spanky

<p>I love art, but I cannot stand the art "scene" with all the hipsters, pretentious blowhards, and wannabe intellectuals it seems to attract. This is why I loath going to gallery openings which I avoid at all costs unless an artist I really want to meet will be there. The friend Hector mentions above is a good example - as soon as someone starts talking to me like that, I head for the door. That's what one often sees though, isn't it? People like to dissect art in academic terms. This is why for so long art appreciation has had this undeserved reputation for being a snobby interest for elitists. Art is also considered to be boring by many people and of course we know nothing could be further from the truth. However, in todays' culture people just don't seem willing to make the effort to allow themselves to take the times to explore and see what they like. I recently read a book called "The Value of Art" whose author escapes me at the moment, but in the book he describes how he sees people in museums shuffling about with their checked out headphones listening to other people describe what they are looking at rather then coming to their own conclusions. He describes how people spend a minute or less looking at a work before moving on to the next one. I too have seen this and I have to agree with the author that this is no way to visit a museum and appreciate art.</p> <p>A few weeks ago me and a friend went to The Brewery in LA. This is a large cluster of buildings (that used to be a Pabst Blue Ribbon brewery) that is home to many galleries and studios. I had never been there but was always interested in checking the place out. They were having an art walk and open house. I was looking forward to it, but once again, I was reminded real soon why I tend to stay away from events like these. I don't know if the rudeness of the people there are intrinsic to their nature, or something happens when they walk through the front gate, but just like at gallery openings, they seemed to think they were the only people there. At one point my friend saw an outdoor sculpture she liked. She stood about 6 or 7 feet from the sculpture to take a picture of it. I stood back and started to study the map trying to plot out a quick run through so we can get out of there. I looked up to see that people were walking between her and the sculpture as she tried to take a picture. So she would lower her camera, then raise it again after the people passed. Now mind you there was plenty of room for people to walk behind her, and I don't think it would have killed anyone to be considerate enough to stop for a moment to let her take a picture. I stood there in amazement at the number of people who did this. Couples, groups, single people, they all would just walk in front of her as she put the camera to her face. I really just could not get over how people were behaving. I mean they could not have not seen her trying to take a picture but they all just walked into her frame. She finally had to go around to another side of the sculpture to get a picture. I dunno, maybe it's just an LA thing?</p>

<p>Philosophy is free. The local libraries around my neck of the woods have shelves full of books on philosophy. Just remember to renew your books or turn them in on time. I have trouble doing this myself and it's only a matter of time before a new branch with my name on it will open :-)</p>

<p>Even if we try not to compare ourselves to other photographers, our close friends and family will do this for us. I've been to exhibits by both major photographers and "emerging" photographers. I can easily separate the work I'm looking at on the wall from my own. I do this by acknowledging the fact that I was not standing beside the photographer when he/she took this picture, thus I have no way to know if I would have shot the scene differently. However, whenever I see an exhibit, especially if it's street photography themed, and I see it with a friend or family member, they always mention to me on the way out how they felt that work compared to my own. </p> <p>When other people view work, they will see it through a prism that is built up based on their individual tastes and many other elements. My older sister and I went to see Garry Wingrands exhibit at SFMOMA a couple of years back. I don't think she ever saw any of his work before, but she always took an interest in my street photography. As we were leaving the museum, she mentioned that she thought my work was better. She may have really been saying that she LIKED my work better, not that it achieved greater artistic principles then Wiongrands; but she's my sister and she may be considering my work as tied into her feelings about me, her brother. The work produced by people close to us always will be important to us because that work is a part of that person, so we regard it higher. </p> <p> </p>

<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>

<p>One of the glaring omissions in the Vivian Maier film is that Maloof failed to mention that his trip to see her relatives was necessary for him to continue to sell her work. Apparently, he hit some legal snag regarding copyright when it was discovered that Maier has living relatives. Now whether Maloof bought the rights from this heir or made some other arrangements we may never know. However, he got the rights so now he can continue with his business venture of selling Maier's work. I would not be the least bit surprised if one day I walk into a camera store and see Maier calenders, coffee cups, etc., because that's what Maloof is all about. Watch carefully during the first part of the film when Maloof describes his family history of visiting auctions, flea markets, and estate sales. Then look at how fast he started getting books made and how fast exhibitions of her work were mounted. It's not hard to connect the dots despite his assertions that all this is really about getting Maier the recognition he feels she deserves. He didn't want to wait for all her film to be developed so a more concise appraisal of her work could take place, he wanted to start making money while the hype was high.<br /> Now, I've seen the books on her work, and I visited a exhibit in a gallery here in LA. Three large rooms were devoted to her work. To be honest (and this is subjective as we all know) I found much of the work mediocre at best. One room was devoted to "early work" which consisted of not much more then typical snapshots on 4x6 and 5x7 paper, the likes of which one gets at a 1 Hr. photo lab. The rest were her more familiar square pictures but again, with a few exceptions, I wasn't impressed. I cannot say why exactly, I think Maier was a fine photographer, and her story is one of the best examples of "outsider art" to appear in recent history.</p> <p>Like I said, it's subjective. I do think that her work took off as it did because in my personal opinion, the bar for excellence in contemporary street photography is set pretty low. I've seen group shows of modern street photographers, I often visit street photography websites and blogs and forums and I look at the work and I read the comments and critiques others leave and that's just the impression I get. So yeah, compared to what's being passed off as street photography today, Maier is impressive, but is she on par with Wiongrand, Frank, and other well know names? It's hard to say, we'll have to wait until all her work has been considered but based on what has been put on the market I'd have to say no. Perhaps this is one possible reason why major museums have turned down Maiers work to date. It's too bad her work didn't fall into the hands of someone else who might not be such an opportunist, but then again, it's better then all her work going into the trash bin because it didn't get bid on during the auction.<br /> Anyone else remember the book "Angels World"? This was a book of another reclusive street photographer by the name of Angelo Rizzuto. I have the book, and there's also some impressive work in there, but I think the author of the book, who discovered the negatives (I cannot remember how this transpired) did a much better job at following through with Rizzutos wish that a book be made of his work after his death.</p>

<p>I think the best way to really get into Smiths head and try to see what he was all about is to head over to the University of Arizona to the Center for Creative Photography where his archives are kept. Someday, I hope to do just that as well as spending some time with Winogrands work which is also kept there.</p>