civilized ku # 71 ~ a tree grows in Chelsea
Thursday, December 27, 2007 at 08:45AM 
The epicenter of Art photography • click to embiggenAs always, my recent trip to NYC's Chelsea neighborhood, the epicenter of Art Photography, has left me with a mixed bag of thoughts. One thought-thread in particular that has been repeatedly bubbling to the surface from the murky depths of my mind is that of size.
I have always been a fan of small-ish prints - 16×20 and smaller - because I like the feel of intimacy that comes from moving in close to a small-ish print. Not nose - on - the - print close, but just close enough to take it all in. This sensation also explains why I am so fond of photography books. A well designed and printed book takes on the feeling of a precious object to me.
That said, and of late, my recent trips to Chelsea have provided a constant exposure to a world of photographic prints that are big. Not big-ish, but really BIG. In this milieu if one of the print dimensions isn't at least 8 feet, then it's a small print, especially so when compared to, say, a 25 foot (or bigger) Jeff Wall or Gursky print.
Now I have to state that this exposure to really big has had its effect on my sensibilities - size can matter. Some photographs take on an entirely new perspective when presented really large. Sure, they can impress with their sheer size, but that alone is not the whole story. There is a kind of 'importance' that is imparted and photography's 'reality effect' really comes to the fore. More than ever, life seems to be staring you right in the face.
If you haven't had the opportunity to see really big photographic prints, you should make it a point to do so. Nothing you have seen in photography can prepare you for the experience.
And it is on this size related note that this specific thought-thread keeps coming to the fore.
I want to do big. But, what that means is nothing less than a return to film (nothing in the digital capture world can do really big) and what that means is a return to the world of film processing that has virtually disappeared. It also means a return to the world of dust and 'spotting'. Not to mention hauling around really big equipment and the fact that one exposure costs around $10.
Yikes. Or, as Hugo says, "Poop on a stick."
Reader Comments (4)
Well really isn't that why you have been holding on to that big ass camera, with big ass film? My smaller big ass camera, with the smaller big ass flim, is only $5 a click.
I am rethinking my print intensions and I am going the other way. Smaller.
If you don't want to go back to the big ass film, just take 40 digital images and stitch. That would allow you your large print size, without the costs of film. But time is money. Do you think that would be an alternative?
Check out this website. He used to shoot big ass film, but has gone the way of digital.
http://www.chrisjordan.com/
what about the logistics of these prints being sold??? that is my big question. Who has 25 feet of wall space for a photograph? I know corporations buy a lot of photography for their executive offices and such and that seems like it would work, but what private individual hangs one?
Funny you bring this up.....I have been scanning older 4x5 color negs for the past month or so. I keep thinking about ordering some 4x5 color neg film and checking to see where I can get processed. Those big negs hold so much image information and descreet color. I definitely will be brining it along on my next trip. Some big prints are in my future....sigh.