From: Katharine Thayer (kthayer@pacifier.com)
Date: 01/30/03-03:25:17 AM Z
Shannon Stoney wrote:
>
>
> I made about 100 4x5 prints last year, in several different
> processes, and at my university they were considered too small. But,
> I think this is partly because any photograph that is smaller than a
> television is considered too small by people nowadays, if it is hung
> on a wall, and that is how "art" photographs are supposed to be
> looked at. I think this is silly, though.
<snip>
Also, I have seen small photographs in museums on
> the wall, and they look fine.
I may have said this before in one of these recurring discussions about
how large prints "should" be, but it was when I saw the opening
exhibition at David Lawrence's gallery in Portland two or three years
ago that I understood that prints don't have to be big to be hung on
walls and seen. I can't remember what all was there; I think there were
vintage prints by big earlier names from Lawrence's collection, as well
as contemporary prints in various alternative processes, including a
couple of John Dugdale's cyanotypes. As I recall, there was nothing
bigger than 8x10 there, and yet every piece there had a presence that
carried across the room. It was a defining moment for me; while I have
continued to make larger prints up to 20x30, I have also exhibited much
smaller prints since then than I did before seeing this exhibition.
Katharine Thayer
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 02/21/03-10:44:17 AM Z CST