[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: BIG

I guess the best size for a reasonably accurate depiction of reality would be
whatever yields 1:1, not that I think of photography as being an imitation of
reality. And certainly scale does affect the perception/impact of a photograph.
I am amazed when confronted by a 4'x5' or so photo, how'd s/he do that?, but it
is something of a confrontation rather than an intimate interaction.

Also, it's Kandinsky (not Kandanski); and I forgot to mention some small Paul
Klee's that I found exquisite. Don Bryant emailed me to say that it's Clyde
Butcher, not Claude Bucher. Smoking on all barrels today. :)

Pam

Jack Fulton wrote:
> 
> We were discussing large photographs last night in Materials & Methods
> class. The large print today, from Jeff Wall to Thomas Struth to Lawrie
> Novak. If photography is an imitation of reality the depiction becomes more
> illusory if scale is considered as well as content, context, narrative and
> composition.
> Jack Fulton
> 
> > From: Pam Niedermayer <pam_pine@cape.com>
> 
> > I can't speak to the future, but it does appear that many photographers are
> > going for gigantic prints, much larger than 16x20. Maybe it has something to
> > do with the Claude Bucher (sp?) bit running on PBS for a few months. Probably
> > also
> > has something to do with corporate sales.
> >
> > Personally, I like very small art quite a bit. There are some tiny Kandanski's
> > I saw some years ago, just love the intimacy of them. Also have seen a lot of
> > Indian art that's quite small.
> 
> > valerie_matthews@notes.teradyne.com wrote:
> >>
> 
> >> How do people feel about being one (for the most part) of the smallest - in
> >> size that is - art form.  Everthing seems
> >> so big today.

-- 
Pamela G. Niedermayer
Pinehill Softworks Inc.
600 W. 28th St., Suite 103
Austin, TX 78705
512-236-1677
512-236-8143 fax
http://www.pinehill.com