presenting small prints?

[Shannon Stoney <shannonstoney@earthlink.net>]

Joe wrote:

. Yet, I would
> venture a guess that the common idea of "bigger is better" is a hold over
> from painting and drawing.

After I posted this question, I was thinking about whether this idea comes
from painting and drawing--that big is better--and then I remembered seeing
some tiny Rembrandt etchings in a gallery in New Orleans that just seemed
marvelous, in part because they were so small and intricate.

  I could be way off base with this but, there is probably more sales
> of couch art (the piece that one hangs on the wall behind the sofa) than
> other forms. This way the owner can view the image from the safety of the
> other side if the room. In this we could say that the market is driving
> print size. The other side of this is image size can be driven by function.

To follow this line of thought:  if big prints are for hanging on the wall,
and small prints are for looking at up close, like a daguerreotype, I wonder
if there is some way to present small prints other than in a frame for a
wall?  Like, maybe they could be in a little book, or a presentation case
like a dag?  Or a desk frame, like people put snapshots in?  Something that
can be held in the hands.

My friend who framed the small print I gave her put it in her kitchen in a
place where you can look at it up close.  I think there are places where
small prints fit the "decor," just as large prints go over the sofa.
Like the bathroom maybe?
I can think of worse fates for my prints than being scrutinized while
someone sits on the toilet in the powder room.

That raises another question:  is it bad for prints to be hung in a bathroom
that has a shower?  Is the humidity too high?


>
> You stated that your images were primarily landscapes. For many people the
> idea of small landscapes is counter intuitive. Could it be conditioning
> again? Is it one of those old tired rules of photography, like the one third
> rule, that landscapes must be huge to show the grandeur of nature? (A hold
> over from the Saint Ansel school of thought)

Well, they are landscapes, but they are pictures of small things around a
rural neighborhood, rather than grand vistas like you see out west.   They
are cows, barns, fence posts, creeks, dogs, junked cars, tool sheds, etc.
They are not about the grandeur of nature so much as about how people and
nature coexist  in a rural landscape, sort of like (if I may dare to make
the comparison) Atget's studies of old courtyards around the outskirts of
Paris.  Come to think of it, weren't Atget's negatives small too?

--shannon