Re: size matters

[Richard Sullivan FRPS <richsul@earthlink.net>]

At 09:30 PM 8/5/2001 -0700, you wrote:
>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

Serious collectors buy prints to mostly put in drawers. Beginning 
collectors buy to hang on walls. Small prints don't do well on the wall. 
Small prints only sell well if you happen to be a modern master since there 
are collectors who want them for their drawers. There are of course 
exceptions to the rule, but the rule dictates large prints, especially for 
emerging photographers. The same applies to the graphics print market as 
well, but even there the modern masters (Johns, Dine, etc)make big prints 
to hang on walls. Starting price for many of there work is in the 
$25,000.00+ ranges so many serious buyers want them for their walls.

--Dick Sullivan