Well, do tell gallery owners of your preferences. I'm certain they would be happy to show smaller prints, not make a profit on the sales, and go out of business. But I am certain that to serve you as a buyer of photography, they will be more than eager to satisfy your tastes.
Originally Posted by Tom Nutter
On Sunday Morning on CBS I had seen where Elton John had collected small prints.
I'm usually not a fan of large prints. Some galleries have prints so big you have to step back to see the whole thing. Small prints have more of an intimate, precious quality. There are exceptions of course.
At galleries I enjoy watching huge color c-prints a lot more than miniature 'fine art' b&w's. At home I have almost only smallish b&w prints. I just don't have the cash flow to be able to buy huge c-prints.
Is it me or are all the large to mural sized prints these days extremely mundane and boring?! I was at the Met a month or two ago to get a last viewing of the night photography exhibit, and when I drifted over to the contemporary art section, the majority of the huge C-prints we bland, and just seemed to be there because they were huge. I guess thats art for ya, the bigger you go the more there is perceived importance of the piece.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I once hears a philosopher state the following (about paintings): "Pictures have only one size: the right one"....
And then he continued to explain what we all proberly have noticed: sometimes we see an image, and imidiately think: I wish it was smaller... or I wish it was bigger... or I wish the author keeps the size, but crop here and there....
... and sometimes we just think: WOW.
the wow goes for the right size for the right picture.
If this is true, then we're in luck, as we can make several different sized of the same negative - a painter (a good one) knows - or have to know - before starting...
I'll never even consider printing for gallery tastes. the sizes are mine to chose, and if that proves wrong, than the gallery owners can just reject my images.. very simple.
I also once heard about smal (very small) images, that they are (or can be) as photographic gems. Like as in the really old days, when images were hidden in small boxes.
I like to exhibit in different sizes. The larger size images "push the wiever away" - the small ones "drag them in"..
I like to get the visitors to "work" a little. Too many times have I seen exhibitions where all the images were in the same size and framing. that kills any exhibition...
(.. but what do I know - I never seem to sell, so I might be wrong...)
This certainly has been my observation. I print mostly 8X10. Sometimes 11X14. I also have a series of small prints matted to 5X7 in cute little frames.
Originally Posted by Newt_on_Swings
I look at other mediums such as oil, watercolor and colored pencil, and I see a lot of small, intimate pictures. Why can't photography be appreciated that way? In our house, we have several small art works. They are in the bedroom and bathroom, and really look good.
My theory is that you just have to wait for the right person to come along.
I DO think artists should take charge and make the art they find meets the standard of their personal best, and stop letting gallery owners set the bar. It is backwards to empower gallery owners and allow them to set the trends.
Originally Posted by ROL
I've really been enjoying this thread. Nothing like having one's prejudices confirmed! On the island where I live we've just had our week-long annual Arts Feast, in which local artists show their work at local eating places. I had three exhibitions, featuring large, medium and small photos. I didn't sell any of the large prints, only three of the medium (13x19) and seven of the small (between 8x10 and 4x6) plus lots that I made up into postcards. I suspect there were several factors involved: 1. tourists, who came in their thousands, can't cart around large art works while they're on holiday, 2. locals were telling galleries that they simply had no room left on their walls, after several years of supporting the event, 3. times are hard and people don't want to spend on expensive large art works and 4. my small photos, which sold well, were in plain mats, unframed, no glass and hence inexpensive and portable.
I've been complaining long and hard here that photos have been getting bigger and bigger every year. It's been very noticeable that it's the big ones that always seem to win the competitions here and I'm sure some photographers have simply gone along with that. It's crude and unsophisticated, but it wins prizes...
God I'm getting cynical! But yes, small is perennially beautiful.
i love small prints, i print mainly 4x5 inch contacts,using carbon, cyano, fibre silver and sometimes a vandyke. i also like to print strips of three 6x45 and 6x6, 6x9cm and sometime a half dozen 35mm.
a fantastic look is to print the same neg in cyano vdb and carbon and frame them altogether.
using small negs is a must for learning carbon transfer as the mistakes do pile up, also another nice thing about small is books, make a nice 12 page book of prints.
i have been making simple 4 ring books using white card and tissue page with a homemade paper mache cover, bound together with stripped and twisted household wire (copper)
anyway im rambling, go small as you cant print more lol