New Vivian Maier Biography Published

Thanks for the post!

Jeffrey Goldstein’s review on Amazon alone is worth printing out and putting in the book, so I ordered it.

I am about as intolerant as it gets when it comes to copyright infringement and other forms of artist abuse. But I am in no way judgmental of this outcome and how it came to be through the curiosity and tenacity of Mr. Maloof, there is just too much that went right with this to take a side. I mean…my god, the world has seen amazing photographs that not even Vivian Maier herself got to see.

And the story of her life, the people coming forward, the whole darn thing, it’s stranger than fiction.
Even an acquaintance of mine as a child got Vivian fired from her job as family nanny when she ratted her out for putting her then infant brother into a trashcan for a photograph.

It’s controversial, it’s crazy even but it is also one of the greatest stories of a photographer in the history of photography. The record of artists in posthumous form is a remarkable thing in that it can often live larger than the artist ever could. And brilliance is not always adorned in pleasantries, it can be a painful sense of place. As evidenced by Vivian Maier, one can not always harness it and that means you are just along for the ride.. . . . . .
 
So, one person has found another person art and get it instantly accessible. Nothing is wrong with it. Very effective way to pay tribute for gifted photographer. In the opposite museums gives no crap for photography if it is not famous name. She became famous because her work was exposed instantly by person who has respect her work. Giving unkown name photos to museums is only better than dumpster. AGO has millions of photos and absolutely no plans to show, digitize them. Same for big museum in Ottawa. They release small portions of photos from huge archive only by now. And next to nothing is available on-line.
Also museums are not going to develop film and print from it. This is what significant part of her photography was. Undeveloped film.

But maybe it is better and different in the States...
 
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.

Best,
-Tim
Click to expand...


so, are art dealers repulsive? Publishers of art books? Art Historians? All of them make money off of the work of artists.
 
giganova said:
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...

For what it's worth, books published by university presses (like this one) generally do not make any money. I guarantee that the author will not "profit" financially from it in any significant way. Her total royalties over the next ten years will probably compensate her labor at the rate of a few pennies per hour.
 
Last edited:
dfranklin said:
For what it's worth, books published by university presses (like this one) generally do not make any money. I guarantee that the author will not "profit" financially from it in any significant way. Her total royalties over the next ten years will probably compensate her labor at the rate of a few pennies per hour.
Click to expand...


I'm certain that Giganova was being sarcastic, since he was responding to someone who seems to think no one should make money off artists after they die. As I pointed out in my own post, that would include art dealers, art historians, museum curators, and book publishers. There's nothing wrong with any of those people making a living from their work.
 
I started following this story in mid 2009. (Started a thread at mflforum ).
When Maloof got started on this he sure seemed sincere and innocent about his intentions.
It’s hard to say he orcestrated any kind of a profit machine.
That came from peoples genuine hunger for this work and this story.
The guy deserves credit. I just can’t find any legit view to villianize him.

If he gave these rolls to a museum, their bean counters would have killed this story.
Low Budgets would have kept it from the light of day.
Try and remember what the economy was like in ‘09. Things were tight!
 
f16sunshine said:
I started following this story in mid 2009. (Started a thread at mflforum ).
When Maloof got started on this he sure seemed sincere and innocent about his intentions.
It’s hard to say he orcestrated any kind of a profit machine.
That came from peoples genuine hunger for this work and this story.
The guy deserves credit. I just can’t find any legit view to villianize him.

If he gave these rolls to a museum, their bean counters would have killed this story.
Low Budgets would have kept it from the light of day.
Try and remember what the economy was like in ‘09. Things were tight!
Click to expand...

That's my impression about Maloof too. I first took notice in an ancient flickr thread where Maloof asked for ideas/thoughts on what to do with his (then) recent discovery. A lot of people were flubbergasted by the quality of the photos. I followed Maloof immediately to see where he'll go with this - I may have been his second or third follower in flickr, as I recall. The initial gallery scene response was lukewarm to say the least. As far as I could tell, Meier did not fit the academic criteria of what is good and what is not. Heck, she was a street photographer (in reported stories at the time I could almost imagine curators exhaling a disgusted "ewww!!") But of course, people were interested in Meier, their interest could be translated to gold and I don't know any gallery that doesn't like gold. So, she broke through. The image of the reclusive genius with a Rollei must have played a role. People love Susan Boyle kind of stories and they wouldn't let the fact that Meier was dead or that she didn't really want to show her work spoil a perfect rags to riches story.

