Vivian Maier

MP4/8 wrote in post #11544996
I'm not discussing them.

Sez you.

I sez differently.

There is zero that I find compelling in those images. I find them quite boring, TBH.

.

Ok lets do this I will show you images that I don't think are snap shots that shes done and then you fully explain why you disagree.

You on?

Sure.

MP4/8 wrote in post #11544996
I'm not discussing them.

Sez you.

I sez differently.

There is zero that I find compelling in those images. I find them quite boring, TBH.

.

Well.....I couldn't disagree with you more on this. Unless you are joking......

Incidentally....her work is being lauded all over the art world. She has exploded internationally in terms of accolades as one of the premier street photographers of her generation. She is being compared to and talked about on equal footing with the great masters of photography.

You don't have to like her work but I would please ask that you show it the respect it deserves.

Tom K. wrote in post #11545592
You don't have to like her work but I would please ask that you show it the respect it deserves.

Seriously? Her work deserves respect like it is some religious artifact or a national emblem? They are pictures some guy found in an attic and decided to talk about and develop. It's some amateur art works. It would be like me saying I hated a popular Sundance movie (which I live near Park City and lot of those movies really do suck ).


Answer me this - if you had found these images posted on flickr by a woman still living and shot using a basic digital SLR, would they still be art?

MP4/8 wrote in post #11545271
Sure.

http://4.bp.blogspot.c​om …5AYgrTG3w/s1600​-h/636.jpg

tkbslc wrote in post #11545765
Seriously? Her work deserves respect like it is some religious artifact or a national emblem? They are pictures some guy found in an attic and decided to talk about and develop. It's some amateur art works. It would be like me saying I hated a popular Sundance movie (which I live near Park City and lot of those movies really do suck ).


Answer me this - if you had found these images posted on flickr by a woman still living and shot using a basic digital SLR, would they still be art?

I'm not going to argue with someone who obviously doesn't have a clue. I will say this........you have missed the import of this story so much it's embarrassing.

It's a neat story and I can appreciate the work that she did back then with the technology she had. I would say her work is perhaps "very good" for her time, but not the best by any means. I'm not some kind of art critic expert or something, perhaps I would need to see the whole collection displayed on in a gallery, but the individual images don't do much for me. The horse's butt was kind of silly IMO.

When I see threads like these people get all "ohhh and ahhhh" just because it's from 1950 or whenever. If you were to take these images and popped them on Flickr without the story behind it you'd get average comments like most intermediate/advanced amateurs might get.

Thanks, Allen, for starting the thread and the discussion. It's interesting and amusing how these kinds of discussions evolve along familiar lines.
I think many of those images are outstanding. Some I "don't get" but I don't always like everything even my favorite artists produce.
But these kinds of threads expand the conciousness. So, thanks again.

DStanic wrote in post #11547681
It's a neat story and I can appreciate the work that she did back then with the technology she had. I would say her work is perhaps "very good" for her time, but not the best by any means. I'm not some kind of art critic expert or something, perhaps I would need to see the whole collection displayed on in a gallery, but the individual images don't do much for me. The horse's butt was kind of silly IMO.

When I see threads like these people get all "ohhh and ahhhh" just because it's from 1950 or whenever. If you were to take these images and popped them on Flickr without the story behind it you'd get average comments like most intermediate/advanced amateurs might get.

I completely agree. I guess you can join me in the "we don't have a clue" club..

Tom K. wrote in post #11547556
I'm not going to argue with someone who obviously doesn't have a clue. I will say this........you have missed the import of this story so much it's embarrassing.

I'm certainly not embarassed and I don't get excited about a photo just because it is old. Looking at your flickr galleries, I would say you are a superior photographer and you've got some great collections on there. Where's your cult following? Maybe we should tell somebody that we bought your photography at an auction?

DStanic wrote in post #11547681
When I see threads like these people get all "ohhh and ahhhh" just because it's from 1950 or whenever. If you were to take these images and popped them on Flickr without the story behind it you'd get average comments like most intermediate/advanced amateurs might get.

Uhm....I would rather listen to the folks at MOMA than the people on Flickr. But.....that's just me.

If you want to learn a thing or two about this discussion and the topic at hand then I suggest reading this legendary post: http://theonlinephotog​rapher.blogspot.com …graphers-on-internet.html

I'm reminded of the story of the emperor's new clothes.

tkbslc wrote in post #11545765
Seriously? Her work deserves respect like it is some religious artifact or a national emblem? They are pictures some guy found in an attic and decided to talk about and develop. It's some amateur art works. It would be like me saying I hated a popular Sundance movie (which I live near Park City and lot of those movies really do suck ).


Answer me this - if you had found these images posted on flickr by a woman still living and shot using a basic digital SLR, would they still be art?

They're good ****ing pictures.

Amateur or not, found in an attic or not, a lot of that seems to be pretty powerful stuff.

I don't give a flying **** if it is "amateur". A lot of what I'm seeing has more soul than the majority of the stuff I see on this very forum.

And yeah...if I'd found these images posted on Flickr, then I like to think that I probably WOULD still see them as "art". Why the hell wouldn't they be art?

MP4/8 wrote in post #11544996
I'm not discussing them.

But when talking about her and whether her work is indeed valid we need to be discussing them. Their work in this area is the bar to which other work is to be compared and discussed.

If say a new painter was just discovered from 1860. Had a large unseen body of work that was heavily influenced by the Impressionists; Monet, Manet, Pissarro would all have to enter into to the discussion. Even though the new artists work would of course have to stand on its own, the bar already set by the established artists would be important in the discussion of influence and validity.

In Vivian case her work whether it is more than just snap shots as you say its important to see how it was influenced and relates to others working within the same art form. In this case other established street photographers. That also helps figure the actual importance of the work.

Vivian certainly was influenced by those I mentioned but her work also holds up on its own in the light of those others. Though they influenced her, she still speaks in her own strong voice.

MP4/8 wrote in post #11544996
Sez you.

Sez many others too.