U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | Re: SIZE Re: Photogravure was: Re: SPE and alt update!!!!!!

Re: SIZE Re: Photogravure was: Re: SPE and alt update!!!!!!

  • To: Alt List <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
  • Subject: Re: SIZE Re: Photogravure was: Re: SPE and alt update!!!!!!
  • From: "Christina Z. Anderson" <zphoto@montana.net>
  • Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 09:30:50 -0600
  • Comments: "alt-photo-process mailing list"
  • Delivered-to: alt-photo-process-l-archive@www.usask.ca
  • List-id: alt-photo-process mailing list <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
  • Reply-to: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca

Good morning all!

Since I brought up this thread I wanted to clarify my original statement.

First of all, how EXCITING that so many are finally posting and coming out
of the woodwork!  And newbies--Clair, thanks for sharing the postage stamp
watercolor story--that is very cool.

Second, my commenting about the ubiquitousness of large digital works  was a
critique on the ubiquitousness not the works.  I actually really loved some
of them, and I actually (gasp) like the "vacant banale" stuff going on today
in the art world.  I love Candida Hofer's work, for instance. Well, hers
isn't so "banale" in some instances.  Or large digiprints of blankly
inflected spaces.  BUT I do NOT love the fact that the diversity is not
there.  It is as if anyone who wants to show in a gallery is trying to mimic
a certain contemporary style or they feel they "won't get in" to their New
York fix. So it's the lemming factor I deplore, or maybe it is just purely a
zeitgeist that all of these photographers are following and not just each
other or the Yale school.

As far as size goes, I love big works in general, ESPECIALLY alt.  I think
to do a large work well in alt shows a certain virtuoso and I appreciate
that.  Sookang Kim's work is gorgeous, thanks for sharing her, Clay. But if
the image isn't good, big or small, it doesn't make it any better IMHO by
adding a size factor.  For instance, think of Sookang Kim's work as small
2x2" prints--they would still be simple and gorgeous--it is the light and
quality of printing and subject matter that catch the eye.

I think Sandy is tongue in cheek because if I seem to remember, Sandy owns
one of those honkin' big cameras that can do nothing BUT big works, so he
doesn't have much room to talk.  But I do agree with the space
consideration--I am having a huge issue with that right now, with way too
many framed works needing storage and darned if I will take them out of
frames once they are in there, dust free. One show of 50 works and voila,
storage problem. Not so big of a deal if they are 8x10's but 20x24's becomes
a problem.

Mark, I thought it is called Photopolymer Gravure...and I do think it is
fair to put "polymer" in there somewhere, though general public would be
hard pressed to tell the dif between a print from one form to the other.

Diana, I can understand why mezzotints are small.  Rocking a plate--4x5 was
plenty big.  There is a guy, and I forget his name, who rocked these HUGE
plates down south when I was at Clemson (he gave a presentation) and again,
I was blown away by his virtuoso.  But mezzotints are so gorgeous and
velvety small.  Wow.  I wonder if we are talking about the same guy...he's a
mezzotint king IMHO.

So I guess I have to say size is verrrry seductive but the proverbial proof
is in the performance--the image itself.

Big VS small

In centuries past artists were only able to create small prints  due to
available tools of the artists trade at the time. Etchings, engravings
etc.. were commonly put in albums which were enjoyed and shared . Rather
like showing a friend a personal  collection. Or perhaps like showing a
friend a favorite DVD.  Then there were the "paintings" larger images
which were hung on walls. Later as plates got larger and the availability
to use larger presses, engravings and etchings began to hang on walls.. In
essences , print makers originally created images that were in albums
painters painted paintings that hung on walls.  Times have changed and
technology has evolved. We are more and more able to create larger and
larger works as "print" makers, in essence,  whether it is a gum or carbon
or pd/pt or any alt. process requiring a negative. We are  more and more
able to make larger negatives. Each artist has his or her own statement to
make. To say an image created by any process, an
d by any of us , should be best seen large or small is truly up to the
artist who is making the work, and that statement the artist whishes to
make.  Yes small is beautiful and so is big. It is the work that counts
not the size.  Study the past and grow into the future.

Liz Tuttie