
Vivian Maier: A life's work seen for first time - rythie
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12247395
======
js2
I submitted this last week but it didn't get any traction:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2095598>

 _John Maloof, a 29-year-old eBay entrepreneur and real estate agent, is now
principal cheerleader in the effort to find a niche for Ms. Maier at the
pantheon of modern photography. He is only about one-tenth of the way into the
task of scanning and archiving 100,000 negatives of hers in his possession,
working with his friend Anthony Rydzon. And they have yet to develop several
hundred rolls of black-and-white film and about 600 color rolls._

[http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/07/new-street-
photogra...](http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/07/new-street-
photography-60-years-old/)

The photos are truly extraordinary.

Watch this terrific segment too - <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWEDOnBfDUI>

And for those of you fortunate enough to reside in Chicago -
[http://www.explorechicago.org/city/en/things_see_do/event_la...](http://www.explorechicago.org/city/en/things_see_do/event_landing/events/dca_tourism/FindingVivianMaier_ChicagoStreetPhotographer.html)

~~~
neilk
It's kind of an interesting question -- usually importance in the art world is
a combination of excellence and influence. So even if you hate Andy Warhol,
you have to admit the guy was influential, so he deserves his place in art
history.

Now we have a case of someone whose work was excellent, but for obvious
reasons could not possibly have influenced anyone else. Where should she be in
the history of art?

~~~
aristus
The same place as Van Gogh and Emily Dickinson. She had little influence while
she was alive, but will gain more as time goes on. Posthumous fame is a cliche
in the arts.

~~~
neilk
van Gogh only got serious about painting in the last decade of his life, and
even then he was pretty well known.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posthumous_fame_of_Vincent_van_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posthumous_fame_of_Vincent_van_Gogh)

Toulouse-Lautrec even challenged another artist to a duel over the worth of
van Gogh's paintings.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_van_Gogh_chronology#189...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_van_Gogh_chronology#1890)

I'm only an amateur aficionado of photography, but Vivian Maier seems a bit
different. The quality is undeniable but the style seems a bit derivative or
antique by 2010 standards. At least so far, I don't see territory that hasn't
been well covered by other street photographers.

Maybe more treasures will be unearthed from the collection, though.

A thought just struck me: maybe she just couldn't afford, or never had time,
to get her negs developed. What sort of photographer might she have become if
she could have closed that loop just a bit faster, or easier?

------
edw519
_Maier was untrained, but her images are artfully framed and detailed_

So much has been accomplished by those who were "untrained, but". I wonder if
that says as much about the training as it does about the accomplishments.

~~~
jonsen
It reminds me of the sculptor who said that _he_ wasn't making the sculpture.
"It's already in there. I'm just removing excess material."

Sometimes I feel that our brains are like that. That some of our abilities are
inherent. They just have to be set free.

~~~
potatolicious
> _"That some of our abilities are inherent. They just have to be set free."_

Heavily disagreed. I'm a street photographer myself (self-trained), and
Maier's work has been inspiring both from an artistic and motivational
perspective.

These abilities aren't "inherent". They take years and years of practice to
hone, and a constant criticism of your own work (from yourself or otherwise).

I don't think any photographer ever picked up a camera, figured out how to
work it, and then just started taking good work. Bear in mind also that I
don't know a single street photographer who's able to shoot anything close to
>5% keepers, much less show-ers.

When you view art like this, keep in mind that not only is it a highly
selected slice of the artist's entire body of work, but also you are looking
at what is most likely their top work at the prime of their abilities. What
you don't see are the years of producing forgettable, boring, and downright
bad work to get there.

~~~
aero142
The article talks about 100,000 negatives laying around. This was years of
work and probably a daily activity. Hardly qualifies as "inherent".

~~~
potatolicious
That reminds me of something I dislike about street photography - there are
the Greats - people like Henri Cartier-Bresson, Robert Capa, Garry Winogrand,
etc. that are positively _worshipped_ in the street photography community.

To the point where _anything_ that they ever produced is automatic gold.
People don't seem to account for the fact that, like all other artists, 99% of
what these people produced is somewhere between utter crap and not great.

But nope. If it was shot by HCB, it's automatically a divine work gifted to us
by the Gods of Photography themselves. Ugh.

