A Fair and Levelheaded Article

My favorite photography critic* has surfaced again. To read, put "what does art look like site:wsj.com" (without the quotation marks) into Google. Richard B. Woodward discusses the difficulty of printing artists' work after their deaths, and puts the Vivian Maier situation into perspective.

I read everything I can find that this guy writes. Always good, often great, never bad.

Mike
(Thanks to MM)

*Well, certainly one of them.

Original contents copyright 2014 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Richard Newman: "An interesting column, but:

"In the end, it is the 'art object' itself, whether photo, oil painting, sculpture, room size installation or 'whatever' plus current taste, that determines what is art, and how good it is. Few viewers of Mona Lisa, or a Picasso, or an Ansel Adams know or care about the technique of production. They are not themselves artists. It is the visual impression which counts. Few etchers get credit for the creation of the etching. The artist gets it all (with some exceptions). So Adams has a point that the negative—or the raw digital image—is a score, and the printer who makes the printis analogous to the orchestral musician who is usually anonymous. Who makes critical decisions in printing depends on the relationship between photographer and printer-even if they are the same person. A great original can result in great prints—or lousy ones. What counts is the result being presented to the world at large. When the photographer is deceased, such as Maier, where no obvious original intent is available, much responsibility rests on the person(s) who select what is to be printed, and does the printing. But still, it is the art object which is the final arbiter of artistic value.

"There is also the photographer's reason for making the image. Not all are intended to be presented in galleries or museums as art objects. For example, most of the photos taken in the 1930s by FSA photographers were intended to be a record of an economic disaster. Some few have achieved art object status, but most served their purpose as records, and were published for that purpose. Similarly, many family photos will never achieve 'art' status, but in family albums make relatives and friends remember important times and events."

"Given these factors, I think that we need to remember that the 'art object' itself is what counts, and its history and production processes are of little interest to the general public. They are for specialists only, unless, like war photography, the context matters."

adamct: "The art market will certainly decide what prints of Ms. Maier's work are worth. That is the nature of the art market—something is only worth whatever it is that someone is willing to pay for it. It doesn't really matter why they are willing (or unwilling) to pay for something, all that matters is that they are (or are not). Logical arguments are highly unlikely to sway the market one way or the other.

"But as a philosophical matter, I fail to see what all the fuss is about. If a photographic negative is the score, and the print is the performance, then why are we treating photography any differently than we treat music or theater? We can value the score and the performance separately, in and of themselves. If we discovered the works of an obscure composer, whose works were never performed, would we dismiss his compositions out of hand? If we discovered the works of an obscure playwright, would we question the artistic value of posthumous performances of those plays?

"What should actually happen (again, from a logical perspective, I am in no way suggesting that the art market would or should actually correspond to my argument) is that we should celebrate Ms. Maier as a photographer, and prints of her work should be judged on the quality (both from the perspective of printing as a craft, and as a matter of artistic interpretation) of the prints. Perhaps the art market simply doesn't think Mr. Maloof's prints are any good (I'm not actually saying that is the case—this is a thought experiment). Perhaps he should permit accomplished printers to print a very limited number of prints of Ms. Maier's negatives. This would ensure the scarcity that is vital to the art market. But it would result in a variety of interpretations of Ms. Maier's score, and we could leave it to the market to judge the relative value of those prints. Perhaps some of them would be worth more than Mr. Maloof's prints.

"But even apart from differences in value, as judged by the market, it would permit fans of Ms. Maier's work to see it in a new light, and to appreciate the interpretations of the various printers in an of themselves. The more I think about it, the more this seems like the best way to handle previously unprinted negatives of deceased photographers...."

David Dyer-Bennet: "Are the vintage Maier prints her own work, or custom prints? If not, if they're just run-of-the-mill lab prints, they don't say anything about her ideas of printing the images."

Mike replies: A very good point. In fact, it might have been the reason she didn't routinely print her work—because she couldn't get it done to her satisfaction. (My dissatisfaction with drugstore prints was the reason I set up my first darkroom, so I sympathize.)

We have to bear in mind that lots of photographers work in less than ideal ways because it's expensive to do it right and they can't afford it.

