Re: why not small prints?

[Judy Seigel <jseigel@panix.com>]

On Sun, 5 Aug 2001, Tom Ferguson wrote:
> Yes there are exceptions. Arg... brain freeze.. I can picture her images,
> but not her name.. midwest photographer who does wonderful staged pinhole
> images, all about 4x5 inches.... (sound of Tom hitting head against desk,
> and still not remembering).

I missed your PS until just now.... about Ruth Thorne-Thomson -- she did
make a mark with her small contacts, but I believe went larger later, and
as I recall, in her book many were printed larger than the original. I
liked them smaller better and think she's one of the best photographers we
have. But, you had to REMEMBER her name !! Jeff Wall & Andreas Gursky are
hot -- I myself don't "get" either one of them, but we all know those
names.


> OK, I'm better now... anyway, from experience my 11x14 platinums sell twice
> as well as my 8x10 platinums which sell 4 times as well as my 4x5 platinums.
> My 16x20 silvers sell twice as well as.... you get the idea.

In the 60s & 70s we used to sneer at the fetish of humongous abstract
expressionist paintings to "express" a few paint drips, by saying, "if you
can't make it good, make it red, if you can't make it red make it big."
Photography has now "succeeded' to the point where it, too, is market
driven -- & collectors want big. Hard to fight the zeitgeist.

My first love in photography was the "lapidary" effect of a photograph
"the size of your face," so you can almost consume it in a breath. (For my
own work, for gum printing, right now anyway, it turns out I want bigger,
but am still thrilled in a gallery or museum when *the* power photograph
is small.) When John Dugdale was an unknown, his gallery had requests from
collectors for same prints larger. He didn't do them. He has gone to 11x14
on occasion, but still loves 4x5 -- and collectors glad to get them. If
sales are an issue, I suspect it may be double or nothing. If you succeed
in going against the prevailing norms, it improves your standing.

Judy