I too hope that Gallery owners focus on art quality rather than profit
but all too often I've seen work on walls that makes me questions
gallery owners judgment. Private Galleries are a business and they do
have to make a living (unless they are privately subsidized.). So
although they personally might like small work (or fill in the blank
with whatever type of work) they have to make decisions about
generating sufficient revenue to cover their costs and pay a wage for
themselves and their staff. If the market is demanding large prints
and willing to pay $5,000 a print for large work (and that's low given
recent prices for some work) why would they choose to sell small work
priced at $1,000 - especially if it's the same image by the same
artist? How many artists price their work the same for 8x10, 16x20 and
22x30? So given limited wall space and storage space for gallery
owners, an artist who isn't prepared to work in a moderately large
scale could limit the galleries that can represent them - this is
especially true for Galleries in high cost areas such as New York,
London, Moscow and Shanghai.
As an art purchaser I prefer smaller sizes, (8x10, 11x14, and 16x20,
although I do own a 30x40 piece), because they are lower priced and I
can display more of them effectively. It's really interesting how sizes
have shifted in the last 10 years (and probably more so for those
who've been around for far longer). We just started collecting about 10
years ago and much of what we looked at, liked and could afford was
8x10. Now it's hard to find such "small" work at the same galleries
unless we are buying vintage prints by certain artists. -t
Diana Bloomfield wrote:
149CDB3A-8276-4CAE-B5BA-B5C54CF6575A@bellsouth.net"
type="cite">I haven't read that book, though I did read Freakonomics,
which was a fun read and illuminating, too-- maybe along similar lines..
In answer to your question, "So if I was a gallery owner . . .
I personally would hope that most (at least a few?) gallery owners are
thinking as much about individual artists and their specific works of
art-- as well as collectors of art, both established and potential
collectors-- not solely buyers with deep pockets who just want a big
picture that matches the couch and fills up some wall space. I'd also
like to believe that artists think more about their art than about pure
profit motive, too, but I guess that's awfully naive. There are
actually some of us out here who don't actually price by the square
foot. If an artist is simply making huge prints (regardless of how
much or how little it costs to simply go bigger), solely to be able to
slap a higher price on their work-- well, I don't know. That may be a
smart move, but at this point, seems to me that we're talking more
about marketing and profit than about art.
I agree with your assessment, "weak work printed large looks
more interesting to some people even though it's still crap-- just more
of it" sentiment, though. Not all large work is crap, for sure-- but
there's an awful lot of big digital stuff out there that makes an
impact simply because of its size, and not much more. If you run into
a print that's measured in several feet, you can't help but stop and
look at it.
Unfortunately economics and the profit
motive are responsible for some of the big is better mindset. As is
perspective - weak work printed large looks more interesting to some
people even though it's still crap - just more of it.. Historically
when printing something big meant overcoming significant technical
challenges and required greater skill, larger sizes commanded higher
prices. Today the technology has changed so that larger sizes only cost
marginally more to make than smaller sizes. More ink, more sensitizer,
more platinum, more silver, etc - all combined so that it costs less
than $100 extra more to make a 22x30 versus a 5x7 (Time is another
factor), yet the 22x30 can be sold for significantly more - $3,000
versus $1,000 for the 5x7.
So if I was the gallery owner why wouldn't I refuse to carry and stock
small sizes? I'll leave the answer to that question for another thread
but I am reading a fantastic book on the subject of pricing and
decision making. Really it is amazing and useful for everyone in their
daily life.
"Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces that Shape Our Decisions"
by Dan Ariely.
A phenomenal, engaging read. It really makes you think about economics
in your daily life and why/how you spend money the way you do. Everyone
should read it. (I have no ties to the writer or publisher). -t
Diana Bloomfield wrote:
EBD6BC1B-12EF-4E8D-B863-E09B4104FF03@bellsouth.net"
type="cite">Yes-- I agree, Judy, about "plenty of junk art" at smaller
sizes. Actually, I don't see so much of the huge digital work that I
used to see ALL the time in galleries or anywhere else, so maybe the
tide is turning. That's all I would ever see for a while there. Of
course, this is only my perspective-- from where I'm sitting (not
located in the art capital of the world here). I do remember a time,
though, when galleries would absolutely refuse to show work that was
small. In fact, I have a good friend whose work was represented by the
John Stevenson gallery-- probably more than 10 years ago. He is
probably one of the best platinum printers I know, but he was dropped
there because his work wasn't "big enough," and that he just couldn't
sell small work-- or at least that's what he was told. He never
printed bigger than 5x7. Now when I go to galleries, or anywhere work
is exhibited, I see much more of a range-- which is refreshing.
Oh, and that phrase-- "If you can't make it good . . . " I was taught
that! I still remember it and think about it all the time. ;)
Diana
On Apr 3, 2008, at 7:36 PM, Judy Seigel wrote:
On Thu, 3 Apr 2008, Diana Bloomfield wrote:
I agree completely about these huge
color prints I often see that are really no more than rather
uninteresting snapshots (badly composed to boot); their size is what
gives them notice (the only thing that makes them noticeable). It does
get old after a while.
But for 50 years the rule in America has been "bigger is better."
