Will you or won't you will? (long possibly uncomfortable post)

[jesse1dog]

I know from previous posts that members have a variety of feelings about what should happen to their cameras and equipment when they 'pass on', 'pop their clogs', 'hang up their boots' or whatever. It doesn't really matter to you what happens in the event, or does it?

I DO THINK IT AFFECTS ALL OF US HOWEVER OLD OR YOUNG WE ARE:

and here's why!

I suppose its the thought of the mess that I will leave behind me. And its a mess that I won't have to clear up. So I think its best if I try to minimise 'hassle' on the basis that why should my loved ones have to clear up a mess that they didn't make.

So I try to put myself into their position.
What would I find helpful?

Is there a will - I would hate the Government to have more than they should, so I have minimised my tax liabilities. (This is far from easy and has to be revisited and revised every few years in the light of current local legislation,)

Is there anything of value - not just sentimentally but on the open market? How would I know and how do I realise the best value?

Are there people who would prize something in the estate?
I have a long established friend in Florida who would love and cherish a handmade chair of mine - how does she get it? There is a clock I have which my younger daughter would love to have. She would be upset if it went somewhere else. So it is for those I will leave behind that I have made not just a will but also written a letter of intent.

Why am I raising this issue now? Because I am about to do a review of my finances and realise that both the will and letter need to be updated.
Its an aspect of life/death that is difficult and uncomfortable to face. Nevertheless amongst friends in this forum I know I can raise this issue and even if only one member takes some positive action, someone, somewhere will benefit from their forethought.

(A letter of intent gives some guidance to my son and daughters on how I think it might be best to clear my effects and estate. They don't have to go along with the thoughts, suggestions and requests made, but I hope they will!

Incidentally I have no connection with the legal profession, so 'no axe to grind'.)

 

[M. Valdemar]

Ask someone who's dead whether he's concerned about who has his stuff or not.

* It's best to have major assets that are "invisible" and just leave your family simple instructions on how to retrieve them. No need to make "Big Brother" a partner.

 

[wgerrard]

This is a version of a broader question. If you have assets you want to go to specific people after your demise, find a lawyer and get a will. Name an executor who will ensure the will is enforced.

That said, you can't know the enjoyment a gift brings if you're not among the living. Also, delayed gratification has its place, but don't delay too long.

 

[KoNickon]

Amen about the living will. Auction houses will come in and buy your camera gear (along with just about everything else) for a large discount, but for your survivors it's a large thing to not have to deal with. If there are specific bequests of cameras you want to give to certain people, that should be set forth in a will. (And put those cameras somewhere where they can be found easily!)

 

[mackigator]

I'd suggest leaving specific bequests out of a will and instead allow all property to be divided proportionally - ie everything to this person, or thirds to three poeple, etc. Make special provisons for real property if you have to. That's a whole lot cleaner to deal with.

To satisfy the urge to bless a particular person with something you think they'd enjoy, I would instead use the gift tax laws to give those (hopefully few) items away while you're still alive and of sound mind. In the U.S. that annual gift tax exclusion covers up to 12k a year per recipient right now. So i'm with Nikon - give away the chair now. But be fair about it if there are several children/heirs who expect to be treated a certain way.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Whew: death and taxes. Why conflate the two?

An autograph will is valid in at least some jurisdictions (the only ones I care about) without getting lawyers involved; a letter of intent (or request) to an executor you trust should make sure that people get things you want them to. I can't quite see the point of giving away, inter vivos, things you are still enjoying.

But once you're dead, who cares? As long as my wife is OK after I'm gone (if she outlives me), I don't very much care what happens after that, though a recent AP piece on what I have directed should happen to my prints/negs is based on "Won't do any harm."

At Christmas I had quite an argument with my father about death duties. My view is that it's one of the cleanest and least painful taxes, at least if spouses and minor children are exempt. Sure, I won't reject his money if he decides to leave it to me, but equally, anyone who relies on financial inheritances and not on their own efforts has something wrong with them.

Cheers,

R.

 

[kevin m]

I know, unbelievable isn't it? They are just humoring us!

You've described the key to a successful marriage, I think. 😀

 

[Sisyphus]

What I think about more than who I will bequeath my cameras to; I am more concerned about my life's work--The work that I have already produced, and the work that I will produce in the future. I am not certainly saying that my work merits the notoreity of a well deserved, undiscovered artist. However, like many people on this forum, and many images that I have seen on this forum and other forums, many of them do deserve the merits of being preserved, archived, and noted for generations to come.

It seems (unless you are noted and documented and even then it may be difficult) that often times your negatives or files simply wind up in landfill.

For some photographers or artists they don't seem to care, case in point is Brett Weston, who decided to burn all of his negatives when he turned 80, stating that the only images he cared about are the ones he makes tomorrow. An interesting philosophy indeed, and certainly removes oneself from physical attachment of objects or things. It also removed him from having to make a decision as to where or who should possess his negatives after his demise.

I question though, if he were not a well known artist known, who had access to the publishing world, if his tone would have been the same? More or less, was the act of burning his negatives in defiance to the "Art" world, to the curators and gallery owners?

Another case in point is Atget, who lived in poverty, and did not pay his last two months of rent . If weren't for Bernice Abbott, his work would have been lost. His work has played an important role, as not only historical documents of a Paris that once was, but also as a method of his eccentricnes, his committment and dedication to photography, as well as influencing several individual photographers influencing their own work.

Mike Disfarmer is another example of work that has been discovered in the last several years. Again, and unassuming character, who worked as a studio photographer in the mid-west, charging 0.50 for a portrait of the GI's headed off to WWII. Again another series or body of work, significant to the milieu of American society, and a last testament of their existence and the people who were important to them at the time. This also reminds me of an experience with my grandmother, who I was very close to. I came home one day to find her in absolute tears, this was truly one of the few times that I ever saw my grandmother breakdown in tears. In her hand was a photograph of a man that I never met or knew. I asked her who this was? She said this is the man that she loved and waited to marry, but they were seperated during the war. Prior to coming home to find her tears, She had recieved a phone call from Oscar, my grandmother's lost love, who she had believed died, and decided to marry grandfather instead. She told me that she hung on to his photograph as memory so she would never forget what he looked like.

Another example of images that have been discovered in the late 90's are from the book The Killing Fields. Chris Reily discovered 100's of negatives of victims of the Khmer Rouge. Evidently, many of the victims were photographed. This is a brief glimpse of the people who lived in terror, and now have a voice. We can see there fear and sadness, but also their bravery. It provides us with the faces of those who suffered.

All of these works are now preserved for future generations, common people photographing the times in which they lived, not expecting anything in return, but have provided us with more stories to place into context of some the most historical events of the 20th century--the faces of people, and in their expressions are there stories to be remembered.

So, with this in mind, I am curious to know how people feel about their work and if they feel it is significant to be preserved, and if so, who will they leave it to?

Yet, like one person mentioned once we've passes on it doesn't really matter . . .
still curious though . . .