I am with Patrick on this one. I had a chance to view an hour long segment of it on youtube(the very end was missing) as I can't view it through the bbc player. Everyone associated with her negatives after their discovery are just trying to capitalize on it and push up the hype. I had a chance to view the large prints at the a ny gallery last year, but after seeing her actual prints and print sizes in the video I am a bit put off. $2000 for an unsigned piece, selected and printed by someone she didn't know at all, double that for an original, many of which she had her lab print for her (looked like 5x7 max).
In the part of the documentary where they explained about her fall an where she hit her head, they were busy dividing up her storage lockers when she was still in the hospital no? Because she couldn't make the payments while she was there? If thats so, I am truly disgusted.
It's also interesting to note that she at one time was a nanny in a Chicago household where the wife of the family was a big photo editor for a newspaper. The daughter said maier knew full well about that and never asked to have her images looked at. She rarely even showed images to the children she would take pictures of that she worked for.
And it kinda sucks that all the images are separated, and how the separate owners won't cooperate. (there was one part where one of the guys turned down the bbc interview because he was also in the process of making his own documentary). Any book that will be published will have gaps in it as there is no complete catalog of her images, or any of her notes(which were all tossed out instantly by the first storage guy). I think this collection would have been best in the hands of a local museum, or somewhere she designated in a will of some sorts and not by those money grubbers.
Also here is a youtube link for whoever cant watch the bbc player because they are in another country.
Last edited by Newt_on_Swings; 06-27-2013 at 07:56 PM. Click to view previous post history.