Movie: Finding Vivian Maier

[doug grosjean]

<p>Saw this movie last night in Royal Oak, Michigan. It raises many, many questions about Vivian Maier; and about the man who is promoting her as a great unknown artist....<br>

<br>

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/finding_vivian_maier/<br>

<br>

Her work is great, but I think there are many undiscovered artists who go to their grave without ever making it big.<br>

<br>

The producer of the movie is the man who purchased her negatives. He'll do well financially if the movie does well, or if he gets people to see Maier as an artist, or if the movie helps him sell her work.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Overall, I liked the movie. Not many movies get me excited about photography (even though I love photography in the first place), but this one did. The movie does make me want me to load my Rolleiflex with a roll of good black & white film, and go shooting....</p>

[c_watson1]

<p>Some interesting arguments here:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2014/05/vivian-maier-and-the-problem-of-difficult-women.html">http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2014/05/vivian-maier-and-the-problem-of-difficult-women.html</a></p>

[William Kahn]

<p>An excellent article (thanks, CW). Reading it, I had the feeling that it was her need for anonymity that made photography possible for her. If she had been "discovered", might that have forced her to stop?</p>

<p>Here's the link to Vivian Maier's website:</p>

<p>http://www.vivianmaier.com/</p>

<p>I'd have to say it's street photography at its best...</p>

[constance_cook]

<p>Thank you for the link. </p>

<p>I first learned of Maier in an interview with Maloof on <em>Chicago Tonight</em> with Phil Ponce. I was caught. Two weeks ago, I got two of the books from Amazon. The images are well-done in print. If you see the books, you will see that Maloof is also an interesting personality. For instance, he insisted that in places, he required on inserting a blank page, sometimes more than one. This is not to protect the images but his idea (I guess) of need of a vacuum or possibly an abyss between her works.</p>

<p>I will wait a while and look at them again. There is much to take in and digest. I didn't live in Chicago at that time (duh) but my former landlord grew up in it and he told stories and showed me pictures that belonged to his grandfather. I repaired some of them in PS for him so his children could have copies.</p>

<p>Maier gives you a good peek in at the near/close past.<br>

Conni</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Something the film makes clear, as does a good look at Maier's work, are the many similarities between her work and the work of Helen Levitt, Diane Arbus, and Lisette Model. So, while Maier's work, I think, is not terribly groundbreaking (which doesn't necessarily make or break a photographer) it has many strengths and does show her ability to notice and captures passionate and significant moments and narratives. It seems obvious to me and many others, that her body of work will eventually gain from being edited more than it currently is. I give Maloof credit for recognizing what the work has to offer as well as discovering the artistry in it and wanting to offer that to the world. I find his intentions pretty honorable even if he, rightly, wants to make some money for what he's doing. He may be a little naive in seeing himself as a David against the Goliath of the art world who he seems at odds with at present. Part of that is his not buying into the institutional world's desire to take control of things, and I can admire that. At the same time, it may be that photographic experts would have a better sense of place and history and context into which they could put her work and from which they could weed out many of the photos that any artist might well have edited out or not shown to begin with.</p>

<p>It was a fascinating film because of the subject matter. IMO, it was not a terribly good documentary as a film itself. It was visually rather uninteresting (except for the photos shown) and it was a little too much about the documentarian and a little too biased in Maloof's favor. He should have allowed someone else to make it, who would have been a better filmmaker and perhaps come from a more neutral perspective about just what Maloof and the art world are sparring over.</p>

[Two23]

<p>I get to Chicago a couple of times a year, and I too am fascinated by the urban neighborhoods. I've been using a Leica IIIc and sometimes a Voigtlander Bessa 6x9 to take b&w photos of what I see. I understnad the attraction perfectly. I have to wonder if the reason Maier didn't show her work was she was afraid of failure & rejection? Maybe she had experienced both when she was very little?</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[spanky]

<p>I have no beef about Maloof making money from Maier's work, it's just the way he goes about it while going on and on about how all he really wants to for her to take a place among the great photographers of the past. I don't mind opportunists, just those that try to claim they have only the purest of intentions. It's important for Maloof to keep Maier in the public thoughts and keep interest in her work alive as so to keep whatever prices they are fetching these days up. I'm sure Maloof knows that getting her work into major museums will go a long way in inflating prices for her work.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Marc: <em>I don't mind opportunists<br /></em></p>

