I have always been
troubled by my failure to grasp the sense of scale when looking at isolated
images in books or on-line. There is a wonderful little portrait head by
Madrazo or Fortuny in the Walters, I believe. In a full page reproduction in
a book it looks absolutely monumental. But in reality it is miniscule ---
just a few inches by a few inches. I kid you not.
I had known the print
shown above for years from the catalogue on Yoshida. In the catalogue with its
smallish, but decent, reproduction the head of the baby looked like it was
at the least a lithographic element or at most a photogravure insert. Too
realistic to be a woodcut. But as you can see from the large image on this
page it is indeed a woodcut.
I jumped at the
opportunity to purchase one of these masterpieces. What I was not prepared
for was its size. Oh yeah, I could read the dimensions and I could make a
template, but it is never the same thing until you have the actual item
before you. (I must lack the gene of true extrapolation.)
When you go camping and
you read that a mountain is 14, 237 feet high and even if you have seen
photos of it it just isn't they same until you sweat and ache getting to the
top or collapse that night into your sleeping bag almost on the edge of
delirium. So it is with oversized prints --- at least for me.
Usually one finds an
image being photographed with something familiar next to it like a dime to give the viewer a sense
of scale. Just look at some of the examples on e-Bay. A 7' vase just isn't
the same until you have a normal sized person posing beside it. That is why
I have added the image below --- so you will believe me and get a little bit
of the thrill I do. (Oh yeah, and maybe sometimes I wear a size 9 extra
wide.) |