A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on April 21, 2020. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 January 2019 and 10 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bmbradley.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 12:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article be amended to reflect that she is considered an outsider artist based purely on the discovery of her work (and its importance) at/near the end of her life? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.160.180 ( talk) 00:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Maloof writes of one or more Chicago obituaries, and this WP article too talks of an obituary in the Chicago Tribune. I don't want to knock Maier or Maloof, but something seems fishy here. Why would she get an obituary, and if she did get one, where is it? -- Hoary ( talk) 02:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Your suggested term, "obituary notice," muddles the waters and is not, at least in the U.S., a term in general use, as far as I -- a retired journalist -- know.
Journalists use the term "death notice" to refer to a paid advertisement giving information about a person's life and death. The term "obituary" should be reserved for a news story about the death of a notable person. "Notable" may have different standards at different papers. A community weekly may consider all deaths in the vicinity as "notable" whereas the Chicago Tribune or Britain's Guardian may be more selective.
Those outside of journalism often conflate these two very death stories, much to the dismay of reporters and editors.
When a references are used multiple times, we use the format "ref name=tag", and not multiple instances of the reference. This is described at Wikipedia:Citing sources. Green Cardamom ( talk) 19:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Just a note: I added some references and material as well. I also formatted some of the citations to include the author (necessary when available) and retrieval date for online sources (also necessary). Other than that, I don't much care about the way the citations are formatted. I've been told I have a unique way of citing things myself, so...if anyone wants to change the format, I won't complain. -- Moni3 ( talk) 04:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
No surprise that with so little known about Maier that some of her life info is in dispute. The Independent says she was born in France, but both the WTTW report and Chicago Magazine place her birth place in New York.
The Independent also says she was homeless, but that could mean not living with a family. It's unclear. Chicago Magazine does not say she was homeless, and in fact mentions a small but steady income.
More I'm sure will be confusing. -- Moni3 ( talk) 01:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
According to this page, works created before January 1, 1978 but not published before December 31, 2002 are now in public domain. This video by WTTW shows that most of the photographs were taken around the 60's in Chicago, which would certainly place them before 1978.
I propose that the works are marked as being in Public Domain, especially her auto-portraits which allow to clearly assess the date of creation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.32.120.237 ( talk) 17:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Added March 6, 2011. Deleted March 6, 2011 Reason for Deletion: see comments below.
Though it is agreed that she was probably completely self-trained, she did own a collection of photography guide books and monographs, which undoubtedly gave her ideas and inspiration. Maier’s is a unique style that hints of influences from Henri Cartier-Bresson Weegee, Diane Arbus, Robert Frank and Gary Winogrand. Maier is celebrated for her photographs of people, and her unique vision of the human condition expressed therein. Her subjects were, with no particular preference: men, women and children. Some of her subjects she knew, for instance some of the children for whom she cared, and some were strangers she encountered on the street. There are some rare instances, when Maier would depart from what is her forte, as many photographers do, and embark on negligible distractions, photographing architecture, still lifes and nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tipscommissar ( talk • contribs) 19:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Look here, as the author of my comments in this "discussion", I'd like at very least the basic right to remove my own comments. It's bad enough to be deleted, and then admonished by a hobbyist "editor", but I'd at least like to claim my own right to delete my own comment in this "discussion" . You call yourself an editor, but you don't edit, you just hack and scold. I'd think of an editor as a surgeon who fixes, betters or cures what maladies are there, but perhaps I should think of you as an executioner. On top of that, your behavior is at best OCD and pointless, and at worst smug, bullying and creepy. Go ahead and do whatever you want henceforth, I refuse to participate in this game; I have better and bigger things to tend to. Read and delete if you want, follow up with what you want, I won't be back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tipscommissar ( talk • contribs)
The fundamental challenge of Wikipedia is that it is collaborative, and to make that work it demands you make an effort to understand the process. I hope at some point you are willing to do that and make more contributions. -- Dbratland ( talk) 18:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
The article now says that Maloof possesses so many prints and negatives (according to Maloof), and that Goldstein possesses so many (according to Goldstein). This isn't good enough. Such claims need disinterested sources. -- Hoary ( talk) 04:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
(Moved good faith question by IP from article space to talk space:)
A major question regarding the copyrights to Meier's work remains unclear.
