to be cropped here? Did she want these images shown together...? We have absolutely zero context for anything. I'll give you a really good example - there's only one Henri Cartier-Bresson image that's exhibited without the hard black border of the original negative around it. It's a very famous shot he took of a man stepping across a puddle, its an image that sums up his philosophy of the decisive moment as an image perfectly. However it's a crop. He stuck his camera through a hole in a fence and looked over the top and caught this perfect, Cartier-Bresson moment. The uncropped negative has the fence and other debris on the edge of the frame. So Cartier-Bresson cropped it. It's the only image that doesn't have his trademark borders, it's the only crop in his catalogue. We don't have that with Vivian Meier. We don't know if she had a backstory for a piece like that. Everything is presented exactly the same way and that's that. Finally, he praises Meier heavily. That's not the issue. Meier is an excellent photographer. However the owners of her work are not photographers, and they're presenting lacklustre and poor throwaway shots that aren't representative of her genius. He's not suggesting that the issue is they aren't educated or that Vivian is patchy. He's saying that they're motivated by profit and profit alone and instead of curating her best work (and even lesser work) into collections, books and similar, they're releasing everything as if it was all just as valuable and brilliant and actually, by doing so, harming Meier's reputation as a photographer (MoMA and the Tate turned down the self portraits exhibition because the majority of it isn't very good). They're after a quick buck and because they don't know much about art (by their own admission) they're making really pedestrian choices (street photos, self portraits) with no regard for chronological order or continuity and in doing so, yeah they're making money today, but they're not going to be making it tomorrow if they don't start treating her work with respect. That's what you're missing. I love Meiers work. I completely understand why so many photographers are reticent to endorse it or have seen too many throwaway shots presented as her work. I'm glad you bought a print but I bet the print you bought wasn't one of the "shadow self portraits" or the out of focus and blurry car photos that we now believe were likely *test shots* with her new camera. I know this is an old comment but I really think you completely misunderstood what was being said here. He repeatedly stated that Meier was brilliant and that her work is truly special.
Things don’t have to be “groundbreaking” to be great. You used that word a dozen times to underplay the work. The fact that she was taking all these photos and never never saw the light of day until they were found and they are beautiful pieces of work is why it’s a great story. You can just enjoy the work, and not feel the need to bring her down because it didn’t change photography forever. This RUclips video was not groundbreaking.
Respectfully, I think you undersell how difficult street photography is on a medium format camera like a rolleiflex. Look at some gordon parks street rolleiflex shots and you can gain a bit more respect for her using a medium format tlr camera that is rather large. Henri used a leica m3 which from my experience is a much different and much better camera for street. Also Henri took photos as a successful photographer. I think you highly underrate her as she has filled 4 and counting great books with photos. Most people don't take a single photo as well as her in their entire life.
I love Vivian Maiers work very much. I stumbled across the "A Photographer Found" book at a local book store and when looking through it it seemed good enough to drop 60$ on it and add it to my collection. Since then it's probably the book I come back the most out of all the ones I have. Of course I don't think every image is amazingly good but I wouldn't say that for any other photographer too. There are photographers which I like more and some that I like less but there's no photographer where I could blindly pick an image and be sure it's a hundred percent good. And Vivian Maier besides a few others would probably have one of the best ratios for me. I can't really speak on the curation and editing part of your video because your very right with what you say but on the other hand I'm just damn glad I got to see her work.
A few comments about this excellent analysis by Ted: • Emily Dickinson is the most immediately recognizable artist that might be associated with Vivian Meier, and if I’m mentioning it here again (I haven’t reviewed all comments in this thread) please forgive me. As a writer and scholar myself, I would rank Dickinson as the greatest of all American poets, with her work discovered after her death and edited for grammar and punctuation. Call it “printing." Lately, the original renditions of her poems have resulted in more faithful versions of what she intended originally. But the original “non-faithful” (printings) of her poems brought her to prominence, similarly to Vivian Meier. • Michelangelo’s “David” was originally intended to be positioned along the roofline of a cathedral, but later was placed instead in a public square, then later moved to Florence, and later replaced at the original location by a replica. Does this “printing” after the event violate the artist’s intentions? Has it harmed the art itself? • Throwing away stuff: One onus on Vivian Meier is that virtually all her stuff was not printed. Thus, the great, the good, and the dreck were all discovered and printed by the exploiters. The argument that Forbes makes about “subsequent editing” here is valid. If Vivian intended her stuff to be shown, she would have edited it carefully, and screened for goodness (in her opinion). • Lastly, in my opinion scanned negs are OK if that’s all we have. They illustrate well the one fine thing: That Vivian had a good idea, a fine eye, and an imposing personality that forced people to sit still for a shot. I’ve got no problems with these qualities.
You say we are being curated by two people not connected with Vivian Maier. Would you prefer they disposed of them? Thankfully they have recognised the importance of this work and are sharing it.
My opinion is that art and it's value is up to the individual viewer. They should show all her work and let the public decide. I saw the documentary on netflix last night and I must say I was blown away. I had never heard of this Artist. She had many personal demons, but she produced beautiful images. She died with nothing, but left so much for the world to see. I respect what you are saying but I disagree. You say she should of had the chance to edit her own work before it was shown. These are special circumstance, if it was up to the Artist all her work would have been lost in time.
"Redefined street photography" No- Very Very good? You betcha- she is one of those photographers who when you first glance at her work you just know you are seeing something special done by an Artist with a great eye, who was able to develop a personal style that is pretty much instantly recognizable-- You know they are a step above- She deserves to be right up there with the best of them- Sure there are some not so great shots, but even Ansell Adams or cartier or one of the great photographers said, (I think it was Ansell) something along the lines of "If you get 10-12 shots per year that are great, I'd say you're doing pretty good" meaning of course the vast majority of shots you take are going to be so so- might be pretty good, but just not top notch artistic shots- There are a number of great street photographers, who have an uncanny ability to somehow connect with their subject in a way that really brings out the character/gesture of the subject- Vivian was one such artist and certainly holds her own in the world of elite street photographers-
I watched the movie done by Maloof and one thing it does show is that she did in fact contact a printer in her mothers hometown in France about the possibility of having her work printed. So...she did in fact want to put some of it out there. As to the curators comments...as people have highlighted below, MoMa wasn't interested. Who says because you have a degree in art history that you have good taste? Personally I think the "expert" mentality we seem to charish in our society is part of the reason that good artist/photographers get overlooked. Why is your opinion more valid then the sales clerk who just happens to love photography? To make such assertions is at best obtuse and basically elitist crap. Reading books and passing a test doesn't make you a better judge of "pretty" or "talented" then the rest of us!
Yep when it comes to the arts, you are absolutely right....it's like acting...sure classes help..but you absolutely do not need to study theatre to be an excellent actor! Art is not a Science...It's talent. It's a feeling....it's expression! You don't teach that.
She's not around to curate her own work. So i'm glad that someone did it for her. Even if they aren't the "best" curators for her work, it's a lot better than having all that film going into landfill
Many people commenting here greatly misunderstand what Ted is trying to say. When Ted talks about the lack of proper curation in the presentations of VM's works, it is NOT him being highbrow and uppity. Instead, Ted is wondering, whether or not the currently available presentations of her works adequately represents her arts and accurately reflect who she was as an artist. After all, like Ted says, VM had no involvement in these presentations of her works. Personally I really like many of her images. She is really very, very good. But, she is also very overrated. Now hear me out. I say she is overrated but that is NOT a comment of her but rather it's a criticism of some of her fans. It happens often, especially in arts, that an interesting back story elevates the work to a much higher level than that it truly deserves. I sincerely doubt that many people would say things like "redefine street photography" if there hasn't been that interesting back story of "found treasure left by a secretive photographer who lived a reclusive double life as a nanny". But that's NOT VM's fault. I want to make this point clear! Believe it or not, there are many, many, many photographers in this world who are just as good if not better than VM but they do NOT get the attentions that VM has gotten, because there isn't any interesting back story behind them or their works. Another issue I have with the VM phenomenon is that, as far as I know, no print has survived her. At least that's the case with Maloof's collection. In other words, all the images are printed from scratch by third parties after her death without any guidance from her or at least a sample to go by. As such, we have no way to know how VM would have wanted the final images to be - i.e., we don't know they are her vision and intent or not. Now, before anyone would yell at me about how some of the greatest photographers don't print their photographs themselves or how some artists don't physically produce the arts themselves, yes, I know that, but I am also confident that most of them would have editorial controls and final approval on how the photographs are printed or how the arts are made. But, sadly, it's not the case with VM's works that are presented to us. (I have seen a report that mentions that Jeff Goldstein actually once had in his possession some vintage VM prints allegedly made during her lifetime, but I couldn't verify that, nor do I know the images Goldstein shows are original prints or not.)
As a photographer, the street photography scene is often difficult. Many 'Mind's Eye' images that I never captured because I wasn't quick enough with the logistics in the situation. - The undeniable BOLDNESS that Vivian displayed in capturing 'Street images' is truly First Rate...
At first I wasn’t sure if I was going to like what you were going to say, but when you said she didn’t get the chance to edit and decide what the public could see, it clicked and I 100% agree.
I agree on the over-saturation and over-hype of Vivian's work. That being said, there is something about her particular technique and her eye for capturing the world around her that I can't get enough of. Even though we are seeing her work unedited and not well curated, I've loved every image.
I think you were completely spot on with your comments that she’s not allowed to edit and curate her own work. No matter how you feel about the subject definitely she had some great pictures and some they were not so great. Love the insight love the commentary.
Picking one photograph. at the kiosk, the reflection that is captured in the glass just opens up so much within the picture, seems never ending, love it.
I can appreciate the comment that "Vivian Maier did not get to edit her own work." At least the work that is now presented to us. I printed for the aerial photographer and book publisher of the "Above" series, Robert Cameron. I was his only printer for the last 3-4 years of his life and we became good friends. When he passed away in 2009 he left me thousands of his original films. I assured him that I would try my best to represent only his best work and in the best manner. Because of our history together I am confident that his images through my hands will remain well represented. Unfortunately and apparently Vivian Maier didn't have such a relationship with a printer. The last 5 years I have chosen to convert many of Bob's best images into black and white silver gelatin prints onto fiber based papers. Although he mainly shot color transparencies the black and white negatives that I have made from them are very faithful, I think, to his original vision, and he personally loved black and white prints, being personal friends with Ansel Adams. Although I wish he was still alive to give me his blessings, I feel I have it nevertheless.
It is so refreshing to finally find a voice on the internet with some thoughtful reasoning. So many self proclaimed photographers and artists all over the web spewing their naively uneducated opinions on art and photography while hiding behind the wildly overused and insanely inaccurate "art is subjective" motto. Finding your voice is especially refreshing in light of the Vivian Maier topic. While everyone else either holds her up on this cult like pedestal or outright dismisses her because she wasn't famous of her own accord, I've shared almost the same sentiment you do ever since I heard about her. My biggest issue, as you've pointed out so well, is how she is being marketed, and without her input. I mean can you imagine if someone found every photo you ever took or every sketch you ever made and then put them all out there for the world to see without any note as to whether this one was just a test or was some drunken doodle for fun or whether it was the piece you were most proud of? I have created a least a few pieces that I am immensely proud of but I also have sketchbooks full of intentionally ridiculous sketches I created while testing a new process or medium... I certainly wouldn't want those two bodies of "work" shown side by side.... the latter I would never want shown. I personally appreciate that the two "curators" saw the value in her work and didn't let it disappear but I REALLY wish they would make it a point to inform the public that what is being seen is more or less an interpretation of her work. It's unfortunate they didn't bring in someone who might have been able to help them print and curate the work from a more knowledgeable background. The advent of social media has created a massive army of professional amateurs who have foregone building any actual background in academic/professional understanding of the field they claim to be an expert of simply because it's not necessary when you can just claim you are an expert. It's nice to see someone with the knowledge and understanding applying a critical eye to this topic.
