Re: why not small prints?

[Bob Kiss <bobkiss@caribsurf.com>]

DEAR JUDY, SHANNON ET AL.,
    I recall during my first show in 1996 that a fellow photographer said
that he "...couldn't see my prints..." because they were too big (16X20)!
He said that the large size made it hard to view my images.  Go figure!
    Now, Gursky is another example of "firstitis" but he has actually
accomplished something...he has eliminated the dichotomy between the forest
and the trees.  When you look at one of his giant prints you can see BOTH
the forest and the trees...figuratively and literally.  You see grand
panoramas of either snowy mountain and valley scenes, office buildings,
op[era houses, thrift shops AND you see the fine details in each of
them...the forest AND  the trees.  I recall seeing his show in NYC in April
and when I viewed a very large print of a snow covered valley with mountains
in the background there was a thin line snaking through the valley.  When I
walked up to the print I could see individual cross country skiers in a long
line through the center of the print.  While not my personal cup of tea, I
appreciated that he had taken a strange and new step.
    CHEERS!
        BOB KISS

----- Original Message -----
From: Judy Seigel <jseigel@panix.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2001 4:58 PM
Subject: Re: why not small prints?


>
> 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
>