What do you consider to be a mural?

[Michael Wesik]

Hi everyone,

I had an interesting conversation with a gallery about how to describe the larger of my silver gelatin prints, ranging from 30x40 to about 50x70 inches (image size) - I pretty much tap out at a paper size of 57x85 inches. Their suggestion was to term these prints oversize rather than murals to avoid any confusion with much bigger installations like huge lightboxes or paintings that may span over 9ft wide, for example.

I see their point and was curious to hear your thoughts. At what size is a print considered a mural?

Michael

[Richard Wasserman]

My definition of mural is that the image is applied directly to the wall—is that passe? Why do you need a term, can't you simply state the dimensions of you photographs?

[paulr]

I suppose I'd consider a photo a mural if it were so big or had other qualities that required a permanent installation. I don't really think of something in a frame that hangs from a screw in the wall as a mural, even if it's big.

[IanG]

When it needs to be printed on more than one piece of paper.

Ian

[Old-N-Feeble]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mural

I have used the term "mural-size" but that's really a misnomer because there's no true definition for it. I used (misused) the term because most people understood what I was trying to convey. This is because the term "mural" has been misused/abused by so many people and for so long that its definition seems to be in transitional phase.

[John Kasaian]

According to Adams---


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7EbLIdE88Q
Oh, I thought I'd read Muriel. Never mind:rolleyes:

[Michael Wesik]

Richard...The subject came up in the context of the limitations of silver-printing versus other approaches to production within the medium. They weren't asking me to define my sizing, per se. It was just a matter of discussion. One way or another, I don't think there's a right or wrong.

paulr...That's a really interesting point. I didn't considered the permanence of an installation piece or the significance of the nature of its installation.

Ian...I completely agree. I wish I didn't have an aversion to enlarging my negs more than 4.5x, though stitching prints together is an animal unto itself.

Old-N-Feeble...I think you hit the nail on the head. As long as you're conveying what you intend, there really is no misuse of the term. A lot of terms and ideas are appropriated in art and I think their misuse is more a function of whether that conveyance happens, whether it fits with a given piece.

John...point well taken. ;)

Thanks for the feedback, everyone!

Michael

[Greg Miller]

The conventional use of the word mural pertains to applying a piece of artwork directly to a wall. That would exclude a framed piece of art. I don't think mural has any connotation as to size (other than the fact that walls tend to be large).

If you were going to adhere your print directly to a wall, the the word mural may make sense. Otherwise I think not.

[Old-N-Feeble]

Let's try to 'bend' definition of mural just a bit. What if we permanently mount (glue) an image to a wall? Or, if that's not confusing enough, what if we paint a wall with silver emulsion and print directly on that? Please forgive the ensuing chemical mess and stains.:)

[chad23]

It's an enlarged photograph applied directly to a wall or ceiling, maybe when more then one piece of photo have to be printed.

[sun of sand]

Getting philosophical in here

30x40 not
40x40+ not quite
I think I'd have to say anything like 30xover60 to be big enough to call mural
Guess that's about relative life size

Life size portrait I'd call a mural or be OK with it

Very narrow images need a longer dimension than 60
1'x8'


Oversize sounds stupid
Call it monumental

[ImSoNegative]

According to Adams---


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7EbLIdE88Q
Oh, I thought I'd read Muriel. Never mind:rolleyes:

she sort of reminds me of ginger on Gilligan's island

[Roger Thoms]

Clyde Butcher immediately came to mind and in checking out his website he describes his large prints as "mural sized" prints. I think that differentiates between an actual mural applied directly to the wall and a large print that is more likely to be framed or mounted and hung on the wall. Just a thought.

Roger

[Michael Wesik]

Clyde Butcher immediately came to mind and in checking out his website he describes his large prints as "mural sized" prints. I think that differentiates between an actual mural applied directly to the wall and a large print that is more likely to be framed or mounted and hung on the wall. Just a thought.

Roger

I think you've touched on the crux of the issue. Calling something a mural versus mural-sized is really the point of debate. I've seen several artists refer to their work as mural-size and I've never taken issue with it beyond some images hovering below the 30x40 inch range. But as hand processed silver prints go, those are still big images.

Another consideration is whether processing conditions and methods factor into sizing designations because larger prints can require different fabrication treatments or processing adjustments relative to smaller prints. Perhaps the dividing line falls somewhere in the realm of process rather than actual size or installation?