Ted's comments are honest and straight forward. The great photo's are lauded and the typical shots are labeled as such. His criticism is aimed at those that now own the rights to her work. I'm glad that when he gave a criticism that he would explain why he gave it. And most of the criticism is aimed at those that are exploiting her work for their own gain.
dear, "she is gone!!." she can't edit her work! as a person who love photography. we should be happy about her work can be seen. the bottom line is... her work with edited correctly or not, for what I can see. those photos inspires me. whatever people has to say about the whole matter... it has been a blessing. cheers. BURT
To me just being able to see images from the past: people, subjects.. is cool enough without it being composed with all the "rules" and so forth. Clearly she knew about photography and had a good eye which adds another dimension, but being able to open a time capsule is the real beauty. Sometimes the content is enough to carry the image without anything else, and with her there's A LOT of content.
You could take it this way : everyone that looks at VM photos is a curator. You have been given the freedom to explore yourself not only engaging with the composition and all related, but also with the whole process. It is impossible to know what somebody wants by interpreting what other people (in general or particular) had done on the photography path (field).
Very well put, I think what makes Vivian interesting is that she probably did not want anyone to see her work. She was a very good photographer who was private. Good job defending her and good job talking about what's going on, sad that some of it is being over hyped by people trying to make money. Glad to see her story though and her work and glad she's getting some recognition in a day and age where everyone thinks they are a photographer.
"Res ipsa loquitur". Her body of work can speak for itself. True for any other artist, popular or unknown. One thing that this video made me is checking out her work. I must say, I'm an instant fan.
Too bad she didn't share in her lifetime, I hate how people used her for their own benefit. It would have been much better if a art museum released her work. Nobody deserves to profit from it.
Photographic Time So if you bought a bunch of yard sale pictures and found out they were unknown Van Gogh you would just give them to a museum and never tell anyone you had them and if you did you would refuse any monetary offers. Really?
Ya but if you bought paintings and found out they were Van Gogh's you would just give them to a museum and not make any money from them or tell anyone. really?
I was fortunate to stumble across the documentary "Finding Vivian Maier" that John Maloof had created. He was working on writing a history book and well, this is absolute history. He managed to track down the family members whom she had worked for and gained even more knowledge of this "curious" woman. Had she not kept all that she had, little clues of that life, it would have not given those she'd worked for more reflection of the woman she was. One who had been a childhood friend of one of her charges said she'd not be as hard on her. Everyone that believed she was French, found that she was actually born in N.Y. Her roots were indeed French where her mother was born illegitimately as was Vivian. There was a mysterious comment that Vivian had made to the young girls that might lead one to think that she had been hurt by a man, physically, as a mere child. (In one of her photographs, a mailbox with the words: Men must change or die. Had she scrawled such in the darkness of night only to return in daylight?) John Maloof travelled all the way to a small village in France, finding a film developer to whom she'd given instruction in how to print some of her work. John Maloof showed him a photo of the very same man he was speaking to but of course, at a much younger age. He was so very surprised to see himself in that photograph! She had to be a very bold and fearless woman to travel alone into countries that didn't believe women should have such a right. Even in the States, women had no rights. Single women were not allowed to have their own credit card! Do yourselves a favor and see "Finding Vivian Maier" as you will see her in a different light. The BBC documentary is right here on RUclips but I cannot seem to get beyond "halfway" there. While watching, I had the thought of this being made into a movie. Perhaps in an Alfred Hitchcock-esque way...
Agree with you completely. Except on the editing of their work. Vincent Van Gogh died without selling one painting. His brother and supporter (who is said to have purchased the only painting from his brother to make him believe) died six months later. His work was edited, sold and marketed by Vincent's sister in law.
Agree with many of your points Ted. We must remember, we are a nation who really is longful for the past. The images are good in many cases because they give us a glimpse of a past that is gone forever. Are they technically brilliant photos? Not necessarily. Are they fun because they show is what life was like during a time many of us were not alive? I think so. We live in a time where there is so much slovenliness, that to see photos of a time when people dressed well, is refreshing. That is what Vivian Maier means to me. Not the most among photographer, but a glimpse into a long ago time. Just my .02 keep up the good work!
How about just admiring the photos as a journey thru history from one persons POV? How many people have such a varied history documented of human interest?
5 лет назад
I know its years from the actual story, but I discovered it now, so here are my thoughts: I completely agree with the video. The difference what people in the comments do not seem to understand is that every artist has the right to publish their work and work on it. An art piece is not complete without the final input. The photography work is just HALF the work people! Even if you are not eager to print or to publish it, to become an acclaimed artist it is a necessity that you have to put in work that you might hate. Photography is not just taking pictures, but developing, printing, framing, and publishing are all part of it. Not all is fun and nice in the world, you can't produce an amazing work in one step, but if you put in the time, you will reap the full benefits. Miss Maier's didn't and so to later say that she changed the photography game (even is she came out with something spectacular and unexpected, which she didn't) would not be right. Again I 100% agree with the video: she was an amazing photographer, had an extraordinary eye for composition, but was not a great artist, as she left an unfinished work as an artist, or better: no work as an artist at all, as she never claimed to be one in the first place. ps.: Funny thing is I am amazed by her work, and I really wonder: who are all those amazing and great photographers who's work has been thrown out and never seen the light of day? Miss Maiers is a very very lucky person after all, and these guys who produced the documentary and sell her art reap all the benefits... I think that somewhat sad.
I also agree with your opinion on Vivian Maier. I love looking at her work but at the same time I feel guilty about it, because not only did she not have the chance to edit her own work, but for all we know she might not have wanted anyone to see her work.
History, especially that of the humanities, is a collective reflection of individual's impact on each other. History would not exist if we all lived alone on completely isolated islands, let it be physical or cultural. There is no question Vivian Maier was a good photographer by popular standards, simply due to the fact that people loved her work. Regardless of the intentions of the gentlemen who discovered, marketed and benefited from her work, at the end of the day, people liked her artwork. And that doesn't happen with just anyone. As to her role in art history, when considering the interactions and lack thereof with the rest of the world, it has to be minimal, up to the moment she has become known and started affecting others. For all her life, she did not try to present and defend herself as an artist, and she did not intend to influence others in this way. Her impact on the lives of the children she looked after is greater than that of her artistic expression. Clearly, now her work started to be discovered and appreciated, along with the intrigue that she never benefited from them during her lifetime, she started writing art history. It is not a rewrite, it is a continuation. In the end, history is systematic and interactive, it is an attempt for humanity as a whole to understand itself better. On an individual basis however, people take inspirations from each other, and at the same time, possesses artistic instinct and power of creation independently. Rather than trying to precisely define an individual's role in the grande scheme of things, I take simple pleasure from appreciating and enjoying the creative works of others.
We have plenty of examples of artists' work published without their own editing, curating, even permission. Emily Dickinson - nearly all her poems and letters; and some works by Charles Dickens; Ernest Hemingway; Anne Frank; Friedrich Nietzsche; Frederic Chopin; Jim Croce, Janis Joplin; Van Gogh; Sophocles; Eugene O'Neill; "Avalanche Express"; the movie "Watership Down" - the list goes on and on. I have no problem reading Emily Dickinson's works - no, I do not find them all to be stellar. But you know what? I flip the page on those. Vivian Maier's work - I'm perfectly capable of spending more time looking at those that resonate with me, and less time on those that do not. Personally, I'd rather see more of her work than less.
Well its your time to spend looking at her work, but I'm afraid we're not going to be of the same opinion on that. I'm sorry, but I just don't put Ms Maier in that echelon that you listed. When she was "on" she was fantastic. There's just too little "on" for me.
theartofphotography Thank you for your opinion. Also, it is your inference that I was putting her "in that echelon that you listed". There are thousands of examples of posthumous publishings. I simply was naming a few artists whose names I figured would be recognized, as examples, to indicate posthumous publishing is nothing new.
Ted, what I really like about you video on Vivian Maier is that its got people thinking, talking and debating the aspects of how an artist edits their work, and the role of curators. In an age dominated by selfies and a huge lack of critical thinking on most topics, its refreshing to hear alternative views to an artists work, but more importantly how that work lands into the world...but I guess that is the role of a well trained and seasoned curator...to get people thinking for themselves again! ;-) For the record I have always found your reviews well balanced and highly insightful for newbie like myself wishing to learn about the 'art' in photography... Cheers....
I don't understand the narrator's point. His problem with Vivian Meir is not the work. It is very good, he says. It is that he was oversold on them. That sounds like his problem, not the problem of the Maier photographs.
No. His problem is twofold. 1) The owners of the images are not professional curators like he is and as such beneath him. 2) Maier probably just stepped all over his favorite street photographer in terms of output and is now poo-pooing her so that his vaunted idol, whoever that is, stays on top in his mind.
Thanks for this video and I too really love some of Vivian Maier's photography. However I agree with you that there has been a flood of her work out in the public arena, for all to view, that has not been edited by either her, the artist, or someone with the artist intention in mind. As an artist myself (fine art) not a photographer I would be appalled to see all of my non-selected work on public display. An artists experimentation must be respected. In the situation of the artist being discovered after their death , as in the case of Vivian Maier, selection of her work should have been carried out by a panel of qualified curators who have a extensive knowledge of art history and who's motivation is art not commercial gain. Sometimes less is more. I think it is a shame Vivian Maier's work was not released to the public with more consideration for her as an artist.
thanks for your insight! i wish, however, that you had talked more about the images and pointed out some of the issues with her work, or about her place in photography history, as opposed to the way she is (re)presented.
She personally offered up her work to the highest bidder when she was still alive, so she obviously wanted her work to be seen, and with the amount of self portraits, she also wanted to be known, if all of these photos where found after her death, then maybe I would agree, but she left it up to fate, and this is what you get. You sound jealous to me.
Tony Parker You sound misinformed to me. Where did you read that she "personally offered up her work to the highest bidder when she was still alive"? To my knowledge she never shared her work with anyone. Trust me - not jealous.
The Art of Photography I heard from you, in this video, right around the 3:45 mark, "she fell into some hard times right around the end of her life so she sold them to some auction house or whatever" and I watched the movie, she was a total amateur by every sense of the word, and her pictures are amazing! I rarely get moved by a photograph, but not just one, but many of her photos gave me chills! They really are that good! All of her work almost ended up in the trash, I don't care how they market it, I'm just thankful I got to see them. They touched me deeply, and I'm not into photography at all...
Tony Parker not to mention the guy who did "curate" worked for hard for many years in his effort to bring her work to light, and he makes no bones about it, he is the first to admit he is not a professional, if it were me that found those photographs they would still be collecting dust in my attic! Did you even watch the film? Sorry, but I'm just surprised on how unimpressed you are by a novice photographer getting the spotlight after her death, and how critical you are to the people who worked very hard to bring it to us... she was good, and her work speaks for itself, and nobody can take that away from her.
+The Art of Photography I bet that you have your fill of the comments on this subject but somehow I missed this one although I literally go through your video in sequence since I am aware of your work, Ted. I also just gave you more money than I can afford so you would have one more chance to fulfill your projects not because I believe that you are the best but because you at least come out with an original format and you appear sincere and passionate. Thinking of it there's more than a little Vivian Maier in you.
Hello Ted, I watched your episode about Vivian Maier and I have also encountered documentaries about her work before so I enjoyed your point of view which brings a valid perspective to her work. What occurs to me is that Vivian Maier is a cautionary tale of what happens when a photographer never reaches out to present his or her work, and the work is left for others to interpret. Theses two gentlemen that are handling her work I am sure have the best of intentions in bringing the work to the public but in my humble opinion will never know the esthetics of her personal vision and at best are simply guessing. I also think Vivian Maier's work suffered because of her private persona, it hovered around similar subject matter so it never changed, something that you don’t see with other photographers like Henri Cartier Bresson, Sally Mann and Gordon Parks. Their images detail a journey an evolution of their work into other subjects matter while still retaining a recognizable style. So for me after watching what came to mind was the question How would I feel if left a body of work for others to manipulate, change without understanding my motivation? As always good work Ted enjoy the Art of Photography.