<p>From my own experience, when I don't mind people, I generally don't call them opportunists.</p>

<p>Having good intentions and making money can go hand in hand. From what I've read and seen in the film, I'm more inclined to think his intentions are mostly good regarding Maier's photos, he does want to make a buck, and he's acting somewhat naively in terms of how he, alone, can handle her work, but is acting neither unethically nor criminally, nor particularly opportunistically.</p>

<p>Opportunist: <em>One who takes advantage of any opportunity to achieve an end, often with no regard for principles or consequences.</em></p>

<p>I've seen no evidence that Maloof has no regard for principles or consequences. And if he did have a disregard for those things, I'd sure mind it.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> Part of that is his not buying into the institutional world's desire to take control of things, and I can admire that.

 

That's not something I can admire, Fred. Instead, we have a person with apparently no background/education in

art, photography, art institutions, archiving, etc, having taken very tight control - including copyright to Maier's work - and the editing, creation and sales of editioned sets of prints. All as he sees fit. That's really "taking control of things."

 

When considering the Vivian Maier story, one should be mindful that the narrative was crafted, edited, and being

controlled by a single individual.

[Norma Desmond]

<p>He bought and paid for the negatives. </p>

<p>And I think grass roots effort to take art back from institutions can be a very good idea.</p>

<p>My approach would be balance. As I said, I think there are two ways to look at the story. And each side has a good argument. In saying I admire what Maloof is trying to do, I didn't say he was successful at it and I didn't say I don't also admire the art institutional world in many ways. I just think there should be alternatives to that world.</p>

<p>I don't feel the need to take sides here. I'm just trying to look at the value each side seems to me to be presenting.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> He bought and paid for the negatives.

 

He indeed did. And he can certainly resell those negatives, hold onto them, or give them away

to a good home.

 

It's what has happened after the purchase that I find interesting and worthy of debate.

[wogears]

<p>I am pleased that there will be a scholarship in Vivian Maier's name, for young female artists at the Art Institute of Chicago. I just discovered its existence today, and it makes me feel better about what Maloof has done. Of course, the cynic in me says that it's just part of the marketing campaign, but the women who will benefit from it won't care. OTOH, to charge $8000 for a print not made by the artist seems a bit extreme.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<blockquote>

<p>OTOH, to charge $8000 for a print not made by the artist seems a bit extreme.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's only extreme if no one is willing to pay that amount. Maloof is selling his prints, so I have to assume he's pricing them where they're selling. </p>

<p>All this stuff that he's an opportunist, he's making money from this, etc etc is just mind blowing, really silly actually, maybe a touch of envy. How do you think all the hundreds of photo and art dealers and museum workers feed their families? Ever go to the NYC Museum of Art? Go to the store on the way out and see all the knockoff prints of original art they have for sale. </p>

[AlanKlein]

<blockquote>

<p>I like the comment at the end of the trailer. Maloof asks someone apparently involved in the industry what he thought should be done differently about the pictures. The response to Maloof was, <em>"I wish I found those negatives instead of you."</em></p>

<p>That says it all.</p>

</blockquote>

[MathewDH]

<p>Remember, he does not control all of the negatives. There also is another owner of some of the negatives and he controls them.</p>

<p>I do not see how he can claim copyright on the images. He neither took the photos, nor was there ever any assignment of those rights by Maier since she was already dead. Mere possession of the negatives does not create a copyright. He does however own them, and in this area of ownership, he has the power of control over the access to those images. Even that of charging a lot of money for a print. Via promotion of her as an artist of great proportions, he has been able to command and receive high prices for prints. How many living photographers of quality images would love to make the sale at even 5% of that price, or about $400. How many of us on PN ? [Hmmm, now that I think of it, the price must be based on the cost of the framing :-) ]</p>

<p>CHEERS...Mathew</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>The negatives were mostly created before the creation of a work automatically created Copyright. If you didn't register the images for Copyright in the old days, there was no Copyright on them. So when he creates new works from the images (the prints) he can easily get Copyright protection for them.<br>

For images taken in (say) 1985, she would automatically have Copyright, and it would be assigned to her heirs, and not travel with the physical entities (negatives and slides).</p>