Vivian Maier, “Untitled” (1959) (© Vivian Maier/Maloof Collection, courtesy Howard Greenberg Gallery)
Finding Vivian Maier, the documentary about the nanny who’s gained incredible posthumous fame for her previously unseen work as a photographer, was released this past weekend in the UK. But in addition to garnering reviews, it’s also bringing a longstanding but little-covered conflict over Maier’s work and archive to light. The film’s release has “fuelled a row between the men whose accidental discovery of her work … led to Maier belatedly coming to the world’s attention and garnering a posthumous reputation on a par with Henri Cartier-Bresson,” the Independent reported.
The documentary was made by John Maloof, the principal holder of Maier’s work and belongings. It follows his journey of discovery, from purchasing a box of her negatives on a whim at a Chicago auction in 2007 to Googling her and finding her obituary in 2009; from beginning a quest to learn who she was to representing her estate and making contemporary prints of her work in conjunction with Howard Greenberg Gallery. Finding Vivian Maier is singularly focused on Maloof and his relationship with the dead photographer; nowhere along the way does the film name anyone else who also bought and discovered Maier’s work at that same Chicago auction.
As it turns out, two people did: Ron Slattery and Randy Prow. According to the Independent, Prow sold his Maier collection in 2010 to a man named Jeffrey Goldstein, who has since gone on to befriend and collaborate with Maloof. “Maloof and Goldstein both sell posthumous prints from Maier’s negatives — and they both put their own signatures on the backs of these prints,” said photographer and professor Pamela Bannos in an interview earlier this month with Spolia magazine.
As for Slattery, he posted some of Maier’s images online even before Maloof, in 2008, writing at the time: “I don’t know much about her … I bought a ton of her stuff at a small auction. Part of what I got are 1200 rolls of her undeveloped film. They sit in boxes next to my desk. Everyday, I look at those boxes and wonder what kind of goodies are inside … ” In an interview with Gapers Block, Slattery explained that he and Maloof were in touch between 2007 and 2009, discussing Maier’s work and their discoveries, until he decided to sell a chunk of his collection to Maloof because he needed money to pay medical bills. Slattery still owns “several thousand vintage prints and an undisclosed amount of negatives and slides,” according to Bannos, but seems to have disappeared from the ‘official’ Maier story.
“The site [http://vivianmaierprints.com/] states that they are setting themselves up as the validators of Vivian’s work and I am worried they are trying to cut me out,” Slattery told Gapers Block in 2011. “I don’t want to be in the position to have to prove I have the real thing later when they all know I do now.” In conversation with the Independent last week, however, he seemed more accepting of the situation:
“I really don’t care who decides to be the champion of her work because frankly it doesn’t matter. Vivian Maier matters. We are in an age where the curators want to be stars, and often become via storytelling, but the bottom line is, it’s the artist who is the shining light. Vivian Maier is that light.”
Why does any of this matter? Because the fracturing and complicated case of Maier’s archive affects how we understand her and her work. Maier is no longer alive (nor does she have any descendants), which means the printing and presentation of her work and story are controlled almost entirely by the private collectors who own her effects — none of whom she knew, let alone chose to represent her.
“I feel conflicted about Maier’s archive in general,” said Pamela Bannos, who claims she’s been repeatedly denied access to study Maloof’s Maier collection. She continued:
This was a very private woman who chose not to share her personal life or her photography. That apparently is what has made her into a “mystery woman.” The selective editing of her work has perpetuated her mystery. After viewing more than 20,000 of Maier’s negatives and prints, a different photographer emerged for me than the one first presented by John Maloof. I feel intensely uncomfortable with the way that he has presented her personal belongings alongside her photographic history — putting her shoes on display, and laying out her blouses in his movie, for example. I think he’s done a good job of transforming her into a cult figure and fetishizing her objects follows that model. I don’t know how any of that would fit into a traditional concept of an archive.
Bannos is working on a book, Vivian Maier’s Fractured Archive, about Maier’s work and posthumous fame. There’s also another documentary out there, The Vivian Maier Mystery (originally aired on BBC 1 as Vivian Maier: Who Took Nanny’s Pictures?), which tells what you might call the other side of the story — or at least a slightly different one — by including interviews with Slattery, Bannos, and others. Maloof declined to participate.
Correction, 7/28: This article originally stated that Finding Vivian Maier does not mention that anyone else bought and discovered Maier’s work at the original Chicago auction. That was incorrect — the film does say that there were other buyers. It has been fixed.
