Would you still shoot...?

I have always felt that "art" is something that happens without regard to financial renumeration. I need to amend that now. "Art", to me, is something that happens without regard to financial renumeration and without regard to audience participation, that which is without the need or quest for "$" or "Likes".

I don't think this is wrong or right and appreciate that you qualify it by saying this is what art is . . . to you.

Being good in business is the most fascinating kind of art. Making money is art and working is art and good business is the best art."

 

"Art is what you can get away with."

 

—Andy Warhol

Here's an alternative view. I'm also not saying it's wrong or right, but Warhol and many modern artists seemed to have wanted art taken off the pedestals it had been historically put on. I think Warhol's an important artist and it is perhaps his open affection for, even obsession with, fame and fortune that forces the world to rethink art's assumed traditions and see it also in terms of human foible and ambition, and even downright cynicism.

Tom, the other controversy which comes to light in the documentary is whether the one person who bought the negatives at auction owed it to the art community (many museums, galleries, curators, and others felt he did) to allow the "artworld" to edit her work and determine what would be shown. The guy who found/bought the negatives is the guy who made the documentary, by the way. The argument put to him is that he's not honoring her vision by putting way too much of her work out without a discerning eye. I think most of us can relate to that, knowing how many decisions we make when determining which photos we will show after a day of shooting and which we will file away or toss. Though I don't necessarily think the "artworld" has a "right" to the photos or to determining what is shown, I happen to agree that her work suffers for it not having been edited well. A think a better job of curation, no matter who'd have done it, would have yielded a much more effective body of work than the way her work has currently been presented, which seems haphazard at best. At the same time, why should the mainstream "artworld" be in charge of everything? I'm not taking a side here, but rather presenting the dilemma, which I think may not have a definitive answer.

I guess I don't know. Has Maloof developed some personal connection to her and therefore feels that he should be allowed to control what is released, when, and how? Or has he just struck gold and wants to maintain control for that reason? You would hope that he would enlist the help of people who have some expertise in the field to edit her work.

Photos can be good because they're aesthetically pleasing. They can be good because they tell a story or capture a moment in time. Maier's pictures tell stories and capture moments but are made all the more interesting (to me) by her own story and the story of the pictures themselves (as opposed to what they are of). So for very selfish reasons I'm glad Maloof found them and has published them. Maybe the "art world" would have done it better. I'm skeptical that it would have mattered that much.

So I did two things last night. I watched the Vivian Maier documentary and I asked my 13 year daughter a paraphrased version of the question asked by the OP.

Documentary

I did learn a few things watching the documentary. One was that she may have actually shared her photos with some people but in a stealthy way. There was a letter written by her to a photo shop in France (while she was in the States) wondering if they would be willing to print post cards for her. The pictures were of the area in France where she grew up (I think) and that's where the photo shop was. In the letter she mentioned that she was pleased with her photos and thought they were good. I don't know if she ever sent the postcards to people, but she may have, - without mentioning that she took the photos.

The other thing I learned was that she also made audio tapes. One was of her "interviewing" people in a grocery store asking them what they thought of the Nixon impeachment. One person she asked was a young woman who didn't offer (or maybe didn't have) an opinion. Vivian was not content with that and pressed the young woman to answer. I don't know how much of that she did. She may have been very private but she wasn't shy with the microphone or her camera.

She would often give people fake names when asked. She would be cagy about things like her occupation telling one person that she was "sort of a spy". I guess in a way, she was. She may have thought of herself as a photojournalist.

I didn't come away from the documentary with any concrete answer on how she would have felt about her photos being published after her death.

13 Year Old without Internet

I asked my daughter if she'd take as many pictures if there were no such thing as the Internet. Surprisingly she said she take more. What she meant actually though was that she'd keep more (not take more). A lot of the pictures she takes now are via SnapChat so they disappear. I mentioned to her that it seemed to me she'd be a lot less interested in taking pictures if she couldn't share them with her friends or had to print them to share. She said she'd still like them, just for her.

She also knew who Vivian Maier was.

She said she'd still like them, just for her.

