Vivian Maier - 'Outsider Art'?

R

Rudy_b

Member
Local time
3:05 PM
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
11
Just a thought I had earlier today, wondering what people's view are on it -

Is Vivian Maier's work technically outsider art, if what gets chosen for the exhibitions etc., is all curated by the art establishment?

By that I mean, she was an 'outsider' as defined by the art world. Not a part of the community, not formally trained, etc. BUT she left a hell of a lot of negatives and prints. So the people choosing what to exhibit WOULD be viewing them through the lens of the art orthodoxy (pun not intended).

Since part of the art photographer's craft is in choosing what to exhibit, doesn't that mean that Vivian Maier's 'body of work', as we now experience it, doesn't have that outsider aesthetic? But then again, the pictures were TAKEN by an outsider

I dunno, it makes me think of found art, where the choosing of objects and placing them in gallery contexts is the 'art creation'. So would that mean the artist is actually the person sifting through and choosing them, rather than her?
 
Roughly speaking, she's an outsider and her photography is indeed outsider art. There may be disagreement on whether the term technically applies to her (the initial application was for children and the mentally ill), so let's say it is a blanket term for work that hasn't been institutionalized the regular way. As far as I know the people who curate her work are not art critics and established curators themselves and the curated bits we see are sieved through a traditional understanding of the aesthetic and function of photography. For this reason I don't think your question (if I understand it) really rises. As a side note, it seems to me most post-Winogrand street/documentary/whatsamacallit photography is steering in the direction of outsider art anyway.

.
 
Marco Milazzo said:
I wouldn't use that term to refer to her. She was intelligent, educated and sophisticated -- simply a dedicated amateur. Here's a definition of "outsider artist" from the folks who should know:

http://rawvision.com/what-outsider-art
Click to expand...


While it's difficult to know how much exposure she really had to the art world (which might I add was much more difficult back then, without the easy access to information we're used to today), I still see several criteria presented here by which she may be defined in this way. "[A]rt produced entirely for individual satisfaction and inner need with no regard to exhibition, fame or monetary reward", for example, or "None were professional artists or had contact with the art world and all were completely untrained."

Like I said, it's difficult to know for sure if she received training, or how aware she was of the art world.

telenous said:
As far as I know the people who curate her work are not art critics and established curators themselves and the curated bits we see are sieved through a traditional understanding of the aesthetic and function of photography.
Click to expand...

I don't really understand what you mean. Are the negatives still held by the original people who bought them at auction, and they have final say over what does and doesn't get shown to the public? The positive part of that sentence is the important one - if the art directors etc. who are putting on these shows are choosing which of the photos submitted don't get exhibited, then the art world has gotten its hands on it.

Who knows, maybe what I was getting at was the wider question of how much of the 'art creation' is caused by selection. I've been looking at the contact sheets of famous photographers recently, and many of the shots in them wouldn't have anywhere near the same impact as the frames chosen. So is a person who delegates that crucial step (whatever the circumstances) really the total creator of the artwork?

telenous said:
As a side note, it seems to me most post-Winogrand street/documentary/whatsamacallit photography is steering in the direction of outsider art anyway.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting thought, could you possibly tell me more?
 
No. Hers is no more outsider art than any other amateur or artist who has died and whose work has been curated by the art establishment. And neither her or her work certainly does not even begin to fit the term "outsider" as defined by the art world.

Why would anyone think that her work was any different than any other artist? Because she was a nanny, not a professional photographer? Perhaps it is because she was a very private person and made no attempt at all to publicize her own work? People do not have to like it, that happens all the time. I also believe that it is a shame that other people are choosing which of her images to publicise, and just how they should be displayed. But if you think about, the fact that her work was strong enough that it could be left to be discovered by others in a storage shed auction, and still make as big a mark as it has, is pretty amazing all on its own. I am very glad she picked up a camera and started taking pictures and I am also very glad that her work did not end up in a landfill somewhere.
 
Rudy_b said:
I don't really understand what you mean. Are the negatives still held by the original people who bought them at auction, and they have final say over what does and doesn't get shown to the public? The positive part of that sentence is the important one - if the art directors etc. who are putting on these shows are choosing which of the photos submitted don't get exhibited, then the art world has gotten its hands on it.
Click to expand...

It's pretty much what I meant, however, not having seen any of the exhibitions, I had in mind primarily the Maloof book. Now, if the requirement for institutionalizing outsider art is simply to have someone from the art establishment deal under some professional capacity with it, then sure, her work is not 'outsider art' any more. But do we need to say that? What if the curator approaches the work with the intention to deliver a curated exhibit in accordance with the (unknown but speculated upon) intentions of the artist? It's a debatable point and I could be wrong but I think this is how Maier's photography has been largely approached so far, untainted by contemporary artistic concerns that could potentially vitiate the original impact (whatever that is) of her output.

As for the side note I made on post-Winogrand street/documentary photography you ask me about, I was expressing my impression (if not conviction) that all work done today in this tradition lies outside the concerns/interests of contemporary art (and the art establishment) and, as such, if it ever gets institutionalized in the art world it will be via an irregular route, much the same way outsider art does (when it does).

.
 
Pioneer said:
Why would anyone think that her work was any different than any other artist? Because she was a nanny, not a professional photographer? Perhaps it is because she was a very private person and made no attempt at all to publicize her own work?somewhere.
Click to expand...


Why would anyone think her photos are different to any other snapshot photographer? Many of her shots were just of the kids she was caring for, going about her business. What makes Maier's images art, and somebody else's just craft?

I mean it's easy to see the works available to us as an artistic body of work, because they have impact, coherence, yadda yadda. But imagine, hypothetically, that she had simply been snapping everything she saw her whole life? How is that scenario any different from, say, the Google Streetview artist, who picked out images taken by the dumb machine?

