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

Re: BIG


On Fri, 6 Oct 2000, 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.

If photography is supposed to be an "imitation of reality" there goes 100
years of claiming it's *art* down the drain.  Or back to Bougereau (for
those who can spell it).

The irony is that 99 out of 100 people "seeing" these photographs, see
them only in reproduction in magazines, where they're all about the same
size, measured in inches.

I myself agree with Pam -- aside from the *hit* of the size, "migod that's
big" or "how did they do that !!??"  (usually, rest assured, by lab or
machine) it's hard to relate to the work. If it's under glass, you get
mostly reflections in that scale, almost impossible to hang without a
sharp line of ceiling lights showing, etc. etc. etc.  If it's not under
glass, the paper is at risk, and that's another distraction...

Of course as they put it in the time of ab-ex painting: if you can't make
it good, make it red; if you can't make it red, make it big. I happen to
like art that's labor intensive, but that shouldn't be all (and I freely
admit not "getting" Jeff Wall).  Meanwhile, and however, collectors do
believe bigger is better, at least those not paying NYC rents. (How big is
the Mona Lisa?)

Judy
.................................................................
| Judy Seigel, Editor                           >
| World Journal of Post-Factory Photography     > "HOW-TO and WHY"
| info@post-factory.org                         >
| <http://rmp.opusis.com/postfactory/postfactory.html>
.................................................................