Does Size Matter in the Art World?

[Bill_1856]

Without commenting on the content of large images in general, I have to ask: has the recent ability to supply very large, technically fine, color photographic images tended to level the prices which galleries can charge, compared to paintings? And perhaps make them more attractive for curators to present on the walls of museums (compared to the 8x10s of Weston and the 16x20s of Adams)?

[mrpengun]

Short answer is yes.
But it is worth noting that many of current photographers creating really, really big prints (40"x60" and above)--especially the German "Neo-Modernists" such as Gursky, Struth, Ruff, Hoefer, etc-- are also frequently lumped into the "Contemporary Art" world, rather the "Fine-Art Photography".
The staples of big, big prints, even those like Jeff Wall who are very turned into photographic history with their work, get their work promoted into Contemporary Art usually in order to make more money.
That said, however, it is worth noting that the second most valuable work ever sold at auction was one of Steichen's Moonlight Ponds.
(The first was 99cents by Gursky).

[Walter Calahan]

depends on which world you play in

HA!

[percepts]

A big corporation that wants some contemporary artwork to put on the walls of its entrance lobby and board room isn't going to be looking for a 10x8 black and white print. It might however buy some of these http://www.chrisjordan.com/ which creates the impression that they are worried about the environment which they may be.

So the question is are Chris Jordans prints that big because they need to be? Well in his case I would certainly say yes. Why? Because if you wan't to influence the big corporations who have influence over consumption and waste, then make your works big enough to make them attractive to that sort of buyer. I think his works are very clever in that they illustrate his point very well through their sheer size and content which needs to be that big to make each single occurence resolvable by the human eye. And at the same time making them big enough to be desirable as a work to be placed prominently in a public space or coporation offices.

So what is it about anyones work that makes it worthy of being printed that large? If it is simply fine art and has nothing to say aside from its own beauty, then it really doesn't need to be very big save for filling wallspace.

p.s. The cynical answer: People who have a bigger space on their wall to fill usually have more disposable money to fill it with.

[QT Luong]

Yes, I believe the large size of modern prints has been integral in photography gaining prominence in the art/gallery/museum world. Nowadays, even photographs from 35mm film are often enlarged to 30x40 and beyond. At the group show I attended in Telluride, Aaron Huey, an emerging photographer, had a print 200 inch wide. He learned to use a 8x10 camera for the circumstance. Needless to say, his show was more eye catching than Balog's and mine (we had roughly 24x36 prints). For a contrarian view, listen to Shore at: http://www.theartnewspaper.tv/content.php?vid=544

[SamReeves]

35mm to 30x40? Is that with help from Photoshop?

Otherwise you'd be looking at basketball sized grain with a darkroom made print.

In any case size shouldn't matter, but an old professor of mine at college once said "if it sucks, make it big."

[Drew Wiley]

Darkroom prints are capable of finer detail than digital, especially from large format
originals. Anyone who thinks otherwise has sloppy work in mind. Digital can be more
convenient for small originals, but you can't put detail into the print that doesn't exist
in the original capture. A 30x40 from 8x10 is capable of great detail - that's one reason
reason I mainly shoot this format. People get their noses into the print and discover all kinds of things. Forget all that bull about "normal viewing distance". But when you get
bigger than 40x60 the commercial world is probably going to splice digital output. I think a lot of this is a passing fad in the museum set and so forth. So many people are
starting to do it that it will inevitably lose its impact - the haute art world is extremely fickle - and the next exciting thing will probably be 35mm contact prints turned into postage stamps!

[monkeymon]

[mrpengun]

35mm to 30x40? Is that with help from Photoshop?

Otherwise you'd be looking at basketball sized grain with a darkroom made print.

In any case size shouldn't matter, but an old professor of mine at college once said "if it sucks, make it big."

I worked with a photographer who would make 40x60" prints from 35mm slides and B&W. He (well, his printer) would first make a 4x5 interneg and, using that, make either a print or another, larger interneg. They definitely had some grain, but I wouldn't say they were especially grainy.

His work sells for $40,000 now, so he must be doing something right :-)

[sanchi heuser]

Some months ago I visited an exhibition in Krefeld, Germany.
Photographs made by Andreas Gursky.
Only a few photographs were printed large size, the rest was printed in smaller formats (for example 17" x 24"). I liked that very much. The photographs kept their
amazing quality.
See more:

http://www.metropolism.com/reviews/a...estion-of-siz/

It was planned to show the exhibition in Stockholm, Sweden and in
Vancouver, Canada.

sanchi