The BBC's documentary about the photographer Vivian Maier – Vivian Maier: Who Took Nanny's Pictures?
(BBC One, Tuesday, 10.35pm) – was both wonderful and horrifying.
It was wonderful because it showed us many of the extraordinary pictures Maier took while working as a nanny in Chicago in the 1950s and 1960s. Most days, she would walk through the streets and take photographs of the people she saw. A woman holding her hat against the wind. A girl looking through a crack in the wall. A child grabbing his mother's dress. What was striking was the way she seemed to be able to use her camera to look right through the skin, to take pictures of what was underneath.
The nanny-photographer was mostly drawn to the rough end of town, to outsiders on the edges of the glitter, largely because she was an outsider herself, a loner who took pictures from the distance of solitude. She never showed the pictures to anyone; they were never exhibited.
And then, when Maier died, a number of dealers discovered her possessions in an old storage unit and suddenly her prints were selling for anything up to $8000 each. At one point, the frenzy was so intense two dealers turned up to a meeting with bodyguards and guns.
Which is why the documentary ended up feeling horrifying as well as wonderful. Not only was it unpleasant to see how commerce can turn pictures ugly, it was clear that Maier simply did not want her pictures to be seen. So where did that leave this programme? Where did it leave us, the gawpers?
Wonderful though it was to see these works of art, Maier was clearly fulfilled taking the pictures for herself. She looked down into the viewfinder of the Rolleiflex, clicked the button, developed the photograph and then filed it away for good.
You might think that an artwork is not an artwork until it is shared, until we are all looking at it, but the idea of someone creating a picture and then never showing it to anyone is a much more beautiful idea. It is tender and intimate and private and makes me wish Maier's pictures had never been found.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article