I think asking young people about pics and older photographers about them is probably a bit of apples and oranges.

Young people have grown up with a camera in hand, in their cell phones which have become almost part of their bodies (that's not a judgment, it's an observation), in a culture where a pic accompanying almost every action, party, and event seems pretty much de rigueur.

To me, it's like the difference between doodling and being a painter. The doodler does it almost as second nature and may well be invested in doodling but usually not so much as a craft, art, profession, or even serious hobby. Photographers on PN will have a different relationship, for the most part, to the photos they take, than will a lot of social networking kids.

I actually love the way kids take and use pictures these days. They're almost like little punctuation marks to life, often exclamations.

On the other hand, I get the sense that most PN users consider their photos more like words, sentences, or even novels, more a direct expression of something than an accompaniment.

Tom, like you, I came away from the documentary with as many questions about Maier as answers, also as many questions about the motivations and actions of both Maloof and the art community.

For me, personally, I can't and don't want to separate the process from the product. While I gain so much from the process itself, the eventual photo often guides me and seems like a fitting culmination to the process. An important part of photography to me and, I think, to the history of photography and art, is sharing so, for me, the sharing is an important part. I think one can appreciate and even be guided by the fact that one will share their photos without falling pray to compromising themselves in hopes that others will always like their photos. I often find myself tickled when a photo of mine that I really like is disliked by others. If everyone liked what I came up with all the time, I'd think that very boring and would feel like I was somehow in league only with the greatest common denominator.

I think asking young people about pics and older photographers about them is probably a bit of apples and oranges.

 

I agree, which was why I was very surprised by her answer. I thought that sharing the pictures was a primary motivation of hers, - in a " Hey, look at me! " way. Turns out that is not the case. Like a lot of people in this thread, the photos bring her joy for what they are. She's not entirely motivated by what other people think about them (the "likes").

And this is a 13 year old. An age group that is probably more consumed by what their peers think, than the general population.

What I was questioning is whether it's the photos that bring her joy, in two ways.

1) Is it the photos that bring her joy or the act of recording parts of her life?

2) Is it joy or is it just a somewhat natural, somewhat habitual action with no particular emotion attached, something that her age group and culture does almost as a hiccup?

I don't get the sense that most kids today, even those who are in it more for the sharing, are in it for what most people think about the pictures themselves. I think, for them, likes are not a matter of judgment of quality as much as they are an acknowledgment of relating, a social handshake, as it were.

I think social network photo-making is more like picking up the phone was to me as a kid, only now it has a visual aspect to it. It's just a part of daily communication and not so much about the quality of the product, whether shared or kept to oneself.

Based on what I've observed and what she's said, the answer is all of the above depending on the situation.

On snapchat she will frequently take a picture of nothing or just a random thing in order to connect socially with somebody. Technology has made it much easier to connect and communicate with images than in the past. So much so that kids will communicate that way even when the image adds little or nothing to the interaction.

But I think it's a mistake to believe that somehow in the process they've lost the ability to appreciate the aesthetic qualities of a photo. Just like calling people on a phone doesn't diminish the appreciation of music or singing. She will definitely expend energy on composing and editing pictures, not just as a means of communicating, but because she enjoys the process and the product. That might be more true for her than for others but I don't think it's unusual.

Technology has made producing and editing images available to more people and in ways that were hard to imagine even 10 years ago.

But I think it's a mistake to believe that somehow in the process they've lost the ability to appreciate the aesthetic qualities of a photo.

Excellent point!

the answer is all of the above depending on the situation

Well said.

A thought occurred to me and I'm sure it has to others. Some question the ethics of the decision to publish her photos when she clearly was not willing to share them in her lifetime. Is that something she would have wanted after she was gone or not? Was it wrong to do so?

There's been at least two documentaries and I believe a book written about her. The documentaries describe her as a talented photographer but don't paint a very flattering image of her as a person, especially later in her life. As a very private individual, she would have hated those documentaries. She often would not even tell people her name. Yet, we don't question so much the ethics of making those documentaries.

