chicago: vivian maier show

[edwardo_machino]

This women was a street photographer who never developed any of her film. Someone found all of them in some boxes he bought and began processing the film. Amazing stuff, she reminds me of Richard Nickel in her composition...except with people, mostly (street photographer).

Some of her stuff was on display at the Cultural Center but that has closed...opening reception tonight at Russell Bowman Art Advisory at 311 w superior. 5:30 to 9.

Vivian Maier Photographer | Vivian Maier Prints Inc shares Maier's photographic legacy

[40ozGraphics]

Saw the exhibit at the Cultural Center - cool story and worth seeing. Here is a blog of some of her work: Vivian Maier - Her Discovered Work

[edwardo_machino]

I went to this and I'm not sure it was a good experience. The pictures were beautifully printed by a man named Ron Gordon, and Maier's photos themselves were absolutely stunning. But they are selling 12x12 prints of her work for $2000. I couldn't believe it, but maybe that's just how much pictures sell for as I don't frequent galleries often. One woman told me she didn't understand why a particular print was beautiful, or relevant, then she dropped five grand on two other prints "I gotta have that one, I need to buy that one".

The guy who found the pictures in boxes was walking around with a Leica camera. Don't get me wrong - he seems like a nice guy and dedicated to the project, but something felt off about the whole thing.

I then made the mistake of wandering into the gallery next door where a man was talking about his creative process of photoshopping the digital giclee prints hung on the walls for $12,000, each. The printing was fantastic, on matte paper, but my god, the prices...there was a picture he took of cassette tapes loaded in a tape holder, so you could read all the labels. Mounted under plexiglass. $4000, or something. I asked him to explain the pricing...at first he thought I was inquiring about a payment plan. When I said "no, I mean why are they so expensive, you are having them printed" he said that there are only 20 of them and he won't be making more. "But it is a file, there are an infinite amount of them" I said. Then he walked away.

I think I'm allergic to rich people and photographers who think some blurred digital picture of an Asian dancer with some weird color curves applied is worth more than two down payments on a house.

[taliban]

almost always, the people making the money and the people doing the work are unfortunately disparate entitites. Opportunists are everywhere. From what I understand, this woman was very eccentric and reclusive and she didn't really want to expose her work to the masses - the reason it was kept in boxes and not published in magazines. However, her work is beautiful and it's great that we all get to enjoy it and unsurprisingly sad that someone else is making a buck off of it.

[taliban]

If they were donating the money outside of their costs to a cause, a fund - or to, perhaps, build a photography school for underprivileged students, etc. - I would not be disgusted by the whole charade.

[edwardo_machino]

almost always, the people making the money and the people doing the work are unfortunately disparate entitites. Opportunists are everywhere. From what I understand, this woman was very eccentric and reclusive and she didn't really want to expose her work to the masses - the reason it was kept in boxes and not published in magazines. However, her work is beautiful and it's great that we all get to enjoy it and unsurprisingly sad that someone else is making a buck off of it.

Her work is beautiful and I am glad it is available, even online, to look at. Even though most of her photos were of people the composition, the invisible rules she followed in framing reminded me of Richard Nickel, for some reason. I guess I already said that. I think I am just in shock having never been exposed to high-tier gallery pricing.

And yeah, the galleries take a huge cut, of course. I guess I wouldn't have so much of a problem with the other guy's work it if it was a painting, or a darkroom print, or something that couldn't be printed a thousand times by someone else on an Epson. $12,000 is a lot, but if it is for a painting, that makes more sense to me than something that can be duplicated ad infinitum at the whim of the producer. Seems greedy to ask the same amount for a giclee, no matter how good the printing (and it was good).

[edwardo_machino]

If they were donating the money outside of their costs to a cause, a fund - or to, perhaps, build a photography school for underprivileged students, etc. - I would not be disgusted by the whole charade.

I agree. As opposed to, say, the Leica fund.