LAst CAll attended Photo LA with friends yesterday, and it's safe to say the $15 admission price was a better value than the $12 margaritas at Casa del Mar afterwards. Although it's hard to argue with a sunset that looks like the one below as you sip margies and mojitos with friends old and new (note to Randy and Robert: L. didn't really mean to say, "Randy? Like, smells bad?", even if she did in fact say it, and we hope the cat comes home -- you two were fun).
I digress -- even talk of alcohol will do that to me. Photo L.A., an annual event at the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium, attracts photography dealers and collectors from around the world. Upon entering, it was a bit like walking into an overlong, physically-realized evening of browsing photo blogs: images, images, images! Everywhere you look! And works by so many amazing photographers: Diane Arbus. Richard Avedon. Sally Mann. From the "Bad Seed-meets-Baby Gap" creepiness of Loretta Lux's work to the sublime-but-subdued works of Ansel Adams, there was something for everyone (including Ms. Lauren Ambrose, perhaps there to do continuing character research for her role as Claire on LAst CAll's favorite TV show). The guide was a great take-away, but it's hard to believe how much more vivid and incredible the photos were in person. The photo at top -- William Neill's Lake Louise, more info here-- seemed to pulsate with an otherworldly glow. It was as if you could reach your hand in and touch the stones at the bottom of the photo, feel the cool wetness of the lake's surface.
The show left me wondering one thing, however: how much of a fine art print's freight is carried by the sheer size of the image? Because there are images that are clearly, through use of light, technique, and subject matter, great images, and there are other that are simply well-framed snapshots writ large, rendered gorgeous by dint of chromogenic print and size, the appearance of fine art created by the thick, black frame, crisp, white matting, and their arrangement on a wall. Does a photograph that succeeds at snapshot size succeed more than one which needs to be 3' x 3' on a stark white wall to be appreciated? And what of its provenance? Does an image need to be taken by a professional photographer to be worthy of being called art?
RELATED: the Diane Arbus "Revelations" exhibition comes to LACMA at the end of this leap year's February. Aren't you excited?