Sounds like a great book in the making, if the right person takes it on.
Very interesting web. Maier has amazing work, look forward to the photos yet to be released!
Shocking guys that had nothing to do with her work but “discovered” her, sign the back of her photography. Typical.
And further shock when a documentary digs up “controversy” over the release/non-release of her work. OH NO IS IT ETHICAL? I need to blog this right now.
The story is more interesting to me in terms of feminist critique – I note the controversy is about “[two men] setting themselves up as the validators of [a woman’s] work [with a third man] worried [he might be] cut.. out.” WTF?
If they actually gave a damn they’d donate the lot to an organization with the resources, skill, and experience to properly archive and curate it, like International Center of Photography for example. The way this whole thing is being handled reeks of ghoulish bottom feeding.
From what the producer of Maloof’s documentary said during a post-screening Q&A in Pasadena, a scholarship fund has been set up at SAIC for women photographers. How much money, for whom and how many, for how long, was not clear. The feminist critique of the situation, however, is clear as a bell. Further, this article doesn’t mention something else that the producer revealed: two brothers who were cared for by Maier, and cared for her as they could until her death (rent, food, clothes, storage spaces), originally participated then declined to be a part of Maloof’s documentary, citing distaste for the posthumous fame and fetishization of the very private Maier. What’s confusing here, too, is the sense I got during the Q&A that these brothers also sold the contents of Maier’s paid-up storage spaces, perhaps to the two anxious about being “cut out”. Messy business.
nor does she *have* any descendants.
Fixed, thank you.
I found The Vivian Maier Mystery from the BBC to be a lot more balanced, less of a circus sideshow. It’s a little slim but at least it’s about Maier and not the people who are cashing in on her work. It’s really worth checking out: http://www.vivianmaiermysterymovie.com
While we might well be concerned about the “fetishizing” of a dead artist, what is happening to Maier and her work is not unusual. Europe is full of small museums that include locks of the person’s hair, articles of clothing, eating utensils, etc. along side examples of their art. If the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam had access to Vincent’s severed ear, you better believe it would be in a vitrine, swarmed daily by visitors.
I was fascinated and disturbed by the film. She was a fascinatingly complex person. I was very much disturbed though and left the theater feeling like I had done something wrong by watching the film.
Watched the movie Finding Vivian Maier this week. It painted a picture of a person with obsessive compulsive disorder. A person suffering from mental illness to some degree. This was reinforced by the sheer amount of artefacts she had gathered and kept her entire life. We all keep things but she took it to another level. She seemed unable to filter her possessions in a way most people do. Filling rooms with thousands of newspapers? This is the behaviour of someone who can’t ‘edit’ what they acquire. The arguements around her not having the chance to edit her own work largely seem to be a moot point. She was completely unable to edit her own work. It would effectively be like her selecting a small fraction of her stockpile and disregarding the rest. I can’t see how she was able to do such a thing. The movie discovered that she had written a letter to the owner of a photographic shop in her mothers village in France. She wanted him to make prints of her best work. She had chosen him to edit her work. It showed that she knew she was unable to do so herself and was happy to allow someone else to do so.
It’s a sad story but the movie, I feel, handled it with a certain amount of sensitivity. As for fetishising her belongings. I don’t agree. It illustrated the extent of her disorder. It painted a detailed picture of her. Without this display it wouldn’t have painted such a picture.
A sad story but ultimately a fascinating one. And an inspirational one. Edit your photos carefully and make bloody prints of stuff while you can so in the future you are representing yourself photographically to future generations!
He does mention that he brought other boxes of her film/prints from others that were at the same auction he was at. Its right there in the film.
Greetings, I am Jeffrey Goldstein, one of the collectors mentioned. I am sorry to see the direction your readers have been launched into but understand based on the slant of the interview.
I appreciate the level of concern the readers have with regard to how the collection is handled, and I can only speak for myself. I have a very extensive art background including studies in Rome and a degree in painting. I know and have worked with some of the best Chicago based artists, many of international fame. I also ran my own custom cabinet shop and have worked for galleries, a museum, various art collectors and artists. Additionally, I a few years back, I was awarded a public art works project that is part of the City of Chicago’s permanent collection, and I have travel extensively over the years usually to places to satisfy my art interest.
jeffreygoldstein.gallery
google; Jeffrey Goldstein and Ed Paschke
Another aspect helpful with this project is that I’ve collected art since college. I have an extensive collection of prints, litho, etching and 3 other photo archives. The other photo archives amount to over 5000 images alone. I mention this as I come into this project not just as a “picker,” but will gladly include “picking” as one of the things that I do enjoy doing.
