Best kind of enlargement for an exhibition?

[DannL]

Here's an example of mixing original prints with oversized images in the Santa Barbara showing of Brett's work. I can see where it adds a certain amount of impact.

http://www.brettwestonarchive.com/#s...0&p=2&a=1&at=0
Menu on right of page.

I saw the first showing in OKC twice and don't recall enlarged images being shown at that time. I'm sure each museum had a certain amount of freedom for the exhibit.

[Tin Can]

Here is an example of a photographer, whose work is being shown too big. imho

http://www.chicagohs.org/planavisit/...maiers-chicago

I bought the book, 'Vivian Maier Street Photographer", I am looking at the book right now. The images are 120 film square negs, enlarged to about 9x9 inches for the book pages. They look great that size. Most of her work was never printed.

The above exhibit is very close to me, yet I may not view it. I think I will not like the images over-blown, as the site says, 'Maier’s Chicago collection will be presented at larger than life scale vividly documenting Chicago neighborhoods and faces of the 1960s and 70s.' I think they made them 4 feet square. Way too big in my opinion.

Bigger is not always better.

[IanG]

The need for the originals to be displayed is relative to the context, content and intent of the exhibit. Making an issue that its always better to just hang the originals is (for lack of a better term right now) silly.

I can think of situations where it's infinitely better to show enlarged copies, particularly in spaces where the images are being shown as part of a display of social or local history rather than a pure art context.

Ian

[MDR]

They are from family albums so in my opinion they should be displayed at their original size, a photo album is a collection of photographs that have different sizes, but that's what makes them special one size only albums can get kind of boring different sizes not so much. If the originals are in bad condition I would reproduce them at their original size digital or analogue doesn't really matter size does. A photo album invites intimacy enlarging the photos would destroy that. A good example for using different sized photos in a show is Masao Yamamoto. If you use photos from the same album page you could arrange the photos in the exhibition the same way as in the album.

good luck
Dominik

[Kirk Gittings]

Here is an example of a photographer, whose work is being shown too big. imho

http://www.chicagohs.org/planavisit/...maiers-chicago

I bought the book, 'Vivian Maier Street Photographer", I am looking at the book right now. The images are 120 film square negs, enlarged to about 9x9 inches for the book pages. They look great that size. Most of her work was never printed.

The above exhibit is very close to me, yet I may not view it. I think I will not like the images over-blown, as the site says, 'Maier’s Chicago collection will be presented at larger than life scale vividly documenting Chicago neighborhoods and faces of the 1960s and 70s.' I think they made them 4 feet square. Way too big in my opinion.

Bigger is not always better.

Why would you make that judgement about an exhibit you haven't seen based only upon seeing reproductions of her work in a book? Seriously?

I oftentimes have real issues with how a show is designed and curated but usually I make that decision after actually seeing it.

[Drew Wiley]

I wonder what Brett himself would have thought about someone else printing one of his images, esp to a whole different scale and different medium than he envisioned. I suppose this was just an "intro" eyecatcher to an otherwise authentic exhibition.... but still.....

[Tin Can]

Because, once seen, we never forget. I have seen many images, in my time, I regret seeing. The Internet is a prime example of getting just what we don't want, inadvertently. Photographic memories are not always a blessing.

Just because they did it, is not good enough for me. It is also a very expensive museum. $14 admission and $9 parking. I am on a tight budget, $23 for an exhibit I may not like, is too much. Even CTA will cost $6 RT, with plenty of evil walking. I'm a crip.

Have you seen it?

What is your opinion of the actual exhibit?

I don't think 6x6 film should ever be blown to 4 feet square. Especially street realism. imho, maybe...

Why would you make that judgement about an exhibit you haven't seen based only upon seeing reproductions of her work in a book? Seriously?

I oftentimes have real issues with how a show is designed and curated but usually I make that decision after actually seeing it.

[Kirk Gittings]

No I haven't seen it-I'm not a fan of her work, but I probably would go if I was already in the area just to see what all the hoopla is about. I've been wrong before about some photographers and a great presentation might sway me.

[Tin Can]

I am content with her book. The images are great for city dwellers that remember those days.

NOT ART, but images.

No I haven't seen it-I'm not a fan of her work, but I probably would go if I was already in the area just to see what all the hoopla is about. I've been wrong before about some photographers and a great presentation might sway me.

[Drew Wiley]

As I understand it, these were negatives found in an attic, and not prints at all, and due to their subject matter have been
made available for public viewing via modern printing. But I would think that printing them in some fashion analogous to
their actual vintage would have more charm. From what I've seen of these particular street images, they were very private glances of the surrounding society, and a more intimate form of presentation would better suit the mind or mood of the original photographer. Printing them big and brashy like something Avedon would have done seems like sacrilege. But big prints are the fad at the moment, and heaven forbid that any curator exercise any personal judgment rather than following
the herd!