(of course I'm not saying that was the case)



telenous said:
Now, if the requirement for institutionalizing outsider art is simply to have someone from the art establishment deal under some professional capacity with it, then sure, her work is not 'outsider art' any more. But do we need to say that? What if the curator approaches the work with the intention to deliver a curated exhibit in accordance with the (unknown but speculated upon) intentions of the artist? It's a debatable point and I could be wrong but I think this is how Maier's photography has been largely approached so far, untainted by contemporary artistic concerns that could potentially vitiate the original impact (whatever that is) of her output.
.
Click to expand...


Agreed. The point of contention for me in this case would be how faithful said curator could possibly be, taking into account the lack of editing on her part. She never organised her work in anything like the way it is being done now, and so said organisation is conjecture, and inserts its own sensibilities.

There's no way of being sure she intended the photos she took as anything but straight representations of what happened to be in front of her. Maybe the modern label of 'art' to some of her photographs is there simply because they incidentally conform to the modern conception of art!

To return to this

telenous said:
Now, if the requirement for institutionalizing outsider art is simply to have someone from the art establishment deal under some professional capacity with it, then sure, her work is not 'outsider art' any more.
Click to expand...


I didn't really mean only their dealing with it in a professional capacity (doesn't seem to square with definitions of Outsider Art as seen in 'outsider art fairs'...), but rather their involvement in the artistic process. Because photography distinguishes itself from other forms of visual art by the proportion of influence that selection rather than creation has in the final output.


As an aside, you've taught me a new word today :) Can probably guess which
 
I agree that she's not outsider art--she's just not of the in-crowd . If you didn't know her story, there's nothing in the photos to show that she wasn't one of HCB's drinking buddies, and certainly nothing in the work that separates it as "outsider". THIS is outsider photography:
http://www.messynessychic.com/2013/...g-tom-photographer-and-his-cardboard-camera/#
Check out the guy and his cameras at the bottom of the post.
 
This is a difficult subject to talk about candidly because in the art world, "outsider" is a code-word for art made by people society considers mentally defective. It is different than "naïve" art (Henri Rousseau) or "primitive" art (Grandma Moses). It is an expression of people who are literally "living in their own world." You can't apply this to Maier. She was a fully functioning, educated person who held a job, was responsible for others. and was esteemed for her competence.
 
Rudy_b said:
Why would anyone think her photos are different to any other snapshot photographer? Many of her shots were just of the kids she was caring for, going about her business. What makes Maier's images art, and somebody else's just craft?

I mean it's easy to see the works available to us as an artistic body of work, because they have impact, coherence, yadda yadda. But imagine, hypothetically, that she had simply been snapping everything she saw her whole life? How is that scenario any different from, say, the Google Streetview artist, who picked out images taken by the dumb machine?

(of course I'm not saying that was the case)
Click to expand...

This is quite an interesting perspective on her work. I am not sure I understand the term "snapshot photographer". Perhaps it will help if you describe what that means to you and why you feel that applies to Ms Maier's work. This sounds strangely similar to the 100,000 typing monkeys or the blind pig looking for truffles. By shooting as much film as she did she would obviously have to find a few good shots.

I also find it interesting that her taking pictures of the children in her care would make her any more or less an artist. That would presume that no other artist took pictures of their children.
 
I saw a couple of her exhibits when they were here in Chicago and we will never know what she would have shown. Having seen her work and understanding that she studied the work of Frank, Bresson, Brassai and many of the other street photographers form the US and Europe (she had their books) her work is way more than just snap shots. Some of the same visual concerns that Bresson had in his work is in her work.

A lot of her work was on the streets of Chicago and New York. In some very bad neighborhoods and she took public transportation into these areas. She captured lots of incredible moments and her book Vivian Maier Street Photographer clearly shows her ability to see complex compositions and capture them in real time. That clearly separates her from most and elevates her work and the reason she is getting the much deserved attention.
 
No, she was not an outsider. She was fully aware of what was going on within the art world. It is quite evident in her work. She was, like many, a participant, but doing photography fully for her own enjoyment.
 
Outsider art is defined as an artist with no formal training. Photographers have not been categorized, to my knowledge, even without formal training, as outsiders.
 
Steve Bellayr said:
Outsider art is defined as an artist with no formal training. Photographers have not been categorized, to my knowledge, even without formal training, as outsiders.
Click to expand...

Indeed, many photographers seem to relish the idea of being "self-taught" as a badge of honor. I see it all the time on people's websites, facespaces, etc...

Personally I think it's more of a cop-out so they can say defend their bad art by having a documented excuse. It's a lot like the "professional" photographers I often run into that say "I only use natural light", which really means, I don't know how to use a flash and I'm not willing to learn.

But back to the original point, in my opinion Vivian Maier was an artist in the truest sense of the word because she made art for herself. She did it for the love of the craft and the enjoyment of the task. She didn't take photographs to get people to like her on facebook or to prove to her friends that she was talented and relevant and "cool". She made art for the sake of making art and that my friend isn't "outsider art". It's "insider art". She made art and it made her feel good on the inside.
 
Yes she was an outsider, not just to the 'Art world' having never had an exhibition but also to society.
We live in very different times to Vivian, Flickr, Facebook and self published books are relatively new idea's VM would have had less opportunity even if inclined, which she wasn't.

She was a private person never having a family of her own, I think to her self promotion would be tacky and the interest an intrusion.

You mention an important factor in this, what images would she choose to show? would she want them shown? are we looking at them through a nostalgia filter?

I'm glad we have them because she had a unique eye.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom