Vivian Maier

bpiper7 wrote in post #11548096
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.

You're welcome Bill. And I agree. What always seems to get missed and what I've already mentioned is with work like this its more about the body of work and not the individual pieces and how they all work together and how the stand up to others that were working in a similar fashion. Unless she wrote about if we will probably never know what part of the work she would want shown and how she would have wanted it shown.

MP4/8 wrote in post #11545271
Sure.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #11546923
http://4.bp.blogspot.c​om …5AYgrTG3w/s1600​-h/636.jpg

BUMP

breal101 wrote in post #11542706
I was just reading the comments from flickr, it's fortunate that these negatives ended up in the right hands. He doesn't seem to know a lot about photography but he knew they were worth preserving and sharing. And to his credit he did want to learn more about her and photography in general. Someone should tell him that all the film in the box he showed on flickr isn't tri-x, some is plus-x. I'll never forget the pukey plum color of undeveloped plus-x.

It seems to me that he may be able to get some volunteers from the gang at APUG to make prints for exhibition. They deserve to be printed and shown in a gallery setting.

Absolutely. I can't wait to see the work at the Cultural Center. It will be interesting to see how its presented. Ink jet or silver gelatin and what is shown in what order.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #11551622
Absolutely. I can't wait to see the work at the Cultural Center. It will be interesting to see how its presented. Ink jet or silver gelatin and what is shown in what order.

I would hope for silver gelatin prints. Much better IMO. Ink jets are better than nothing though... stating the obvious.

What we have to keep in mind is the photos presented up till now are just the tip of the iceberg. Who knows what gems have not yet been revealed.

breal101 wrote in post #11552077
I would hope for silver gelatin prints. Much better IMO. Ink jets are better than nothing though... stating the obvious.

What we have to keep in mind is the photos presented up till now are just the tip of the iceberg. Who knows what gems have not yet been revealed.

Yeah I agree theres nothing like a beautifully hand printed silver gelatin print. Well maybe a platinum print but silver gelatin probably more appropriate for this work.

We all need to stay tuned because there are tens of thousand of yet unseen images.

If you look at her best-of-the-best, she is amazing. I think, however, there are plenty of "throw-aways" on the website. Cherry-picking from over 100,000 photos should produce quite an amazing collection (The history is compelling, too.)

On a side-note -- For someone who didn't show or develop her work, what amazing luck that the guy who purchased everything would show such respect and passion for preserving it all!

airfrogusmc wrote in post #11543256
Are you going to check out the exhibit?

I might, gotta see if the wife is up for it!

YankeeMom wrote in post #11552176
If you look at her best-of-the-best, she is amazing. I think, however, there are plenty of "throw-aways" on the website. Cherry-picking from over 100,000 photos should produce quite an amazing collection (The history is compelling, too.)

On a side-note -- For someone who didn't show or develop her work, what amazing luck that the guy who purchased everything would show such respect and passion for preserving it all.

Yankee Mom most of the great photographers usually pick the best of the best of their own work thus my statement that we will never know what she would have chosen to show. The editing process can be just as important as the shooting. And this guy thats working on it making choices is not a photographer. I would never want anyone to show all of my work.

I know, I know not a street photographer but he still exposed a lot of negatives in a year.
"Twelve significant photographs in any one year is a good crop."
Ansel Adams

Yankee Mom almost forgot Happy New Year and to everyone,

airfrogusmc wrote in post #11552230
Yankee Mom most of the great photographers usually pick the best of the best of their own work thus my statement that we will never know what she would have chosen to show. The editing process can be just as important as the shooting. And this guy thats working on it making choices is not a photographer. I would never want anyone to show all of my work.

I know, I know not a street photographer but he still exposed a lot of negatives in a year.
"Twelve significant photographs in any one year is a good crop."
Ansel Adams

I agree -- had she the ability (like the rest of us), she might have dumped many of her 100,000+ (I bet most of us delete, at least, 50% of what we take and probably should delete more!) Imagine if she could develop RAW prints, too? Wow.

I expect serious photographers and editors will apply their skills to her best-of-the-best, esp. now that she's gotten so much attention.

I am more concern about her life. I mean, no one knew if she has a family back home or whether or not she was married. I mean, the way the media is representing her is like she was all alone in this world. Worked as a nanny for the survival reason but pursuing her intellectual developments via photography separately. By herself. A way for her to reach out to the world. Yet, she was a loner. Her employer? She worked for them for 16 years and they are clueless about her life? What the hell is wrong with this picture? Was the 50s and 60s America that heartless and uncaring that you could employ someone to work for you for 16 years and not knowing a thing about them???

I like some of the pictures because they showed a time when many of us weren't even born yet. Composition? Some shots you have a foot chopped off. Or the other you have too much space above the head. I am more disturbed by the discovery of her though....

TooManyShots wrote in post #11554021
I am more concern about her life. I mean, no one knew if she has a family back home or whether or not she was married. I mean, the way the media is representing her is like she was all alone in this world. Worked as a nanny for the survival reason but pursuing her intellectual developments via photography separately. By herself. A way for her to reach out to the world. Yet, she was a loner. Her employer? She worked for them for 16 years and they are clueless about her life? What the hell is wrong with this picture? Was the 50s and 60s America that heartless and uncaring that you could employ someone to work for you for 16 years and not knowing a thing about them???