To help express some assurance of being responsible with the Vivian Maier collection, my staff and I have consulted with professional archivists that have visited our 1400 sq. ft. office space dedicated to the Vivian Maier archive. Also, we have consulted with noted photographers and professional printers regarding scanning the archive and what equipment to use.
All the printing we do for sale is done in the darkroom by two printers, Sandy Steinbrecher and Ron Gordon, who between the two have 80 years of photography experience. We stick closely to the standards and approach of when the film was shot, which is the most labor intensive and most expensive appraoch.
We are a very collaborative project by nature. I decided I couldn’t work with Ms. Bannos, and her interview is an example, is I don’t find Ms. Bannos’s approach very productive in bringing the works or collectors together. Ironically, or not, she is furthering fracturing the Vivian Maier archives. The reality is that there is still work being discovered even as recently as 4 weeks ago. The Vivian Maier story is still unfolding…
I offer the author of the article a sincere invitation, to visit us to better understand the how and why we make Vivian Maier’s posthumous prints and the integrity or lack of integrity that may be ascertained.
We can also discuss some of the contributions the project has made, not only to various non-profit photo centers but to medical research, animal shelters, wards of the state and other institutions. All things that we feel worthy to do on Vivian Maier’s behalf as part of her legacy.
Do to time constraints I won’t become involved in a blog discussions, but I do wish to invite anyone who may wish to visit our space (Roger’s Park, Chicago) to do so to further discuss.
I can be reached at carpentryartworks@clear.net
Sincerely, Jeffrey Goldstein
“The Vivian Maier story is still unfolding…”
Well of course it is. That way you can make the sequels “We Found Vivian Maier,” “Oops We Thought We Found Vivian Maier, “Yes We Really Found Vivian Maier This Time,” and “Oops Gotcha Ha Ha Still Working On Vivian Maier”… heck, Sly Stallone will be slugging away at 98 on Rocky 26 just to try to keep up with you.
Goldstein does not sign the back of the prints. I own one. It is not signed on back or front. It is simply numbered on the left side of the front, underneath the image.
Goldstein does not print them, he hires someone to print them in the darkroom. Maloof prints his images on an inkjet printer from scanned negatives.
Though it was long ago, I did pass Art History. Nobody talked about the diaspora of works by Van Gogh or Da Vinci as if they had a problem with the owners of their respective works. They were owned by different collectors or museums and it was understood that you had to pay to play when it came to access and research. What sour grapes to say Maloof is naught but an opportunist because he tried to put everything under one roof. And if Slattery is so adamant that it’s Ms. Maier that matters, why clamour for recognition?
Silly.
Nobody? What rock have you been living under to be absolutely oblivious of the controversy of allowing private ownership of major works of art that are considered cultural heritage, especially when the vast majority of those owners are people who don’t necessarily know or appreciate anything about art, but collect for the sake of vanity, speculation, or greed?
I think my post as been overlooked… Jeffrey Goldstein, collector
Actually, it hasn’t. I did look into the claims you make and discovered that both you and Maloof have claimed copyright ownership of Vivian Maier’s works. Now, if you were truly an artist as you claim to be, you would realize what disgusting behavior that is.
First of all, the legality of your behavior is questionable. Copyright law states that copyright of unpublished works with a known author stays in place for 70 years after the death of the creator, which in Ms. Maier’s case would be the year 2079. But since she left no will or heirs, her property would then fall to the state of Illinois, where she died.
Instead of establishing a trust in Ms. Maier’s name, assigning copyright to her trust, and then donating the archive and beneficiary status to a worthy institution (National Museum of Women in the Arts comes to mind) for the good of all, you and the other co-called “collectors” decide to capitalize on an unfortunate circumstance (liquidation of her belongings due to unpaid storage fees), hoard what you can, claim ownership of work that isn’t yours, and offer crumbs to the public in the form of “limited edition prints” (a euphemism for artificial price inflation).
So despite any claims you make, the actual reason why you or any of the other “collectors” want the entire collection under one roof (your own, preferably, right?) is pretty obvious. Were I Vivian Maier, I’d be horrified.
Were you Vivian Maier, you’d be lost and forgotten in a state dumpster. Which would serve you right.
I’ve been shooting film for twenty years. If my work ends up printed and shown after I am dead, I have no interest in who prints and shows it except to thank them. Photography is time travel, and allows me to communicate with those yet to be born.
You, Sir, are a sour grape.