Since there's no evidence that she transferred copyright to anyone before her death and there appears to be no heir to her estate, can we assume that all Vivian Meier's photography is now in the public domain? -- 2013-04-25T00:07:24 70.51.160.174
I'd like to know why a portrait of her holding a camera in her hands, aimed at the camera taking the image, is labeled as a self-portrait. Did she have another set up with a self-time? I couldn't find the image or its description at the source given. -- Pawyilee ( talk) 09:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I think the documentary film, Finding Vivian Maier, contains useful information about how Maier reconciled her role as a nanny in suburban Chicago with her work as a street photographer. The film explains, through interviews with the grown-up children whom she cared for, that Maier habitually took young children with her while photographing rough area of Chicago. One of her former charges explains how he was startled to find himself in a stockyard, with dead sheep in the gutter. This was very unconventional behaviour for a nanny working in suburban Chicago in the 1950s and 1960s, and I would argue this gives insight into the unusual life style and photographic practice of Maier, helping to explain how she accomplished her photographic work. What do others think? Mick gold ( talk) 17:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I had never heard of Maier until I noticed today's New York Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/06/arts/design/a-legal-battle-over-vivian-maiers-work.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0 ; which appears to give cause for editing this Wikipedia article. Perhaps "only" regarding copyright/disposition of images, or perhaps also as regarding details of Maier's life. My thanks to those who have worked on this Wiki article so far. 72.251.71.203 ( talk) 14:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
According to Google, the site vivianmaier.com is full of malware...
http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=http://www.vivianmaier.com/&hl=en — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.28.96.58 ( talk) 19:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Changed "undeveloped negatives" to "unprinted negatives" in introduction. The Vivian Maier website confirms that she developed her film to produce tens of thousands of negatives, and stored them. After her death they were discovered, cataloged, and published. "Undeveloped negatives" is ambiguous, since a negative is the result of development, and indeed suggests a wrong idea, of exposed but undeveloped film. Any b/w photographer knows that exposed but undeveloped film is rather unstable, so most photographers try to develop their film fairly promptly, within a few months, producing negatives that are stable for many decades, even if they never get around to printing the negatives to produce positive prints, the ordinary form in which black and white photographs are viewed and exhibited. Printing is far more labor-intensive than developing film, so it is quite understandable that Maier, lacking funds, time, or a desire for fame, would develop her films but never get around to printing most of them. CharlesHBennett ( talk) 23:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Did Maier have a career as a photographer? or as a nanny? or both? Is the phrase “took more than 150,000 photographs during her career” meant to refer to just one of these and, if so, which one? Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 16:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Someone changed the nursing home she lived in from Highland Park (which was sourced to Cahan, Vivien Maier: Out of the Shadows, 2012, p. 263), to Oak Park whithout comment. Chicago in 2010 claimed " Maier passed away at the Oak Park nursing home on April 20, 2009" where as The New York Times in 2012 claimed " a nursing home in Highland Park, where her health continued to decline. She died there on April 21, 2009." - Lopifalko ( talk) 08:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on April 21, 2020. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 January 2019 and 10 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bmbradley.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 12:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article be amended to reflect that she is considered an outsider artist based purely on the discovery of her work (and its importance) at/near the end of her life? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.160.180 ( talk) 00:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Maloof writes of one or more Chicago obituaries, and this WP article too talks of an obituary in the Chicago Tribune. I don't want to knock Maier or Maloof, but something seems fishy here. Why would she get an obituary, and if she did get one, where is it? -- Hoary ( talk) 02:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Your suggested term, "obituary notice," muddles the waters and is not, at least in the U.S., a term in general use, as far as I -- a retired journalist -- know.
Journalists use the term "death notice" to refer to a paid advertisement giving information about a person's life and death. The term "obituary" should be reserved for a news story about the death of a notable person. "Notable" may have different standards at different papers. A community weekly may consider all deaths in the vicinity as "notable" whereas the Chicago Tribune or Britain's Guardian may be more selective.
Those outside of journalism often conflate these two very death stories, much to the dismay of reporters and editors.
When a references are used multiple times, we use the format "ref name=tag", and not multiple instances of the reference. This is described at Wikipedia:Citing sources. Green Cardamom ( talk) 19:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Just a note: I added some references and material as well. I also formatted some of the citations to include the author (necessary when available) and retrieval date for online sources (also necessary). Other than that, I don't much care about the way the citations are formatted. I've been told I have a unique way of citing things myself, so...if anyone wants to change the format, I won't complain. -- Moni3 ( talk) 04:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
No surprise that with so little known about Maier that some of her life info is in dispute. The Independent says she was born in France, but both the WTTW report and Chicago Magazine place her birth place in New York.
The Independent also says she was homeless, but that could mean not living with a family. It's unclear. Chicago Magazine does not say she was homeless, and in fact mentions a small but steady income.
More I'm sure will be confusing. -- Moni3 ( talk) 01:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
According to this page, works created before January 1, 1978 but not published before December 31, 2002 are now in public domain. This video by WTTW shows that most of the photographs were taken around the 60's in Chicago, which would certainly place them before 1978.
I propose that the works are marked as being in Public Domain, especially her auto-portraits which allow to clearly assess the date of creation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.32.120.237 ( talk) 17:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Added March 6, 2011. Deleted March 6, 2011 Reason for Deletion: see comments below.
