Vivian Maier

jakeblu

jakeblu

Suspended / Banned
Messages
10,874
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
Interesting article on the guardian here

Shame she didn't live to see how highly her work was regarded

For those who would like to see more of here work her online gallery is here
 
A natural, intuitive talent. A rare thing. Lovely framed images all of them. How many people could do this now, full frame, no cropping, on 6x6 with a waist level finder giving a reversed image. People today have a bright, perfect viewfinder with focusing aids, and lines and grids, and even artificial ****ing horizons and still **** it up. LOL


Because no one's told her the "rules" of composition, her portraits are amongst the most engaging you'll ever see.
 
Last edited:
The more I read about Ms Maier the less I'm convinced she was completely intuitive. I'm forming the impression she was better versed in what was going on in photography than those marketing her pictures would have us believe.
 
Pookeyhead said:
A natural, intuitive talent. A rare thing. Lovely framed images all of them. How many people could do this now, full frame, no cropping, on 6x6 with a waist level finder giving a reversed image. People today have a bright, perfect viewfinder with focusing aids, and lines and grids, and even artificial ****ing horizons and still **** it up. LOL


Because no one's told her the "rules" of composition, her portraits are amongst the most engaging you'll ever see.
Click to expand...

With the exception of the really old TLRs, which were a bit darker with regard to screen brightness, I'd argue that the WLFs in many TLRs are far nicer to look through than anything that's offered today. Getting used to the reversed image takes some patience, of course, but it quickly becomes second nature.

That said, I do think it's Vivian's skills that help to set her photographs apart, not her equipment.
 
Ed Sutton said:
The more I read about Ms Maier the less I'm convinced she was completely intuitive. I'm forming the impression she was better versed in what was going on in photography than those marketing her pictures would have us believe.
Click to expand...

Being intuitive doesn't mean she didn't know what she was doing :)
 
Pookeyhead said:
Being intuitive doesn't mean she didn't know what she was doing :)
Click to expand...

No, but the the way here work is being hyped hints that she was uneducated in photography, either formally or casually, and unaware of 'great photography'. This doesn't seem to be the case when you dig around.

I found a telling opinion here http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/arts/design/when-images-come-to-life-after-death.html

"Because she photographed in so many styles, her sensibility is indistinct and a signature viewpoint is absent. Depending on which picture you are looking at, she could be Weegee, Helen Levitt, Saul Leiter, Bruce Davidson, Andre Kertesz — even Garry Winogrand."

That sums up my uneasiness about her pictures. Which is not to say they are not well observed and made.
 
As a new york street photographer, it would have been hard to miss the influence of the other photographers around, many bumped into each other regularly. It's not surprising to find someone influenced by images seen. (see everybody street - http://everybodystreet.com/)

Wasn't it Winogrand who got obsessive in the end?
 
Ed Sutton said:
No, but the the way here work is being hyped hints that she was uneducated in photography, either formally or casually, and unaware of 'great photography'. This doesn't seem to be the case when you dig around.

I found a telling opinion here http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/arts/design/when-images-come-to-life-after-death.html

"Because she photographed in so many styles, her sensibility is indistinct and a signature viewpoint is absent. Depending on which picture you are looking at, she could be Weegee, Helen Levitt, Saul Leiter, Bruce Davidson, Andre Kertesz — even Garry Winogrand."

That sums up my uneasiness about her pictures. Which is not to say they are not well observed and made.
Click to expand...

I not sure what you mean,yes she new about cameras and must of enjoyed photographery, but she just went out with her cameras and took good photos it's as simple as that,and if no one had discover her negs we wouldn't be talking about her.
I don't think their was any grand conspiracy on her part to hide anything ? :)
 
No one's saying she was uneducated. She started by doing what she was doing, in her own way, and using photography to show things as she saw them, and not as someone else told her to represent them. Once that is ingrained, it remains. It's as if your formative years when you learn photography remain with you forever... pretty much like almost all other aspects of life and learning really.

Intuitive doesn't mean she was clueless in some way.
 
Photography is what she did to make sense of her very limited world.
the tool she used was the best available and a very major investment for a nanny.
Unlike most Rollie photographers of the time, she composed her pictures square, because she neither processed nor printed her own work but got back the whole image. She became expert in seeing in that format.

( I always blocked the corners of my Rollie screens to help see as 10x8 prints)
Few of us at that time had any difficulty composing with a Rollie as it was so much easier than with large format.
Admittedly the pentaprism made things easier but the belly level of a WLF gave the rollei look to even ordinary subjects.
I always preferred the 75 mm lens to the 80 mm of the F2.8 lenses as that too had its own look.
 
