Digital BW, The Print

Kenna actually made some 16X20 (or so) for a brief time.  I heard he 
disliked them so much that he got as many back as he could, destroyed 
them all and went on his merry way making the smaller prints.  
He convinced me in the 80s (yes, he taught bak then) not to be afraid 
of printing small, and although I sometimes give in to temptation 
(16X20) I am usually very happy with my 5x7 on 14x18.  Of course the 
market isn't big on them and I have had several gallery owners and 
potential custoimers say "I'd like to see them bigger".   So much of 
it is a function of filling wall space in the huge houses everyone 
wants today.  Art as a design tool.  I think that is why so many 
people also say "black and white is my favorite" and then buy color!

Peter



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" 
<tyler@...> wrote:
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones"
> <cj@> wrote:
> ...
> > at an AA exhibit where everything was 16x20 or larger.  I became 
aware
> > of a sense of unease while viewing them and it finally hit me 
that I
> > enjoyed his pics more in a good book on my lap.
> 
> I often thought much of his work that I saw was over enlarged. But
> some of his better large negs at around 16x20 were really stunning.
> Back in the Friends of Photography workshop days they used to bring 
us
> through his home. There was a Mt. Williamson and a Tetons/Snake Rvr
> there at about 16x20 that far surpassed anything I saw in a museum 
or
> gallery, and his true level of accomplishment was suddenly very
> obvious, and I'm not even a fan.
> 
> ...
> > >Many are printing big simply because they can...
> > 
> > Or are pressured into it by gallery owners and/or buyers.
> 
> But then look at Michael Kenna. Despite a recent thread here he has 
to
> be one of the most successful contemporary fine art photographers
> right now. Even in this town, his shows sell really well. To my
> knowledge he's always just made those small prints, right? He's
> apparently always done what he wanted, I'll bet he's been pressured
> for larger.
> 
> On the other hand, a photographer I know that prints and exhibits 
all
> silver around 11x14 had me make a 40x50 recently for a commercial
> installation, and called just today because there were so many
> inquiries for more sales. Her conclusion was that size was the 
attraction.
> 
> So who knows? I think the content should drive the print size
> decision, and beyond that, for me, the impression the image 
structure
> on paper makes. Even with that, there are no hard and fast rules. We
> might think grain would be a limiting factor, but one look at a big
> Ralph Gibson with that prominent sharp crystaline grain structure 
and
> that theory has to be reviewed as well. A completely different, but
> successful, kind of presence.
> 
> The point you make, about how you want people to experience the 
object
> (the print) is really important too, intimate or overwhelming? Etc..
> 
> But then you've spent considerable time on image structure on paper 
as
> well, as an artistic issue.
> Tyler
>