Vivian Maier

[Architect]

Vivian Maier was a nanny in NYC and Chicago who is being considered as possibly one of the best photographers of the 20th century. The story is that was a very private person, never married and had no close friends, who took pictures in her spare time. About 100k-150k, which were sold off when her storage unit went unpaid in 2005. She passed away in 2009, around which a real estate agent had found her auctioned negatives and realized they were really good. Since then her work has been shown in major galleries. *

Her photographs are really good. We don't know much about her, other than what a private person she was. I suspect she was an INTJ or ISTJ from what little we know.

[BIMG]http://www.vivianmaier.com/media/gallery/new-york-1/1467.jpg[/BIMG]

* The dates given aren't exact.

 

[pjoa09]

How do we even judge who is a good photographer?

I have always been profoundly amused at what is considered as good photo versus a bad one.

Often I look at my own photos and say to myself "bad ass" and that is as far as the appreciation for photography goes.

 

[Nezaros]

How do we even judge who is a good photographer?

One who takes photographs of only people, and they absolutely must be in some sort of deep, meaningful situation. Because that seems to be what appeals to the masses.

 

[Architect]

How do we even judge who is a good photographer?

That's a good question, and a hard one to answer. It's like answering the question "how do we judge what is good poetry?" Or music, or ...

Ultimately it comes down this: the work produces a strong reaction in most people.

In the photograph above I can see the following elements which cause this

• There is symmetry, in posture (all of their arms are at their hips), expression (tired and pissed) and number (two against two). Even better it's not perfect symmetry as it's three facing one, broken symmetry is often stronger than perfect symmetry.
• Instead of using a 'rule-of-thirds' she correctly (for this shot) centered the group. Centering gives more solidity and strength, and complements the inherent symmetry. But notice they're not perfectly centered, they're off just a bit which gives some tension or energy (appropriate since the group is upset).
• They are centered in the street which seemingly recedes to infinity.
• The subjects are unconscious of her, or seemingly pissed at her which adds to the tension.
• The gestures are especially pleasing (the woman on the left and the kids in particular)
• Technically (exposure, framing, etc) the photograph is done well

A possible down side is the pole on the right hand side of the frame. I'm not sure what to make of that, one idea is that "anything which doesn't add to the picture subtracts from the picture. What is the pole doing? Nothing much other than placing them by the curb. It's chopped off, maybe it plants them there a little more? Maybe not.

If I was developing I'd try cropping that out and seeing how it worked, but I think your stuck because of the proximity and the bag. In a way it does kind of work because it closes up the right side of the image, while the left side shows off the receding building.

Two other possible down side is the pole in the background (it competes with the woman on the left) and the car by the girls head. I might consider photoshopping those out. Of course photographs that are too perfect aren't necessarily good either, they're considered "photoshopped".

Contrasts is another principle to use in photography, here we have the contrast of closed off right, open and receding left, and the fat versus thin. Plus the woman on the right is facing back (while luckily looking toward the camera) and everybody else is facing front, more symmetry and contrast.

 

[loveofreason]

I find that the car, the lamp pole and even the hydrant, have a presence essential to the disturbing rhythym of the composition. They're subjects we musn't overlook if the picture and story it tells is to be complete.

I agree we could sanitise the picture for the sake of perfectly framing the humans, but if we remove them we remove the information that makes this such a profoundly impacting piece of art. What is it that grinds down the life of these people so? It's here - in the order of the city that overides, overshadows, floods the human scale with menace.

Of course various other emotional responses are valid and applicable - but the fact that they are there, available as symbolic elements open to the interpretation of each viewer, completes the picture. Even the bulk of the signal box(?) to the right of the large woman is a silent counterpart to her experience, as much as the overbearing skeleton of the pole is to the thin one.

I look at this and see eight subjects, not four... and those non-human four tell me everything in response to the question posed by the human four. ('Everything' being an almost inexhaustable world of answers that will keep me gazing through the door of that image into another world )

Thanks for posting, Architect.

 

[pjoa09]

That's a good question, and a hard one to answer. It's like answering the question "how do we judge what is good poetry?" Or music, or ...

Ultimately it comes down this: the work produces a strong reaction in most people.

In the photograph above I can see the following elements which cause this

• There is symmetry, in posture (all of their arms are at their hips), expression (tired and pissed) and number (two against two). Even better it's not perfect symmetry as it's three facing one, broken symmetry is often stronger than perfect symmetry.
• Instead of using a 'rule-of-thirds' she correctly (for this shot) centered the group. Centering gives more solidity and strength, and complements the inherent symmetry. But notice they're not perfectly centered, they're off just a bit which gives some tension or energy (appropriate since the group is upset).
• They are centered in the street which seemingly recedes to infinity.
• The subjects are unconscious of her, or seemingly pissed at her which adds to the tension.
• The gestures are especially pleasing (the woman on the left and the kids in particular)
• Technically (exposure, framing, etc) the photograph is done well

A possible down side is the pole on the right hand side of the frame. I'm not sure what to make of that, one idea is that "anything which doesn't add to the picture subtracts from the picture. What is the pole doing? Nothing much other than placing them by the curb. It's chopped off, maybe it plants them there a little more? Maybe not.

