|
|
|
-
To me it depends on population density of the wall - will this be a unique piece on that wall, or will it be one of many? When hanging shows where I have limited linear wallspace, I'll double up and hang two rows of images. I try to keep at least 3-4" between frames horizontally as well as vertically so that pieces meant to be read individually can be, but that's not a hard and fast rule. It also depends on if the images are horizontal, vertical, or a mix of the two.
-
When displaying photos at the local arts & crafts show, I cram framed prints onto panels that span 3 to 7 feet high. At home they hang high enough to clear bookcases and clutter.
-
There is no standard, but the "best" results are eyelevel based on the family or most people that would be looking at it. If your family has members between 4'8" and 5'6", the photographs in the home would be lower than for a family ranging from 5'9" to 6'6". Neither would be wrong, it is what would be best for each household.
Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!
Nothing beats a great piece of glass!
I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.
-
 Originally Posted by JBrunner
I was invited in to a house where the family was of short stature, averaging about five feet. I noticed all the pictures appeared to be hung quite low by my standards. I found this amusing. I also had the good sense to keep it to myself.
There is no standard, but the "best" results are eyelevel based on the family or most people that would be looking at it. If your family has members between 4'8" and 5'6", the photographs in the home would be lower than for a family ranging from 5'9" to 6'6". Neither would be wrong, it is what would be best for each household.
Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!
Nothing beats a great piece of glass!
I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.
-
I frequent the Drawings, Prints and photographs wing at Metropolitan Museum of Art, here in NYC. There is a long passage where the work is hung mostly in a horizontal line. I've noticed they are just slightly above my eye level. I'm short, about 5'6". So maybe if I were about 5'8" - 5'9" they'd be eye level. But anything goes, and let's face it, wives always right, even when they're dead wrong.
-
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
-
In my curatorial duties at different galleries, for a general rule of thumb I hang art work with the center line at 57". This can vary due to ceiling height, size of artwork, the works relation to other work near by, etc. There are too many variables and too little info to really recommend at which level.
If this is your own home, I would suggest at eye level.
YMMV
gene LaFord
Long live Ed "Big Daddy" Roth!!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"I don't care about Milwaukee or Chicago." - Yvon LeBlanc
-
It is alot easier for a tall person to bend down than a short person to stretch up. So I'd suggest going for eye level of a shorter person for gallery hanging.
-
At my university, we tend to hang them so the center of the image is 60 inches from the floor.
-
From a practical point of view the photographs should be centered at eye-level of the intended visitor.
But... there are other aspects:
you can arrange them to form relations between several of them, or to relate them to the room.
http://www.lenarot.de/images/2010/02.jpg
you can place them a way that the visitor is forced to take a certain position
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_KNvwAfuC47...a+de+Bank1.jpg
-
Yes, I have a friend that hangs his similar to the first link because they are spaced according to their relationship on a map as to where they had been shot.
|
|
Adv Reply
