Imagine: Vivian Maier: Who Took Nanny's Pictures

Glad I watched it. Thanks for that link. I'm curious why there was so much drama during the meetup to buy some of auctioned boxes, the buyer describes it like it was some kind of big drug deal.

Also, not sure if many of you caught it, but one of the later owners of some of her negatives mentioned he was glad that he got in a little later, which I took to mean that unlike some of the earliest collectors, he was buying after the artist had passed away, and not scavenging while knowing the artist was alive, recently injured, and probably not more than a few miles away while they were pillaging.

Those details were on flickr for years, but have probably since been taken down.
 
Thanks to the OP for the link. I found it touching and sad, and appreciated learning more about the context of her work.
 
charjohncarter said:
Thanks, I watched the 'You Tube" version, 10 minutes short; it is good. I have watched many of these Vivian M. videos and this is the best. It is 58:16 minutes long so if you don't have the time: do 22:00 to 28:30 and 38:00 to 41:05. The rest is an interesting mystery, history and mental state presentation, but even for a jerk like me this part was enjoyable.
Click to expand...

The last 10 mins can be found in the following youtube (Part 5 of the documentary) :- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XU9h4L91PxM
 
Here is the entire program:

//depositfiles.com/files/j7vdli7v5IP

Pass = NannyV

~ Hibbs
 
Last edited:
Did any one feel that this skirted around the main issue somewhat?
I am talking about the fact that she took photographs for herself, sometimes not even seeing the developed negative. Joel Meyerowitz is the only person on the Imagine show to discuss how it is slightly odd that people are now editing and dealing in her images.
I thought that this should have been emphasised more, a viewer who was unaware of Maier's story might over look this...

Did anyone else feel the same?
 
There are various examples of heirs or friends not respecting the original wish of an author to destroy letters, drafts, poems, any kind of work that the author maybe just because of a "bad hair day" didn't deem to be worth anything.

The culture of the world would be much poorer, if these people strictly followed what they had been told.

In case of Vivian Maier, she could have burned all negatives and prints or could have shot with an empty camera if she had intended for her body of work never to be seen.
Maybe she was just too humble to try to get attention to her and her work and she would be fine with the posthumous recognition.
But you have a point, maybe she would not be OK, sadly no one can ask her.
 
twhittle said:
Did any one feel that this skirted around the main issue somewhat?
I am talking about the fact that she took photographs for herself, sometimes not even seeing the developed negative. Joel Meyerowitz is the only person on the Imagine show to discuss how it is slightly odd that people are now editing and dealing in her images.
I thought that this should have been emphasised more, a viewer who was unaware of Maier's story might over look this...

Did anyone else feel the same?
Click to expand...

I haven't watched the video but I have always thought it was REAL odd how the vultures have done what they have done. What did that one guy pay for a big chunk of her collection? $400? Now prints are going for 8 grand? Pure greed and exploitation. I too like the idea of that man setting up some kind of institute to award scholarships to folks. He has to be getting filthy rich off of his $400 investment. And she couldn't even afford to pay her rental storage.

Perhaps she didn't really give a crap what happened to her stuff however. Maybe it was just her hobby you know?
 
just received 'Vivian Maier: Street Phoographer' / powerhousebooks
and I am floored, what a Fantastic Book...Glorious b&w NYC... at its Best

this book has done me Good....Each page gives me a Smile
Simply Adore her work
She & Helen Levitt are Pure Magic when it comes to Street
 
Contarama said:
I haven't watched the video but I have always thought it was REAL odd how the vultures have done what they have done. What did that one guy pay for a big chunk of her collection? $400? Now prints are going for 8 grand? Pure greed and exploitation. ....
Click to expand...

That guy who recognized the value of the pictures was just the first to do so. You never know how many others have seen them before and thought, "eh just boxes of old crappy pictures no one will care about ever" They were wrong and he was right, tough luck for them, good luck for him.

Setting up a scholarship fund based on the money made off her pictures is a nice idea but maybe the guy was not that rich in the first place to go all philanthropic with the "flee market find" nobody else cared about.

If it wasn't for him the world wouldn't even know who Vivian Maier was, even less that she took some awesome picture to document her times.
 
icebear said:
...In case of Vivian Maier, she could have burned all negatives and prints or could have shot with an empty camera if she had intended for her body of work never to be seen.
Maybe she was just too humble to try to get attention to her and her work and she would be fine with the posthumous recognition.
But you have a point, maybe she would not be OK, sadly no one can ask her.
Click to expand...

IMHO, she couldn't/wouldn't have the negs and prints burnt because she was a hoarder, as both her charges had said in the video. Hoarders have a psychosis that makes them simply unable to part with anything. I know because my mother was one.

She was also an intensely private person who disliked intrusion into even what we might consider trivial (one man said you could go into her room only on the off-chance when she allowed them to, and another woman said she got angry when people merely asked where she'd been out to).

My conclusion: she wouldn't have liked prying into her personal details. On the other hand, she did indicate an interest in making travel postcards at first, so she might have been flattered if people exhibited and liked her works, though.

Of course, this is all conjecture. I'm happy we get to see her photos. Not so happy thinking of the shady shenanigans taken to let us see them (meeting in abandoned warehouses with bouncers in tow??? Remember that this happened BEFORE the Vivian Maier Brand exploded).
 
Contarama said:
...Perhaps she didn't really give a crap what happened to her stuff however. Maybe it was just her hobby you know?
Click to expand...

Even so, what right does a complete stranger have to profit off her work. And without her express consent, at that.

Like others, I am still waiting for the Vivian Maier Foundation to be set up. I have bought two of her books already. Granted, they are not priced exorbitantly. But surely some profit must have been made to allow the setting up of such an institute in her name. If the projects are really being conducted based on sheer altruism as is commonly being promoted, then her works should be handled by a non-profit organisation.
 
Ruhayat said:
Even so, what right does a complete stranger have to profit off her work. And without her express consent, at that.
Click to expand...

You are making like the buyers stole the photos... they obtained them legally. Many people profit off of other people's work. The only difference is she is dead while the profiting is being made.
 
Ruhayat said:
Even so, what right does a complete stranger have to profit off her work. And without her express consent, at that.

Like others, I am still waiting for the Vivian Maier Foundation to be set up. I have bought two of her books already. Granted, they are not priced exorbitantly. But surely some profit must have been made to allow the setting up of such an institute in her name. If the projects are really being conducted based on sheer altruism as is commonly being promoted, then her works should be handled by a non-profit organisation.
Click to expand...
I hate to be really blunt, but such talk is naive in the face of capitalism. People will profit from something especially since they now own the pictures and, of course, because they can.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom