PDA

View Full Version : You can't hold the wall with less than 2 m x 2 m



Pages : 1 [2]

jovo
03-24-2010, 08:02 PM
At a portfolio review last year I asked a gallerist about size, and the answer was that, in the NYC metro area at least, people do NOT have gigantic walls to decorate. In fact, the bulk of this person's clients were apartment dwellers with taste and enough money to buy art, and were quite content with modestly sized prints.

At that review one reviewer suggested I either make my (typically 10x10") prints either much bigger, or much smaller. I continue to make them now as I did before.

I also think that some photographers are motivated to make huge prints in order differentiate themselves from amateurs with typical digital printers who can grind out inkjets with as much skill and quality as they can. But, the "pro's" have spent big bucks to be able to do what the amateur can't. There was a TV ad for an entire digital workflow from "capture" to inkjet print performed by a four year old child. That sort of thing must really make the digigraphers uncomfortable.

PVia
03-25-2010, 12:44 AM
The last two major shows at the Getty, a huge museum here in LA, featured Irving Penn's Small Trades series, pretty much nothing larger than 16 x 20...and now the Frederick Evans platinum exhibit (amazing show you must see!) also with prints mostly smaller than 16 x 20. Their "Workers" exhibit just closed, almost all under 16 x 20 (there was an incredible Salgado print there!)...also the SB Museum of Art hosted the Brett Weston show last summer, same as above.

Oh, and last year's Michael Kenna show at a private gallery in Santa Monica showed his mostly 8 x 8 -ish prints.

I understand that Nick Brandt's show last year at Fahey-Klein featured very large prints of his incredible African series.

Just some food-info for thought...

clayne
03-25-2010, 01:00 AM
I went to a talk on collecting photography, last week, in DC. On the panel was a well known gallery owner who addressed the issue of size. It came down to "real estate". While most people won't question a 16x20 painting for 3-4,000 dollars, they will question a similar sized photograph at 10% of that price. Larger prints command larger dollars. Galleries have finite wall space, and need to maximize the dollars per square foot. Between rent, staff, and publicity, large prints give them more bang for the buck. If they can sell a 16x20 for $250, a more limited print (of the same image) at 32x40 can go for $2500. This applies to contemporary photographers, not vintage prints by famous shooters.

Once again - about money and not photography or "art" in any sense.