The Unseen Photographs of a Legend that Never Was

[TATTRAT]

Pretty awesome article, just thought I would share. The pics are pretty awesome too Pics in link.

http://www.messynessychic.com/2013/...nseen-photographs-of-a-legend-that-never-was/

Picture this: quite possibly the most important street photographer of the 20th century was a 1950s children’s nanny who kept herself to herself and never showed a single one of her photographs to anyone. Decades later in 2007, a Chicago real estate agent and historical hobbyist, John Maloof purchased a box of never-seen, never-developed film negatives of an unknown ‘amateur’ photographer for $380 at his local auction house.

John began developing his new collection of photographers, some 100,000 negatives in total, that had been abandoned in a storage locker in Chicago before they ended up at the auction house. It became clear these were no ordinary street snaps of 1950s & 60s Chicago and New York and so John embarked on a journey to find out who was behind the photographs and soon discovered her name: Vivien Maier.

...In 1951, Vivian moved to New York at 25 years-old and worked in a sweat shop for a while until she would become a nanny for the next 40 years on and off. When she had days off, she would walk the streets of Chicago or New York, most often using her Rollieflex camera, photographing everyone and everything from the well-dressed shoppers to homeless people and even her own reflection.

Vivian’s story is inspirational in so many ways. In a modern climate of celebrity culture, it’s so rare to hear about someone that wasn’t doing it for money or fame. For Vivian it was just about her curiosity, her love for her city and the thrill of taking a picture.

 

[Derrel]

Nice post, TATTRAT!!!

There was a man who had the same basic life arc...he shot street for decades, and was apparently amazing. He was 'discovered' not too long ago....somebody probably remembers his name. He had some BIG shows at some of the high-end museums in the US after his discovery.

 

[amolitor]

The trouble with Vivian is that she was SO prolific, and the negatives are SO closely held, that we actually have no idea whether she was any good at all. There are at least 100,000 negatives in play here, held by, I think, three people.

Are they dipping in at random, and pulling out a couple hundred great photographs? Or have they sifted through the the whole collection and picked out the 378 decent ones, and through a carefully orchestrated press campaign, manufactured a genius? How much of the product, to be precise, is curation, and how much is photography? Garry Winogrand has the same problem, only multiply everything by 6 or so.

 

[runnah]

The trouble with Vivian is that she was SO prolific, and the negatives are SO closely held, that we actually have no idea whether she was any good at all. There are at least 100,000 negatives in play here, held by, I think, three people.

Are they dipping in at random, and pulling out a couple hundred great photographs? Or have they sifted through the the whole collection and picked out the 378 decent ones, and through a carefully orchestrated press campaign, manufactured a genius? How much of the product, to be precise, is curation, and how much is photography? Garry Winogrand has the same problem, only multiply everything by 6 or so.

While I agree with some of what you said I do happen to think that even if they are only showing her best she certainly had the "eye".

 

[Designer]

I enjoyed what little I saw of her portfolios.

If you look at only one, check this out:

Picture 274 « Self Portraits | Vivian Maier Photographer

In her "Nanny McFee" image.

 

[UnknownBro]

pretty rad

 

[Derrel]

Re: Post #3:

She could actually shoot. That much is clear. Not sure what the heck this talk about curation is about. Look at the damned pictures. Her abilities are blatantly obvious.

 

[EIngerson]

Pretty interesting story. Thanks for posting Tattrat.

 

[amolitor]

Re: Post #3:

She could actually shoot. That much is clear. Not sure what the heck this talk about curation is about. Look at the damned pictures. Her abilities are blatantly obvious.

I have, and it's not at all obvious to me. There's been some pretty good pictures put out there, for sure. But she shot more than 100,000 frames. How are we to know that she didn't get lucky?

Obviously she knew how to get the lens cap off, and she could get 'em in focus at least some of the time. Beyond that? I'm not sure. 100,000 frames is a lot.

 

[TATTRAT]

I don't know of really any photographers that shoot 100% keepers. . .

 

[amolitor]

Look, my point isn't that Vivian Maier isn't that she's definitely terrible, or definitely awesome.

My point is simply that we have NO IDEA if she was a merely competent technician who got lucky say 1 in 5000 shots, or whether she was an unsung genius the likes of Mozart, or if she was someplace in between. My money is on "someplace in between" but there's a lot of daylight between "competent and lucky technician" and "street photography's Mozart".

We're also not very likely to get any idea. There are parties with vested interests in making sure that she's the Mozart of Photography, and there isn't anyone getting paid to prove otherwise. So, we're left with a hype machine and a modest portfolio of pretty good pictures.

 

[Steve5D]

I love this shot: http://www.messynessychic.com/2013/...aphs-of-a-legend-that-never-was/vivianmaier5/

 

[Steve5D]

My point is simply that we have NO IDEA if she was a merely competent technician who got lucky say 1 in 5000 shots, or whether she was an unsung genius the likes of Mozart, or if she was someplace in between.

I guess what I'm wondering is "Why does it matter?"

For me, the compelling part of all of this isn't so much in the images, but rather the story...

 

[Derrel]

Look, my point isn't that Vivian Maier isn't that she's definitely terrible, or definitely awesome.

My point is simply that we have NO IDEA if she was a merely competent technician who got lucky say 1 in 5000 shots, or whether she was an unsung genius the likes of Mozart, or if she was someplace in between. My money is on "someplace in between" but there's a lot of daylight between "competent and lucky technician" and "street photography's Mozart".

We're also not very likely to get any idea. There are parties with vested interests in making sure that she's the Mozart of Photography, and there isn't anyone getting paid to prove otherwise. So, we're left with a hype machine and a modest portfolio of pretty good pictures.

Umm..sorry to burst your little bubble there bud, but we have a clear,obvious guide to her abilities; they shine through in the images. Are you suggesting that after 40+ years of constant photographing with film, she was little more than a button-pusher?

Seriously, man....take a day off and think about it. You're obviously just blowing smoke with such oddball thinking. Her portfolio, what we have seen, is much better than that of many who are well-known. Your line of thinking strikes me as crackpot. Or worse.

After decades of shooting images in one city, with as fine a camera as a Rolleiflex, and 40+ years' total experience, it's obvious that she knew how to shoot and did so at a very practiced level. I can see her ability in the pictures. I have absolutely NO IDEA why you persist with such bizarre, off-base, illogical suppositions and weird flights of fancy...

Your idea that she was quite possibly a hack makes zero sense. None.

 

[Designer]

Yea, not sure how the selections were made, but of the ones I saw, there were none that were really bad, and in fact none that would have hit the circular file in my house. Could be that someone has gone through all 100K of them and is showing us only the best, but I doubt it.

Suppose she was a hack.
Suppose that she only got two or three out of a hundred.
That still leaves 3K good shots, which is way more than in my library.