My view. The BBC documentary introduced me to her work and to the specific form of "Street Photography". That is surely a good thing. The negatives could have been lost forever. It's better that we get to see her work than not at all. I think she clearly had an eye for a composition, yes there were some average images BUT that's because we got to see so many of her images. Many famous photographers are defined by only a handful of images. At the very least she captured city life as a historical document. At best she created some beautiful, humour, images.
Like Scott Adams said, "Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing what to keep". Unfortunately she didn't have the opportunity (or didn't take the opportunity) to do the second part. I love her work but the books were not done well. "Street Photography" and "Self Portraits" should have been one very well selected and very well done book.
I came across this just because of my interest in these pictures. I am not an expert of photography but just love it esp. Black and white. I don't know...I'm just glad these photos exist, period. It's just interesting how it was all done, with one similar camera and all the limitations that came with it. Let's not get all worked up over the small stuff and just embrace some good photos. Subscribed to your channel, will be checking out more.......I'm sure I'll learn something here.
I was surprised and disappointed by the sour nature of your discussion of Vivian Maier. I have nothing but admiration for John Maloof, who rescued Maier's work from oblivion after initially finding her negatives in an estate auction. Your criticisms of Maloof notwithstanding, the fact that he saw great value in her work when no one had ever heard of her, and worked relentlessly to bring her work to the public when the likelihood of of success was small, speaks volumes about his "amateur" and "untutored" eye. The documentary "Finding Vivian Maier" in which he unearths Maier's past, visits her home in France, and and elicits testimony from the families who knew her, is a work of art in itself. The insinuation in your video, that somehow Maier was robbed of the ability to edit her own work is ridiculous. By the time Maloof realized what he had, she was dead. Indeed, what Maloof has brought us is not just a photographer, but a study of the creative process itself. We often wonder if in all the arts there are "mute, inglorious Miltons" producing great work that never sees the light of day. Well here we have such a case--but for the efforts of Maloof. Maier's life is almost as fascinating as her work. I encourage anyone who hasn't seen "Finding Vivian Maier (not the inferior BBC documentary) to watch it.
The documentary, Finding Vivian Maier, can be seen presently on Netflix. It can also be rented on iTunes. And I agree, the very process that Maloof went through in order to bring Vivian Maier to the public eye is indeed a work of art, within a work of art... that is, if one see's life as art.
Having worked in photography circles from late 80s to the 2000 doing b+w lab work doing extensive labwork dealing with pros and graphic artists and publicists I understand where your viewpoint comes from. Having left the profession and see this Vivian Maier develop I can see why so many people have been enraptured by her stunning images and her mysterious story and the various people who are 'curating'and promoting her work. As professionals we are immersed in the nuts and bolts of the craft and making a living while the outsiders just want great art work they don't know or even care how its done. In my time as a pro I would take issue with anyone who thought Mapplethorpe or Cartier-Bresson or RFrank's work was not worthy. I guess I was just too educated or even aloof in my elite views as an "insider". Now looking at this VM story blossom I beleive the artworld can actually learn something from this. I learned this:if a lot of people like your photography then they can't be wrong? They can't be treated with disdain or contempt as i used to. Anyhow, there's another photographer, a contemporary of VM by the name of Larsen check it out on U Tube. Great work but his work has not been snowballed like the VM story. I'm sure their is more great photography out there waiting to be discovered/found. And if lots of people want to see it pay for it etc. thats great lets and find out why that is.
That’s a fair commentary and you make good points. It would be great if Maier had a say in how her work is presented. But that’s simply not an option - it is what it is. I would rather see her work presented the way it has been than to never have seen it at all. I love her work and I’m glad her art was salvaged and shared with the world. Whatever personal issues she had, and she seems to have had a few, I think she would enjoy knowing that her work, which she painstakingly crafted, was being appreciated by many.
I couldn't agree more about the need of curation from the artist. I'm of course being hypocritical somewhat because I truly enjoy looking through Vivian's work. However, I've long been someone who felt that we need to always let the artist speak to the work they want us to see.
I think your assessment is fair. She was an excellent photographer, and as you say, was not able to edit which images should be shown. However, I would say that her "success rate" was much better than another street photographer who roamed New York with his Leicas and knew he might get one good shot on a roll. I think she showed an empathy for her subjects that combined with the nostalgic view of her work, makes them very desirable. You are on target with your points about curation. On one hand, the alternative might have been that the negatives ended up in a landfill, which would have been horrible. We may never really know Vivian, and Malloof and Goldstein may be under-equipped for their tasks, but at least they are making an effort. I am not sure how it would have played out if 100,000 negatives were dropped off at the Getty Institute.
Ted I agree with your professional opinion on the 'curation' and editing of her work. Those issues are so valid in my mind. Does her work 'redefining photograph'? I cannot say I am not an art historian but I do know that I enjoy a lots of her images. I like to think of all this as an archeological find. We are just exploring all she left behind.
I just saw her movie, after watching your episode. I must say, the movie is done very well, and I am so glad they didn't make a giant hero out of her, just like some people obsessively try to be. She was a normal person and this was her hobby & never tried to be famous. She just enjoyed shooting. Her exhibits are portraying her as a person, not a wanna b photographer. I saw her exhibit, and saw her movie. I'm sorry to say, but people who wanted to make big bucks and didn't luck out were Moma, so I'm happy if these two guys are portraying it as it is. And I enjoy your episodes as well.
The problem I have with the opinions offered is that if it were not for the "amateurs" that found Meier's work and told the world, no one would have the privilege of seeing it. Second, it is very hard to print one's work if one is deceased; so this comment, made repeatedly, is in the region of absurdity. Third, showing Meier's work printed as-is without the editing by "professional curators" allows all we who are among the great unwashed to see her work in the raw, which again is a great privilege. The comments made by Mr. Forbes come across as sneeringly condescending, diminishing his stature unnecessarily. A more gracious approach would benefit all concerned. Dave Tarrant
It really shows in what sensitive times we live in, when you have to apologize a dozen times for stating your opinions about the work of Ms. Maier. The thing i "hate" about photography, is the huge amount of snobs and knowitalls it creates. At the end of the day, photography is pretty subjective and personal taste is a huge factor, if you like a photographer or not. What works for you, does not have to work for everyone else. This mindset, of having the ultimate and best taste and to know whats the universal truth in regard to quality, just baffles me. Anyway, great video :)
I've been occasionally dropping by AoP for a while, but this video made me subscribe. I agree with much of what you expressed about Vivian Maier and the way her work was curated, and I don't necessarily agree on other points you made. But overall, I felt this was was handled in brave and honest fashion and I have a lot of respect for your willingness to press ahead and express your reasons.
Forgive the late comment -- Shame on me, I only just discovered Vivian Maier. I think what Ted is trying to say here is right-ish. I agree that there is some motivation from Vivian's "curators" to oversell her work. We should ignore that hype and decide for ourselves. I also agree that she does not get to edit her own work. However, if we look at the top 10% of her work, it's incredible. I don't know about you-all but I'm lucky to keep 1 out of 10 photos, even when I shot film and was stingy with my shots. I feel the subject matter of her work is an instant time-travel machine. Is that attributable to her skill just because we found them decades later? I say yes -- she did such an exceptional job of capturing her environment and what was real and they're not garbage snaps, many are compositionally excellent and seem to have some real meaning/depth, the more I look the more I see. But maybe I'm apophenic. Is she the best? Who knows, but she deserves some spotlight.
Just found this video in your collection. I love Maier's work and could not agree with you more about her not having the privilege of presenting her own work. It is a shame because I love her work and recently purchased Maloof's book on her (Vivian Maier - Street Photography) and find her work captivating and inspiring. Thank you for the video....
Ted, I have attended all the Vivian Maier gallery exhibits in Los Angeles by both the Maloof and Goldsteins collections and felt a similar uneasiness about the curation of the exhibited and printed work. By chance I was able to ask John Maloof at the second L.A. exhibit (Merry Kernowski, "A Life Discovered: Redux, 2013) about the selection process by which he was curating. I found John's response sincere when he stated that he simply wanted to showcase her work the best way he knew how. He seemed to be learning on the job so to speak, and I think he really has been trying to surround himself with folks knowledgeable in that process. During the second exhibit they showed some of Ms. Maier's own printed work and there was such a big contrast between what she self printed and what has since been printed by professionals, which has also made me ponder your concerns of artist edit control. Coincidentally I did not know about your mixed emotions regarding Vivian Maier; Maloof's documentary, "FInding Vivan Maier" was just released this weekend in Los Angeles so I postponed watching your podcast so as to not have any information pre exposed. I the movie a few hours ago and came home to see your podcast and found what you had to say was spot on. If you happen to watch Maloof's documentary you will likely find the quandary that Maloof alludes to of not having an institution validate his findings is ironic because I suspect its related to the actions and circumstances by which her work has been presented. Just my two cents.
My take is she didn't show her work because she didn't want it judged. "The Book of Disquiet" by Fernando Pessoa, who spent his entire life writing the book but never had it published, is another example. The book is considered a masterpiece. The audiobook is 15-hours long and I've listened to it ten times and will continue to be enchanted by it. I agree with the person in this video since photos can be edited by other than the photographer (like these were.) Writing is different - what Pessoa wrote is what we get - unedited and complete.
Great show Ted! I appreciated your unvarnished honesty. I'm very glad her work was saved. But like you said, it's too bad that it's not being edited properly. Thanks again. :)
You appreciate unvarnished honesty but you take exception to a body of work that is presented as they are. Quite an opposition of thoughts in three sentences.
jpracingph Always classy to see some mystery user with no thumbnail troll through the thread because they were offended by a photography video. jpracingph you are an idiot but I admire that you set out to correct everyone here who doesn't agree with you.You really like Vivian Maier and that's cool. But you ought to learn a few other names in photo history as well - it gets quite a bit cooler ;-)
theartofphotography You have no idea what or who I know. And, no, I didn't set out to correct people here. I merely try to point out the obvious to people with blinders made of presumption and pompousness. And, your classy comment followed by a derogatory remark is about as classy as your sarcastic finger waving quotations in the air on the video.
theartofphotography Ah, yes. The cry of the truly desperate. Invoke adolescent vocabulary into the mix. Good job of actually revealing whence these opinions come from.
Regarding the speaker's point that Maier did not get to control/edit/present her own work. In fact, there are many artists (visual, musical and literary) in the same position. Kafka, to name one. But really almost all really good artists end up having "unpublished" work later released to the world. It's an issue worth considering, but Maier has lots and lots of company in this discussion.
By and large I agree with your concerns about Maier's work. Editing is a huge part of the creative process of photography. But I'm willing to withhold criticism because I think this whole issue puts a fine point on key questions about photography... Who owns the image? and What is considered "the original object" in an age of instant and exact reproducibility? Certainly these questions have been part of the conversation surrounding photography from the very start. So yes, I would say Maier's work doesn't necessarily rewrite history, but it certainly adds to it. And Maloof, using Maier's negatives, is forcing photographers to ask significant questions about the nature of our present work. And that will have significant impact on the future of photography. It is certainly a fascinating and rare thing that has happened, so thanks for your thoughts on her work.
Some of the earlier released photographs did look a lot like snapshots but the newest photographs I've seen actually look very good. I'm waiting for the new documentary because it looks great. Keep in mind if you actually had access to all of the negatives of Henri Cartier-Bresson you would also think that many of them are only snapshots. If you were only to show 1% of her best work I'm quite sure people would think she was amazing...
I think the Maier story may be part of the reason she has gained so much interest. I found the documentary well produced and thoughtful. It is a good story. If nothing else the intense marketing of her work has probably brought people out to see it that may not have gone to a exhibit of photography otherwise. And that alone is of value.