“Donating the archive…”
Are you real? What public institution in the face of the GOP’s raping of the NEA is going to put any effort into some unknown nanny?
NMWA? How limited Thy scope.
She WILL end up hanging in every major art museum in time. But we may all be dead by then.
Thanks to the enterprising people who produce her prints, Ms. Maier will live on in spite of us and our armchair curatorships.
“Were you Vivian Maier, you’d be lost and forgotten in a state dumpster.”
Almost, but not quite: I’d sooner have everything I’ve ever shot burned than to have my legacy sullied by a bunch of vultures. Burning it rather than putting it a state dumpster will ensure that it stays out of the hands of scavengers.
Telling. I think more of my own work.
Here’s my little ditty about VM’s copyright.
http://gapersblock.com/ac/2013/08/13/the-curious-case-of-vivian-maiers-copyright/
It’s true she doesn’t have descendents but that doesn’t mean she doesn’t have an heir to her estate i.e. the one that own’s her copyrights.
Just because you have the physical object that doesn’t mean you can make prints. You need to have the rights to the images too. They’re a seperate part of intellectual property that is part of her estate.
And in fact she does have an heir though it’s not been talked about a lot.
It seems that Maloof has negotiated with the (not publicly known) owner of the estate to license the rights. Others that want to make prints will have to do the same (or infringe copyrights to her work). I presume Jeff Goldstein has too.
Blake Andrews has written about this …
http://blakeandrews.blogspot.com/2014/05/more-thoughts-on-maier.html
Goldstein and Maloof have legal ownership over the negatives. In Maloof’s case he purchased the work through a storage auction. In Goldstein’s case he purchased the work through an individual who had acquired from the same storage auction. While it isn’t necessarily the prettiest of pictures, they have full legal ownership over the negatives, prints and materials.
They can legally do whatever they want with the work. Luckily they both took the high road.
Goldstein and Maloof saved this work from a likely future of a trash heap or fire bin. They are benefitting financially, but they are also investing incredible amounts into archiving the work and ensuring proper and professional prints. The prints themselves are represented by the best photography galleries, are printed in one size only and in editions of 15. These are museum quality prints. The pricing is in line with the current photography market. On this front, it could have also been a different picture. They could be printing crap prints in unlimited editions and could have printed with non-professional prints who would have destroyed these fragile aged negatives.
Sure they made money on this. They also invested quite a bit to make it happen and to preserve the work. If they hadn’t you would never have heard of her. Also it would have been a huge challenge to donate this archive. The expensive of taking care of the archive would be intimidating to many a museum. Then an unknown archive…forget about it.
Another note, both Maloof and Goldstein had to work to get people to pay attention to her photography. It isn’t as if they could roll into ICF on day one and say, “I have some prints for you to see”. HA! ICP probably has 200 requests a day of the same vein. The galleries validate the work, help bring it to a certain market and the museums can follow. (Also museums care more about vintage work and will have issue with contemporary prints. It will still be a tough sell getting past the red tape).
These two estate owners are not perfect people, but they single handedly saved this work from the trash heap. It has radically changed their lives and put them on the spotlight. How they handle this sometimes comes under criticism. Sometimes that is fair. However, the work is well cared for and Maier will now be known in the canon of photographers.
I do have criticism of Maloof’s documentary on Maier. It goes into depth about Maier without any deep discussion of her merits as a photographers. You have one of the best photo dealers in the business with only a 6 sec segment. I also thought it crossed the line in the last half hour of the film. Maloof is young though and this film will just be a part of the history for the artist. We are playing a game of catch up since we haven’t had her work to discuss the last 60 years or so. Imagine understanding Diane Arbus in only 5 years. You bet there will be a lot of info coming out – will it all be gold, nah.
In any case, Jillian’s article is fair and points out the tensions and complications of these different estates and the challenges of “getting the story right”. These are growing pains and the players behind the story make a fantastic story too.
-Sedo
Goldstein and Maloof have legal ownership over the negatives. In Maloof’s case he purchased the work through a storage auction. In Goldstein’s case he purchased the work through an individual who had acquired from the same storage auction. While it isn’t necessarily the prettiest of pictures, they have full legal ownership over the negatives, prints and materials.
They can legally do whatever they want with the work. Luckily they both took the high road.
