I would have loved to see this. I'm really surprised at how small the images are — most of them just 8" x 8" —, but I guess that fits with the "haiku" quality he seems to be aiming for.
I would have loved to see this. I'm really surprised at how small the images are — most of them just 8" x 8" —, but I guess that fits with the "haiku" quality he seems to be aiming for.
I saw his recent exhibition at the Center for Photographic Art in Carmel, CA. The prints there were similarly small for the most part, but there were a handful of larger ones. I generally prefer small prints so the size worked for me.
He prints everything himself. The 8x8 prints are editions of 45, the few 14x14 (I'm guessing here--the gallery listed them art 16x20, but they were square) are editions of 4. I don't know if all the prints of an edition are made at the same time or in batches.
In his interviews he often mentions that he prefers smaller prints because the smaller size allows for (apologies, quoting from memory) "more intimate viewing experience".
In his interviews he often mentions that he prefers smaller prints because the smaller size allows for (apologies, quoting from memory) "more intimate viewing experience".
Last week I saw one of Kenna’s prints at Photo Eye Bookstore in Santa Fe. Size 8x8. Very rich tones.
I print small for two reasons. I find one can effectively display a 6x9 inch print on a wall and/or on a desktop. The size draws you in. Since I have been printing for 25 years I have enough bigger prints.
What's all of this small print nonsense? Doesn't everyone love using gallons of chemistry and moving everything they own to set out drying screens?
As to Michael Kenna, I saw a Japan exhibition in La Jolla, CA in 2004 and I saw a 50-year exhibition here in Seattle last summer. I enjoyed seeing a couple of larger prints by him but agree that there's nothing lacking in his more common 8x8 prints.
Not to mention all of the additional spotting. I'm printing a bunch of 11x14s for (hopefully) an upcoming exhibition and I've never had to do so much spotting in my life. In comparison, spots on those little 8x10s are a lot harder to see
Well, I loved "Rouge" way back when, but over the years MK's pictures became ever more perfected and sweet. Nothing wrong with that if that's your taste. These days I much prefer Mark Ruwedel.
Well, I loved "Rouge" way back when, but over the years MK's pictures became ever more perfected and sweet. Nothing wrong with that if that's your taste. These days I much prefer Mark Ruwedel.
Mark Ruwedel is an interesting case. Aside from having multiple projects centered on the names of places, the "Palms/Capri" work is profoundly un-interesting to me. I'm not sure I would compare his work with Michael Kenna. One could argue a certain level of minimalism in Ruwedel's work, but the similarities end there for me.
Mark Ruwedel is an interesting case. Aside from having multiple projects centered on the names of places, the "Palms/Capri" work is profoundly un-interesting to me. I'm not sure I would compare his work with Michael Kenna. One could argue a certain level of minimalism in Ruwedel's work, but the similarities end there for me.
I don't think Arthurwg was comparing. He rather seemed to be stating that one speaks to him more than the other.
Both can't be compared, although it is interesting to put them side by side. You then realize that they are looking for different things, and looking at the same things differently.
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