An excellent episode, and probably for me your best. When you speak from the heart Ted your episodes carry much more impact as they make the viewer stop and think. I had been very much focused on the work of Vivian Maier without thinking much about the ethics of how she was being presented to the world, and your episode has made me stop, and reconsider that uncritical perspective. Part of me agrees with the criticism about the marketisation of her work, while part of me balances this with the anthropological implications of releasing her work. It takes me back to a comment you once made in a past episode about how as a photographer you might end up taking lots of photos, with most that are poor and get binned, some are good, and a few will be the excellent ones that demonstrate your ability. Like you say, Vivian Maier never had the opportunity to edit her work, so with all the great photos she took are probably a whole load that she probably would have thought were distinctly average. That decision was taken out of her life, and now this does feel a little like the desecration of Tutankhamun's tomb in some respects, with the principle of a sense of history being cast aside for the benefit of the glorification of imperial exploration, and publicity of those involved. At the end of the day, people will agree with you, disagree with you, like the episode, not like the episode, but the strength of these episodes is to make you think about photography in all aspects. So if it causes people to stop and think for a moment and reflect on maybe the assumptions that they had made, even if they still come to the same conclusion they started with, then your episode has done it's job. I love Vivian Maier's work, but you've moved me to look beyond the image and think deeper about what it is I am looking at. The episodes you make seem to me to be about your passion for photography that you want to share (at least that's how I've understood it), so don't apologise for presenting your own honest opinion and putting Vivian Maier in the context of history that her excellent work deserves. It's that honesty and openess that keeps me watching your episodes and will continue to do so until you decide not to make them any more. So yes, an excellent episode, and you at your best Ted. Well done.
I'm glad these two guys shared her photos. But the points you mention about her not getting to curate her images and print them are important to keep in mind. Though I also find it interesting to see just all the pics even the maybe not so nice ones that people make.
Perhaps you could do a video focusing on the topic of curating photos? It comes up a lot in this video but I’m not sure what is entailed. It seems to be an important but rarely discussed part of the process. How does it fit into other photographer’s body of work?
I just came across this video and I enjoyed the education within. First I agree with you about how her work is being presented. To give a 21st century example, it's the selffie you post of yourself on Instagram (best angle and light) vs the cruddy one your friends post of you on Facebook. 2. As far as her work not being ground breaking..... excellent work is excellent work. Chuck Berry was ground breaking, he is considered by many to be the father of Rock and Roll and of course should be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. The Rolling Stones are also in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Is their work ground breaking....no.... they themselves give credit to Chuck Berry. However, they have an excellent body of work worthy of being remembered. Was every Chuck B. Or Rolling Stone song a hit or worth recording..no, yet aren't we greatfull of the ones that were?. Once again thank you for the insight into the art of photography. It's nice to learn more then simple gear talk.
![[#2024MAMA] G-DRAGON - 무제(Untitled, 2014)+POWER+HOME SWEET HOME+뱅뱅뱅+FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ox29z5Nf1Uk/mqdefault.jpg)
All I will say is that my life is richer after seeing many of Vivian Maier's photographs and experiencing those moments she chose to savor. Whether or not she wanted to share those moments with us is something we will never know, but I for one am thrilled that John Maloof decided these photographs were worth "curating" and exposed them to the world. We're better for it.
"people who knew her had no idea she was a photographer"- except that she had a camera with her at all time and incessantly took images. So many untruths about V.M. have circulated. "She had a contrived French accent" - except that her Mom and Grandmom were native speakers, she attended 6 years of grade school in France, wrote annontations on her photos in French... "She never wanted her work to be seen, it was too personal" - except she approached a friend to have postcards made. "She was a recluse" - except she loved being around families and children and could take close-ups of complete strangers she met on the street. V.M. captured americana with striking black and white imagery. You can debate at end whether she was an "artist" or not. She was a natural. Her works appeal to many. They strike a chord for many. The sad thing was she lived in poverty toward the end of her life. The sad thing is she never got recognition for her work during her lifetime. The sad thing is that any Joe Schmoe can say whatever they want about her without the need of substantiating their opinion and without her being able to defend herself.
tromboneJTS yes yes yes and yes
0
Cool
Indeed. This guy attempting to put down her is not perverse, its comical.
I agree with Thomas... A recluse? Perhaps in her personal life.... I feel that a woman who wanted absolute privacy why exhibit her photos.....
Her stuff is good. I don't care about curating degrees and the rest of the "high art" side of photography. Her work is good and she has a very interesting story. I imagine that if she had gotten her work out there during her lifetime, we would be having a much different conversation now.
Exactly
Yes yes yes. He sounds quite pretentious with his degrees and high art. She didn’t have a degree in photography yet her work speaks to so many people.
@@lisafrolova3429 Except, he wasn’t talking about Vivian Maier, he was talking about the two gentlemen who got ahold of her pictures/negatives and the way they went about presenting her work to the public. Honestly, in the beginning, they sucked at it. They were amateurs. It was more important to them to keep control of her work instead of hiring the right people to help them.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion ... so here's mine.
It was the BBC documentary of Vivian Maier that first made me aware of "Street Photography" as a thing. I was stunned by her eye for an image and, since my interest was awakened in this branch of photography, haven't seen much that I'd consider any better than her best images.
I don't have any issues with what constitutes a curator. We should remember how close these images were to the garbage can and be thankful that we got to see them.
I've seen so many thousand Street Photography images now and the vast majority lack what makes Maier's images so great, a dark and ironic sense of humour. The documentary made her seem humourless and tragic but her images contradict that, they have humour, irony, pathos and a wonderful sense of time and place.
In summary I couldn't care less about the politics and legalities surrounding her work, Maier is long dead and doesn't care about which images we get to see, I just want to see them all and make up my own mind.
Is it 23 minutes of sour grapes? I'm not going past six minutes. Mistitled video. Call it, "23 minutes of sour grapes."
The more he speaks the more he sticks, vivian maier is great, more artists need to learn that the moment is art.
She captured a very unique point of view of life in the 60s that the world deserves to see. Had she truly not wanted anyone to see her work she would have left a will to say so, or destroyed the negatives. Dismissing the release of these images for us to see her talent because of the unworthiness of curator skills from the people who bought the negatives is no more than self serving photo snobbery all too common in this art medium.
It puzzles me how, on the one hand, you can say Vivian Maier was an "excellent" photographer and yet downplay the quality and content of her work as nothing special. While it is true that Ms. Maier did not show her work, it is documented that she was a very private person who revealed very little information about herself to anyone. We do know, however, that she did have postcards made of some of her French landscapes, and had correspondence with a printer in France which hints that she might considered sharing her work publicly.
We also know the Vivian had expertiese in the darkroom and printed many of her photographs herself. From that we can see how she cropped and processed her photographs, as well as what she considered important in the photo, which gives us, at least an inkling of how she might have presented unpublished work. Whether the current, so-called, "curators" have the expertiese to interpret that is another story. As a result, we can agree, that Maloof may not be the appropriate "curator" of her work. Other than accidentally discovering her via boxes of her photographs, he has little experience as a curator. Even though he has a large collection of her work, there are at least a dozen other people that possess significant portions, which hardly makes Maloof the authority since there are gaps in the "timeline" of the work he possesses.
Although we may never "find" Vivian Maier , her work is important and significant, just as she is important and significant as a photographer. Her value and expertiese as a photographer is evident from prints she created in her darkrooms and the subjects she chose to capture. Her images show care in choosing her subjects, her point of view, and how she balances the subject in relation to the surroundings, and the context she creates.
You opinion aside, Mr. Forbes, we can be thankful at least, that Vivian Maier and her work has been brought into the light of day, to interest us, to fascinate us, and to inspire us.
Paul Gurcules THANK YOU so MUCH!!!!
I think that what Ted is trying to say here, is that whilst some of Vivian's work is unarguably excellent in terms of quality, there is nothing gorundbreaking here. Bruce Gilden, Henri-Cartier Bresson and Joel Meyerowitz for example, are all individuals who have pushed the envelope of photography and street photography in particular. I have to agree with Ted and say that it is hard to see what Ms Maier has done that has not already been done elsewhere. However, we're all allowed to disagree, thats what makes the world interesting! ;)
Rebassed You don't even have an argument to make. You seriously need to do some research. Joel Meyerowitz not only pioneered colour photography but has done some excellent street work (including a great shot of an upset little girl framed in the open window of a car door and a photo of a girl in a bikini climbing over a chain fence, which had sinister overtones. Oh and then there's the photo of the African American standing with his Great Dane, a man in a suit glowering from nearby). He also took some incredibly moving photo's of Ground Zero. Bruce Gilden has taken some amazing photo's of the Japanese Yakuza, Coney Island and some clever portraits of unusual characters on the streets of NYC. I'm guessing you don't really do street photography. If you do, I'd be keen to know where your work is located, just to compare it to Meyerowitz and Gilden. Based on your comment above it should be pretty genre altering stuff! Ffs, you'll be saying HCB took snapshots next....
I think you are being overly sensitive here because Ted makes a valid point. Her work is outstanding but she did not do anything that had not been done before and that is not a knock on her. There is nothing wrong with not being an innovator but rather a technician. For instance, Joe Montana or Tom Brady (you could make an argument for them as the best to ever play QB ever) did nothing different than hundreds of other quarterbacks have done in the history of the NFL but what they did was better than anyone else was able to do it, even the innovators of the techniques that Montana and Brady used. Being a technician is a compliment and too much weight is put on innovation. I think Ted was complimenting her work while trying to say that the "curators" were using her work for their own gains while misrepresenting her work, process, who she was, and her influence. The "curators" seem to be trying to sell a product rather than giving a true representation of her work.
What she did was to take hundreds of intimate, beautifully crafted photographs with astonishing composition and, yes gentlemen, groundbreaking use of reflection and contrast. You can take it or leave it. But there it is. Groundbreaking. You probably think Van Gogh was overrated too. Good luck with that.
the work is valuable because it was not only excellent but captured everyday people and places in a very sincere way. it shows a by-gone era. The value of art has nothing to do with curation. The work stands on its own. She may not have had a chance to edit the photos and develop them the way a professionally trained photographer would have been taught, but why should that detract from her as an artist? she captured what she wanted to capture. The art is in the capture.
This video has bothered me for a long time. I finally just had to post a comment. There are two fundamental issues with it for me. The title and alot of what is said is about Vivian Maier but the real issues are with the "curators." He talks about fairness to the artist to choose her work but he is dragging her because of the "curator" she didn't pick either. Small aside, Tom Thomson didn't get to choose what was released either although his peers did. My second issue is that he knocks and criticizes her work but only by comparing her to legends. People who dedicated their entire lives, including education and work to photography. Some of the photographer named dropped, she was active long before them. She mastered photography at a time when it was very difficult and expensive, especially to do it as a hobby. The respect she deserves is because he's naming Adams and Mapplethorpe just to criticize her. If that is not a statement of excellence.
Dear Mr. Forbes,
After watching your video, it seems that you have much more of an issue with how her work is presented after her death than with the actual substance of her work itself. If my interpretation is correct, then my question for you is: do you believe her work and POV as an artist should be lost to history because she wasn't able to curate it herself? That's kind of the impression the video gives off. She didn't edit so... what? What are the options? Should we put the negatives back is their boxes and never look at them? Destroy them? Morally, there's lots of debate about who should reap the financial benefits- and I completely think that's a valid issue to discuss- but from the pure "art" issue? From my POV, I'm glad her art was found and presented. And I also like that it's a collection in its entirety because it shows a real process for art- there will be some masterpieces and their will be some duds... probably more duds than masterpieces, but seeing the process in its entirety shows us her POV and also her insatiable need to CREATE. THAT is beautiful in and of itself.
Cheers!
Well said he is an idiot
Most of the big successful galleries and collectors (with the help from trained curators) have turned artists work into a commodity. They buy /monopolize the work of an artist so they can control that particular artist's market. These galleries and collectors choose what we see and they control the flow. It's been happening for decades. Call it sleazy, call it what you want. Vivian Maiers career is no different but started post-mortem with the help of a couple of flea marketers with the help of the internet. For Vivian Maier, all worked out for the best on many levels. Her rise is totally unconventional on all counts. She was a nanny and a bold photographer. She is now a famous artist. I am very happy these gentlemen saved her negatives from the landfill. She beautifully captured my childhood by photographing her surroundings. I will be forever grateful for her super talent and all of the folks connected to her story.
Astonishing how many commenters below don't appreciate how much Ted Forbes DOES appreciate Vivian Maier's work. He has not slagged her at all. He has simply expressed misgivings about how the somewhat unqualified curation of exhibits and books has diluted the impact that her work, at its frequent best, should quite properly have.