(When my kitchen appliances broke down after the first 30 years, I
discovered they were no longer made in the "normal" sizes of
refrigerators, ovens, etc. when they were installed, but so huge I
would have had to tear down the kitchen to replace them. And tended to
have all sorts of "features" that took up more space (like computers!)
I finally found some that could be squeezed in (with only a day's worth
of carpentry) but they're not as well planned or functional as the
originals.
"Bigger is better" got to be the rule in art, too, starting with
"action painting." We used to sneer: "If you can't make it good, make
it big, if you can't make it big make it red."
Meanwhile, the rule of thumb which almost always fits (except when you
just need to cover space in a McMansion, or for effect in a corporate
lobby) the best viewing distance for art is generally considered the
diagonal. For instance, if a picture is 8-1/2 by 11 inches (standard
letter size) the diagonal is about 14 inches, and that's found to be
the best general viewing distance.
Of course if we're really loving/interested in a work, we view it from
at least 3 distances -- stepping back for the "long view", the diagonal
for regular taking it in, and really close up (don't you love just
getting your face right in there -- unless the museum guard spoils your
joy). So in effect no matter how big the work is, we're getting our
view of it at the same scale.... but dealers want them big because they
sell much more readily & of course for much more. In other words
these things are often determined by marketing AND the current
style,... common sense has nothing to do with it.
I myself am going through a phase of wanting to work really small.. And
in a museum I just love finding a work of art the size of my face-- and
we see so much of it only in books, where it's probably no more than
8-1/2 by 11 anyway.
On the 3rd hand, I give Sookang the benefit of any doubt. If she's
working so large, odds are they're wonderful (Keith too -- tho he seems
possibly somewhat ambivalent.)
And PS. there's plenty of junk art at 8-1/2 by ll... The names are
forgotten now, but wasn't the most popular painter in America in the
1950s the guy who did the big-eyed girls ... What was his name? ("John
Keane" comes to mind.)
Judy
I know someone who makes the most
beautiful mezzotints-- none larger than about 4x5 and some not much
larger than a postage stamp. These are so hauntingly beautiful-- I
can't tell you-- and perfect for his particular images. Every time I
think about printing big, I think about those mezzotints.
On Apr 3, 2008, at 5:27 PM, Mark Nelson wrote:
I don't think photography should be
limited by size and you point out good reasons to make larger prints
for different display spaces. What tires me are the huge,
over-saturated color prints with no content. You see them in galleries
all the time. Bigger doesn't make these prints better.
Mark Nelson
www.PrecisionDigitalNegatives.com
PDNPrint Forum @ Yahoo Groups
www.MarkINelsonPhoto.com
From my iPhone
On Apr 3, 2008, at 2:28 PM, Dan Haygood <dan@haygoods.org>
wrote:
Yes, I agree. Large prints have
made their way into many homes as a showcase piece of artwork. It has
put photography in a place were it is being noticed. Look in interior
design magazines and they all have large scale photographs hanging on
the walls of the homes they are featuring. Small images create a more
intimate feel and are displayed in settings that the viewer can get
close to. In other fine arts, one will always find a diversity of
sizes of images that reflect what the artist is trying to impress upon
the viewer. Why should photography be confined to a small scale?
Susan
From: Jon Lybrook [mailto:jon@terabear.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 12:15 PM
To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
Subject: Re: Photogravure was: Re: SPE and alt update
Mr. King,
Wee little prints are just fine for the right image, as are huge ones.
I hope and trust no one ever curses you and things you've devoted
yourself to doing in an ugly and boorish manner.
Regards,
Jon
Sandy King wrote:
Yes, is it not a fact about big. I am so tired at this fad with huge
prints I want to vomit. I hope the people making those huge prints
never sell a one of them and have to build new storage rooms to hold
them until their descendants destroy the atrocities.
Now, a nice 5X7 contact print, there is something to hold close to your
eyes and treasure.
Sandy
At 2:05 PM -0400 4/3/08, Ender100@aol.com
wrote:
Content-type: text/html;
charset=UTF-8
Content-language: en
Thanks Jon,
It's an American French Tool Press by Conrad Machine Co. I got a table
top model that will handle 18" wide paper. It may also be a great
pasta machine. Josephine Sacabo had just gotten the big brother to
this machine when I worked with her last fall on polymer plate
photogravure-it was great fun. Unfortunately it takes 3-4 months to
build and deliver.
I think I got "big" out of my system with inkjet printing hehehehe.
Best Wishes,
Mark Nelson
It's AlIVE! IT'S ALIVE! THE ALT PHOTO LIST IS ALIVE!!!! Chris must
have given it an enema.
Precision Digital Negatives
PDNPrint Forum @ Yahoo Groups
Mark I. Nelson Photography
In a message dated 4/3/08 12:56:50 PM, jon@terabear.com
writes:
Congrats on the press Mark! What kind did you get?
But 'little'? I'm doing 20x30" now and they are available at
30x40"...and even larger, so I've been told.
Larger plates present a new set of problems, but they are still alot of
fun to work with (more so when the pesky contact issues have been
overcome).
Jon
**************
Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides.
(http://travel.aol.com/travel-guide/united-states?ncid=aoltrv00030000000016)
--
Jon Lybrook
Tera Bear Consulting
http://terabear.com
303-818-5187
|