David Kachel, First New Article in Over a Decade!

[davidkachel]

I just posted a new monograph entitled "Ban the Bedsheets - Size Matters" on my website today. It is free to read and print one copy.

Go to: www.davidkachel.com/monographs.html and click on the title "Ban the Bedsheets" on the right hand side of the page.

Feedback would be most appreciated and if you find the content of value, please do what you can to make this go viral. Also, I encourage you to send me related anecdotes and examples.

For those accustomed to the technical nature of all my past magazine articles I apologize, but I have foresworn all further technical research and am restricting myself to my own creative photographs and to writing monographs related to the art and marketing of fine art photography.

David Kachel

 

[Wyno]

Hi David,
I enjoyed your article. Very well thought out. I hope you don't mind but I've sent the link to man in charge of the visual arts degree program at the tertiary institution I work at. He is also an art critic and has written several books. I am looking forward to his comments on your article.

He can sometimes be a bit of an artistic snob and I'm wondering whether he will agree or disagree with your stance.

Mike Wynd

 

[davidkachel]

Wyno,
Thanks for taking time to comment and please feel free to send the link to as many people as you like. This monograph lays a partial foundation for what comes next which is substantially more, um... substantial! So the more interest this first one garners, the better.

If I may ask, who is your friend?

 

[Peter De Smidt]

Most of us would probably agree that there is a small range of sizes that work best for a given photograph at a specific viewing difference. And it's no doubt true that many photographs are printed too big. Nonetheless, I've seen a number of big prints that I've enjoyed, and it's safe to say that other people occasionally enjoy a big print. Otherwise, no one would buy them. This isn't necessarily in conflict with the position expressed in the essay, since it could be claimed that some large prints retain "intimacy." So while I generally agree with the view expressed, the essay isn't very interesting since it pretends to express a controversial view, namely small prints are better than large prints, but there's such a big fudge factor that the real claim made isn't very strong.

 

[davidkachel]

Peter,

I'm afraid you missed the point by a bit. I specifically stated in the monograph that I was not claiming that small was better than large. I was saying that large often removes the intimacy factor. I agree that some prints work just fine large. But I also propose that the number of images that work well large is smaller by several orders of magnitude than the number that exist large.

 

[mike c]

Nice article on mounting and framing also.

 

[Peter De Smidt]

Right, you didn't claim that small prints are better than large ones, which is a good thing since that would be a very subjective and controversial claim. My point is that you seem to want to make that claim, which would be interesting but likely false, but your actual claim is something like what you state above, namely that "the number of images that work well large is smaller by several orders of magnitude than the number that exist large." That claim is likely true, but it's not really news. If your claim is instead that a significant amount of work on the art fair and gallery scene is too big, then that's more interesting, since a fair number of people would disagree. After all, people must be buying some of it, or it would quickly die out. The problem with that claim, though, is that it's a subjective value judgment. You're simply reporting your taste and denigrating those whose taste is different.

 

[davidkachel]

Thanks Mike,

That's really there just so buyers of my prints won't be suckered into getting them framed with inadequate materials. I suspect I should take some of the edge out of it though. I've just seen so much junk come out of frame shops that it is hard for me to remain calm and detached when discussing the subject.

 

[davidkachel]

Peter,

You're still not quite getting it. The key word is "intimacy". And this has nothing to do with my taste. It has to do with the convergence of the important factors in a photograph as mentioned in the monograph.
Perhaps I should take another look at it to see if it can be made more clear.
That's one of the advantages to internet publishing... it's never too late to improve a piece.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

I've got to agree with Peter. The article is mildly interesting but certainly not interesting enough to "go viral". Perhaps you should not have set up expectations that you are starting an exciting new photographic movement as important as the "straight photography" movement esposed by Group f64.

 

[Wyno]

David,
his name is Christopher Heathcote, and he used to be one of the art lecturer's at Melbourne University here in Australia. One of his books is titled
"A Quiet Revolution - The Rise of Australian Art."
Mike

 

[davidkachel]

... Perhaps you should not have set up expectations that you are starting an exciting new photographic movement as important as the "straight photography" movement esposed by Group f64.

??? Where did I say or imply that?

 

[Peter De Smidt]

Saying "Ban the Bedsheets" doesn't seem consistent with "I agree that some prints work just fine large." Why ban them if some of them work just fine? The title and the talk about the poor taste of people with large family photographs on display certainly gave the impression that you disdain large prints, but then you back pedal when it comes to the actual claim expressed later, as we've talked about.

Moreover, I simply don't buy your attempt to objectify your subjective taste.

The attempt of some F64 photographers and their friends to de-legitimize other types of photography was a low point in the careers of some excellent photographers and critics. I was glad to read Beaumont Newhall's recantation in his book Focus: A Memoirs of a life in Photography.

On page 253, Mr Newhall says, " Regarding straight photography, it's a good thing that photographers are now free to experiment in all kinds of ways. The f.64 school was very narrow--and the school of straight photography was a very small group, after all, to have set up the rules of the game, so to speak. Today a new aesthetic and technical freedom is happening all around. Certainly this is an age in which images are of great importance, whether they are electronic images on television or in video or pictures in books. I don't feel photo-montage is at all an inferior type of photograph--the seeing and quality of the work are what is important."

Your attempt to objectify your taste reminds me of the attempt of f.64 exponents to stamp out pictorialism.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

While I like the intimacy of some photographs, and I usually print small myself, I don't think that intimacy is inherently superior or inferior to monumentalism. There's a point to be made there, but the argument seems like a bit of a straw man to me.

I've seen some of Adams' contact prints and some of his large prints, and many of his natural subjects are in fact monumental subjects that are treated as such and are worthy of monumental prints. Ed Burtynsky's photographs are often about the relationship between monumental phenomena and intimate detail, and it is only possible to show both of those with a large print. Andreas Gursky aims to compete with the monumentality of contemporary painting, and he's confronting world historical subjects, so I think it's not unreasonable that his prints are often the size of many bed sheets. My in-laws have one of those enormous family portraits on canvas from the 70s, plaids and all, turning that shade of pinkish brown that color prints from that era generally sink into, and indeed it's ridiculous, but I could imagine family portraits, say, of heads of state that might serve a public function and require the monumental treatment.

 

[polyglot]

I disagree that a large print must take away the intimacy of a shot. While I probably wouldn't print a portrait of a person (much) larger than lifesize, I had for a while a 1x3m landscape print hung directly above my desk at work. I saw it every day from a distance of about 1m and it wasn't until it had been hanging for a month or two that I stopped noticing new things in the scene. Being right up close with a large and highly detailed print can certainly be intimate - it draws you into the landscape.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

??? Where did I say or imply that?

You said: "Feedback would be most appreciated and if you find the content of value, please do what you can to make this go viral. Also, I encourage you to send me related anecdotes and examples.
"

When something "goes viral", it spreads rapidly through a medium. In this case, the internet. So, is that significant? Sure, the implication is that you are hoping to convince many photographers of your viewpoint (which I don't disagree with). It's just that there isn't anything earthshaking about deciding to print small for the sake of intimacy. That happens to be the way I do it, but I don't find anything profound about that. It just happens to suit my subjects.

 

[patrickjames]

There are other things that are interesting about photographs than just intimacy. The medium has exploded with digital imagery in the last few years. We are all aware of it, or should be. It it bad or wrong? It has become easy to print large like never before. It is just as easy to make a 4'x6' print as it is a 4"x6" print. It takes only one click. There are of course many who make these gigantic prints that shouldn't. In the years to come collectors will be less impressed by size, but probably not by much. It is all part of the game that you are playing now that you have gone fully digital, not that that is a bad thing. I think you might be a little behind the curve on this. Your ideas aren't anything new.

Just so you know I print everything small because I like small prints. They work for me. I also enjoy looking at others work large if need be. To each his own. If I like or don't like an image it is because of the image, not because of the size.

 

[clayne]

David, I think you should check out the following: Dead Link Removed - Brooks Jensen.

 

[davidkachel]

Clayne,

Thanks. I think I have heard that one.

 

[davidkachel]

A couple of you have suggested that you don't think a discussion of intimacy as it relates to size is 'new'. I searched for days before doing this monograph and found nothing anywhere discussing this topic. I would appreciate any references you can supply that have touched on this topic before. Not that one cannot write about a subject unless it is completely new (there would be a terrible dearth of writing in that case) but I did my homework pretty carefully, so if this topic has been touched on before I want to see it and reference to it.

Polyglot,

I didn't say that a large print 'must' take away intimacy. I said that the larger the print, the more likely it is to lose its intimacy.

 

[doughowk]

Interesting article. It made me curious about distance (probably very stupid question). If the display location of an image does not give us any hints as to our distance from the image and therefore its size, perceived size is relative to our viewing condition. What we think is an 8X10 might be 30X40, just viewed at a corresponding greater distance. So I suspect print size is dependent on its interrelationship to its surroundings.

 

[davidkachel]

doughowk,

I think most people innately know whether they are focusing near or far. Also, at a greater distance there is no longer any visible fine detail, no surface texture. It would be an interesting experiment however. And I agree, surroundings play a significant role regardless.

Another interesting experiment would be to set up half a dozen different sizes of print of the same image, in the same room, lighting, etc. and then bring in say 100 people to view each size image separately (a different 100 people for each print size) and film how they behave in front of the print. Where they stand, if they press their noses against the glass. If they move back and forth a lot, etc.

 

[Lee L]

David Vestal, The Art of Black-and-White Enlarging, last chapter on "print esthetics and beyond" talks about similar issues, including his take on some Adams prints being too large. But his discussion is more about each individual print being sized to suit the image, and he does say he prefers some images at larger sizes.

Lee

 

[davidkachel]

Lee,
If they're not too long, would you be so kind as to send me the quotes and page numbers privately? I have/had the Vestal book but can't find it.

 

[Lee L]

Lee,
If they're not too long, would you be so kind as to send me the quotes and page numbers privately? I have/had the Vestal book but can't find it.

I have the first edition copyright 1984. It's a section starting on page 257 under the heading "Print Size". It goes to page 270, but most of it is samples of prints at different sizes (given the limitations of the book format), so less than 3 pages of text.

On one Adams print in a book: "One picture is a mountain landscape which Ansel prints about 30x40 inches. In the book it's compressed to something more like 4.5x6 inches -all the page size allows, and something vital is lost"

In the next 'graph: "Another Ansel Adams photograph works better for me as and 8 x 10 inch contact print than in any larger size I've seen. I saw the small print first and was struck by the immense scale of what it shows - a valley floor filled as far as you can see with huge boulders. A wall-size print I saw later didn't feel as big to me as the 8 x 10."

Other examples from his own work, Lisette Model, Alfred Steiglitz, Atget, etc.

Lee