I think Ted overdoes this point ... because, Ms. Maier no longer being with us, there is no escaping the necessity of presenting her work without her having the opportunity to sieve it through her own most considered judgment.
As for the quality of the eyes that have done the curation, Ted is not impressed - and he is entirely entitled to his (highly qualified) opinion. And that opinion has a positive motivation ... the wish to see Ms. Maier presented in the best light possible.
Ted is a positive presence among all those presenting videos on photography. As a rule, he sees the best in each artist. This video is no exception to that commendable tendency.
What criticism he feels he must offer is not directed at the photographer, whom he praises highly. Nor does it come marinated in the kind of malice in which critics often unconsciously indulge. It reflects his attempt to fairly assess the whole process that has seen an unknown but talented photographer brought from obscurity to public renown.
Ted brings a high level of thought and sensibility to his videos. Not everyone will agree, but I find this video wholly in keeping with his best work.
Obviously, you have a problem, you are confusing her work with what other people have done with her work since her death, marketing and all. Personally, I admire who she was, solitaire and secretive, her keen eye for observation and finally her snapshots. Simply beautiful, describing an era long gone.For the rest, I don't give a damn as long as the original prints are kept intact. Thanks Vivian!
Two things about the Vivian Maier story are worthwhile to me. 1. She was very good, and many of us enjoy looking at her work. 2. Her story, both what we know and don't know. The fact that it raises many ethical questions is part of the charm for me. Perhaps that is how she has been groundbreaking. I think many of us would not want someone scouring fhrough every photo we ever took - kind of scary. Still, when I look at her work, even though it is edited by someone else, I feel I am seeing someone experiment and find their way as a photographer and also can see a bit of myself in her view of the world. I am mostly glad I get to see what she worked so hard to create.
Vivian Maier was an amateur photographer coming from an unrelated background with a much worse camera than any other famous street photographer... no to mention that "she" was doing a man's thing at that time, so if someone was able to overcome all these things to create a large, consistent collection of high quality shots with a fresh and sharp style (hardly inspired in someone else at that time) i'm sorry but that person is a GENIUS
@fabiyeah
I don’t see anything amateur in Vivian Maier photography : with no community or feedback or support and being a woman in my estimation she outdid 99.8% of all professional photographers . In my mind she is a photographer’s photographer
For some context, some of her best street work to me appears to have been produced as far back as the early 50's. This is at least 10 years before Winogrand's best work. If this was released back then she would have been one of the truly great pioneers of the art IMHO. Sadly there must be more people I'd say who were producing quality like this at the time and whose work has never and will never see the light of day. I'm sure glad I'm able to see some of Vivian Maier's work and I judge it by what else was being produced at the time. Her work is at least as good, if not better than anything I've seen from that era. An absolute street photography masterclass.
Also the reason the reaction to these images is "Where have they been?" is because this isn't just art, and it is amazing art....but it is also a rare glimpse into what daily life was like during the times that she lived, it's our history candidly recorded.
A couple things:
First, I have learned more about photography from AOP than from any other single source. I appreciate that +Ted Forbes is so willing to share his knowledge with those of us who are so willing to learn.
Secondly, I understand that this is one person, with a singular perspective, and certainly personal opinions. I think we should allow for this in our viewing of this video.
Whether or not Ms. Maier was a great photographer is not the center of the debate here - the idea that other's are choosing what is being seen of her work seems to be more of an issue and one that I personally agree with.
Having said that, I also understand that once a person dies how others display their work is no longer under their control. Unless there were written instructions on how the work was to be published it's kind of up for grabs to whomever ends up with it - sad, but true.
Whether or not the gentlemen who are "curating" her work are professional curators, they are the ones who have made the choice on how they think it should be made public. Certainly every subscriber here has their own opinion on how they feel that should have been approached, but at this point what we feel about it is meaningless. We can't change what has already been done.
The (long-winded) point I'm trying to make is that Mr. Forbes is simply expressing his opinion on what he feels about how Vivian's work has been handled, and that he likely would have taken a very different approach.
Cut him some slack - he has just as much right to express his thoughts as you do. You don't have to agree with him, but at least try to be civil.
I see you've found my controversial video ;-)
G'day, which video is that? Would you care to share it? The doco has spiked my interest.
Thanks, build.
Cynthia Derrick was (7
I am grateful that Vivian Maier's work was available to us, otherwise it would have ended up dispersed or maybe in the city dump.
Hi Ted,
As a female photographer myself, I have found it difficult to find significant female photographers to be inspired by. I found VM's work an honest look at the world she moved within. Whilst I take your point about that "others" curating her work, because I know how fussy i am with my own work, I do however identify with VM's position in life. She would have more than likely not have the contacts or even perhaps the confidence to propel herself into the art world. She was by all accounts a working class girl, was not encouraged to show her work, more than likely had some form of depression and as a woman of that era never felt that she had the talent to succeed in this area. It has been my experience that unless you have some of the elements of contacts, support or confidence many female artists work remain unknown. I really like her work and have enjoyed seeing her story telling. Who knows perhaps this was of her making, is it possible that the prolific amounts of work she produced was in itself her piece of art. That a talented women passed through this world unknown and has made the point that women are often not seen.
Just say!
I really like your program and your narration, thanks for your thoughts on this, it is well worth a discussion.
cheers
Rose
I so agree with your point that she did not know how to manage to make a step into the "being seen platform" because of lack of confidence, no support and her status. The effort to construct a dialog would have consumed her creativity in that fancy art world as she was so private and sensitive lonler. The letters to the little printing house in hometown in France shows that she had the intention to be seen. She was a creative person moved by her inner source depicting her own world and reflecting it. And for me thats what makes her work exceptional that Creativity is for everyone - its not for the curators and its not a profession -- its a "feeling" , its a sense - its a part of us.. Today she would probably could use all the tools of the digital world to be seen....Her passion to create emerged her little room with all those boxes so that she would even seemed to be insane... And she was not.
Interesting video. 2 things.
1. You make about half of your case against they way that her work has been handled, stating that she had no editorial input or ability to cull the collection. Since she is dead, I'm not sure how that is relevant. There are Picasso notebook sketches in museums all over the world, work that I am sure he never intended anyone to see. I know that Goldstein is only printing the negatives using the technology that was available at the time the pictures were taken. It seems to me that both people are making a conscious decision to do this thing the right way.
2. I actually purchased a Goldstein image - because I liked it. I think that art critics miss the boat a lot of times. Can't Vivian Maier be measured as a great photographer because so many people love her work? I get a little tired of the "I know everyone likes it, but they aren't as educated as I am" routine. I think it was Pop Photo magazine that absolutely ripped Robert Frank's "The Americans" when it came out. Look how that turned out.
I think that many of the people that are discounting Vivian Maier are annoyed that the has found popular culture. To many artists, that is the worst thing that can happen.
Bravo.
Ask any artist, photographer, writer, etc and they'll tell you that the idea of someone else being in charge of their work is their worst nightmare. Picasso sketches are presented as preliminary sketches - but had he died unknown, how do we know those sketches wouldn't be presented as cropped and finished works? And we know what those sketches are and what they became because Picasso heavily documented his process and was well known, so we know that this is a sketch of his friend or a doodle of his wife, etc. We have absolutely zero knowledge of Vivian's life, her intentions, her influences, her ideas, etc.
The issue here isn't about "I'm smart and no more about photography than you plebs" it's literally an artist expressing reticence because her work has absolutely zero input from Vivian herself and is being developed, cropped, printed and shown by someone who has literally no idea of her intention. Did she want to under expose this shot? Did she want this one to be cropped here? Did she want these images shown together...? We have absolutely zero context for anything.
I'll give you a really good example - there's only one Henri Cartier-Bresson image that's exhibited without the hard black border of the original negative around it. It's a very famous shot he took of a man stepping across a puddle, its an image that sums up his philosophy of the decisive moment as an image perfectly. However it's a crop. He stuck his camera through a hole in a fence and looked over the top and caught this perfect, Cartier-Bresson moment. The uncropped negative has the fence and other debris on the edge of the frame. So Cartier-Bresson cropped it. It's the only image that doesn't have his trademark borders, it's the only crop in his catalogue. We don't have that with Vivian Meier. We don't know if she had a backstory for a piece like that. Everything is presented exactly the same way and that's that.
Finally, he praises Meier heavily. That's not the issue. Meier is an excellent photographer. However the owners of her work are not photographers, and they're presenting lacklustre and poor throwaway shots that aren't representative of her genius. He's not suggesting that the issue is they aren't educated or that Vivian is patchy. He's saying that they're motivated by profit and profit alone and instead of curating her best work (and even lesser work) into collections, books and similar, they're releasing everything as if it was all just as valuable and brilliant and actually, by doing so, harming Meier's reputation as a photographer (MoMA and the Tate turned down the self portraits exhibition because the majority of it isn't very good). They're after a quick buck and because they don't know much about art (by their own admission) they're making really pedestrian choices (street photos, self portraits) with no regard for chronological order or continuity and in doing so, yeah they're making money today, but they're not going to be making it tomorrow if they don't start treating her work with respect. That's what you're missing.
I love Meiers work. I completely understand why so many photographers are reticent to endorse it or have seen too many throwaway shots presented as her work. I'm glad you bought a print but I bet the print you bought wasn't one of the "shadow self portraits" or the out of focus and blurry car photos that we now believe were likely *test shots* with her new camera.
I know this is an old comment but I really think you completely misunderstood what was being said here. He repeatedly stated that Meier was brilliant and that her work is truly special.
@@medes5597Most images I’ve seen of Mair’s work aren’t cropped.
@@davewyman most of the "self portraits" are cropped. Like that entire book is nearly all crops.
Things don’t have to be “groundbreaking” to be great. You used that word a dozen times to underplay the work. The fact that she was taking all these photos and never never saw the light of day until they were found and they are beautiful pieces of work is why it’s a great story. You can just enjoy the work, and not feel the need to bring her down because it didn’t change photography forever. This RUclips video was not groundbreaking.
❤️
he never suggested that if work isnt groundbreaking it isnt great. he literally said she was a great photographer and produced good work many times
He mispronounced her last name throughout the whole video!
Respectfully, I think you undersell how difficult street photography is on a medium format camera like a rolleiflex. Look at some gordon parks street rolleiflex shots and you can gain a bit more respect for her using a medium format tlr camera that is rather large. Henri used a leica m3 which from my experience is a much different and much better camera for street. Also Henri took photos as a successful photographer. I think you highly underrate her as she has filled 4 and counting great books with photos. Most people don't take a single photo as well as her in their entire life.
+Jeffrey Ashbrook moreover. You can't even take a photo on an iphone with 1000 shots that she was taking on a terribly difficult camera to use.
I find a square format hard to compose with sometimes.
I love Vivian Maiers work very much. I stumbled across the "A Photographer Found" book at a local book store and when looking through it it seemed good enough to drop 60$ on it and add it to my collection. Since then it's probably the book I come back the most out of all the ones I have. Of course I don't think every image is amazingly good but I wouldn't say that for any other photographer too. There are photographers which I like more and some that I like less but there's no photographer where I could blindly pick an image and be sure it's a hundred percent good.
And Vivian Maier besides a few others would probably have one of the best ratios for me.
I can't really speak on the curation and editing part of your video because your very right with what you say but on the other hand I'm just damn glad I got to see her work.
A few comments about this excellent analysis by Ted:
• Emily Dickinson is the most immediately recognizable artist that might be associated with Vivian Meier, and if I’m mentioning it here again (I haven’t reviewed all comments in this thread) please forgive me. As a writer and scholar myself, I would rank Dickinson as the greatest of all American poets, with her work discovered after her death and edited for grammar and punctuation. Call it “printing." Lately, the original renditions of her poems have resulted in more faithful versions of what she intended originally. But the original “non-faithful” (printings) of her poems brought her to prominence, similarly to Vivian Meier.
• Michelangelo’s “David” was originally intended to be positioned along the roofline of a cathedral, but later was placed instead in a public square, then later moved to Florence, and later replaced at the original location by a replica. Does this “printing” after the event violate the artist’s intentions? Has it harmed the art itself?
