Re: why not small prints?

[Bob Kiss <bobkiss@caribsurf.com>]

DEAR JUDY,
    I LOVE Dags but the experience of taking a loupe to a Dag is quite
different from standing 8 feet away from an enormous panoramic print and
then walking up and clearly seeing the detail of the skiers that appeared
only as a line when viewed from a distance.  Yes, the scale and ability to
see both the forest and trees without a loupe is new...but, don't get me
wrong (as Chrissie used to say) new doesn't mean that I necessarily like
it...just that it is significant as a step.  Believe me, having seen the
show, once is quite enough.
                    CHEERS!
                            BOB
----- Original Message -----
From: Judy Seigel <jseigel@panix.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: why not small prints?


>
>
> 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.
>