“Hot”, 30”x30” archival digital print by Nancy Grace Horton (courtesy of the artist and Griffin Museum, Winchester, MA)
Lately, I’ve attended a bunch of photography shows, especially the group shows that seem to herald summertime. Looking at so much fine art in a short timespan caused me to notice something that I hadn’t discerned consciously before, something that doesn’t make complete sense to me. More and more of the photographs I see in shows are big. I mean really big, bigger than you could comfortably fit on a wall in a house.
“Twilight Swim, 2007”, 42”x42” archival pigment ink print by Maggie Taylor (courtesy of the artist and Verve Gallery, Santa Fe, NM)
Conversely, most of the photographs I see in people’s homes are not so big. This is true of newbie collectors like myself, but also applies to those more seasoned, like Bostonian Jim Fitts, who has spent over thirty years as a fine arts teacher, lecturer, curator, photographer and photography collector. In describing his own approach, I think Jim speaks for many: “I rarely purchase overly large photographs, I simply have no space available to display them and personally, I prefer to collect smaller prints. I find them more intimate and approachable.”
“The Neighbors #2, 2012” 21”x66” pigment ink print by Arne Svenson (courtesy of the artist and Julie Saul Gallery, NYC)
The routine practice of showing big photographs in galleries seems at odds with the preference of collectors to purchase smaller works. Isn’t it the point of exhibiting photographs to sell them? I put this to Jason Landry, owner and director of Panopticon Gallery in Boston. He offered, “bigger photographs make more of an impression and can evoke a greater reaction from the viewer than small prints, especially in a gallery setting.” But what about selling? Jason readily allows that sales of smaller works far outweigh those of larger prints.
“248 Shore Road, 2012” 24”x30” archival pigment print by Brian Kaplan (courtesy of the artist and Panopticon Gallery, Boston, MA)
Many artists are willing to accommodate collectors’ preferences for smaller prints, to an extent. For example, Boston photographer Brian Kaplan shot his Cape Cod series, “I’m Not On Your Vacation”, using a large-format 4×5 camera and displayed them in an April/May 2013 Panopticon Gallery show, at a poster-sized 24”x30”. He intended his images to be viewed large – optimizing both detail and impact – to great effect. However, it turns out that Kaplan will also make his images available in 16”x20”prints, so that they are easier to take home.
Okay, that solves one dilemma. But what about all those huge exhibit prints, what happens to them when the show is over? Corporate art?
Share On Facebook
Tweet It