Byker28i said:
Yeah, but, if only you could see her Exif... :D
Click to expand...

Hi, "No Exif" what ever next!!! I guess we'll just have to try things out for ourselves or maybe just "Ask" :)
 
I think it was a shame that they were picking over her storage containers while she was still very much alive. All the BS in the book forwards about how much they respected her and her work, well they should of given her some of the proceeds then! She died in poverty while they were milking her work dry. I love her work and got several books, second hand though.
 
jakeblu said:
Interesting article on the guardian here

Shame she didn't live to see how highly her work was regarded

For those who would like to see more of here work her online gallery is here
Click to expand...


Hi Steve, Thanks for the link's, absolutely stunning work. Amongst the finest examples of street photography I've ever seen.
 
Ed Sutton said:
That sums up my uneasiness about her pictures. Which is not to say they are not well observed and made.
Click to expand...

I don't understand your reticence in saying she was a bloody great street photographer whatever her motivations or those who are trying to promote her work.
 
simonblue said:
I don't think their was any grand conspiracy on her part to hide anything ?
Click to expand...

Not on her part, no. But maybe on the part of those who stand to profit from the myth that has been created around her? I don't know.

jakeblu said:
I don't understand your reticence in saying she was a bloody great street photographer whatever her motivations or those who are trying to promote her work.
Click to expand...

I wasn't aware I had to. :)

I bought the Vivian Maier - Street Photographer book as soon as it came out because I thought the photos I'd seen on-line were great. I looked through the book quite a lot at first until I realised I liked the pictures because they seemed familiar. It hasn't been down from the shelf since.

All just my opinion, which is out of step as usual.
 
Ed Sutton said:
Not on her part, no. But maybe on the part of those who stand to profit from the myth that has been created around her? I don't know.



I wasn't aware I had to. :)
Click to expand...

Fair point :)
Ed Sutton said:
I bought the Vivian Maier - Street Photographer book as soon as it came out because I thought the photos I'd seen on-line were great. I looked through the book quite a lot at first until I realised I liked the pictures because they seemed familiar. It hasn't been down from the shelf since.

All just my opinion, which is out of step as usual.
Click to expand...

Its not that your opinion is out of step, I respect you for that, its just your reason. You you say the photos are great but, I just think the but is the problem. They're either great photos or they aren't :shrug:
 
OK. I initially thought the street photographs were great, but the more I look at them the more I think they're well done but derivative/imitative or whatever the correct adjective is for pictures that remind me of other pictures.

I think the self portraits are more interesting and individual than the street photographs. That there are so many seems significant.

The little of her colour photography I've seen also looks less obviously influenced - although I haven't seen much of it.
 
I saw a documentary about her a year or two which was very good. She was definitely an unusual person with an unusual life. It seemed like she had to go an take pictures for herself and wasn't interested in other people seeing them.

I'm glad that they did surface, as it is an interesting record of America over many decades through some excellent pictures.

The documentary, Finding Vivian Maier, is well worth a look when it shows on TV again.
 
Ed Sutton said:
Not on her part, no. But maybe on the part of those who stand to profit from the myth that has been created around her? I don't know.



I wasn't aware I had to. :)

I bought the Vivian Maier - Street Photographer book as soon as it came out because I thought the photos I'd seen on-line were great. I looked through the book quite a lot at first until I realised I liked the pictures because they seemed familiar. It hasn't been down from the shelf since.

All just my opinion, which is out of step as usual.
Click to expand...

But they were not to know how big it would take of,it was after people seeing the photos that people responded and liked them.
:)
 
redhed17 said:
I saw a documentary about her a year or two which was very good. She was definitely an unusual person with an unusual life. It seemed like she had to go an take pictures for herself and wasn't interested in other people seeing them.

I'm glad that they did surface, as it is an interesting record of America over many decades through some excellent pictures.

The documentary, Finding Vivian Maier, is well worth a look when it shows on TV again.
Click to expand...

Sometimes I cam relate to that feeling of just shooting for yourself :)
 
I've never thought of her work as derivative - I just see her as a natural. I could be tutored away from this, but that's what I see.
Ed Sutton said:
I initially thought the street photographs were great, but the more I look at them the more I think they're well done but derivative/imitative or whatever the correct adjective is for pictures that remind me of other pictures.
Click to expand...
Are you sure that 'perception' isn't a false attempt at reverse-engineering?
Ed Sutton said:
I think the self portraits are more interesting and individual than the street photographs. That there are so many seems significant.
Click to expand...
So many - proportionally? I think that you're trying to make much of little.

