size matters

[Shannon Stoney <shannonstoney@earthlink.net>]

Brian wrote:

> I think part of the acceptance factor is the visual sophistication of the
> viewer. Clyde Butcher, a well known Florida photographer, exhibits prints in
> the 4 foot by 6 foot and larger size. You can stand in a group of people at
> an exhibit and listen to all the ooooohs and ahhhhhhhs over these absolutely
> horrible (some, not all) prints. People just aren't used to seeing prints
> that big and the sheer size impresses them.

I read the article that someone pointed out was in the NY times today, by
Vicki Goldberg, and this seems to be essentially her point:  size is
impressive.  She was reviewing a show called "Size Matters."  She didn't get
much further than that.  She also mentioned, though, that fine art
photography, in Stieglitz's time, used to be on a much more modest and
intimate scale, with the 8x10 contact print being the rule.
I was kind of surprised that she didn't examine the implications of the
trend toward huge photographs in very much depth.

--shannon