Thanks again for your input, everyone.

Michael

[Old-N-Feeble]

In commercial art sales, from a buyer's perspective, "mural-sized" is far more appealing than "really big". The term has that certain magical, "je ne sais quoi" that's all too important in the "art world". IMO, this is why artists and photographs describe their really big offerings... because it sounds better and therefore boosts sales. If I were to make 30x40 or larger prints I'd described them as mural-sized because it would boost my ego and it sounds way cooler. To heck with accuracy of terms!!:)

[Vaughn]

We made murals -- usually 42" x60" or thereabouts. I know they were murals because the roll of paper said 42"x33' mural roll on it! :cool:

[Will Frostmill]

As a rule of thumb, I think of something as mural size if it's height when mounted approaches 67 inches - my height. If it's almost as tall as me, or taller, it's unquestionably a mural. A 40" tall print with 10" matboard is on that order, so sure. I'd say that human-scale, and therefore aesthetically overwhelming on size alone is probably the selling point. Big enough that it's inconceivable that anyone would bother making something bigger.

Another way to think about it, would be to say an image that is as tall (or maybe as long) as 60% of the height of the room that it is in.

[Jim Noel]

I think"Muriel" is the most interesting post on this thread.

[Richard Wasserman]

I think"Muriel" is the most interesting post on this thread.

Another "Muriel" this one by Tom Waits— https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtrpYvrcKaY

It doesn't address the OP's question, but it's a mighty fine song.....

[Michael Wesik]

Old-N-Feeble...From a marketing perspective, calling a print "mural-size" definitely has a ring to it, not to mention that it just sounds cooler.

Vaughn...Just out of curiosity, what paper was it?

Will Frostmill....You raise an interesting point. Being aesthetically overwhelming is really what separates the experience of large prints from smaller prints. The operation of visually consuming a print undoubtedly changes with size in any medium. The monumentality of huge paintings dating back to the 17th and 18th century French salons was one of the reasons why a strict hierarchy was imposed to relegate themes like "history" and "religion" to the largest of sizes. You won't find big landscape paintings from that period because it wasn't permitted. The largest sizes were reserved for themes worthy of that aesthetically overwhelming quality.

Jim Noel...but interesting enough that you read every post, apparently. ;)

[Vaughn]

Michael...it was a project that was done almost every semester for 20+ years. So over time, different papers were used , depending on availability and (mostly) price. If Freestyle carried it, and it was cheap, I bought it. Probably a lot of Arista, including some "Special Reserve" from Freestyle. Always semi-glossy RC multicontrast paper. Depending on the brand it would be anything from 40" to 42" wide. Usually 33' rolls, but occasionally 100' rolls.

A 33' roll would give six 5-foot murals and some test strips...24 students in the class so 4 rolls would usually do it, but I'd order another roll for students who mess up (it is a one-shot deal). It was a major chunk of the budget, but so worth it! It was combined with a 4x5 self-portrait (very loosely defined) project, so I would turn two D5XL's around to project onto the floor. After the printing sessions the instructor always swore he would never do it again, but he always did.

The critique was done outside -- over twenty 3'x5' prints tacked to the outer gallery wall and the critique was public. Students walking by would get sucked into the action. Lots of fun.

[Michael Wesik]

Michael...it was a project that was done almost every semester for 20+ years. So over time, different papers were used , depending on availability and (mostly) price. If Freestyle carried it, and it was cheap, I bought it. Probably a lot of Arista, including some "Special Reserve" from Freestyle. Always semi-glossy RC multicontrast paper. Depending on the brand it would be anything from 40" to 42" wide. Usually 33' rolls, but occasionally 100' rolls.

A 33' roll would give six 5-foot murals and some test strips...24 students in the class so 4 rolls would usually do it, but I'd order another roll for students who mess up (it is a one-shot deal). It was a major chunk of the budget, but so worth it! It was combined with a 4x5 self-portrait (very loosely defined) project, so I would turn two D5XL's around to project onto the floor. After the printing sessions the instructor always swore he would never do it again, but he always did.

The critique was done outside -- over twenty 3'x5' prints tacked to the outer gallery wall and the critique was public. Students walking by would get sucked into the action. Lots of fun.

That sounds like a fantastic project! I only wish that more art schools and universities would teach students the mechanics of printing large prints. I would have loved to do a crit like that!!

Best,

Michael