On Street Photography

[barry]

Hi Ray,

Watch the docs (if you're interested)...

Most of her photos were taken with a rangefinder hung around her neck, and she is repeatedly (in both docs) described as "constantly staring down into the viewfinder". Many of her subjects weren't aware of what she was up to until they heard the shutter (if even then).

Note a lot of the pictures in the site you linked earlier are taken from about waist-level.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivian_Maier#Documentary_films_about_Maier

Barry

 

[OzRay]

Hi Ray,

Watch the docs (if you're interested)...

Most of her photos were taken with a rangefinder hung around her neck, and she is repeatedly (in both docs) described as "constantly staring down into the viewfinder". Many of her subjects weren't aware of what she was up to until they heard the shutter (if even then).

Note a lot of the pictures in the site you linked earlier are taken from about waist-level.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivian_Maier#Documentary_films_about_Maier

Barry

The problem is, we can't view much of anything that's available in the US, so I can't see how she worked. But from this Google image search: https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...nnuQSPjID4CA&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1920&bih=926, I can't conclude anything other than the subjects were aware of what she was doing. This is one of her classic ones of women in New York:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[barry]

Maybe you can find the BBC's Imagine episode?

Barry

 

[barry]

Looking at the pics at http://www.vivianmaier.com/gallery/street-1/#slide-1 ...

I went through the first 30 or so, only 1 or 2 might have been posed.
Several of the subjects are obviously aware of Miss Maier; that may be in part because she would wait until she was very close before taking the pic.

Barry

 

[dpaultx]

Maybe you can find the BBC's Imagine episode?

Barry

I've seen the BBC Imagine series documentary on Vivian Maier (I think I actually have a copy of it somewhere) and it was a beautiful, inspiring, piece of film.

Unfortunately, it seems that the BBC has pulled the episode and made it unavailable on their website, I suspect the reason for this lies in the recent legal questions that have arisen regarding some newly discovered "heirs" to Ms. Maier's estate and the true ownership of her body of work.

The Heir’s Not Apparent - A Legal Battle Over Vivian Maier’s Work
The New York Times
Randy Kennedy - Sept. 5, 2014

The story of the street photographer Vivian Maier has always been tangled — she worked much of her life as a nanny, keeping her artistic life a secret, and only after she died in 2009, at the age of 83, nearly penniless and with no family, were her pictures declared to be among the most remarkable of the 20th century. Now a court case in Chicago seeking to name a previously unknown heir is threatening to tie her legacy in knots and could prevent her work from being seen again for years.
​

Gotta love them lawyers.

dp

 

[phigmov]

Looking at the pics at http://www.vivianmaier.com/gallery/street-1/#slide-1 ...

I went through the first 30 or so, only 1 or 2 might have been posed.
Several of the subjects are obviously aware of Miss Maier; that may be in part because she would wait until she was very close before taking the pic.

Barry

This.

Street is often characterised by getting close up with a wide angle lens - effectively immersing the taker (and viewer) in the shot. It'd be hard not to get recognised or noticed while taking a shot (particularly pre-walkman or smart-phone when people are otherwise distracted).

I like Maier as much as the next person but there are many more (old and new) -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_street_photographers

http://erickimphotography.com/blog/learn-from-the-masters/

 

[Ricoh]

The problem is, we can't view much of anything that's available in the US, so I can't see how she worked. But from this Google image search: https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...nnuQSPjID4CA&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1920&bih=926, I can't conclude anything other than the subjects were aware of what she was doing. This is one of her classic ones of women in New York:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

It's a common technique. It looks posed but it's not really. Maier pointed the camera at the individual and waited for subject to became aware, looking towards the lens with a reaction on her face. It certainly doesn't look posed to me.
Lots do it, compose then wait for eye contact. Seeing and looking into the eyes adds greatly.

 

[Lcrunyon]

It's a common technique. It looks posed but it's not really. Maier pointed the camera at the individual and waited for subject to became aware, looking towards the lens with a reaction on her face. It certainly doesn't look posed to me.
Lots do it, compose then wait for eye contact. Seeing and looking into the eyes adds greatly.

I dunno. Her face looks like, "who the hell are you and why are you taking my picture?" I kinda doubt that's the point the photographer was going for.

