So many fascinating issues in this NYTimes article about the work left behind after a photographer’s death. In the digital age this will still occur, but not on the same level.
Although I doubt I agree with his evaluation of his friend’s work, I do rather love this quote from John Szarkowski:
To expose film is not quite to photograph.
I take that in a different way than he meant, though. He was talking about the process after exposure–editing, printing, etc. I think that we need to look at the process before exposure as well. It is the thought involved (conscious or not) that compels the photographer to “click” at that moment that, to me, is in first position when one looks for the artist in the photographer.
Still, I’m not ignoring the later steps. I love prints, especially ones from the darkroom. The choices made and the artistry in crafting those… breathtaking. But as one of my favorite sayings goes, you can’t make butter with a toothpick. Here, that means you have to start with something substantial first–the underlying image–and the more thoughtful that is the more one can do with it later.
Or not.
Depending on what the artist chooses.
I’ve wondered for some time now who owns the copyrights to the Vivien Maier photos. Maloof has the negatives and maybe possession is 9/10 of the law, but it seems like her estate should own the copyright(s). And if there are no relatives, doesn’t the state get the estate?