Re: SIZE Re: Photogravure was: Re: SPE and alt update!!!!!!
When I am printing, my conceptual model for print sizing is pretty
prosaic, and reflects where they might end up:
They are either bathroom prints or living room prints.
Pretty reliable decision heuristic, albeit sort of bourgeois.
On Apr 4, 2008, at 10:30 AM, Christina Z. Anderson wrote:
Good morning all!
Since I brought up this thread I wanted to clarify my original
First of all, how EXCITING that so many are finally posting and
of the woodwork! And newbies--Clair, thanks for sharing the postage
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
of them, and I actually (gasp) like the "vacant banale" stuff going
in the art world. I love Candida Hofer's work, for instance. Well,
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
there. It is as if anyone who wants to show in a gallery is trying
a certain contemporary style or they feel they "won't get in" to
York fix. So it's the lemming factor I deplore, or maybe it is just
zeitgeist that all of these photographers are following and not just
other or the Yale school.
As far as size goes, I love big works in general, ESPECIALLY alt. I
to do a large work well in alt shows a certain virtuoso and I
that. Sookang Kim's work is gorgeous, thanks for sharing her, Clay.
the image isn't good, big or small, it doesn't make it any better
adding a size factor. For instance, think of Sookang Kim's work as
2x2" prints--they would still be simple and gorgeous--it is the
quality of printing and subject matter that catch the eye.
I think Sandy is tongue in cheek because if I seem to remember,
one of those honkin' big cameras that can do nothing BUT big works,
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
many framed works needing storage and darned if I will take them out
frames once they are in there, dust free. One show of 50 works and
storage problem. Not so big of a deal if they are 8x10's but 20x24's
Mark, I thought it is called Photopolymer Gravure...and I do think
fair to put "polymer" in there somewhere, though general public
hard pressed to tell the dif between a print from one form to the
Diana, I can understand why mezzotints are small. Rocking a
plenty big. There is a guy, and I forget his name, who rocked these
plates down south when I was at Clemson (he gave a presentation) and
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
mezzotint king IMHO.
So I guess I have to say size is verrrry seductive but the
is in the performance--the image itself.
Big VS small
In centuries past artists were only able to create small prints
available tools of the artists trade at the time. Etchings,
etc.. were commonly put in albums which were enjoyed and shared .
like showing a friend a personal collection. Or perhaps like
friend a favorite DVD. Then there were the "paintings" larger images
which were hung on walls. Later as plates got larger and the
to use larger presses, engravings and etchings began to hang on
essences , print makers originally created images that were in albums
painters painted paintings that hung on walls. Times have changed
technology has evolved. We are more and more able to create larger
larger works as "print" makers, in essence, whether it is a gum or
or pd/pt or any alt. process requiring a negative. We are more and
able to make larger negatives. Each artist has his or her own
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
artist who is making the work, and that statement the artist
make. Yes small is beautiful and so is big. It is the work that
not the size. Study the past and grow into the future.