My beginnings were in art (painting, printing, etc) and the techniques and technologies haven't changed much over the centuries. Perhaps the greatest single technological development in painting occurred during my lifetime....the invention of acrylic paints, but even that drastic change had little to no effect on the actual images. You could still use the old techniques and materials, and most people, including artists, would be hard pressed to tell an acrylic from a water colour or an oil painting if it's executed properly. In other words, the new technology did not add anything to the existing artists' toolbox. You still grind the pigments the same way, and burn the tree the same way to make charcoal.
With photography the changes have been immense, especially over the last 2 decades. When you look at an original print made by someone like Edward Weston, my favorite photographer, it's usually a small print. Many of his photos had no enlargement made to them at all, they were contact printed from modest size negatives. This is a different subject, but the switch to digital imaging cost a lot of people their livelihood. When was the last time you saw someone actually painting a large billboard w/ a brush and paint? I do remember that day, as it was in my neighborhood in San Francisco, and even 35 years ago it seemed oddly out of place in the surrounding setting.
So I'm wondering if the works of Adams, Bresson, etc would be seen in a different light if they were working today, and at the same scale that they originally worked in? Adams is the ringer in here, as he normally worked large w/ large cameras anyway. How important is scale to a photograph? It's always been difficult to get a painting show if your work was not "gallery size". It's even harder for photographers. If Weston were showing his new work today, would it be appreciated, or would people simply smile bemusedly at the small photos? I keep thinking back to that George Beckman painting that stopped me dead in my tracks in a hallway at SFMOMA. To be truthful, if it had been only 1/3 the size, it would not have had the same effect.
With photography the changes have been immense, especially over the last 2 decades. When you look at an original print made by someone like Edward Weston, my favorite photographer, it's usually a small print. Many of his photos had no enlargement made to them at all, they were contact printed from modest size negatives. This is a different subject, but the switch to digital imaging cost a lot of people their livelihood. When was the last time you saw someone actually painting a large billboard w/ a brush and paint? I do remember that day, as it was in my neighborhood in San Francisco, and even 35 years ago it seemed oddly out of place in the surrounding setting.
So I'm wondering if the works of Adams, Bresson, etc would be seen in a different light if they were working today, and at the same scale that they originally worked in? Adams is the ringer in here, as he normally worked large w/ large cameras anyway. How important is scale to a photograph? It's always been difficult to get a painting show if your work was not "gallery size". It's even harder for photographers. If Weston were showing his new work today, would it be appreciated, or would people simply smile bemusedly at the small photos? I keep thinking back to that George Beckman painting that stopped me dead in my tracks in a hallway at SFMOMA. To be truthful, if it had been only 1/3 the size, it would not have had the same effect.
Last edited by a moderator:
