[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
> 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.