• Throwing away stuff: One onus on Vivian Meier is that virtually all her stuff was not printed. Thus, the great, the good, and the dreck were all discovered and printed by the exploiters. The argument that Forbes makes about “subsequent editing” here is valid. If Vivian intended her stuff to be shown, she would have edited it carefully, and screened for goodness (in her opinion).
• Lastly, in my opinion scanned negs are OK if that’s all we have. They illustrate well the one fine thing: That Vivian had a good idea, a fine eye, and an imposing personality that forced people to sit still for a shot. I’ve got no problems with these qualities.
No need to apologize Ted. The hype surrounding Vivian's work has been blown out of proportion.
You say we are being curated by two people not connected with Vivian Maier. Would you prefer they disposed of them? Thankfully they have recognised the importance of this work and are sharing it.
My opinion is that art and it's value is up to the individual viewer. They should show all her work and let the public decide. I saw the documentary on netflix last night and I must say I was blown away. I had never heard of this Artist. She had many personal demons, but she produced beautiful images. She died with nothing, but left so much for the world to see. I respect what you are saying but I disagree. You say she should of had the chance to edit her own work before it was shown. These are special circumstance, if it was up to the Artist all her work would have been lost in time.
"Redefined street photography" No- Very Very good? You betcha- she is one of those photographers who when you first glance at her work you just know you are seeing something special done by an Artist with a great eye, who was able to develop a personal style that is pretty much instantly recognizable-- You know they are a step above- She deserves to be right up there with the best of them- Sure there are some not so great shots, but even Ansell Adams or cartier or one of the great photographers said, (I think it was Ansell) something along the lines of "If you get 10-12 shots per year that are great, I'd say you're doing pretty good" meaning of course the vast majority of shots you take are going to be so so- might be pretty good, but just not top notch artistic shots-
There are a number of great street photographers, who have an uncanny ability to somehow connect with their subject in a way that really brings out the character/gesture of the subject- Vivian was one such artist and certainly holds her own in the world of elite street photographers-
I watched the movie done by Maloof and one thing it does show is that she did in fact contact a printer in her mothers hometown in France about the possibility of having her work printed. So...she did in fact want to put some of it out there. As to the curators comments...as people have highlighted below, MoMa wasn't interested. Who says because you have a degree in art history that you have good taste? Personally I think the "expert" mentality we seem to charish in our society is part of the reason that good artist/photographers get overlooked. Why is your opinion more valid then the sales clerk who just happens to love photography? To make such assertions is at best obtuse and basically elitist crap. Reading books and passing a test doesn't make you a better judge of "pretty" or "talented" then the rest of us!
Yes
I got u
And agree
Yep when it comes to the arts, you are absolutely right....it's like acting...sure classes help..but you absolutely do not need to study theatre to be an excellent actor! Art is not a Science...It's talent. It's a feeling....it's expression! You don't teach that.
I'm totally agree 👌got it.
I am in agreement with you Ted.
She's not around to curate her own work. So i'm glad that someone did it for her. Even if they aren't the "best" curators for her work, it's a lot better than having all that film going into landfill
Many people commenting here greatly misunderstand what Ted is trying to say. When Ted talks about the lack of proper curation in the presentations of VM's works, it is NOT him being highbrow and uppity. Instead, Ted is wondering, whether or not the currently available presentations of her works adequately represents her arts and accurately reflect who she was as an artist. After all, like Ted says, VM had no involvement in these presentations of her works.
Personally I really like many of her images. She is really very, very good. But, she is also very overrated. Now hear me out. I say she is overrated but that is NOT a comment of her but rather it's a criticism of some of her fans. It happens often, especially in arts, that an interesting back story elevates the work to a much higher level than that it truly deserves. I sincerely doubt that many people would say things like "redefine street photography" if there hasn't been that interesting back story of "found treasure left by a secretive photographer who lived a reclusive double life as a nanny". But that's NOT VM's fault. I want to make this point clear!
Believe it or not, there are many, many, many photographers in this world who are just as good if not better than VM but they do NOT get the attentions that VM has gotten, because there isn't any interesting back story behind them or their works.
Another issue I have with the VM phenomenon is that, as far as I know, no print has survived her. At least that's the case with Maloof's collection. In other words, all the images are printed from scratch by third parties after her death without any guidance from her or at least a sample to go by. As such, we have no way to know how VM would have wanted the final images to be - i.e., we don't know they are her vision and intent or not.
Now, before anyone would yell at me about how some of the greatest photographers don't print their photographs themselves or how some artists don't physically produce the arts themselves, yes, I know that, but I am also confident that most of them would have editorial controls and final approval on how the photographs are printed or how the arts are made. But, sadly, it's not the case with VM's works that are presented to us. (I have seen a report that mentions that Jeff Goldstein actually once had in his possession some vintage VM prints allegedly made during her lifetime, but I couldn't verify that, nor do I know the images Goldstein shows are original prints or not.)
As a photographer, the street photography scene is often difficult. Many 'Mind's Eye' images that I never captured because I wasn't quick enough with the logistics in the situation. - The undeniable BOLDNESS that Vivian displayed in capturing 'Street images' is truly First Rate...
so true
At first I wasn’t sure if I was going to like what you were going to say, but when you said she didn’t get the chance to edit and decide what the public could see, it clicked and I 100% agree.
I agree on the over-saturation and over-hype of Vivian's work. That being said, there is something about her particular technique and her eye for capturing the world around her that I can't get enough of. Even though we are seeing her work unedited and not well curated, I've loved every image.
I think you were completely spot on with your comments that she’s not allowed to edit and curate her own work. No matter how you feel about the subject definitely she had some great pictures and some they were not so great. Love the insight love the commentary.
I really appreciate your views because you stand for the artist, their artistry, and their art. Thanks for putting it so clearly.
Picking one photograph. at the kiosk, the reflection that is captured in the glass just opens up so much within the picture, seems never ending, love it.
I can appreciate the comment that "Vivian Maier did not get to edit her own work." At least the work that is now presented to us.
I printed for the aerial photographer and book publisher of the "Above" series, Robert Cameron. I was his only printer for the last 3-4 years of his life and we became good friends. When he passed away in 2009 he left me thousands of his original films. I assured him that I would try my best to represent only his best work and in the best manner.
Because of our history together I am confident that his images through my hands will remain well represented.
Unfortunately and apparently Vivian Maier didn't have such a relationship with a printer.
The last 5 years I have chosen to convert many of Bob's best images into black and white silver gelatin prints onto fiber based papers. Although he mainly shot color transparencies the black and white negatives that I have made from them are very faithful, I think, to his original vision, and he personally loved black and white prints, being personal friends with Ansel Adams.
Although I wish he was still alive to give me his blessings, I feel I have it nevertheless.
It is so refreshing to finally find a voice on the internet with some thoughtful reasoning. So many self proclaimed photographers and artists all over the web spewing their naively uneducated opinions on art and photography while hiding behind the wildly overused and insanely inaccurate "art is subjective" motto. Finding your voice is especially refreshing in light of the Vivian Maier topic. While everyone else either holds her up on this cult like pedestal or outright dismisses her because she wasn't famous of her own accord, I've shared almost the same sentiment you do ever since I heard about her.
My biggest issue, as you've pointed out so well, is how she is being marketed, and without her input. I mean can you imagine if someone found every photo you ever took or every sketch you ever made and then put them all out there for the world to see without any note as to whether this one was just a test or was some drunken doodle for fun or whether it was the piece you were most proud of? I have created a least a few pieces that I am immensely proud of but I also have sketchbooks full of intentionally ridiculous sketches I created while testing a new process or medium... I certainly wouldn't want those two bodies of "work" shown side by side.... the latter I would never want shown.
I personally appreciate that the two "curators" saw the value in her work and didn't let it disappear but I REALLY wish they would make it a point to inform the public that what is being seen is more or less an interpretation of her work. It's unfortunate they didn't bring in someone who might have been able to help them print and curate the work from a more knowledgeable background.
The advent of social media has created a massive army of professional amateurs who have foregone building any actual background in academic/professional understanding of the field they claim to be an expert of simply because it's not necessary when you can just claim you are an expert. It's nice to see someone with the knowledge and understanding applying a critical eye to this topic.
Ted's comments are honest and straight forward. The great photo's are lauded and the typical shots are labeled as such. His criticism is aimed at those that now own the rights to her work. I'm glad that when he gave a criticism that he would explain why he gave it. And most of the criticism is aimed at those that are exploiting her work for their own gain.
No need to apologize, Ted. Your criticism is spot on.
dear, "she is gone!!." she can't edit her work! as a person who love photography. we should be happy about her work can be seen. the bottom line is... her work with edited correctly or not, for what I can see. those photos inspires me. whatever people has to say about the whole matter... it has been a blessing. cheers. BURT
To me just being able to see images from the past: people, subjects.. is cool enough without it being composed with all the "rules" and so forth. Clearly she knew about photography and had a good eye which adds another dimension, but being able to open a time capsule is the real beauty. Sometimes the content is enough to carry the image without anything else, and with her there's A LOT of content.
You could take it this way : everyone that looks at VM photos is a curator. You have been given the freedom to explore yourself not only engaging with the composition and all related, but also with the whole process. It is impossible to know what somebody wants by interpreting what other people (in general or particular) had done on the photography path (field).
Very well put, I think what makes Vivian interesting is that she probably did not want anyone to see her work. She was a very good photographer who was private. Good job defending her and good job talking about what's going on, sad that some of it is being over hyped by people trying to make money. Glad to see her story though and her work and glad she's getting some recognition in a day and age where everyone thinks they are a photographer.
"Res ipsa loquitur". Her body of work can speak for itself. True for any other artist, popular or unknown. One thing that this video made me is checking out her work. I must say, I'm an instant fan.
Too bad she didn't share in her lifetime, I hate how people used her for their own benefit. It would have been much better if a art museum released her work. Nobody deserves to profit from it.
***** Then they persevere. I know and art museum here that would've taken her happily.
Photographic Time So if you bought a bunch of yard sale pictures and found out they were unknown Van Gogh you would just give them to a museum and never tell anyone you had them and if you did you would refuse any monetary offers. Really?
Thomas Churchwell Well, I'm an artist myself, I have experienced other people profiteering from my work before, it was incredibly aggravating.
Ya but if you bought paintings and found out they were Van Gogh's you would just give them to a museum and not make any money from them or tell anyone. really?
Thomas Churchwell I think I would set up something charitable instead of purely profiting off of someone else's work.
I was fortunate to stumble across the documentary "Finding Vivian Maier" that John Maloof had created. He was working on writing a history book and well, this is absolute history. He managed to track down the family members whom she had worked for and gained even more knowledge of this "curious" woman. Had she not kept all that she had, little clues of that life, it would have not given those she'd worked for more reflection of the woman she was. One who had been a childhood friend of one of her charges said she'd not be as hard on her. Everyone that believed she was French, found that she was actually born in N.Y. Her roots were indeed French where her mother was born illegitimately as was Vivian. There was a mysterious comment that Vivian had made to the young girls that might lead one to think that she had been hurt by a man, physically, as a mere child.
(In one of her photographs, a mailbox with the words: Men must change or die. Had she scrawled such in the darkness of night only to return in daylight?)
John Maloof travelled all the way to a small village in France, finding a film developer to whom she'd given instruction in how to print some of her work. John Maloof showed him a photo of the very same man he was speaking to but of course, at a much younger age. He was so very surprised to see himself in that photograph!
She had to be a very bold and fearless woman to travel alone into countries that didn't believe women should have such a right. Even in the States, women had no rights. Single women were not allowed to have their own credit card!
Do yourselves a favor and see "Finding Vivian Maier" as you will see her in a different light. The BBC documentary is right here on RUclips but I cannot seem to get beyond "halfway" there.
While watching, I had the thought of this being made into a movie. Perhaps in an Alfred Hitchcock-esque way...
Finding Vivian Maier was very well done
Agree with you completely. Except on the editing of their work. Vincent Van Gogh died without selling one painting. His brother and supporter (who is said to have purchased the only painting from his brother to make him believe) died six months later. His work was edited, sold and marketed by Vincent's sister in law.
