Re: why not small prints?

[Judy Seigel <jseigel@panix.com>]

On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, Bob Kiss wrote:

>     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.


New? When you take a magnifier to a daguerreotype, you see the buttons on
their shirt... I want "art" to tell me something I didn't know already.

I doubt "strange" either.... he's simply got a better PR machine than some
of the giant photogs of 10 years ago. Maybe a better lab?  Maybe a new
kind of Jobo?

J.