My lens? Not quite. What about her wishes? Maybe she didn't want the work to be seen. She never tried to show it herself by all accounts, even when, as Newt touched upon above, she lived with a photo editor. She had four/five decades give or take to do something with it all which she could have done, but she did nothing. Why? That shows intent in my book. I maintain that they belong in museums and should not be commodified. Legally, since she apparently has no heirs, the images are up for grabs. Prints can be made from them, but that doesn't make it right. I thought the same thing with the "Uncle Earl" AA images. Like I said before, the feeding frenzy has commenced. It is sad. If I had the money to buy one of her images, I would be looking at the ones that she did or had done during her life. Those are the only legitimate ones IMO. Those have true value and I think are worth far more money, although I am sad to see she didn't get any of it, since they are genuine. I don't blame the galleries in this very much, it is the people who have the negatives and see dollar signs that are the problem. Maloof is probably the worst of them IMO, although the one they interviewed in the doc apparently (IIRC) gave up everything else he was doing to concentrate on monetizing the work. Ask Maloof when the last time it was that he sold any real estate. Personally, I think VM would be deeply upset about all of it. She would be concerned about the violation of her privacy, akin to someone reading your diary after you are dead.
Originally Posted by Noble