If I was developing I'd try cropping that out and seeing how it worked, but I think your stuck because of the proximity and the bag. In a way it does kind of work because it closes up the right side of the image, while the left side shows off the receding building.

Two other possible down side is the pole in the background (it competes with the woman on the left) and the car by the girls head. I might consider photoshopping those out. Of course photographs that are too perfect aren't necessarily good either, they're considered "photoshopped".

Contrasts is another principle to use in photography, here we have the contrast of closed off right, open and receding left, and the fat versus thin. Plus the woman on the right is facing back (while luckily looking toward the camera) and everybody else is facing front, more symmetry and contrast.

Wow. I didn't really focus on the people. They simply looked like they were mocking fashion magazines at first.

I'd say the pole was there on purpose to disturb and allow us to empathize with their tiredness and frustration.

I notice many photos that are considered excellent have a lot of detail and people in them. They never appealed to me and still really don't appeal to me.

Are you comfortable taking photos of people?

 

[Architect]

I notice many photos that are considered excellent have a lot of detail and people in them. They never appealed to me and still really don't appeal to me.

Are you comfortable taking photos of people?

No, unless I know them. Pictures of people are way more interesting than landscape shots though. Our brains are wired to the nuances of expression; it's easy to get a good shot of a person. It's really hard to get a good shot of a landscape, or at least one that people want to look at.

I wish I was more of a portrait photographer but I usually do photography to get away from people. So I'm struggling to find my angle.

 

[Architect]

I find that the car, the lamp pole and even the hydrant, have a presence essential to the disturbing rhythym of the composition. They're subjects we musn't overlook if the picture and story it tells is to be complete.

Good points. I think the strongest aspects of the photograph that jump out are the perspective lines of the street which recede off to infinity, which emphasizes the beautiful tension of the group in the middle.

There's a lot of luck here too probably as she had to capture the moment. I doubt she actually thought about the light pole, but was just walking along, saw the group, paused, look down into her Rollei and bang. She was probably (and correctly) more focused on getting them right than the other elements, which is why I think she partially got lucky. Good photographs take a lot of luck, which is why we shoot a lot.

This is what I enjoy about photography, it can be the ultimate Sensor activity. I spend most of my time in my head, but come the weekend I have to get out of my head and into the world for a few hours. So I wander around, run and gun style and bang out shots. Most of the time they suck, but the hard part is being so in the moment and so engadged with the world that you can find these little moments and get them.

 

[pjoa09]

No, unless I know them. Pictures of people are way more interesting than landscape shots though. Our brains are wired to the nuances of expression; it's easy to get a good shot of a person. It's really hard to get a good shot of a landscape, or at least one that people want to look at.

I wish I was more of a portrait photographer but I usually do photography to get away from people. So I'm struggling to find my angle.

I think a portrait photographer sort of uses his camera as a social equipment and that makes me uncomfortable in most circumstances.

I don't dare put up photos of anyone usually. If its an object of desire I can imagine it can be intriguing to some. If you photograph food you will achieve critical acclaim even from rodents (it's such a fad).

I don't think we can ever find our angle, behind an amazing photograph there are hundreds of mediocre photographs, even ones that the photographer adored.

 

[phoenix42]

My girlfriend mentioned something very interesting at the Vivian Maier show, at the Greenberg gallery here in NYC. She said that she got the impression that the photos were taken by two different people, essentially she referred to split personality.

I'm a photographer myself and I instantly responded that it may appear that way, because someone else did the edit for the show and really only selected random shots that appear pleasing to him, without any further knowledge of the photos, or the shooter.

I dug a little deeper into the story and came across a documentary where someone did some very interesting research about Vivian Maier and came up with an interesting theory that fits the description perfectly. Essentially, Maier started shooting with an inexpensive camera, got hooked and invested in a Rolleiflex and learned how to use it proficiently over time.

link to the three part series: http://chicagotonight.wttw.com/2012/07/31/vivian-maier

 

[Affinity]

This type of photography is considered street photography more so portrait. I've actually been trying to get more into it myself but it is quite unnerving going up to strangers and taking their pictures without their discretion. But I find it very fascinating as your canvas is always changing, you'll never get the same moment twice. The expressions captured are as candid as they get and there's also that "moment in time" feel to it.

Also, there's the technical aspect that's really remarkable. Many of the photographers that partake in street shooting are using prime (fixed-focal) length lenses. So there's a lot of getting really close, pre-visualization, and anticipating the right moment prior to the picture itself being taken. You got to understand that once your camera and intentions has been spotted, that element of surprise is no longer there, so the window of opportunity is very small.

I've never heard of Vivian Maier before but from that image you posted, I enjoy her style already. I will definitely be checking out more of her work!