Why is that? Is it because her photo library was seen as her personal possession, but her identity, her personhood was not?

Yet, we don't question so much the ethics of making those documentaries.

I've read a few reviews and been involved in prior discussions here on PN that question the documentary itself along similar lines as the publishing of her work is questioned.

DETROIT TIMES REVIEW

And another layer of questioning might also arise. [i'm questioning, not answering.] If we question the ethics of making Maier a more public figure, and her photos more public, than she may have wanted, what about the people in her photos? Is there concern about their privacy, now that both the photos and a documentary about those photos have exposed those people to public view?

Whether we ultimately attribute the unmasking of the unwitting subjects of her photos to the filmmakers or to Maier herself as the original documentary photographer here, she may well have taken pics of people who wouldn't have wanted their picture taken to begin with (whether published or not). So, might we be considering an ethical question surrounding the filmmakers that we're not considering in terms of what Maier herself did in taking the original photos? Does her documentary work get a pass that the filmmakers don't? Had she not been so private and had she exhibited her work, would she be accused of invading the privacy of those of her subjects who might have been private people the way the filmmakers are being accused relative to Maier's own privacy? Is the very act of her having taken the photos without specific permission to some extent an invasion, even though she had no intention of publishing them? Her actions are still a key link in a chain that leads to public exposure of the subjects of her photos, subjects who may very well have been just as private as she was.

Yes, I suppose it gets down to the ethics of street photography itself. For me the ethical issues soften with the passage of time. Is there someone being harmed, - whose life has been negatively impacted? Certainly not everyone will agree with my on this, but Vivian is gone and many of the subjects of her photographs are too. Younger people in her pictures are still here but few people look the same as they did 40 or 50+ years ago.

I don't have an ethical problem with those images being published.

Yes, I suppose it gets down to the ethics of street photography itself.

On one level it does, but I was thinking more about hypocrisy in some of the judgments made rather than questioning the ethics of street photography per se. I agree with you and also don't have moral qualms about Maier's work being made public or the documentaries that have been made or her photos themselves relative to her subjects. I have some problems with Maloof's opportunism and I have aesthetic problems with the lack of better curation/editing in the publishing of her work. But what I'm stressing here is the hypocrisy of those who judge the posthumous publishing of her photos because it's possible she was a private person while they don't seem to be judging Maier, herself, similarly for making photos of people who might have been just as private. For me, the acceptance of the ethics of street photography (which I mostly accept and embrace) would be reason also not to judge the publishers or documentarians in this case.

Agreed. For a very private person, she didn't have any qualms about sticking her camera or microphone in other peoples' faces.

Maloof claims he's doing this "for her". To get her work out there and give her the credit she deserves. I don't think he minds making a profit in the process.

Maier was invading people's space and privacy. To what end... Who knows? For her own pleasure? To document the inequities in society? Maybe it wasn't even for the pictures. Maybe it was just getting the shot. She had several hundred (rolls or more) of undeveloped film and 10s of thousands of unprinted negatives.

I know of people that collect 8mm films but the following applies to collectors of all sorts. Many of them have all sorts of films in their possession that they've never watched. The fun was in the hunt and the acquisition, - maybe not as much in the owning and apparently not at all in the viewing.

Any, I'm not sure that changes the ethics equation of taking the pictures 50 years vs. publishing them now. But yeah I see the hypocrisy too.

>>> For a very private person, she didn't have any qualms about sticking her camera or microphone in other peoples' faces.

I have yet to see any Maier photographs where peoples' privacy was invaded.

That said, one thing to remember about the Vivian Maier story, is that everything we know about her is essentially a narrative constructed by a single person. One who purchased a locker of VM negatives and made prints and books for sale, as well as a movie. As an aside, there is no question he owned the negatives. Copyright ownership, and thus the right to make and sell prints from those negatives, however, has been in dispute.

>>> For a very private person, she didn't have any qualms about sticking her camera or microphone in other peoples' faces.

 

I have yet to see any Maier photographs where peoples' privacy was invaded.