Goldstein and Maloof saved this work from a likely future of a trash heap or fire bin. They are benefitting financially, but they are also investing incredible amounts into archiving the work and ensuring proper and professional prints. The prints themselves are represented by the best photography galleries, are printed in one size only and in editions of 15. These are museum quality prints. The pricing is in line with the current photography market. On this front, it could have also been a different picture. They could be printing crap prints in unlimited editions and could have printed with non-professional prints who would have destroyed these fragile aged negatives.
Sure they made money on this. They also invested quite a bit to make it happen and to preserve the work. If they hadn’t you would never have heard of her. Also it would have been a huge challenge to donate this archive. The expensive of taking care of the archive would be intimidating to many a museum. Then an unknown archive…forget about it.
Another note, both Maloof and Goldstein had to work to get people to pay attention to her photography. It isn’t as if they could roll into ICF on day one and say, “I have some prints for you to see”. HA! ICP probably has 200 requests a day of the same vein. The galleries validate the work, help bring it to a certain market and the museums can follow. (Also museums care more about vintage work and will have issue with contemporary prints. It will still be a tough sell getting past the red tape).
These two estate owners are not perfect people, but they single handedly saved this work from the trash heap. It has radically changed their lives and put them on the spotlight. How they handle this sometimes comes under criticism. Sometimes that is fair. However, the work is well cared for and Maier will now be known in the canon of photographers.
I do have criticism of Maloof’s documentary on Maier. It goes into depth about Maier without any deep discussion of her merits as a photographers. You have one of the best photo dealers in the business with only a 6 sec segment. I also thought it crossed the line in the last half hour of the film. Maloof is young though and this film will just be a part of the history for the artist. We are playing a game of catch up since we haven’t had her work to discuss the last 60 years or so. Imagine understanding Diane Arbus in only 5 years. You bet there will be a lot of info coming out – will it all be gold, nah.
In any case, Jillian’s article is fair and points out the tensions and complications of these different estates and the challenges of “getting the story right”. These are growing pains and the players behind the story make a fantastic story too.
-Sedo
…one of your earlier statements is incorrect, “nowhere along the way does the film mention that anyone else had
also bought and discovered Maier’s work at that same Chicago auction.”
In fact John Maloof mentions this very fact near the beginning of the film. Makes me wonder if the author of this post actually viewed the film before writing this self-serving piece. And try thinking outside conventional wisdom about what constitutes an archive. As a commercial photographer, I worked for years with folks at the Walt Disney archives. This place was filled with everything you can imagine: books, papers, plans, props, gifts, etc. A tradition archive? Who knows? Who cares? What matters is that the artifacts have been preserved for later generations…isn’t that the main purpose of an archive?
I did in fact see the film (I reviewed it for this site) and didn’t remember that happening, but I just spoke to the person I saw it with to confirm what you wrote, and I will now correct this piece accordingly. Thanks for that. As for this piece being “self-serving”…ha. Yes, because I accrue so much benefit from this. And as for “who cares?” I do.
http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/slattery-vivian-maier-prints-lawsuit-corbett-dempsey/Content?oid=13506031
Since Jeff Goldstein decided to reference my good friend and colleague Ed Paschke, I feel compelled to respond and set the record straight: as a fairly major figure in the art world here {(unlike Jeff) and, an artist who showed any number of times with Ed Paschke in important museum exhibitions and exhibitions Ed and I initiated, I believe it is fair and accurate to say Jeff Goldstein -Ed’s studio neighbor had little if anything to do with Ed professionally until the time of Ed’s death. When that happened, suddenly Jeff was ALL OVER EVERYTHING..turning an artist’s demise’s into what in my opinion as evidenced here, became a career opportunity for himself. Not unlike the Vivian Maier scenario. Behold the buzzards circling.
Oh wait, I know who you are, you’re the guy they call Lil” Weasel. Its funny, I don’t remember ever seeing you at Ed Paschke’s house for his Christmas and Thanksgiving events. Oh yeaa, that s right that was just his family and mine. I don’t remember ever seeing you even once in all the time I was in Ed’s studio over the period of 9 years. You know we had lunch quit often, I even assisted on a few of his paintings. Yup, Lil’ Weasel, side by side. I would have to look at my photos but I don’t think you are in any from the 4-5 trips that Ed and I took to Paris, nor in fact do I remember you at anytime I was with him.
Ahhhh, the internet, what a great place to bully and mislead.
A shinning light? More like a beacon into the soul of humanity that could possibly save us from the brink of burying ourselves with the crap of our own making. Look at those faces and hearts the way that she did — it’s right there! There are no nameable socialites or beebs. She gives me an idea that maybe we can learn how to become people living daily lives again and getting back to things that really matter.