Though it is agreed that she was probably completely self-trained, she did own a collection of photography guide books and monographs, which undoubtedly gave her ideas and inspiration. Maier’s is a unique style that hints of influences from Henri Cartier-Bresson Weegee, Diane Arbus, Robert Frank and Gary Winogrand. Maier is celebrated for her photographs of people, and her unique vision of the human condition expressed therein. Her subjects were, with no particular preference: men, women and children. Some of her subjects she knew, for instance some of the children for whom she cared, and some were strangers she encountered on the street. There are some rare instances, when Maier would depart from what is her forte, as many photographers do, and embark on negligible distractions, photographing architecture, still lifes and nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tipscommissar ( talk • contribs) 19:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Look here, as the author of my comments in this "discussion", I'd like at very least the basic right to remove my own comments. It's bad enough to be deleted, and then admonished by a hobbyist "editor", but I'd at least like to claim my own right to delete my own comment in this "discussion" . You call yourself an editor, but you don't edit, you just hack and scold. I'd think of an editor as a surgeon who fixes, betters or cures what maladies are there, but perhaps I should think of you as an executioner. On top of that, your behavior is at best OCD and pointless, and at worst smug, bullying and creepy. Go ahead and do whatever you want henceforth, I refuse to participate in this game; I have better and bigger things to tend to. Read and delete if you want, follow up with what you want, I won't be back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tipscommissar ( talk • contribs)
The fundamental challenge of Wikipedia is that it is collaborative, and to make that work it demands you make an effort to understand the process. I hope at some point you are willing to do that and make more contributions. -- Dbratland ( talk) 18:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
The article now says that Maloof possesses so many prints and negatives (according to Maloof), and that Goldstein possesses so many (according to Goldstein). This isn't good enough. Such claims need disinterested sources. -- Hoary ( talk) 04:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
(Moved good faith question by IP from article space to talk space:)
A major question regarding the copyrights to Meier's work remains unclear.
Since there's no evidence that she transferred copyright to anyone before her death and there appears to be no heir to her estate, can we assume that all Vivian Meier's photography is now in the public domain? -- 2013-04-25T00:07:24 70.51.160.174
I'd like to know why a portrait of her holding a camera in her hands, aimed at the camera taking the image, is labeled as a self-portrait. Did she have another set up with a self-time? I couldn't find the image or its description at the source given. -- Pawyilee ( talk) 09:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I think the documentary film, Finding Vivian Maier, contains useful information about how Maier reconciled her role as a nanny in suburban Chicago with her work as a street photographer. The film explains, through interviews with the grown-up children whom she cared for, that Maier habitually took young children with her while photographing rough area of Chicago. One of her former charges explains how he was startled to find himself in a stockyard, with dead sheep in the gutter. This was very unconventional behaviour for a nanny working in suburban Chicago in the 1950s and 1960s, and I would argue this gives insight into the unusual life style and photographic practice of Maier, helping to explain how she accomplished her photographic work. What do others think? Mick gold ( talk) 17:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I had never heard of Maier until I noticed today's New York Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/06/arts/design/a-legal-battle-over-vivian-maiers-work.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0 ; which appears to give cause for editing this Wikipedia article. Perhaps "only" regarding copyright/disposition of images, or perhaps also as regarding details of Maier's life. My thanks to those who have worked on this Wiki article so far. 72.251.71.203 ( talk) 14:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
According to Google, the site vivianmaier.com is full of malware...
http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=http://www.vivianmaier.com/&hl=en — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.28.96.58 ( talk) 19:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Changed "undeveloped negatives" to "unprinted negatives" in introduction. The Vivian Maier website confirms that she developed her film to produce tens of thousands of negatives, and stored them. After her death they were discovered, cataloged, and published. "Undeveloped negatives" is ambiguous, since a negative is the result of development, and indeed suggests a wrong idea, of exposed but undeveloped film. Any b/w photographer knows that exposed but undeveloped film is rather unstable, so most photographers try to develop their film fairly promptly, within a few months, producing negatives that are stable for many decades, even if they never get around to printing the negatives to produce positive prints, the ordinary form in which black and white photographs are viewed and exhibited. Printing is far more labor-intensive than developing film, so it is quite understandable that Maier, lacking funds, time, or a desire for fame, would develop her films but never get around to printing most of them. CharlesHBennett ( talk) 23:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Did Maier have a career as a photographer? or as a nanny? or both? Is the phrase “took more than 150,000 photographs during her career” meant to refer to just one of these and, if so, which one? Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 16:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Someone changed the nursing home she lived in from Highland Park (which was sourced to Cahan, Vivien Maier: Out of the Shadows, 2012, p. 263), to Oak Park whithout comment. Chicago in 2010 claimed " Maier passed away at the Oak Park nursing home on April 20, 2009" where as The New York Times in 2012 claimed " a nursing home in Highland Park, where her health continued to decline. She died there on April 21, 2009." - Lopifalko ( talk) 08:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)