Quote Originally Posted by rich815 View Post
But its a great way to feel better about one's own lame photography by slamming someone else's. Especially someone who throughout her life could not give a flying rat's ass about what anyone thought of her work. How dare she!! Based on the tone of these forums lately I'm surprised no one called her work a complete waste of film.

One thing for sure: no one's gonna discover any of our work after we're long dead and start publishing books about what geniuses we were!
This is not about "slamming" someone's work. This is about discussing the rubric by which you anoint an artist "one of the greatest" of all time. By default if you say they are the greatest or one of the greatest that means you rank them above all or most others. Many of us could argue you are "slamming" the work of everyone else if you aren't looking at the situation holistically.

And why is it that there are some people on this forum that feel if they disagree with someone's reasoning for ranking a third party's art work that must mean the person they disagree with has a crappy portfolio. Guy's if you have a point make it. Don't just blast portfolios you've never seen. I've seen people with incredible portfolios say incredibly stupid things. Critiquing a portfolio you've never seen is an odd way to take the moral high ground.

Quote Originally Posted by rich815 View Post
Based on the tone of these forums lately I'm surprised no one called her work a complete waste of film.
Jesus Christ!

For the record I think the vast majority of people on this forum think Maier's portfolio contains a lot of nice pictures. We are merely having an esoteric fine arts debate about her being one of the greatest. Take it easy.