New Vivian Maier Biography Published

This one I'll buy and read.

I've been impressed by Ms. Maier's photographs, but repulsed by the individuals who took possession of her negatives and profited from it.

I hope this book will be different and will give us a glimpse into the person behind the images, not some marketing hype to try to make more money for individuals who had nothing to do with her art.

Best,
-Tim
 
could not agree more.

has anyone who has kept up with the legal developments say whether it looks like maier's work will be curated more independently?
 
repulsed by the individuals who took possession of her negatives and profited from it.
Click to expand...
try to make more money for individuals who had nothing to do with her art.
Click to expand...
Are you referring to:
  • John Maloof? As far as I know, if it were not for him, Vivian Maier's photos might have ended in the dumpster; And, If I am to believe the narration in "Finding Vivian Maier", his initial attempts for setting up shows of the found photographs were turned down by the respectable galleries/museums.
  • A distant cousins in France? If I am to believe the Wikipedia article, John Maloof located one such cousin and paid him some rights.
  • Another distant cousin in France? He came into the picture through the efforts of our next suspect:
  • The lawyer who convinced said cousin to sue for rights... I'd be curious to know what are the terms of the lawyer's contract, like, e.g., 90% of the settlement going to "legal fees".
Anyway, could you be a little more explicit about who your statement is targeting, and support your argument with publicly verifiable information?
 
BernardL said:
Are you referring to:
  • John Maloof? As far as I know, if it were not for him, Vivian Maier's photos might have ended in the dumpster; And, If I am to believe the narration in "Finding Vivian Maier", his initial attempts for setting up shows of the found photographs were turned down by the respectable galleries/museums.
  • A distant cousins in France? If I am to believe the Wikipedia article, John Maloof located one such cousin and paid him some rights.
  • Another distant cousin in France? He came into the picture through the efforts of our next suspect:
  • The lawyer who convinced said cousin to sue for rights... I'd be curious to know what are the terms of the lawyer's contract, like, e.g., 90% of the settlement going to "legal fees".
Anyway, could you be a little more explicit about who your statement is targeting, and support your argument with publicly verifiable information?
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
It's laid out in the book discussed above. Read the New York Times review.

And just because someone finds someone else's artwork after their death, doesn't give them the right to profit from it. He should have realized what he had found, and donated it to a museum.

Best,
-Tim
 
I completely agree with Bernard:

Without Maloof, we would know nothing about her and her photos. All her work would have been destroyed and lost forever. He spent an enormous amount of effort & resources to restore her negatives, scan them, and publish them through a book, film, prints, and museum shows. He should get all the credit and of course he should have the right to be compensated for that. Everyone else is just profiting of his efforts and trying to get a piece of the pie.

As for the mentioned new book: I do not understand why a university professor of photography is trying to jump on the bandwagon and publish a book years later, trying to profit from Maier and Maloof's discovery as well. University professors are -- by definition -- supposed to do own original research and work, and this years-old story is not exactly cutting edge and in the spirit of university research.
 
Timmyjoe said:
He should have realized what he had found, and donated it to a museum.
Click to expand...

By your own argument, would you donate a Picasso that you rightfully purchased at a flee market to a museum and not be compensated for your find at all? Honestly, would you do that?
 
Yeah, if I paid $400 for a Picasso at a flee market, I would donate it to a Museum. See, that's the difference between you and me, I would never try to make money off of someone else's art or creation. You say you would. I find that repulsive. But hey, the world needs all kinds.

Best,
-Tim
 
Still there would be no biography by Pamela Bannos without Maloof's efforts.
Like it or not Vivian Maier's work would be unknown. He is treated like a plumber who did a necessary Job only to find people complaining about the odors.
To profit from someone elses art... well most of the great artists wanted to make a living and they only could do so because someone (an art dealer for example) wanted to make a profit (by cultivating the painters reputation and educating potential buyers).
It is noble to avoid making a profit and donating art... Nobody prevents Tim from doing so, but also nobody should prevent giganova to sell his 400$ Picasso for more than he paid for it.