I once attended a lecture at an Edward Weston show. The prints were obviously made on many different kinds of photo paper, and the lecturer discussed how Weston's interpretation was carefully matched to his materials on a case-by-case basis. Which I think was complete bullshit. Much more likely, he couldn't afford paper and picked up whatever remnant or odd lot of printing paper came his way, and then printed on what he had. Again, I'd been there and done that. That's the way it was for many of my friends at the time, too.

I suspect lack of funds is also why Vivian left behind so many unprocessed rolls of color film as well. She just couldn't afford to get them all processed and printed or proofed.

William: "I recently saw I saw John Maloof's Finding Vivian Maier as well. It is an excellent movie. Maier created the work and Maloof edited it. When you view Maier's home movies, you realize Maloof edited her stills appropriately. Vivian Maier was truly incapable of editing her own work. She was mentally ill-suited for the task. But it is her work. She made the work. Maier is the one who carried the cameras everywhere. She is the one who interacted with her subjects. She filled the frame and she operated the shutter. Maloof invested a great deal of time, effort and money trying to understand Maier. Maloff just didn't start cranking out images hoping to make money and obtain fame. He worked to attempt to understand her. It is better to see her work through his editing than to see none of it."

Gary Nylander: "I though this might be of interest in regards to this article. When photographer Brett Weston turned 80 he destroyed all of his negatives by burning them. He is quoted as saying (from an Associated Press article, December 18, 1991), 'Nobody can print it the way I do. It wouldn't be my work." He went on to say, 'The prints are posterity, not the negatives,' and 'Make that clear. It's my personal work. Nobody can print it.' For some photographers, like Mr.Weston, it's a very clear-cut issue—no one but themselves can print their negatives."

Mike replies: Very true, and a good point. But then, Ansel Adams donated his negatives to the Center for Creative Photography (CCP) at the University of Arizona in part so that students might try to print them and interpret them in their own ways. The CCP archivists don't allow that to happen, because the negatives are too valuable, but that was his idea. Everybody's got a different idea.

Comments

[Ben Rosengart]

You can link to it like this:

https://www.google.com/search?q=what+does+art+look+like+site:wsj.com

[Phil Maus]

Interesting question and one I've pondered myself, considering there haven't been any of the original Vivian Maier prints exhibited, or much talked about. When you consider this along side Ansel's musical analogy it's no wonder the "Art World" at large are having a little trouble accepting (legitimizing?) Maier's body of work. When we consider the decisions made in editing and printing is a large part of what constitutes the photographer's art, is it really truly her work after all?

Another interesting side comment the author aluded to was the possibility that photographic art made the traditional way (with film and silver paper) here in this post digital era, might begin to take on some new value in the eyes of art collectors. The further we reach for meaning in the world of digitally created art, the more scarce (and possibly more valuable?) becomes the original silver or alt process prints for their own sake.

Well, at least it's a nice thought for us antiquated and tenacious B&W film photographers.

[Jim Simmons]

Art looks like the Disfarmer print by Peter Miller that hangs on my wall. One of my most cherished possessions, a gift from Peter. It speaks to me on many levels - the mystery of Disfarmer, the gratitude we owe Peter for the work he did to save and expose this work, and a touchstone of my Ozarks heritage.

[cgw]

Sorry but I see it as a windy meditation on what makes photography, among the visual arts, unique: latency.

[Nick D]

Thanks for the link to a really interesting article Mike. Part of the attraction of Maier is that she was (and is now going to remain) an enigma. Most of us can produce one striking image in a lifetime, but she seems to have produced a significant number, in a style which is recognisably her own. That makes her an artist as far as I'm concerned. We also have to remember that the concept of "artist" is a relatively recent invention. I doubt that Shakespeare was overly concerned with being an artist, he was probably more concerned with putting food on the table and the success of his next play. The question of interpretation is not confined to photography, English Literature springs to mind also. Either way I'm glad that Maier's work didn't end dumped in landfill!

[Tim Scott]

A great article, thanks for sharing. The Art world is a very fickle place, especially when Photographic imagery (prints and now Digital images) is concerned. Most of us (Photographers) dream of fame, create great works unto ourselves and pass on into time and obscurity along with our works. I forget who said the following phrase that probably explains the fine art world the best "As an artist I capture what I see and pleases me, The viewer excepts it and calls it Art".
Regards
Tim

[Huw Morgan]

Thanks for the link Mike - I enjoyed the column very much.