I like some of the pictures because they showed a time when many of us weren't even born yet. Composition? Some shots you have a foot chopped off. Or the other you have too much space above the head. I am more disturbed by the discovery of her though....

I think like with many street photographers Friedlander, Winogrand, Evans etc its more about the image and not the portrait mentality because they often did it also. (cropped feet). Some of her compositions are very, very strong. A great photographer once told me that everything in the frame is either helping your visual statement or if its not helping that statement its hurting it. Theres nothing in the frame thats just there. If a foot is important then leave it in, if not, who cares I'm looking at book of Walker Evans photos and he has cropped above the feet. But you are right there are some that are not that well composed and some that are very good which gets back to my statement about it would be interesting to see what she would show. I know every image I take isn't perfect or ones I would want anyone else to see. Tom actually summed it up pretty good with the link that he included in post #41.

It really sounds like she was real loner.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #11506528
I really like the first one with the girl and the white dress and the old Chevy in the background. The one thats was posted May 14 is very good with the pattern of the bricks and the white lines and all of those geometric shapes the large heavy L support supporting something heavy and contrast that with the human shapes, really nice photograph.

Her more staged portraits remind me of some of Diane Arbus's photographs. Maybe staged is the wrong word probably the ones where the subjects are looking back to the camera.

I also really like the mule in middle of the street under the L, the one of the man coming out of the garden apt. Love the eye contact and the sign in the upper left corner but I think the real gem is what you touched on is the slice of life in that time these capture.

I liked this:
http://4.bp.blogspot.c​om …cILb_c/s1600/%2​3+1988.jpg

And the kids on the slide and the people asleep on the bus. I think we can all find some favorites and then see how we all see differently from each other.

Some cool shots, but not OMG WOW CARTIER BRESSON IN FEMALE FORM good.

jetcode wrote in post #11575148
How many Bresson's are there in the world? Photography and art in general allow us to view a world that in general is far apart from the world we live in. To compare a body of work to a legend sort of defeats the purpose of why we would view the images in the first place. The world being portrayed is of as much value as the photographic skill in making the image. In photography we get both.

Joe I think you are hitting on something important. We all talk about liking creativity but many just want to see photographs like they've already seen instead of something a little different. I think Vivian images work in the context of street photography as defined by some of the greats like Bresson yet she has her own spin.

Take the photo I linked and asked to get an explanation of why it is only a snapshot.
http://4.bp.blogspot.c​om …5AYgrTG3w/s1600​-h/636.jpg

Heres what I would have said in rebuttal.

Lets start by talking about composition. Usually a snapshot is not composed but just shot haphazardly. This image has a very strong classic triangular composition(di Vinci). With the tip of the triangle at the top of the stool and the base running parallel with the implied line created by the dogs gaze.

She also reveals a bit of herself in this image which most better photographs always have a little of the photographer in them. Her sense of humor is coming through with the dog is kinda sitting funny on the stoop and the stools in the background. So this is more than just a snapshot.

Now whether you like the image or not is an entirely different conversation and you certainly have the right to like and dislike what ever. But to say its only a snapshot or not very good is not an accurate statement. Its a good photograph just maybe one that you don't like. I personally don't like the work of many photographers but still can give the nod to it being good if in fact it is. Joel-Peter Witkin is not my cup of tea but he is never the less a real artist and an amazing photographer with a very unique way of seeing and expressing that vision.

There can be only one Bresson and in fact thats the way it should be. There can only be one Vivian Maier too and thats as it should be. And Joe there can be only one Joe. So my advice is to try and not be Bresson or Maier or anyone else but you. Its your ability to see the world in only the way that you can see it that will help separate you from everyone else trying to be a Galen Rowell, Ansel Adams or any other photographer because what makes them (Adams, Rowell) great is they have of course had influences but found their own way. Thats what I think we should all be doing. Trying to find our own way to see and capture the world in the way that only each of us can. But instead the world of photography right now has an incredible sameness. Just look around and see how many images that you see that you can't tell apart or tell just by looking at the image shot who what.

A study was done a few years back where they took a world class violinist who sells out concert halls at $100 a seat all over the world. They took this guy and put him as a "street performer" in the Washington DC subway platforms. The guy was largely ignored and made like $32 in spare change. No classical music aficionado recognized him, no one working in anything like talent management stopped and thought "holy ****, I've hit the mother lode". The fact is, not matter how capable we THINK we are recognizing something special, the population as a whole generally needs to "know" something is considered art before they will ooh and ahh over it. I'm not saying it is totally common but there are hundreds of people practicing their art who are AS good as the "masters" but don't have an agent or just haven't hit the lottery of fame. We (people as a whole) go to galleries or museums to see art but we completely ignore amazing talent simply because it hasn't been tagged as art... conversely, we often ooh and ahh over fairly common or even mediocre work simply because it HAS been tagged as art.

Sorry, got some of the details wrong... here's the story...

http://lovelivfe.com/2​010/05/17/perception/