tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935046131385109105.post8139633219455295977..comments2024-03-26T23:27:56.399-07:00Comments on B: The Small PrintBlake Andrewshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07187987264904729243noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935046131385109105.post-33319851933110568802014-08-21T07:18:24.278-07:002014-08-21T07:18:24.278-07:00Harvey Arche:
"I've never entirely boug...Harvey Arche: <br /><br />"I've never entirely bought in to the huge print thing. Yeah, it worked great for Avedon's 'The American West', but for SP I've always been uncomfortable with it. And those Crewdson things, leaving the SP question aside, the scale has to do with the sheer theatricality of his vision, as opposed to an unstaged event.<br /><br />SP shooters mostly use fairly wide angle lenses for a very good reason, in that it demands they be in close to the action. Their images should be printed with exactly the same intent - that the viewer should be pulled in to an immediate engagement with the image. <br /><br />You can't achieve that with a print that requires you to stand across the room to get a good view of it. SP should be printed on an intimate scale. period.<br /><br />Of course this flies in the face of the gallery model, and the museum mass-attendance-show model, which brings in the bucks. If you're in the business, you can't afford to have view-time wasted by a clot of one or two people hogging the image when it's printed 8x10."Blake Andrewshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07187987264904729243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935046131385109105.post-61412694323519124882014-08-19T09:50:35.923-07:002014-08-19T09:50:35.923-07:00The HUGE prints are nice, but they would never fit...The HUGE prints are nice, but they would never fit in my small house; or any of the small houses of friends and family. Winogrand's imagery at The Met is "small" - I believe 11x14" ish. Beautiful silver gelatins. <br />Interesting, I had to stand closer to his posthumous prints (contact sheets marked by Gary) versus the curators selects. Although the prints were the same size.CJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16813283882222410686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935046131385109105.post-53123465656164626352014-08-18T18:23:43.774-07:002014-08-18T18:23:43.774-07:00I am thinking of Harry Callahan and a period in hi...I am thinking of Harry Callahan and a period in his ouvre in which he got heavy on 4 x 5 and contact print from it, for some of the reasons stated here (but some 50-60 years ago).<br /><br />Personal choice, trend or lack of resources (or not), small but still legible size prints are beautiful invitations to someone's work.<br /><br />Cheers and tanks for sharing.F. Martín Morantehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10123086977385827734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935046131385109105.post-74488622543332565542014-08-17T23:12:43.980-07:002014-08-17T23:12:43.980-07:00I only encountered Judy Fiskin's work for the ...I only encountered Judy Fiskin's work for the first time at LACMA last winter. I had a bit of a similar reaction to noting how much interest 2.5" square photos could hold. It's not a novelty that the size is small, the size invites you to look closely and the photo has to hold up to the scrutiny.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935046131385109105.post-63096173783527378352014-08-17T12:12:02.120-07:002014-08-17T12:12:02.120-07:00A coupla years ago to see the Henry Wessel exhibit...A coupla years ago to see the Henry Wessel exhibit at SF MOMA, one had to first go past a wall sized Mitch Epstein, American Power photo. It literally knocked your socks off with it's sheer beauty, bold color and HUMONGOUS SIZE. Who thought up that presentation; how could Wessel's smallish B&W's possibly hold up to that!?<br /><br />Very well indeed. The more intimate viewing experience (and his exquisite prints) provided the perfect balance.Stan B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17381743002180926900noreply@blogger.com