Well now, that title ought to result in an amusing read-to-post ratio. This thread has nothing to do with sex, and everything to do with size. The size of works of art.
I was selling my photographs yesterday. They are 11 inches by 14 inches. They were priced at X. One very interested person engaged me in a long discussion about sets of three, balance, etc. He wishes to see other works of mine ( yay ! ). He also asked me if I could print a photograph of mine in a four foot by four foot size. It happens to be a square medium format negative of high clarity ( read: Asa 125 B&W ), so blowing it up would yield a very sharp poster.
I hinted to this gentleman that it would be a much higher price of course. I’d have to rent a darkroom with a rotating head, etc. All very doable, the space I rent at normally has such capability. But this info doesn’t really do anything but set up my OP question.
How do I define the value of the image I am selling? I could do some simple math and figure out how many times BIGGER 4 foot square is than 11" by 14". Is that really fair to me? Should it matter one bit? The client is enamored of the image, not the size and he’s excited about having two prints, identical but for the fact that one would be done as a sepia tone, one as a standard black and white print.
Is the 4 foot square one worth SO much more simply because it covers more white wall space? Arent’ we all usually surprised to find out the true size of some of the great works of art? ( I’m not daring to equate my work with such, I mention this as a point of reference vis a vis the PERCEPTION of works of art, opposed to what the real work is. ) If I see a Van Gogh and it’s a huge poster in the museum store, I buy it or not based on love of the image, and available wall space. However, that original may be a petite finely wrought 15 inches by 25 inches. Is the larger one worth more or less, if it were rendered by Van Gogh and not a museum poster?
Since this is a photograph I’m dealing with, and it is my own work, I am faced with figuring out how to assess the price/ value of the SAME IMAGE, of original quality, based solely on size. If you walk into a gallery in SoHo in NYC and see a 4x4 photograph that you are enamored of, and see a price tag of 1,000.00 would it shock or seem reasonable? If the same image were presented to you on the same wall space in an 11 x 14 inch frame, would 1,000.00 seem outrageous? I know that having a “name” comes into play in a huge way, but I’m a nobody. So, just on the basis of size presentation alone, what do you do?
I’m really stuck here. Thoughts? What would you do? What would you pay for? Let’s leave things like ** Calder ** out of the discussion, and stick to flat wall mounted art. I mean, who the heck wants a sixteen inch high Calder?