 

That said, one thing to remember about the Vivian Maier story, is that everything we know about her is essentially a narrative constructed by a single person. One who purchased a locker of VM negatives and made prints and books for sale, as well as a movie. As an aside, there is no question he owned the negatives. Copyright ownership, and thus the right to make and sell prints from those negatives, however, has been in dispute.

There are a couple of different documentaries that tell basically the same story. One was done completely without the help or involvement of Maloof. So it isn't just one person's narrative, but it is definitely a construction based on limited information. Maloof owns the bulk of the negatives and other materials but there are other people with significant amounts.

I'll acknowledge that what constitutes an invasion of privacy for you, may not be the same for me. There are pictures of a man being dragged by cops, a couple of others were shot in the head. A nun strapped to a gurney, a mother reacting to seeing her son after he was hit by a car. She wasn't a journalist and these weren't public figures.

Some of the kids she cared for complained that they were frequently embarrassed by how obnoxious she could be with a camera, - taking pictures of people from extremely close distances when they were clearly not happy about it.

But let's for a moment say that these people were in public spaces therefore any concerns about privacy don't apply. How would Vivian Maier herself feel about being photographed the way her subjects were? My guess is that she would not like it one bit.

As I've said before, I don't think it was wrong to publish the photos and I don't think she was wrong to take most of them, though I think there were probably many instances where she was at least a bit rude, and others where she crossed the line of decency altogether.

There are a couple of different documentaries that tell basically the same story. One was done completely without the help or involvement of Maloof. So it isn't just one person's narrative, but it is definitely a construction based on limited information. Maloof owns the bulk of the negatives and other materials but there are other people with significant amounts.

 

I'll acknowledge that what constitutes an invasion of privacy for you, mat not be the same for me. There are pictures of a man being dragged by cops, a couple of others were shot in the head. A nun strapped to a gurney, a mother reacting to seeing her son after he was hit by a car.

 

Some of the kids she cared for complained that they were frequently embarrassed by how obnoxious she could be with a camera, - taking pictures of people from extremely close distances when they were clearly not happy about it.

 

But let's for a moment say that these people were in public spaces therefore any concerns about privacy don't apply. How would Vivian Maier herself feel about being photographed the way her subjects were? My guess is that she would not like it one bit.

Curious... Can you tell me who created the other non-Maloof documentaries, and from where their source material was derived (other than Maloof)?

Invasion of privacy speaks to four basic legal torts; appropriation of likeness or name, false light disclosures/assertions, public disclosure of private facts, and intrusion. Again, I have not seen any Maier photographs that cause such an invasion of privacy.

>>> How would Vivian Maier herself feel about being photographed the way her subjects were? My guess is that she would not like it one bit.

Yes, your guess. Many others, including myself, don't care.

>>> As I've said before, I don't think it was wrong to publish the photos...

There is nothing wrong with publishing photos as long as you own the copyright permitting you to do so. Owning the copyrights, I can make and sell photographs from my negatives and digital files. I am not able to so with your negatives and digital files, however.

One documentary was done by the BBC. They wanted to interview Maloof but he declined since he was producing his own documentary. They interviewed people she worked for, the guy that originally purchased the contents of her storage locker, people that owned other photographs of hers, acquaintances... They researched her family history, etc.

Anyway, I wasn't speaking so much to the legal definition of privacy. When someone describes another person as being a "private" individual, they're referring to a person who does not want to disclose the details of their life or maybe even basic things, like their name, to strangers. Someone who wouldn't want to be photographed by strangers either, - presumably.

"Hypocritical" maybe isn't the right word. But what I'm arguing against is the idea that those photos should not be published because Vivian was a private person and would not have wanted it. The thing is that she did not show that level of consideration to the subjects of her photos. She didn't care whether they wanted their picture taken or not.

Again, I like the photos and am happy they were published. But I do acknowledge there are some ethically thorny issues here.

Dunno about anyone else, but to me, once you're dead and gone, unless there is a Foundation with lots of money and lawyers, or you can go poltergeist, what you would or would not have wanted is irrelevant.