As for the new biography, I like the fact that it is occupied with redressing the way Meier has been portrayed. Meier has been discovered and made a household name after her death, like so many other artists, but in her case one has the distinct feeling that this goes against her will when she was alive. If street photography is often accused nowadays of being transgressive, in Meier's case the transgression is compounded by the fact that nobody cares about what she wanted. So, I guess, it's a good thing the book attempts to remedy parts of this and give her some sort of agency and humanity back. I don't know whether the biography will gloss over the fact that Meier was photographing in a way critisized since the 70s but if it does it will be a wasted opportunity. For various reasons I think Meier is exactly the kind of case that offers itself for a rehabilitation of street photography. Which, to be honest, I don't see happening any time soon.

For anyone interested I 'll post a link to the old flickr thread Maloof started (warning: long read). That thread has been referenced in the Bannos biography too.

https://www.flickr.com/groups/94761711@N00/discuss/72157622552378986/

.
 
telenous said:
For various reasons I think Meier is exactly the kind of case that offers itself for a rehabilitation of street photography. Which, to be honest, I don't see happening any time soon.
Click to expand...
Street photography needs to rehabilitate itself. It is in the hands of its current practitioners; it can't be done externally.
 
but maybe her work is influencing current street photographers. it has retro appeal and gives precedent for selfies.
 
Timmyjoe said:
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
Click to expand...
Louvre Museum entrance fee: 17€
British Museum entrance fee: 16,7£
Fondation Herni Cartier-Bresson in Pairs entrance fee: 8€
The Metropolitan Museum of Art entrance fee: $25
and so on...
 
I certainly didn't start following this story as early as most did but I am darned glad that someone found, and then took the time to begin promoting her work. She is right at the top of my list of terrific photographers.

As for the professor, I am thrilled she decided to produce a biography of Vivian Maier, at least I'll know more about her after I finish the book than I did before I started it.

Based on the New York Times review I am not too sure I will agree with everything the Professor writes but I am sure it will be interesting. I just hope she is a good writer, not all academic types are.

As for Ms. Maier, I do wish she had taken the time to produce her own work as she personally envisioned it. That would have been the best option of all. But, since she didn't, at least it isn't lost. That would have been the real tragedy of this entire story.
 
A: She's dead, we know that.
B: She left no will, no expression of her desires, we know that.
C: She for all intents left her work abandoned, we know that.
Maloof came about her work legally, and with all the above did just what he should have. He brought great art to the masses, why not make a profit? This is a capitalist society.
 
This stuff has been hashed about ad infinitum at this point. My personal opinion is just based on the facts and not the fantasy. Maloof had no right to publish or print any of the images. You know, copyright. He of course could sell any prints or negatives he owned, but owning a print or a negative does not confer copyright.

As an opinion I don't like it much that someone altered another's work after death. To take from the Picasso example above, it wouldn't be like finding a Picasso at a yard sale, it would be like finding Picasso's paint at a yard sale then whipping up a Picasso. Yeah, you may get it to look like a Picasso, but Picasso didn't actually approve your scribbles.

I also don't think there is anything crazy special about her images. They didn't break any new ground photographically. When you think about the photographers that were working at the same time in the same place like Callahan or Siskind her images are rather staid. They are basically the work of a good amateur photographer. I think the romance of her story, and the tragedy of it, makes people put too much worth in her images. I don't think her images belong in Museums like MOMA. They are perfect for historical ones though. They do show a slice of life back then. That is why the photographic establishment pretty much passed on all of it. Only a few that saw dollar signs took a punt.
 
I'm late to this argument party, but it is worth remembering that Maloof didn't find anything from a dead "artist" and seek to profit from his find. He found a lot of pictures from a dead nanny. At that point they were worth nothing more than discarded negatives from any dead nanny, and his thinking wasn't any different than anyone elses would have been. It wasn't "I'm rich", it was "some of these seem really nice to me". He was the one who saw the artistic value in them and thought that others should be able to enjoy them as well. It took an immense amount of work on his part to get the negatives to a state that others could enjoy, and even more work to get others to pay attention.
He isn't deserving of any slagging. If anyone is profiting, or seeking to profit, in a disgusting way from Vivian's photos it is those who came later, having done nothing in the way of curating or making her work available to others. These ones are known as lawyers. It was ever thus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom