Vivian Maier BBC Documentary

iblount

Did anyone else watch the documentary on Vivian Maier last night? I watched it as I've been following her images since they became known to us and find her work incredible.

She still remains a mystery as nobody seems to know that much about her and the fact that she herself never actually saw any of her photographss, except for a few she printed herself at photo labs. She had taken over 150,000 photographs.:eek:

Someone posted the video on youtube if anyone fancies giving it a watch

Lagnagoushee

I really enjoyed the documentary but I thought the issues relating to use / copyright of the collection were not well dealt with in the programme.
I subsequently found the issues surrounding copyright to the Maier collection are teased out online in "Moral Rights, Copyrights, and the Case of Vivian Maier".

http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=david_deal&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.ie%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dvivian%2520maier%2520copyright%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D5%26ved%3D0CC8QFjAE%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fworks.bepress.com%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1000%2526context%253Ddavid_deal%26ei%3DoU_LUenCOI_Y7AbjhYCwCQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNEsRFCz9hsXMxRWWjOqvGA3OaTUtg%26bvm%3Dbv.48340889%2Cd.ZGU#search=%22vivian%20maier%20copyright%22

iblount

I do think that John Maloof (the guy who owns 90% of her photographs) is exploiting them. Nobody knows how she would have had them edited or printed and what their doing is pretty much guess work. I think these people are trying to make as much money as possible from her but at the same time we might not have heard of her without them publishing the photographs.

homerun_homer

I only saw the last few minutes of this documentary and I was aware of another film about her, but something I saw today rang true. The documentary doesn't seem to dissect whether she was a great photographer or someone who has a bunch of shots out of 150,000+ photos that were great (be it accident, chance or luck) and are now being exploited and hyped up within a myth.

humberklog

homerun_homer wrote: »

The documentary doesn't seem to dissect whether she was a great photographer or someone who has a bunch of shots out of 150,000+ photos that were great (be it accident, chance or luck) and are now being exploited and hyped up within a myth.

150k is a hell of a lot of photos and a hell lot of dedication. I wonder how much her exp. count would be if she had a digital camera?

Accident, chance or luck? Ah janey now...they're not negative traits:).

Rainbowsend

Was she a "great" photographer? The way she lived and hoarded all of her films/photographs and the fact they had never been seen seems to be more of a selling point than her work. A great documentation of street life of that era but nothing more in my opinion.

Kenny Logins

Rainbowsend wrote: »

Was she a "great" photographer? The way she lived and hoarded all of her films/photographs and the fact they had never been seen seems to be more of a selling point than her work. A great documentation of street life of that era but nothing more in my opinion.

Well she took some great photos...

iblount

Also each photograph sells for aorund 1500 - 2000 which is incredible considering there is 150,000 of them. All I know is the guys that have her negatives are laughing all the way to the bank.

All that aside I can't see every photograph being really good but the few I have seen I liked alot.

bullpost

I must have been watching a different documentary so.
The woman was a pioneer for her time. She knew what she was doing and there is a artistic sensibility to her work (no swans in sight!).
She captured some great images and had to work hard to get them - go into areas of her City that put her in danger, shoot literally feet away from her subjects. The film made it clear that her subject matter reflected her own view of her place in life i.e. on the margins.
To me she's a great photographer but perhaps my standards just aren't high enough

Rainbowsend wrote: »

A great documentation of street life of that era but nothing more in my opinion.

homerun_homer

I've yet to watch the full BBC documentary but I've seen some of her stuff and the trailer for another documentary on her and I've really liked what I saw in them. But in saying that I did see some pieces online which, though they aren't accusing her of being a bad photographer, were disappointed with the fact that the documentary didn't touch upon how skilled she was as a photographer.

They seem to be playing up an angle that she was just any random person with a camera who happened to take great pictures rather than a skilled photographer who took great shots as it makes the story of her better.

magicbastarder

iblount wrote: »

Also each photograph sells for aorund 1500 - 2000 which is incredible considering there is 150,000 of them

every single one? i assume just the good ones, in which case the multiplier would not be as per above.

magicbastarder

Kenny Logins wrote: »

Well she took some great photos...

playing the devil's advocate here - some great photos out of 150,000.
so you're into the argument about the distinction between someone who can take a good photo because of an innate skill, or someone who if they had a 1% hit rate of good photos, would manage 1,500 good photos, all hitting the public consciousness within a relatively compacted timeframe.

Kenny Logins

magicbastarder wrote: »

playing the devil's advocate here - some great photos out of 150,000.
so you're into the argument about the distinction between someone who can take a good photo because of an innate skill, or someone who if they had a 1% hit rate of good photos, would manage 1,500 good photos, all hitting the public consciousness within a relatively compacted timeframe.

