RE: why not small prints?

[Sam Wang <stwang@clemson.edu>]

Matting indeed is important. Many of the smaller works in the 
Polaroid Collection were actually presented in frames within much 
larger frames, and looked good. Now, the multi-layered matts used in 
Elton John's Collection, plus the heavy gilded frames got a little 
too much - particularly when the image was an Edward Weston contact 
print!

Sam


>I agree with Don. Matting can have an enormous effect on the presentation. I
>have been recently doing Van Dyke contact prints using 35mm negatives. Using
>Rives BFK paper, there is some loss of detail (I'm still experimenting to
>see if there is a better readily-available paper, but the Rives has a nice
>finish). All of my VDB prints are either medium format or 35mm contact
>prints and I have never had anyone comment negatively on the size. Granted,
>it's not for everyone, but I won't bother indulging in a big v. small debate
>here.
>
>I always mat my prints. Lately I have been experimenting with 8-ply board,
>usually about 3" all the way around. I have also tried double matting, using
>the same white matboard for both mats, and this is very effective as well.
>One mat I created had a smaller opening than the artwork so the viewer had
>to move around to see the entire print. (Framers get bored too) To me, small
>prints draw the viewer closer in, both physically and conceptually, and deep
>mats enhance that quality.
>
>As a side note, one direction for your work if you are interested in
>creating larger prints may be to combine a few small prints (on the same
>paper or separately) into one larger image.
>
>Have fun!
>
>Nick Frazier
>Jill Flink Fine Art
>Raleigh, NC