It's not "like" finding a historical artifact. It is a historical artifact. What you said here and what someone else said about comparing her to her contemporaries is I what I was getting at. If anyone holds a camera straight, focuses, uses reasonable exposure, does that perhaps hundreds of thousands of times and the results are found half a century later by pure chance it will cause a sensation out of proportion to the actual fine art value.
Originally Posted by NDKodak
Let me be clear. I like looking at her pictures from a documentation point of view. I am not as into people photography as her simply because I don't want that level of interaction, but I do a lot of shooting that is simply documenting things. I try and make pictures that are technically good. But I don't think even the ones that are reasonably composed and technically very good are mind blowing in a fine art sense. They might be good pictures but they aren't head and shoulders above similar images by other competent artists. I am not trying to be self deprecating or put down Maier I'm just saying if people are all of a sudden going gaga over Maier why weren't they going gaga over her contemporaries who were at least as good or in my opinion better. My answer? The story of the discovery and the shear volume. Doesn't mean they are bad pictures. But this is photography not painting. Cameras and film are designed for the average person with some thought and practice to take decent pictures. Even before Maier came along I would always tell noobs that if they did a decent job with the technical stuff, gave some thought to composition, and pressed the shutter enough they would eventually have a portfolio of 10 solid shots.