I really don't know, I've only seen the good ones, which I do believe were a result of 'good photography'.

ScumLord

bullpost wrote: »

I must have been watching a different documentary so.
The woman was a pioneer for her time. She knew what she was doing and there is a artistic sensibility to her work (no swans in sight!).

How could she really know what she was doing if she never developed the photos to find out how the pictures turned out?


I don't think we can assume she just had an innate knowledge of how photos would look without any trial and error.

humberklog

ScumLord wrote: »

How could she really know what she was doing if she never developed the photos to find out how the pictures turned out?


I don't think we can assume she just had an innate knowledge of how photos would look without any trial and error.

It wouldn't have been that unusual not to develop every roll not so long ago. I still don't. It cost money and time- both of which a nanny wouldn't have a lot of.
It might be a lost knack but I have un deved rolls knocking about. I know what's on them and how they will come out. But they're not a priority so I'm in no rush to have them developed...if I ever even bother to. It's just a way of editing during the process. This is especially easier if your shooting 12.

I don't think an assumption needs to be made: the results are there to be seen. But she wouldn't need an innate knowledge in photography. A learned knowledge would do. Some learn quicker than others.

It must be appalling to have your work parsed when includes a sack full of thoughts, meandering, miss shoots, thumb and toe pics. Everything, no editing, everything. It's such an interesting find with a lot of remarkable pics (I'm a sucker for candid American shots from the era). The duds and studs (:pac:) will make such a unique and interesting collection showing a bare bone insight into an artistic photographer.

It'd be a shame and unfair, if the duds and the sheer quantity would be used negatively in a critique.

If it was me I'd be groaning in embarrassment loudly from the grave:).

thebaz

I agree humber - patience is sadly a missing ingredient of good photography in this digital agree -

bullpost

But she did have prints made - she just never shared them .
If she didn't know what she was doing then I cant imagine where all those photographers who feel they know what they are doing are going wrong as she leaves most of them in the ha'penny place IMHO.

ScumLord wrote: »

How could she really know what she was doing if she never developed the photos to find out how the pictures turned out?


I don't think we can assume she just had an innate knowledge of how photos would look without any trial and error.

ScumLord

I would think if anyone took 150,000 pictures there's a good chance of a handful of them being excellent photos.

It just seems like the article is making out she picked up a camera and took 150,000 top class photos with no practice or process. I'm sure there must have been a learning period where she did develop and study her own photos.

I don't mean to detract from her work, it's rare that a complete body of work comes up like this. It would be interesting if we could see her developing her skill through the photos.

5uspect

I believe it is a lot of her later work that went undeveloped due to her financial difficulties. The exhibitions they showed in the documentary included prints of complete rolls of 120 showing all 12 exposures. The consistency is pretty remarkable.

amdgilmore

There's nothing accidental in her good shots. They're technically excellent and thoughtfully composed.

Also, every commentary I've seen or heard over the last couple of years has been at pains to mention that her 'hit rate' is remarkably high.

iblount

5uspect wrote: »

I believe it is a lot of her later work that went undeveloped due to her financial difficulties. The exhibitions they showed in the documentary included prints of complete rolls of 120 showing all 12 exposures. The consistency is pretty remarkable.

Seeing the photographs like this really shows that she did have an eye for a good photograph.
The did mention that at one stage she was living with a photographer at a young age and maybe this is how to developed her skills and knowledge of photography. She also supposedly read a lot of books on the subject too. I would love to go to one of her gallery shows if it ever comes this way.

thefizz

I only got a chance to look at this tonight and found it an amazing but also sad story.

thebaz

thefizz wrote: »

but also sad story.

underneath most great photography , as art , is great sadness - i thought the quote from van gough was pretty apt

Promac

I'd love to be able to go back to those times and do some street photography. Peoples' engagement of the photographer and camera were completely different. You can see curiosity and interest in their faces and real personality too. The idea of smiling for the camera hadn't been cemented in the public psyche and people would just be themselves. It's completely different nowadays - point a camera anywhere near someone and they'll be duck-facing, grimacing or aiming too many teeth at you in nanoseconds.

"Is that going on the internet? Will you email me a copy?"

bullpost

In a sense though we are not the ones to judge the value of what we capture on the street. I'll bet in 50 years time you will have photographers saying the same thing about our times. Images of people reading books or newspapers will probably fascinate future generations.

Promac wrote: »

I'd love to be able to go back to those times and do some street photography. Peoples' engagement of the photographer and camera were completely different. You can see curiosity and interest in their faces and real personality too. The idea of smiling for the camera hadn't been cemented in the public psyche and people would just be themselves. It's completely different nowadays - point a camera anywhere near someone and they'll be duck-facing, grimacing or aiming too many teeth at you in nanoseconds.

"Is that going on the internet? Will you email me a copy?"