Agree with many of your points Ted. We must remember, we are a nation who really is longful for the past. The images are good in many cases because they give us a glimpse of a past that is gone forever. Are they technically brilliant photos? Not necessarily. Are they fun because they show is what life was like during a time many of us were not alive? I think so. We live in a time where there is so much slovenliness, that to see photos of a time when people dressed well, is refreshing. That is what Vivian Maier means to me. Not the most among photographer, but a glimpse into a long ago time. Just my .02 keep up the good work!
How about just admiring the photos as a journey thru history from one persons POV? How many people have such a varied history documented of human interest?
I know its years from the actual story, but I discovered it now, so here are my thoughts: I completely agree with the video. The difference what people in the comments do not seem to understand is that every artist has the right to publish their work and work on it. An art piece is not complete without the final input. The photography work is just HALF the work people! Even if you are not eager to print or to publish it, to become an acclaimed artist it is a necessity that you have to put in work that you might hate. Photography is not just taking pictures, but developing, printing, framing, and publishing are all part of it. Not all is fun and nice in the world, you can't produce an amazing work in one step, but if you put in the time, you will reap the full benefits. Miss Maier's didn't and so to later say that she changed the photography game (even is she came out with something spectacular and unexpected, which she didn't) would not be right. Again I 100% agree with the video: she was an amazing photographer, had an extraordinary eye for composition, but was not a great artist, as she left an unfinished work as an artist, or better: no work as an artist at all, as she never claimed to be one in the first place.
ps.: Funny thing is I am amazed by her work, and I really wonder: who are all those amazing and great photographers who's work has been thrown out and never seen the light of day? Miss Maiers is a very very lucky person after all, and these guys who produced the documentary and sell her art reap all the benefits... I think that somewhat sad.
I also agree with your opinion on Vivian Maier. I love looking at her work but at the same time I feel guilty about it, because not only did she not have the chance to edit her own work, but for all we know she might not have wanted anyone to see her work.
History, especially that of the humanities, is a collective reflection of individual's impact on each other. History would not exist if we all lived alone on completely isolated islands, let it be physical or cultural.
There is no question Vivian Maier was a good photographer by popular standards, simply due to the fact that people loved her work. Regardless of the intentions of the gentlemen who discovered, marketed and benefited from her work, at the end of the day, people liked her artwork. And that doesn't happen with just anyone.
As to her role in art history, when considering the interactions and lack thereof with the rest of the world, it has to be minimal, up to the moment she has become known and started affecting others. For all her life, she did not try to present and defend herself as an artist, and she did not intend to influence others in this way. Her impact on the lives of the children she looked after is greater than that of her artistic expression. Clearly, now her work started to be discovered and appreciated, along with the intrigue that she never benefited from them during her lifetime, she started writing art history. It is not a rewrite, it is a continuation.
In the end, history is systematic and interactive, it is an attempt for humanity as a whole to understand itself better. On an individual basis however, people take inspirations from each other, and at the same time, possesses artistic instinct and power of creation independently. Rather than trying to precisely define an individual's role in the grande scheme of things, I take simple pleasure from appreciating and enjoying the creative works of others.
Based on the many comments below, I applaud you for your integrity and courage to speak your mind. Thanks for keeping it real.
I love and miss these bring it back pllzzzzz!!
We have plenty of examples of artists' work published without their own editing, curating, even permission. Emily Dickinson - nearly all her poems and letters; and some works by Charles Dickens; Ernest Hemingway; Anne Frank; Friedrich Nietzsche; Frederic Chopin; Jim Croce, Janis Joplin; Van Gogh; Sophocles; Eugene O'Neill; "Avalanche Express"; the movie "Watership Down" - the list goes on and on. I have no problem reading Emily Dickinson's works - no, I do not find them all to be stellar. But you know what? I flip the page on those. Vivian Maier's work - I'm perfectly capable of spending more time looking at those that resonate with me, and less time on those that do not. Personally, I'd rather see more of her work than less.
Well its your time to spend looking at her work, but I'm afraid we're not going to be of the same opinion on that. I'm sorry, but I just don't put Ms Maier in that echelon that you listed. When she was "on" she was fantastic. There's just too little "on" for me.
theartofphotography Thank you for your opinion. Also, it is your inference that I was putting her "in that echelon that you listed". There are thousands of examples of posthumous publishings. I simply was naming a few artists whose names I figured would be recognized, as examples, to indicate posthumous publishing is nothing new.
Understood. My apologies - I though the inference was yours. Your point is well taken.
Ted, what I really like about you video on Vivian Maier is that its got people thinking, talking and debating the aspects of how an artist edits their work, and the role of curators.
In an age dominated by selfies and a huge lack of critical thinking on most topics, its refreshing to hear alternative views to an artists work, but more importantly how that work lands into the world...but I guess that is the role of a well trained and seasoned curator...to get people thinking for themselves again! ;-)
For the record I have always found your reviews well balanced and highly insightful for newbie like myself wishing to learn about the 'art' in photography...
Cheers....
I couldn't agree more with what you have to say. Her work is lovely, but it makes me sad knowing she didn't get to edit it.
I don't understand the narrator's point. His problem with Vivian Meir is not the work. It is very good, he says. It is that he was oversold on them. That sounds like his problem, not the problem of the Maier photographs.
No. His problem is twofold.
1) The owners of the images are not professional curators like he is and as such beneath him.
2) Maier probably just stepped all over his favorite street photographer in terms of
output and is now poo-pooing her so that his vaunted idol, whoever that is, stays on top in his mind.
Thanks for this video and I too really love some of Vivian Maier's photography. However I agree with you that there has been a flood of her work out in the public arena, for all to view, that has not been edited by either her, the artist, or someone with the artist intention in mind. As an artist myself (fine art) not a photographer I would be appalled to see all of my non-selected work on public display. An artists experimentation must be respected. In the situation of the artist being discovered after their death , as in the case of Vivian Maier, selection of her work should have been carried out by a panel of qualified curators who have a extensive knowledge of art history and who's motivation is art not commercial gain. Sometimes less is more. I think it is a shame Vivian Maier's work was not released to the public with more consideration for her as an artist.
Thanks for the very well stated views on Vivian's work and curation. I learned a lot
thanks for your insight! i wish, however, that you had talked more about the images and pointed out some of the issues with her work, or about her place in photography history, as opposed to the way she is (re)presented.
She personally offered up her work to the highest bidder when she was still alive, so she obviously wanted her work to be seen, and with the amount of self portraits, she also wanted to be known, if all of these photos where found after her death, then maybe I would agree, but she left it up to fate, and this is what you get. You sound jealous to me.
Tony Parker You sound misinformed to me. Where did you read that she "personally offered up her work to the highest bidder when she was still alive"? To my knowledge she never shared her work with anyone. Trust me - not jealous.
The Art of Photography I heard from you, in this video, right around the 3:45 mark, "she fell into some hard times right around the end of her life so she sold them to some auction house or whatever" and I watched the movie, she was a total amateur by every sense of the word, and her pictures are amazing! I rarely get moved by a photograph, but not just one, but many of her photos gave me chills! They really are that good! All of her work almost ended up in the trash, I don't care how they market it, I'm just thankful I got to see them. They touched me deeply, and I'm not into photography at all...
Tony Parker not to mention the guy who did "curate" worked for hard for many years in his effort to bring her work to light, and he makes no bones about it, he is the first to admit he is not a professional, if it were me that found those photographs they would still be collecting dust in my attic! Did you even watch the film? Sorry, but I'm just surprised on how unimpressed you are by a novice photographer getting the spotlight after her death, and how critical you are to the people who worked very hard to bring it to us... she was good, and her work speaks for itself, and nobody can take that away from her.
This is the only historical photographer you're familiar with I take it?
+The Art of Photography
I bet that you have your fill of the comments on this subject but somehow I missed this one although I literally go through your video in sequence since I am aware of your work, Ted. I also just gave you more money than I can afford so you would have one more chance to fulfill your projects not because I believe that you are the best but because you at least come out with an original format and you appear sincere and passionate. Thinking of it there's more than a little Vivian Maier in you.
Hello Ted, I watched your episode about Vivian Maier and I have also encountered documentaries about her work before so I enjoyed your point of view which brings a valid perspective to her work. What occurs to me is that Vivian Maier is a cautionary tale of what happens when a photographer never reaches out to present his or her work, and the work is left for others to interpret. Theses two gentlemen that are handling her work I am sure have the best of intentions in bringing the work to the public but in my humble opinion will never know the esthetics of her personal vision and at best are simply guessing. I also think Vivian Maier's work suffered because of her private persona, it hovered around similar subject matter so it never changed, something that you don’t see with other photographers like Henri Cartier Bresson, Sally Mann and Gordon Parks. Their images detail a journey an evolution of their work into other subjects matter while still retaining a recognizable style. So for me after watching what came to mind was the question How would I feel if left a body of work for others to manipulate, change without understanding my motivation? As always good work Ted enjoy the Art of Photography.
My view. The BBC documentary introduced me to her work and to the specific form of "Street Photography". That is surely a good thing.
The negatives could have been lost forever. It's better that we get to see her work than not at all.
I think she clearly had an eye for a composition, yes there were some average images BUT that's because we got to see so many of her images. Many famous photographers are defined by only a handful of images.
At the very least she captured city life as a historical document. At best she created some beautiful, humour, images.
Like Scott Adams said, "Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing what to keep". Unfortunately she didn't have the opportunity (or didn't take the opportunity) to do the second part. I love her work but the books were not done well. "Street Photography" and "Self Portraits" should have been one very well selected and very well done book.
I came across this just because of my interest in these pictures. I am not an expert of photography but just love it esp. Black and white. I don't know...I'm just glad these photos exist, period. It's just interesting how it was all done, with one similar camera and all the limitations that came with it. Let's not get all worked up over the small stuff and just embrace some good photos. Subscribed to your channel, will be checking out more.......I'm sure I'll learn something here.
I was surprised and disappointed by the sour nature of your discussion of Vivian Maier. I have nothing but admiration for John Maloof, who rescued Maier's work from oblivion after initially finding her negatives in an estate auction. Your criticisms of Maloof notwithstanding, the fact that he saw great value in her work when no one had ever heard of her, and worked relentlessly to bring her work to the public when the likelihood of of success was small, speaks volumes about his "amateur" and "untutored" eye. The documentary "Finding Vivian Maier" in which he unearths Maier's past, visits her home in France, and and elicits testimony from the families who knew her, is a work of art in itself. The insinuation in your video, that somehow Maier was robbed of the ability to edit her own work is ridiculous. By the time Maloof realized what he had, she was dead.
Indeed, what Maloof has brought us is not just a photographer, but a study of the creative process itself. We often wonder if in all the arts there are "mute, inglorious Miltons" producing great work that never sees the light of day. Well here we have such a case--but for the efforts of Maloof. Maier's life is almost as fascinating as her work. I encourage anyone who hasn't seen "Finding Vivian Maier (not the inferior BBC documentary) to watch it.
Alright, NOT Mr. John Maloof ;)
Taurus3 👌👌👌
the guy just jealous its not him the one discover her photos =d
The documentary, Finding Vivian Maier, can be seen presently on Netflix. It can also be rented on iTunes.
And I agree, the very process that Maloof went through in order to bring Vivian Maier to the public eye is indeed a work of art, within a work of art... that is, if one see's life as art.
Having worked in photography circles from late 80s to the 2000 doing b+w lab work doing extensive labwork dealing with pros and graphic artists and publicists I understand where your viewpoint comes from. Having left the profession and see this Vivian Maier develop I can see why so many people have been enraptured by her stunning images and her mysterious story and the various people who are 'curating'and promoting her work. As professionals we are immersed in the nuts and bolts of the craft and making a living while the outsiders just want great art work they don't know or even care how its done. In my time as a pro I would take issue with anyone who thought Mapplethorpe or Cartier-Bresson or RFrank's work was not worthy. I guess I was just too educated or even aloof in my elite views as an "insider". Now looking at this VM story blossom I beleive the artworld can actually learn something from this. I learned this:if a lot of people like your photography then they can't be wrong? They can't be treated with disdain or contempt as i used to. Anyhow, there's another photographer, a contemporary of VM by the name of Larsen check it out on U Tube. Great work but his work has not been snowballed like the VM story. I'm sure their is more great photography out there waiting to be discovered/found. And if lots of people want to see it pay for it etc. thats great lets and find out why that is.