 

[barry]

I dunno. Her face looks like, "who the hell are you and why are you taking my picture?" I kinda doubt that's the point the photographer was going for.

Lots of Maier's pictures are like that.
It's hard to say what she was going for though, as
a. she never published
b. she's passed away

She did print some of her negatives, but I have no idea which ones.

Barry

 

[bye]

Lots of Maier's pictures are like that.
It's hard to say what she was going for though, as
a. she never published
b. she's passed away

She did print some of her negatives, but I have no idea which ones.

Barry

Barry,

Vivian Maeir is a reclusive nanny who babysitted children while photographing people on the street. So unlike other street photographers like Diane Arbus, she photographed people with someone's kids always in tow. The sad part to her story was that she died while she slipped on ice and poor and had to rely mainly on the support of the kids she babysitted when they were young. Her photographs that were published up till today could have provided a very comfortable retirement lifestyle for her. Instead and as always is the case, various parties that did not do a squat in helping her through poverty are now constantly milking off on her successes and talents. Such are human beings. Selfish and self-centered on the interests in making money in the name of curating history!

 

[bye]

I dunno. Her face looks like, "who the hell are you and why are you taking my picture?" I kinda doubt that's the point the photographer was going for.

Typically, Miss Maier would have children in tow (she was a babysitter/living nanny) on her many photowalks. I can only imagine people don't really have a clue what to say about her. A mommy with a camera or a mommy fascinated with taking people's photos which of course in those days are very new concepts. Today, soccer moms and moms with iPhones taking selfies and people posting on social media are like a dime a dozen. Not so during Miss Maeir times.

 

[kevinparis]

Typically, Miss Maier would have children in tow (she was a babysitter/living nanny) on her many photowalks. I can only imagine people don't really have a clue what to say about her. A mommy with a camera or a mommy fascinated with taking people's photos which of course in those days are very new concepts. Today, soccer moms and moms with iPhones taking selfies and people posting on social media are like a dime a dozen. Not so during Miss Maeir times.

David

Not sure of your source for this theory... the documentary I saw made no indication that her nannying and her photography overlapped. She worked as a nanny, but did photography in her spare time

K

 

[bye]

David

Not sure of your source for this theory... the documentary I saw made no indication that her nannying and her photography overlapped

K

Kevin, it was in the documentary movie that I saw last year and in the book. While some of her travel work are not with the kids, the lady photo in question I believe was taken with the kids in tow.

David

Not sure of your source for this theory... the documentary I saw made no indication that her nannying and her photography overlapped. She worked as a nanny, but did photography in her spare time

K

Kevin,

It's not a theory. In the documentary film "Finding Vivian Maier", the grown up children whom Miss Maier had cared for in the 50s, 60s and 70s all recall how she combined her work as a photographer with her day job as a nanny. She would frequently take the young children in her care with her into the center of Chicago when she took her photographs. The photo of the lady turning her back was one of those nanny overlapping photographer events. And occassionally, they accompanied her to the rougher, run-down areas of Chicago, and, on one occasion, the stock yards where there were bodies of dead sheep. So yes, the Children she cared for were very well exposed to her photography life. Btw, all these statements come from the documentary and her book.

If these children could recall vividly where Miss Maeir took those photographs; that could only lead to one explanation. Her nanny job had to overlap with her photography. Kids had to be there where she took the photographs to recall those events vividly including bodies of dead sheep. I don't think Miss Maeir would dump the kids somewhere, fend for themselves while she went on her own photowalks.

 

[kevinparis]

Fair enough.. I thought I had seen both the documentaries...

the BBC one Vivian Maier: Who Took Nanny's Pictures, which was recut and named the Vivian Maier Mystery

and Finding Vivian Maier, which I must have recorded/acquired and not actually got round to watching

apologies

K

 

[barry]

@bikerhiker, I agree with everything you said except for the part about people talking advantage now but leaving her in poverty while she was alive.
She showed her photos to no one, and they were only discovered when she defaulted on her storage units. Maloof tried to find her but was unable.
She died within a year or two, iirc, and she was quite old by then anyways.