I find it interesting that we are often more concerned about peoples' feelings after they're dead and can't feel anymore, than we were when they were alive.

Vivian Maier is not being hurt by this.

But suppose you run across Vivian Maier after the fall that lead to her death but before she actually dies. She hands you the key to the storage locker, tells you there's thousands upon thousands of photos that she took being kept there, and implores you to destroy them.

What do you do?

My parents put my brother and me in charge of seeing through funeral arrangements they had determined they wanted. I couldn't possibly imagine, unless there were some extraordinary intervening circumstances, not considering what they had put in motion and what they would have wanted that they hadn't yet attended to.

While I believe death is final, I also think connections remain to the living, which include moral decision-making on their behalf. People leave behind unfinished business that often has to be cleaned up, and I think thinking about what they may have wished for can be vital in terms of the living progressing beyond their loved ones' deaths.

I think it's probably a matter of self-respect and not really a matter of thinking the dead might feel something in death. People have reasons for acting a certain way in life and I feel I'm honoring myself by considering what they wanted, because I've been touched by them and, in a certain sense, they are still part of me, though dead.

When it comes to making artistic decisions about someone's work after they've died, this is nothing all that new. People finished paintings of masters and compositions of great composers after their deaths. (One of many well-known examples is Mozart's Requiem.) A lot of study goes into an endeavor like that, often trying to honor the original intent of the artist, and for good reason, I think.

On the other hand, there's a sense in which an artist can be honored via a good modernizing of their work, so that some contemporary interpretations of Mozart are far afield from how he would have played or heard his own music but I imagine he would enjoy this updating. When we see Shakespeare nowadays, we may see anything from a very traditional performance to some very "far out" interpretations.

So, it's not always about the projected feelings of the dead people as much as it is about our own feelings of connectedness to their one-time feeling and desire. I've said often that art is not simply a matter of individual pieces or works of art. It's a chain of many links. I think it's that sense of connectedness that WE have to art, more than a sense of the feelings of people long gone, that often drives us.

Very nicely stated Fred, but you didn't answer the question. ;)

Of course I didn't either. If that were to have happened to me, I think I would have turned the key over to someone who I would have felt had more business dealing with her belongings.

But let's suppose for the sake of argument that she was a friend and I knew that she really had no one else. I faithfully go to the storage locker with the intent of destroying them but after looking through them I realize how wonderful they are.

That would be tough, but I think the only decision that I could make where I could live with myself afterward, - would be to destroy them.

Very nicely stated Fred, but you didn't answer the question. ;)

Pretty sly of me, right?

Really, though, the reason I didn't answer is that it would depend on too many things. I tend not to set fast and hard universal moral rules for myself in situations such as these. Sure, I'm fine with no murder not ever no how, as a kind of abstract bottom line. But the scenario you describe would depend on my perception of the vigor or absoluteness in the tone and words of the request and it would depend on my perception of the importance of the art I was asked to destroy. Honestly, if it was Maier and she asked me in a reasonably serious and imperative manner, I'd have no problem destroying those negatives. I don't think they're earth-shattering or game changing. If it were Picasso, I'd probably not destroy them because I'd feel some obligation to civilization over the individual obligation I might feel to him. In order to rationalize my not indulging Picasso's desire and still be able to sleep at night, I might convince myself he couldn't have been in his right mind when he asked me to destroy those paintings, so I had an obligation not to listen to him! I'm not above getting myself out of an ethical jam here and there by giving myself that kind of out. Nobody's perfect. ;-)

The "estate" planning, may give some comfort while the principal is living, what happens after, happens. I am working on mine currently. Ritual is all for the living -- if it gives comfort, so be it. Whether either planning, outcomes or ritual gives comfort to the dead, I cannot tell till I pass. Even Houdini couldn't come back in spirit to report. As to honoring the person, parent or even mentor -- living a life you and they would not find dishonorable will suffice for me.

To your question, Tom, I agree. In my universe, for someone you cared about honor would require that you destroy them.

Read Fred's after I posted -- I find morality and honor rather commanding.