displayRob™490740

dɪˈspleɪ verb

(transitive) to show or make visible(transitive) to disclose or make evident; reveal“ ⇒ ■ to display anger”(transitive) to flaunt in an ostentatious way“ ⇒ ■ to display military might”

noun

the act of exhibiting or displaying; show“ ⇒ ■ a display of fear”something exhibited or displayedan ostentatious or pretentious exhibition“ ⇒ ■ a display of his accomplishments”

an arrangement of certain typefaces to give prominence to headings, captions, advertisements, etc

printed matter that is eye-catching

selected meanings from Collins Dictionaries: collinsdictionary.com

photographic displayThe modes of photographic display are normally constrained within a few categories

prints (whether paper, aluminium, canvas, whatever…)

books (hardbound, ‘zines, newspaper, etc…)

digital/online galleries (anything displayed on a screen of some sort via digital means)

film/slide presentation (rolling sequences of still images)

There are more possibilities or sub-categories, but in broad terms this is generally it. Here I will be focussing only on the print.

traditional printsEarly photography produced small images, often one-off items because of the process (tintypes, daguerreotypes, etc.). These early photographic objects could be hand-held, and the viewing experience would be quite intimate as a result; you had to get up close to truly appreciate the image.

Joseph Nicéphore Niépce. View from the Window at Le Gras, 1826–27 [16.2cm x 20.2cm / 6.4” x 8”]

photography growsTechnological developments has meant that photography has grown from being positive images (photosensitive media is put within the camera itself) or contact prints (the negative is placed directly on the paper). Enlarger technology allowed the print to be bigger than the negative, which allowed for smaller cameras to produce usable images but also paved the way for ever larger photographs to be possible. Digital technology takes this further…

All this is being used in the “long struggle waged by photography to be taken seriously as an aesthetic practice” (Szeman & Whiteman); the photographic print is growing, the display of photography becoming more ostentatious. Why? Because of the ubiquitousness of the photographic image.

Szeman, I & Whiteman, M (2009) The big picture: on the politics of Contemporary Photography. Third Text, 23: 551-556

valley of the shadow of death

Roger Fenton. Valley of the Shadow of Death, 1855 [27.6cm x 34.9cm / 10 ⅞” x 13 ¾”]

Paul Seawright. Afghanistan, 2002 [125cm x 150.0cm / 49 ⅕” x 59”]

digital impactWith traditional enlargers, the lens is the major constraining factor, alongside the size of the photosensitive paper. John Pulz, co-curator of Big Pictures by Contemporary Photographers described the limitations of large scale photography in 1983: “The print loses much of its descriptive quality and falls back on the tones and grain of paper and film” (Gefter).

Digital technologies remove these constraints.

Desktop scanners from the likes of Canon are now capable of producing high resolution digital images that would (theoretically) allow prints a metre wide from a 35mm negative. Use larger negatives and a commercial scanning service and the quality will improve.

Gefter, P (2009). Photography after Frank. New York. Aperture Foundation.

joel sternfeldJoel Sternfeld. McLean, Virginia, December 1978[Daniel Wolf Gallery, 1980 - 50.8cm x 61cm / 20” x 24”Luhring Augustine Gallery, 2003 - 114.3cm x 132cm / 45” x 52”]

bigger equals betterPhotography has boomed in the latter part of the 20th Century and continues now. The increasing size of the printed image can be thought of as being a result of several conditions:

The aforementioned struggle “...to be taken seriously as an aesthetic practice” (Szeman & Whiteman)

The commodification and fetishisation of the image (subjects in their own right)

“the degradation of vision: the outside world of advertising has anaesthetized (sic) us to experiences which require contemplation for their own sake” (Virilio)

The spectacle of the gallery space - the traditional and smaller photograph is harder to show in the art gallery context, being dwarfed by the scale of the building.

The politics of the size…

Szeman, I & Whiteman, M (2009) The big picture: on the politics of Contemporary Photography. Third Text, 23: 551-556

Virilio, P. Cited in Geczy, A (2008) Art: histories, theories and exceptions. Oxford. Berg

thomas struthThomas Struth. Pantheon, Rome, 1990[179.2cm x 233.7cm / 70 ½” x 92”]

politics of sizeThe likes of Andreas Gursky, Thomas Struth and Ed Burtynsky use the scale of their images to reflect their subject matter. An oversimplification of this would be to say they photograph big things (large buildings or landscapes), but there is also “an almost literal engagement with the complexities of scale and finance” (Szeman and Whiteman). Notably, Gursky photographed the F1 racing scene, boxing and world financial institutions. Burtynsky took on the petrochemical industry and global manufacturing. Their “big pictures are attempts to map the big picture” (Szeman and Whiteman).

Is it ironic that these photographs are also some of the most commodified images on the art market today? Whilst it is not Gursky’s F1 Boxenstopp series that holds the plaudits for the most expensive photograph (reported by Jerry Saltz to be valued at $750,000 /print, editions of 6 +AP when made available in 2007), the value apportioned to the print makes it affordable only by corporations or an elite few that move within the world of financial complexity they represent.

Szeman, I & Whiteman, M (2009) The big picture: on the politics of Contemporary Photography. Third Text, 23: 551-556Saltz, J (2007) It’s boring at the top [online] Available at http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/features/saltz/saltz5-21-07.asp [accessed 21/10/2105]

andreas gursky

Andreas Gursky. F1 Boxenstopp I, 2007[225cm x 598cm / 88 ⅝” x 239 ⅜”]

http://www.lacan.com/perfume/angur.htm

and finally...

the largest (seamless) printed photograph

the great pictureThe Legacy Project*. The Great Picture, 2006[958cm x 3274cm / 31’ 5”’ x 107’ 5”]

*The Legacy Project are:Jerry BurchfieldMark ChamberlainJacques GarnierRob JohnsonDouglas McCullohClayton Spada

bibliographyBadger, G (2007) The Genius of Photography: How Photography Has Changed Our Lives. London. Quadrille Publishing

Gefter, P (2009). Photography after Frank. New York. Aperture Foundation.

Saltz, J (2007) It’s boring at the top [online] Available at http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/features/saltz/saltz5-21-07.asp [accessed 21/10/2105]

Szeman, I & Whiteman, M (2009) The big picture: on the politics of Contemporary Photography. Third Text, 23: 551-556

Virilio, P. Cited in Geczy, A (2008) Art: histories, theories and exceptions. Oxford. Berg

image referencesRoger Fenton. Valley of the Shadow of Death, 1855. Available at http://www.getty.edu/art/collection/objects/60602/roger-fenton-valley-of-the-shadow-of-death-english-april-23-1855 [accessed 21/10/2105]

Andreas Gursky. F1 Boxenstopp I, 2007. Available at http://www.lacan.com/perfume/angur.htm [accessed 21/10/2105]

The Legacy Project. The Great Picture, 2006. Available at http://www.legacyphotoproject.com/the-great-picture/image-gallery/#1 [accessed 21/10/2105]

Joseph Nicéphore Niépce. View from the Window at Le Gras, 1826–27. Available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_from_the_Window_at_Le_Gras [accessed 21/10/2105]

Paul Seawright. Afghanistan, 2002. Available at http://www.paulseawright.com/hidden/ [accessed 21/10/2105]

Joel Sternfeld. McLean, Virginia, December 1978. Available at http://www.americansuburbx.com/2012/12/review-joel-sternfeld-american-prospects-2012.html [accessed 21/10/2105]

Thomas Struth. Pantheon, Rome, 1990. Available at http://www.whitechapelgallery.org/exhibitions/thomas-struth-photographs-1978-2010/ [accessed 21/10/2105]