41–50 of 52 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It reminds me of the sculptor who said that he wasn't making the sculpture. "It's already in there. I'm just removing excess material." Sometimes I feel that our brains are like that. That some of our abilities are inherent. They just have to be set free.
Sounds like a Michaelangelo quote.
Maier was untrained, but her images are artfully framed and detailed So much has been accomplished by those who were "untrained, but". I wonder if that says as much about the training as it does about the accomplishments.
I don't think you can really train someone to be an artist or be creative anyway.
People who attend those 'drawing from life' courses invariably are much better by the end of it. I knew a guy who didn't have a lot of artistic flair, but he liked cars and machines. By the end of the course he was producing some really precise, great looking drawings of vehicles and engines.
If you define 'an artist' as someone who's able to move the state of the art, create bold new visions -- well, not everyone may be capable of that. But I think that's an unnecessarily narrow conception of art.
I submitted this last week but it didn't get any traction: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2095598 John Maloof, a 29-year-old eBay entrepreneur and real estate agent, is now principal cheerleader in the effort to find a niche for Ms. Maier at the pantheon of modern photography. He is only about one-tenth of the way into the task of scanning and archiving 100,000 negatives of hers in his possession, working with h…
Now we have a case of someone whose work was excellent, but for obvious reasons could not possibly have influenced anyone else. Where should she be in the history of art?
I submitted this last week but it didn't get any traction: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2095598 John Maloof, a 29-year-old eBay entrepreneur and real estate agent, is now principal cheerleader in the effort to find a niche for Ms. Maier at the pantheon of modern photography. He is only about one-tenth of the way into the task of scanning and archiving 100,000 negatives of hers in his possession, working with h…
It's kind of an interesting question -- usually importance in the art world is a combination of excellence and influence. So even if you hate Andy Warhol, you have to admit the guy was influential, so he deserves his place in art history. Now we have a case of someone whose work was excellent, but for obvious reasons could not possibly have influenced anyone else. Where should she be in the history of art?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's kind of an interesting question -- usually importance in the art world is a combination of excellence and influence. So even if you hate Andy Warhol, you have to admit the guy was influential, so he deserves his place in art history. Now we have a case of someone whose work was excellent, but for obvious reasons could not possibly have influenced anyone else. Where should she be in the history of art?
The same place as Van Gogh and Emily Dickinson. She had little influence while she was alive, but will gain more as time goes on. Posthumous fame is a cliche in the arts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posthumous_fame_of_Vincent_van_...
Toulouse-Lautrec even challenged another artist to a duel over the worth of van Gogh's paintings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_van_Gogh_chronology#189...
I'm only an amateur aficionado of photography, but Vivian Maier seems a bit different. The quality is undeniable but the style seems a bit derivative or antique by 2010 standards. At least so far, I don't see territory that hasn't been well covered by other street photographers.
Maybe more treasures will be unearthed from the collection, though.
A thought just struck me: maybe she just couldn't afford, or never had time, to get her negs developed. What sort of photographer might she have become if she could have closed that loop just a bit faster, or easier?
Maier was untrained, but her images are artfully framed and detailed So much has been accomplished by those who were "untrained, but". I wonder if that says as much about the training as it does about the accomplishments.
talent > training
talent + training > (talent || training)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like a Michaelangelo quote.
It is (according to yesterday's repeat of Star Trek TNG: the episode where Data meets his creator Dr Sung)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think you can really train someone to be an artist or be creative anyway.
It depends what you mean by 'an artist'. Consider that every one of us is constantly expressing ourselves, in unique ways and with a unique personality, in language. There's no reason you can't train someone to have similar competency to express themselves in another medium. People who attend those 'drawing from life' courses invariably are much better by the end of it. I knew a guy who didn't have a lot of artistic…
Agreed. I don't think you can 'train' someone to be a cultural revolutionary. Look at Stephen King, he spent virtually his entire life writing stories, the education he received only served to skip him past mistakes he would have run into and figured out by himself sooner or later.
There are however countless thousands of people out there writing nothing more than pulp fiction, entertaining people and probably only making enough cash to help put their kids through college or to pay for a nice vacation next year.
I used to play bass guitar, I used to write my own songs, I knew a few people who genuinely liked them. If I'd have put as much effort into my music as I have writing then I would probably genuinely be a musician right now, but I want to be an author because since I could talk I've been telling stories.
In other discussions I've seen people raise the copyright issues. Her estate owns the rights to these works, not John Maloof. But I don't think anyone except her heirs or other beneficiaries would have standing to sue him. They're either non-existent (she had no known children) or not interested. I'm afraid that won't stop people from causing problems for him once there's money involved.
I don't see how there could be much legal standing for that position. If Maloof bought the original negatives and especially if the Meier estate has not retained any copies of the work then he's got an enormously strong case to having bought not just a copy of the work but the work itself and the rights to distribute it.
Copyright law doesn't work that way. This argument is expressly addressed in 17 USC 202: "Ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a copyright, is distinct from ownership of any material object in which the work is embodied.
"Transfer of ownership of any material object, including the copy or phonorecord in which the work is first fixed, does not of itself convey any rights in the copyrighted work embodied in the object; nor, in the absence of an agreement, does transfer of ownership of a copyright or of any exclusive rights under a copyright convey property rights in any material object."
(Extra paragraphing added.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see how there could be much legal standing for that position. If Maloof bought the original negatives and especially if the Meier estate has not retained any copies of the work then he's got an enormously strong case to having bought not just a copy of the work but the work itself and the rights to distribute it.
> If Maloof bought the original negatives and especially if the Meier estate has not retained any copies of the work then he's got an enormously strong case to having bought not just a copy of the work but the work itself and the rights to distribute it. Copyright law doesn't work that way. This argument is expressly addressed in 17 USC 202: " Ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a copyri…
As far as I know that seems to be the case here.