I am much more concerned for living artists who don't get what they deserve. Is it fair to sell a painting for 40.000 when the painter had to sell it for 500? Shouldn't at least a cut from every sale be paid to the artist?
 
Had Maloof donated her negatives to any number of museums, her work would have been known. And I'd have no problem with him receiving $400 from the museum to cover his expenses. But he went a whole different direction and I'm so sick of people trying to act like he was altruistic. He enriched himself off of a dead artist's work.

Best,
-Tim
 
Timmyjoe said:
Yeah, if I paid $400 for a Picasso at a flee market, I would donate it to a Museum. See, that's the difference between you and me, I would never try to make money off of someone else's art or creation. You say you would. I find that repulsive. But hey, the world needs all kinds.
Click to expand...
Fortunately, you'll never have to decide whether to forego millions of dollars by donating that flea market Picasso, so it's easy to hypothetically take the high road.
 
Timmyjoe said:
See, that's the difference between you and me, I would never try to make money off of someone else's art or creation.
Click to expand...
Why are you talking about me now in such a condescending tone?! Did I say what I would do? :confused:

Plus, Maloof has asked museums and galleries and nobody wanted it.
 
BTW, my family was in a similar situation a few years ago: we found a Paolo Veronese (1528-1588), worth hundreds of thousands of $$/EUR in our possession and nobody in our family really knows where it came from. So we went to a couple of museums and asked them if they want to have it for free. They authenticated it but said "thanks, but no", so now it hangs on the wall of one of our family homes.
 
giganova said:
BTW, my family was in a similar situation a few years ago: we found a Paolo Veronese (1528-1588), worth hundreds of thousands of $$/EUR in our possession and nobody in our family really knows where it came from. So we went to a couple of museums and asked them if they want to have it for free. They authenticated it but said "thanks, but no", so now it hangs on the wall of one of our family homes.
Click to expand...

say what? museums are not supposed to authenticate artwork at all, ever. it's a conflict of interest. they should have referred you to a certified art appraiser.
 
giganova said:
Without Maloof, we would know nothing about her and her photos. All her work would have been destroyed and lost forever. He spent an enormous amount of effort & resources to restore her negatives, scan them, and publish them through a book, film, prints, and museum shows. He should get all the credit and of course he should have the right to be compensated for that. Everyone else is just profiting of his efforts and trying to get a piece of the pie.

As for the mentioned new book: I do not understand why a university professor of photography is trying to jump on the bandwagon and publish a book years later, trying to profit from Maier and Maloof's discovery as well. University professors are -- by definition -- supposed to do own original research and work, and this years-old story is not exactly cutting edge and in the spirit of university research.
Click to expand...

I fully agree. Also, I never found anything suspect with John Maloof's behavior. At least didn't he keep what he had found secret in order to speculate, which isn't the case of some other fellows having grabbed some lots of Vivian's abandoned material.

Plus, if the photos and all other found materials had been given to a museum or to a public library, chances are, that they wouldn't have been added to any catalog yet, and that they would still remain totally unknown for some time. Also, I would fully believe folks who'd tell that museums or public libraries first didn't want to accept the gift.

For me too, this book comes out a little too late.

Note : I'm a public library curator so please don't jump at me telling I don't know what I am talking about, I know everything about the efforts and time it takes to add a pictures collection like this one to the catalog and make them visible both for the researchers and the public, worldwide.
 
giganova said:
BTW, my family was in a similar situation a few years ago: we found a Paolo Veronese (1528-1588), worth hundreds of thousands of $$/EUR in our possession and nobody in our family really knows where it came from. So we went to a couple of museums and asked them if they want to have it for free. They authenticated it but said "thanks, but no", so now it hangs on the wall of one of our family homes.
Click to expand...
If it is worth hundreds of thousands of euros, why didn't you sell it through an art dealer? Did you just like it and not want the money?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom