Agreed.then the wall size, back-lit Ilfochrome with life size elements and/or human figures will be much more likely to overwhelm.
AA said"if you can't make it good, make it big";certainly works for Gursky!Printed photographs just keep getting bigger. I mean REALLY bigger. Yes, there is Gursky with his 12 foot photos,. but even less accomplished photogs are printing out ever larger images now that dot printers can come in billboard sizes.
Does size make pictures better? Is 16 feet by 20 feet somehow really better than 16" x 20"? I guess so. Or maybe not.
Size of photographs seems to be correlated to the size of hamburgers, which now have four patties, plus bacon, plus a chicken breast or two.
Personally, I think it is a stretch.
I love shooting INSTAX for that very reason.I realised when viewing some of my partner's Polaroid images, that photographs become more like objects when you print very small. They become items which beg to be handled and interacted with in different ways than, say, an 8 x 10 print.
There's definitely something beautiful and interesting about very small prints.
I don't think there is any printer that can print billboard size. I think the billboards are printed in strips and not as a whole.Printed photographs just keep getting bigger. I mean REALLY bigger. Yes, there is Gursky with his 12 foot photos,. but even less accomplished photogs are printing out ever larger images now that dot printers can come in billboard sizes.
Does size make pictures better? Is 16 feet by 20 feet somehow really better than 16" x 20"? I guess so. Or maybe not.
Size of photographs seems to be correlated to the size of hamburgers, which now have four patties, plus bacon, plus a chicken breast or two.
Personally, I think it is a stretch.
Gallery space is unlimited? Maybe if you're Julian Schnabel, or the Starn Twins, but not where I'm from.
I'd rather hang more of my work than less. And if you're using Nielsen frames w/glass you're familiar with the cost, right?
I went to Rowell's gallery in New Mexico. I felt it was like well done wallpaper. Very pretty in that Thomas Kincaid way.
You have reversed the logic.Therefore, any of the multitude of photographs featuring 'people in everyday life' would only be properly appreciated in wall size too? And pictures of buildings would only be appreciated when in life size? The Ladybug?
On the other other hand, if you consider Velazquez' Las Meninas or Michelangelo's David, you may very well realize that the intended, large size of the work can be very important.I am often surprised by the diminutive size of so many famous paintings created during the renaissance, not to speak of the little etchings by Rembrandt. There are also quite a few iconic photographs that are not that large.
Printed photographs just keep getting bigger. I mean REALLY bigger. Yes, there is Gursky with his 12 foot photos,. but even less accomplished photogs are printing out ever larger images now that dot printers can come in billboard sizes.
Does size make pictures better? Is 16 feet by 20 feet somehow really better than 16" x 20"? I guess so. Or maybe not.
Size of photographs seems to be correlated to the size of hamburgers, which now have four patties, plus bacon, plus a chicken breast or two.
Personally, I think it is a stretch.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?