Barry

 

[bye]

Fair enough.. I thought I had seen both the documentaries...

the BBC one Vivian Maier: Who Took Nanny's Pictures, which was recut and named the Vivian Maier Mystery

and Finding Vivian Maier, which I must have recorded/acquired and not actually got round to watching

apologies

K

No apologies needed Kevin. The

@bikerhiker, I agree with everything you said except for the part about people talking advantage now but leaving her in poverty while she was alive.
She showed her photos to no one, and they were only discovered when she defaulted on her storage units. Maloof tried to find her but was unable.
She died within a year or two, iirc, and she was quite old by then anyways.

Barry

Barry,

Vivian Maier "was" alive when Mr. Maloof bought the contents off her storage units. And so were the other 2 collectors including Mr. Goldstein. What's really interesting is that, during these 2 years of their so claimed research into the whereabouts of her and what she's all about, they all claimed to be self-professed curators. By the way, a professional art curator has to go to school for this. Neither Mr. Maloof nor Mr. Goldstein had the credentials NOR the training necessary to become art curators! Their research to her life is a standard procedure for determining who has the copyright to these images. CLEARLY, Mr. Maloof and Mr. Goldstein and the other collector knew that they discovered a gold mine from the get go and want to make absolutely SURE she had no rightful heir to her work. By the way, the curator "front" was just a marketing disguise. I'll explain later what I meant. Ironically enough, it's not all that difficult to locate Miss Vivian Maier if they had to get her permission. Vivian Maier always paid for her storage locker and she was an obsessive pack rat and also since she was a meticulous person, I'm sure the storage locker people would know. Only when Mr. Maloof found her in the obituary when he set in motion along with others in marketing her work. Coincidence? Chance? Maybe they knew she would not give them the permission for any work so they waited until she kicked the bucket?!?

As a curator, one has to research the history of the art work and where it fits in the art lineage. Also, a curator would get the story right and not based on assumptions made by themselves. Early part of Miss Maier's history was that they thought she was a nanny by day and do photography separately like most of us do. It's not until later when Maier's nannied children came out to correct those false assumptions. And that in fact Vivian Maier did nanny the kids along in tow to most of her photowalks. One of her books had a selfie of her and the child next to her. Another no-no for a curator is to self-interpret the artist's work as you see fit.
You see, Vivian NEVER released her own work. Most of the prints you see today on websites (Both Goldstein and Maloof) "were scanned", adjusted NOT BY Miss Maier and not even printed by Miss Maier. We have a code of ethics among artists and that we NEVER INTERPRET the works of others that are not our own. Like you can scan someone's negative, edit it by yourself without the original artist's input and permission and then print it and claim it's the original artist intent. Even a company as big as Costco knew this and had warnings on their photo service to this effect. A curator would be careful not to insert his or her own personal beliefs and thoughts into curating someone's work. But this is NOT the case with Mr. Maloof and Mr. Goldstein. They interpreted Miss Maier's work and claimed that's what she would have wanted. If you look at Ansel Adams and even Galen Rowell's work; they were prints produced with input by the original artists. There might be negatives of other work that Adams may had or Rowell had stored elsewhere; but people just don't go and scan other Adams or Rowell's work, edit them and produce them as new art. It would be disrespectful and a copy infringement. But respect are not in Mr. Goldstein and Mr. Maloof's vocabulary and which they are currently slammed with a copyright infringement lawsuit. Now all of a sudden, these curators got scared, pulled their work from galleries and the books. Why afraid if they claimed as only being curators and not for profit and they are doing this for a good cause?
Obviously, it's more than what they like you to know.

I have no beef with what Mr. Maloof did. I think he did a great job in describing the late Vivian Maier, but let's not pretend that he's doing this for saintly purposes.

As with Karma -- What comes around goes around!

 

[barry]

@bikerhiker,
fyi,
Ansel Adam's works are still being printed (from negatives) and sold at 'his' galleries (e.g. the one in Yosemite NP).
Edward Weston's negatives for years were printed and signed by Brett and Cole after Edward's death and sold. My family have a couple of these prints.
In both of the above examples, there was a will or other inheritance which makes things more cut-and-dry.
Now, one of the wives of Edward or Cole is running the family gallery, and perhaps has control of the negatives as well.

In Maier's case, there was no will nor direct heirs. Her only relatives are cousins in Europe, and a lawyer has taken it upon himself to file a suit

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think Maloof is acting in bad faith. In fact, Maloof paid one of Maier's cousins for the rights as Maloof believed he was the closest heir.

