Re: why not small prints?

[Darryl Baird <dbaird@umflint.edu>]

Tom Ferguson wrote:
> I have a series of infrared images
> all shot at a local botanical garden. All printed about 2.5x3.5 inches and
> matted to 11x14. I love them, my wife often says they are my best work. I've
> never gotten a single gallery to carry them. I'm not trying to sound too
> money hungry, the point is that the work almost never gets seen.

Hmmm, I think you've confirmed one theory here, Tom, that intimacy is
one rationale for smaller prints. I suspect (putting on the
psycho-babble hat) your wife likes the intimate feeling these prints
deliver, more like knowing the "real" Tom. I love small work, but
galleries kill the experience of intimacy. Portfolio boxes, books,
postcards are much better choices for aesthetic reasons.

-- 
Darryl Baird