From the evidence available to us, we're left with trying to divine not just what she produced photographically but who she WAS - and the two are inseparable. An amount of mystery will always remain, and that's healthy and seemly. She will never stand in the witness box.
 
Last edited:
simonblue said:
Sometimes I cam relate to that feeling of just shooting for yourself :)
Click to expand...
I try to take pics only for myself and rail against being forced to do it, as I sometimes am in work. I want to enjoy the hobby and not have it potentially ruined by 'having' to do it. It helps that there isn't a huge amount of people asking of course. :LOL:

Unlike Vivian Maier though I do sometimes show my pics to other people. ;)
 
Last edited:
[quote="redhed17, post: 6370026, member: 2341"
Unlike Vivian Maier though I do sometimes show my pics to other people. ;)[/quote]
It appears to me that she was socially 'odd', though within an acceptable spectrum (ie not harmful to others). It could've been interesting to meet her, though you might not've got very far.
 
Last edited:
redhed17 said:
I try to take pics only for myself and rail against being forced to do it, as I sometimes am in work. I want to enjoy the hobby and not have it potentially ruined by 'having' to do it. It helps that there isn't a huge amount of people asking of course. :LOL:

Unlike Vivian Maier though I do sometimes show my pics to other people. ;)
Click to expand...

I show a few,but still not on flicker or facebook :eek::D
 
droj said:
Are you sure that 'perception' isn't a false attempt at reverse-engineering?

So many - proportionally? I think that you're trying to make much of little.
Click to expand...

I'm not making a lot of it. I've found enough out to change my mind about the pictures and that's all I'm saying. I'm not out to convince anyone else.
 
It's difficult to say though isn't it as the images shown so far are a small selection of the numerous images she took. They aren't her selection but the selection of John Maloof and as such it's his view on her work. Perhaps it's actually the influence of the other photographers that have influenced his choices of her images to publish, rather than Vivian being influenced...
 
Byker28i said:
It's difficult to say though isn't it as the images shown so far are a small selection of the numerous images she took. They aren't her selection but the selection of John Maloof and as such it's his view on her work. Perhaps it's actually the influence of the other photographers that have influenced his choices of her images to publish, rather than Vivian being influenced...
Click to expand...
That's a good point I hadn't considered. And perhaps why there's been less colour work shown than B+W so far?
 
Ed Sutton said:
That's a good point I hadn't considered. And perhaps why there's been less colour work shown than B+W so far?
Click to expand...

I thought about it on the commute, thinking about your comments. It's an interesting part of the story that I hadn't actually thought about before that. Are we seeing a true representation of her work? Possibly not, we are seeing almost a curators view of her work, almost as though an exhibition would put together?
 
Byker28i said:
I thought about it on the commute, thinking about your comments. It's an interesting part of the story that I hadn't actually thought about before that. Are we seeing a true representation of her work? Possibly not, we are seeing almost a curators view of her work, almost as though an exhibition would put together?
Click to expand...

The article I linked to earlier is worth a read on that subject if you haven't looked at it yet. I've read at least one more, but can't recall where.

The issue of cropping is interesting too - as some of her prints were cropped we don't know she wouldn't have dropped at least some of the unprinted frames too.
 
Byker28i said:
I thought about it on the commute, thinking about your comments. It's an interesting part of the story that I hadn't actually thought about before that. Are we seeing a true representation of her work? Possibly not, we are seeing almost a curators view of her work, almost as though an exhibition would put together?
Click to expand...

I can see that,but i doubt we get to see any photographer full range of work,didn't HCB once say forget about your first 10,000 shots.
Plus it always happen we find someone then we praise them,and next we start to have a go at their them :(
 
Last edited:
Byker28i said:
I thought about it on the commute, thinking about your comments. It's an interesting part of the story that I hadn't actually thought about before that. Are we seeing a true representation of her work? Possibly not, we are seeing almost a curators view of her work, almost as though an exhibition would put together?
Click to expand...

Isn't that the case for everyone.. including ourselves? We all curate to some extent. If you published a book of your own work, you'd have an editor, and if you had an exhibition, they'd be a curator, even if it's yourself.

To suggest that someone isn't as good as suggested because you can't randomly pull a fist full of prints from a box and have every single one be awe inspiring is a little unfair.
 
Certainly I agree with that, but the photographer would have an input. In this case it's had no input from Vivian into the selection of the images chosen to be made public.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top