I watched all three documentaries (counting the re-cut) and I have read a lot of articles, and I don't remember exactly which is which right now, but istm that Maloof did "research the history of the art work", at least for the point of making the movie.

Pulling the works from galleries, etc. was not done as a cowardly act; there was at least one injuction barring further sales, etc.
Also note that both Canadian and American legal systems are potentially involved.

What would you do in Maloof's position if you couldn't find Maier or any heirs? Wait 70+ years for copyright to expire?
Imagine if everything went to probate and no heirs were found; worst case, everything would be destroyed or stay sitting in a warehouse next to the Ark... best case, everything would go to auction and we might be in a similar position to where we are today.

IMO, It would have been a tragedy if this work never had seen the light of day.

We have a code of ethics among artists and that we NEVER INTERPRET the works of others that are not our own.

Professional organizations have codes of ethics; the art 'community' doesn't have a codified set that all artists are bound to. Look at what Richard Prince is doing with other people's Instagram photos (legally, perhaps ('derivative works')). Works of music are 'interpreted' all the time.

Barry

 

[bye]

I think you misunderstood my explanation. Photography is about presenting the "Voice" in a unified form. Which means, each artist has the right to interpret how the images are presented. Adams had that chance when he was alive. The curators would simply honor that vision. In a way, nothing is re-interpreted or misinterpreted. In Maier's case, she DID NOT display a single image. She was a reclusive lady so no one really know what those photographs meant and what they are trying to convey. How would the curators honor her original vision like Adams did? Well they can't accurately honor that. They had to fabricate Maier's vision from pieces of information they gathered so you see why her images are all over the place and they can put whatever voice they deemed fit as long as they generate dollars. What about images that are not socially acceptable and thus not marketable in galleries? What if those are the photographs Miss Maier wanted us to see? Do you see the issue here? It's a case of an artist viewpoint not being accurately shown or filtered for social acceptability or for marketability.

Mr. Maloof's original intent was to do a history of the Chicago's west side and he needed 220 high quality historical photos for his book. In the beginning, his motives were just because he didn't realize what he stumbled into. When he researched further, he became obsessed with Miss Maier's work and her life and wanted to know all about her. He wasn't a photographer by trade but took a crash course to learn more about it so he could develop the black and white. This I admired. But still, he became obsessed with Maier enough that he spent a lot of time on more research, marketing and promoting her work.
Why is Miss Maier so special? Why aren't other millions of Chicago residents who do not deserve the same notoriety and attention as Miss Maier? Some may had done more valiant deeds and placed more personal sacrifices for the community they live in than Miss Maier? What made Miss Maier so special? If Miss Maier's photographs were crap; would you think Mr. Maloof would spend his time promoting and marketing her? I think the circumstances are pretty clear. There's a clear (ROI) Return On Investment.

Secondly, they did a full detailed genealogy on her. And yet, they didn't get her personal story correct the first time. If Mr. Maloof would have done research her first for the sakes of her whole personal history, you would have located the children she nannied. And maybe he would have located the brothers who paid for her place. Or maybe he did but not revealed it? But here's the thing. They did a full genealogy on her. Don't you think that's a little odd for a nobody you want to write a history about? UNLESS you plan on selling her work?!?

Remember that Mr. Maloof's former career was in real estate. As any real estate broker would do is to sell a house, you need to check against the "lien". See if the bank or anyone has a "lien" on the property. It's a standard procedure even if you plan to buy a used car.

By doing a full genealogy of someone like Miss Maier is like doing a lien check against her possible heir to her work. And paying off one of her possible relatives is a clear indication that they wanted full reign on her work and milk off as much as they could. Obviously, others see the same way as they do so now the injunction and lawsuit.. Because the others saw that they had no right to her work too.

If Mr. Maloof truly wants to curate Miss Maier, her work should belong to a museum (if truly she could qualify) and it should be non-profit and no one with deep pockets could only enjoy. But all he's doing is justifying his cause; for profit and for themselves buying off whoever possible heir to her work or shutting out future heirs.

Remember that what we learned so far about Miss Maier was a very well scripted marketing campaign developed and curated by John Maloof to justify his rights and ownership towards his Maier's collection. It's like showbiz. You create a place like Las Vegas and people will come. People really don't care what's true or not as long as it makes a buck!