~~~
Confusion
There is a difference between the already vetted produce of someone like HCB
and the raw produce we are dealing with here. Of course he produced crap, but
that crap has never seen the light of day. I doubt anyone wandering upon a
pile of thousands of his photographs would consider them automatic gold.

------
alexophile
An interesting addendum: John Maloof, who 'dicovered' her work, as it were,
decided to try and locate her after some time. His search turned up her
obituary. It had been posted the previous day.

------
ja27
In other discussions I've seen people raise the copyright issues. Her estate
owns the rights to these works, not John Maloof. But I don't think anyone
except her heirs or other beneficiaries would have standing to sue him.
They're either non-existent (she had no known children) or not interested. I'm
afraid that won't stop people from causing problems for him once there's money
involved.

~~~
InclinedPlane
I don't see how there could be much legal standing for that position. If
Maloof bought the original negatives and especially if the Meier estate has
not retained any copies of the work then he's got an enormously strong case to
having bought not just a copy of the work but the work itself and the rights
to distribute it.

~~~
dctoedt
> _If Maloof bought the original negatives and especially if the Meier estate
> has not retained any copies of the work then he's got an enormously strong
> case to having bought not just a copy of the work but the work itself and
> the rights to distribute it._

Copyright law doesn't work that way. This argument is expressly addressed in
17 USC 202: " _Ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights
under a copyright, is distinct from ownership of any material object in which
the work is embodied._

" _Transfer of ownership of any material object, including the copy or
phonorecord in which the work is first fixed, does not of itself convey any
rights in the copyrighted work embodied in the object; nor, in the absence of
an agreement, does transfer of ownership of a copyright or of any exclusive
rights under a copyright convey property rights in any material object._ "

(Extra paragraphing added.)

~~~
InclinedPlane
Sure, if I sell you a copy of my novel or of a photograph that doesn't
necessarily mean, of itself, that I've transferred ownership of the copyright
to that work. Even if I've sold you the original handwritten manuscript or the
original photographic slide. Even in the absence of any explicit agreement on
my part in regards to the disposition of the copyright. However, if I sell
every known copy of the work to you while _intentionally depriving myself of
any copy and the ability to reproduce copies_ , then there is a very much
stronger case that through that action I've transfered the rights to the work.

As far as I know that seems to be the case here.

------
joe_the_user
The headline makes me think.

The article admits that we know virtually nothing about Vivian Maier. There is
nothing that implies her life was "lost" in her eyes, nothing to prove that
she lived differently than she would have liked to have lived. her work was
nearly lost to the glare of publicity but would have been our loss, not hers.

~~~
msg
It is ambiguous: "a lost (life's work)" is the intended interpretation.

"rediscovered" is more like it.

Of course you could talk about "a (rediscovered life)'s work" in an
interesting way too...

------
rythie
Kickstarter project: [http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/800508197/finding-
vivian...](http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/800508197/finding-vivian-maier-
a-feature-length-documentary)

~~~
Jun8
Just pledged. Currently it's got $67K+ pledged for its $20K goal

------
NIL8
Neat story with many parallels to other areas of life (yes, even the hacker's
life).

Side note: I enjoy the comments, but some remind me of Reddit. I think there
may be some inbreeding going on here. I say this in good humor.

------
Jun8
Very poignant story! Her photos are exquisite. Her solitary and obscure life
brought tears to my eyes on this cold Chicago morning.

Yet, this story gets only 3 points (so far)? Guys, there are more things to
heaven and earth than tech and financial stuff. I hope it makes to first page.

~~~
rythie
There is a analogy with failed startups, in that she created something of
value, but was never was able to promote it (assuming she tried).

------
Tycho
What's the point of photographs like this though?

(philosophical question)

~~~
dimatura
What good is a baby?

~~~
Tycho
You're saying this collection is going to change into something more
useful/poignant in about 15 years?

------
bluishgreen
fascinating! thanks for posting.