That’s a fair commentary and you make good points. It would be great if Maier had a say in how her work is presented. But that’s simply not an option - it is what it is. I would rather see her work presented the way it has been than to never have seen it at all. I love her work and I’m glad her art was salvaged and shared with the world. Whatever personal issues she had, and she seems to have had a few, I think she would enjoy knowing that her work, which she painstakingly crafted, was being appreciated by many.
I couldn't agree more about the need of curation from the artist. I'm of course being hypocritical somewhat because I truly enjoy looking through Vivian's work. However, I've long been someone who felt that we need to always let the artist speak to the work they want us to see.
I think your assessment is fair. She was an excellent photographer, and as you say, was not able to edit which images should be shown. However, I would say that her "success rate" was much better than another street photographer who roamed New York with his Leicas and knew he might get one good shot on a roll. I think she showed an empathy for her subjects that combined with the nostalgic view of her work, makes them very desirable. You are on target with your points about curation. On one hand, the alternative might have been that the negatives ended up in a landfill, which would have been horrible. We may never really know Vivian, and Malloof and Goldstein may be under-equipped for their tasks, but at least they are making an effort. I am not sure how it would have played out if 100,000 negatives were dropped off at the Getty Institute.
Ted I agree with your professional opinion on the 'curation' and editing of her work. Those issues are so valid in my mind. Does her work 'redefining photograph'? I cannot say I am not an art historian but I do know that I enjoy a lots of her images. I like to think of all this as an archeological find. We are just exploring all she left behind.
I just saw her movie, after watching your episode. I must say, the movie is done very well, and I am so glad they didn't make a giant hero out of her, just like some people obsessively try to be. She was a normal person and this was her hobby & never tried to be famous. She just enjoyed shooting. Her exhibits are portraying her as a person, not a wanna b photographer. I saw her exhibit, and saw her movie. I'm sorry to say, but people who wanted to make big bucks and didn't luck out were Moma, so I'm happy if these two guys are portraying it as it is. And I enjoy your episodes as well.
The problem I have with the opinions offered is that if it were not for the "amateurs" that found Meier's work and told the world, no one would have the privilege of seeing it. Second, it is very hard to print one's work if one is deceased; so this comment, made repeatedly, is in the region of absurdity. Third, showing Meier's work printed as-is without the editing by "professional curators" allows all we who are among the great unwashed to see her work in the raw, which again is a great privilege. The comments made by Mr. Forbes come across as sneeringly condescending, diminishing his stature unnecessarily. A more gracious approach would benefit all concerned.
Dave Tarrant
It really shows in what sensitive times we live in, when you have to apologize a dozen times for stating your opinions about the work of Ms. Maier. The thing i "hate" about photography, is the huge amount of snobs and knowitalls it creates. At the end of the day, photography is pretty subjective and personal taste is a huge factor, if you like a photographer or not. What works for you, does not have to work for everyone else. This mindset, of having the ultimate and best taste and to know whats the universal truth in regard to quality, just baffles me. Anyway, great video :)
I've been occasionally dropping by AoP for a while, but this video made me subscribe. I agree with much of what you expressed about Vivian Maier and the way her work was curated, and I don't necessarily agree on other points you made. But overall, I felt this was was handled in brave and honest fashion and I have a lot of respect for your willingness to press ahead and express your reasons.
Forgive the late comment -- Shame on me, I only just discovered Vivian Maier. I think what Ted is trying to say here is right-ish. I agree that there is some motivation from Vivian's "curators" to oversell her work. We should ignore that hype and decide for ourselves. I also agree that she does not get to edit her own work. However, if we look at the top 10% of her work, it's incredible. I don't know about you-all but I'm lucky to keep 1 out of 10 photos, even when I shot film and was stingy with my shots. I feel the subject matter of her work is an instant time-travel machine. Is that attributable to her skill just because we found them decades later? I say yes -- she did such an exceptional job of capturing her environment and what was real and they're not garbage snaps, many are compositionally excellent and seem to have some real meaning/depth, the more I look the more I see. But maybe I'm apophenic. Is she the best? Who knows, but she deserves some spotlight.
Watched the film yesterday. So interesting and inspiring. Incredible photography.
Just found this video in your collection. I love Maier's work and could not agree with you more about her not having the privilege of presenting her own work. It is a shame because I love her work and recently purchased Maloof's book on her (Vivian Maier - Street Photography) and find her work captivating and inspiring.
Thank you for the video....
Ted, I have attended all the Vivian Maier gallery exhibits in Los Angeles by both the Maloof and Goldsteins collections and felt a similar uneasiness about the curation of the exhibited and printed work. By chance I was able to ask John Maloof at the second L.A. exhibit (Merry Kernowski, "A Life Discovered: Redux, 2013) about the selection process by which he was curating. I found John's response sincere when he stated that he simply wanted to showcase her work the best way he knew how. He seemed to be learning on the job so to speak, and I think he really has been trying to surround himself with folks knowledgeable in that process. During the second exhibit they showed some of Ms. Maier's own printed work and there was such a big contrast between what she self printed and what has since been printed by professionals, which has also made me ponder your concerns of artist edit control.
Coincidentally I did not know about your mixed emotions regarding Vivian Maier; Maloof's documentary, "FInding Vivan Maier" was just released this weekend in Los Angeles so I postponed watching your podcast so as to not have any information pre exposed. I the movie a few hours ago and came home to see your podcast and found what you had to say was spot on. If you happen to watch Maloof's documentary you will likely find the quandary that Maloof alludes to of not having an institution validate his findings is ironic because I suspect its related to the actions and circumstances by which her work has been presented.
Just my two cents.
I love her work. But I understand the points you are making. Thank you for presenting this edition about her, I always love seeing her photos.
My take is she didn't show her work because she didn't want it judged. "The Book of Disquiet" by Fernando Pessoa, who spent his entire life writing the book but never had it published, is another example. The book is considered a masterpiece. The audiobook is 15-hours long and I've listened to it ten times and will continue to be enchanted by it. I agree with the person in this video since photos can be edited by other than the photographer (like these were.) Writing is different - what Pessoa wrote is what we get - unedited and complete.
I agree with you about the hype and quality. So glad someone found it though!
I could not agree more with you Ted. No need to apologize, a lot has to be said about the hype surrounding her work.
Great show Ted! I appreciated your unvarnished honesty. I'm very glad her work was saved. But like you said, it's too bad that it's not being edited properly. Thanks again. :)
You appreciate unvarnished honesty but you take exception to a body of work that is presented as they are. Quite an opposition of thoughts in three sentences.
jpracingph Always classy to see some mystery user with no thumbnail troll through the thread because they were offended by a photography video. jpracingph you are an idiot but I admire that you set out to correct everyone here who doesn't agree with you.You really like Vivian Maier and that's cool. But you ought to learn a few other names in photo history as well - it gets quite a bit cooler ;-)
theartofphotography You have no idea what or who I know. And, no, I didn't set out to correct people here. I merely try to point out the obvious to people with blinders made of presumption and pompousness. And, your classy comment followed by a derogatory remark is about as classy as your sarcastic finger waving quotations in the air on the video.
Should have known better than to feed the trolls… carry on.
theartofphotography Ah, yes. The cry of the truly desperate. Invoke adolescent vocabulary into the mix. Good job of actually revealing whence these opinions come from.
Regarding the speaker's point that Maier did not get to control/edit/present her own work. In fact, there are many artists (visual, musical and literary) in the same position. Kafka, to name one. But really almost all really good artists end up having "unpublished" work later released to the world. It's an issue worth considering, but Maier has lots and lots of company in this discussion.
By and large I agree with your concerns about Maier's work. Editing is a huge part of the creative process of photography. But I'm willing to withhold criticism because I think this whole issue puts a fine point on key questions about photography... Who owns the image? and What is considered "the original object" in an age of instant and exact reproducibility? Certainly these questions have been part of the conversation surrounding photography from the very start.
So yes, I would say Maier's work doesn't necessarily rewrite history, but it certainly adds to it. And Maloof, using Maier's negatives, is forcing photographers to ask significant questions about the nature of our present work. And that will have significant impact on the future of photography. It is certainly a fascinating and rare thing that has happened, so thanks for your thoughts on her work.
Some of the earlier released photographs did look a lot like snapshots but the newest photographs I've seen actually look very good. I'm waiting for the new documentary because it looks great. Keep in mind if you actually had access to all of the negatives of Henri Cartier-Bresson you would also think that many of them are only snapshots. If you were only to show 1% of her best work I'm quite sure people would think she was amazing...
Bravo Ted! I couldn't have said it better.
I think the Maier story may be part of the reason she has gained so much interest. I found the documentary well produced and thoughtful. It is a good story.
If nothing else the intense marketing of her work has probably brought people out to see it that may not have gone to a exhibit of photography otherwise. And that alone is of value.
vivian maier,The best photographer in the last 150 years ,and the rest is due jealous!
Great presentation. I think you really opened my eyes to the importance of curation and the artist role. Thanks.
An excellent episode, and probably for me your best. When you speak from the heart Ted your episodes carry much more impact as they make the viewer stop and think. I had been very much focused on the work of Vivian Maier without thinking much about the ethics of how she was being presented to the world, and your episode has made me stop, and reconsider that uncritical perspective.
Part of me agrees with the criticism about the marketisation of her work, while part of me balances this with the anthropological implications of releasing her work. It takes me back to a comment you once made in a past episode about how as a photographer you might end up taking lots of photos, with most that are poor and get binned, some are good, and a few will be the excellent ones that demonstrate your ability. Like you say, Vivian Maier never had the opportunity to edit her work, so with all the great photos she took are probably a whole load that she probably would have thought were distinctly average. That decision was taken out of her life, and now this does feel a little like the desecration of Tutankhamun's tomb in some respects, with the principle of a sense of history being cast aside for the benefit of the glorification of imperial exploration, and publicity of those involved.
At the end of the day, people will agree with you, disagree with you, like the episode, not like the episode, but the strength of these episodes is to make you think about photography in all aspects. So if it causes people to stop and think for a moment and reflect on maybe the assumptions that they had made, even if they still come to the same conclusion they started with, then your episode has done it's job. I love Vivian Maier's work, but you've moved me to look beyond the image and think deeper about what it is I am looking at.
The episodes you make seem to me to be about your passion for photography that you want to share (at least that's how I've understood it), so don't apologise for presenting your own honest opinion and putting Vivian Maier in the context of history that her excellent work deserves. It's that honesty and openess that keeps me watching your episodes and will continue to do so until you decide not to make them any more. So yes, an excellent episode, and you at your best Ted. Well done.
I'm glad these two guys shared her photos. But the points you mention about her not getting to curate her images and print them are important to keep in mind. Though I also find it interesting to see just all the pics even the maybe not so nice ones that people make.
Perhaps you could do a video focusing on the topic of curating photos? It comes up a lot in this video but I’m not sure what is entailed. It seems to be an important but rarely discussed part of the process. How does it fit into other photographer’s body of work?
I just came across this video and I enjoyed the education within. First I agree with you about how her work is being presented. To give a 21st century example, it's the selffie you post of yourself on Instagram (best angle and light) vs the cruddy one your friends post of you on Facebook. 2. As far as her work not being ground breaking..... excellent work is excellent work. Chuck Berry was ground breaking, he is considered by many to be the father of Rock and Roll and of course should be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. The Rolling Stones are also in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Is their work ground breaking....no.... they themselves give credit to Chuck Berry. However, they have an excellent body of work worthy of being remembered. Was every Chuck B. Or Rolling Stone song a hit or worth recording..no, yet aren't we greatfull of the ones that were?. Once again thank you for the insight into the art of photography. It's nice to learn more then simple gear talk.