This is an interesting topic where art and commerce are inextricably linked and things can get messy. A few years ago, I bought a used book of photographs by Tony Ray Jones, an excellent English photographer who died too young. A local gallery was selling posthumous prints made from TRJ negatives under the auspices of the family. I'm not sure who was doing the actual printing, but the gallery was selling these prints for around $10,000.

I want online and found that I could order a print made from negative scans owned by a British museum. They sent me a very nicely done print on archival cotton rag paper for $150. It now hangs on my wall and gives me great pleasure.

Neither the $150 print nor the $10,000 print were made by the artist. The latter print was made using a more traditional dark room printing method and looked more authentic. However, I found it tough to justify paying such a significant premium based on certification by the estate.

I'm all for keeping an artist's work alive by issuing reprints made from the original negative, but not at the same price as prints made by the artist.

[Dave]

I read it and I still don't understand why the prints of Maier's work don't get hung in the best museums. Is art about the finished product or someone's definition of the correct process? If it's the finished product, then Maier's work contains some of the best street photos taken in the 20th century.

[Eric Rose]

If one of the "anointed" in the art world had discovered Maier's negatives instead of Maloof the acceptance of her work would have been a given.

[Tom V]

I saw John Maloof's "Finding Vivian Maier" a week ago. An excellent film, highly recommended! The conclusion I reached is that Maloof's and Maier are together a single artist.

The circumstances of the negatives being discovered and saved are miraculous. And that the person who did so had the energy, skill, and talent to bring them to the attention of the public is another miracle.

Vivian Maier did not have it within herself to be a professional artist, to deal with galleries, contracts, shows, critics, etc. if she had been discovered during her lifetime it would have ruined her. John Maloof's on the other hand is the man for all of that. The price he will pay is that although he is obviously a talented young filmmaker, he will always be known as "That Vivian Maier guy."

Thank you John Maloof's.

[Kevin Purcell]

Is there a reason not to include a link to Google to save people the cut and paste?

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22what+does+art+look+like%22+site:wsj.com

[Bruce McL]

"an attitude that was old-fashioned by the 1960s and is even more so now in the digital era.”

I disagree. Opening a RAW file is an interpretive act. The file is the score, the resulting image is the symphony. Most photographers consciously interpret their images, rather than sticking with the standard interpretation offered by Adobe or whoever makes their image processing software.

"Photographers who do everything themselves, as Adams commonly did, are not necessarily more vital than those who are not so hands-on."

Being able to manipulate your own images is a valuable skill for a photographer, not a meaningless one as the author suggests.

"The image long ago outstripped the print in social importance for everyone except photography collectors. The digital future should only enhance Maier's reputation.”

Images are more important now, but making an image from Maier’s negatives is an interpretive act. The conductor has the same effect on the score with digital images as with prints.

[Ilkka]

Photography is art and science. Making prints is also art and science. The art may be the same, or very similar, but the science is completely different. Only very few photographers are master printers who can do justice to their photographs. Ansel Adams was clearly one. Jeanloup Sieff. Maybe Gene Smith. There are a few others. Not to forget Ctein.
Sinister thought. Maybe the current owner of Maier legacy wants to keep (hoard?) the original prints and only release them to the market when the myth has risen to its full height, along with the prices of the prints?

[darr]

The Vivian Maier story is sensational in part because of the mystery and the discovery. A professional printer may add the finale to it all, the finale that Maier did not complete, whether from lack of interest or intent; we'll never really know, and that sits okay with me.

[Ed]

The best way this could be handled would put the entire archive under the auspices of the Library of Congress, make all the images free and publicly owned, and provide high-res scans for free. Ala what Shorpy uses for it's source material. Then anyone can make prints as they might desire. Maybe LoC could even have traditional silver prints made and sold at cost. Sadly, none of that will happen and the carpetbagger profiteering will continue.

[Richard Newman]

William stated that Maier was incapable of editing her own work. I wonder. Editing implies judgment and selection for a purpose. But I haven't seen anything to indicate that she ever said why she took pictures. Most I think, would assume she took them for her own pleasure and use. I have seen no indication that she ever intended publication as a book, or intended to have gallery or museum shows. Nor do we know what or how much -if anything- she discarded or destroyed. In this case, all we can do is evaluate each image on its own, in terms of what WE consider 'good art',which is a broad, changeable and inconsistent set of criteria. The images must stand on their own.