Do you sequence your prints?

[aaron2]

Hi again,

 

<p>

 

Do you sequence your prints when showing or exhibiting? Why do you do it? Isn't a photograph supposed to stand on it's own however they are placed? How does a sequenced body of work affect the viewers? Do you do it to gain an extra mile in approval rating for your work? Thanks.

 

<p>

 

Aaron

[stephen_vaughan3]

For me, a body of work would remain incomplete without sequencing.

One would hope that individual images work alone. However, a sequence

of images can convey a great deal more. The balance and interaction of

pictures in combination receives as much consideration as the rest of

the process of my picture-making.

Many of the associations and links between photographs may be personal

to me and probably cannot be read literally by the viewer - but it is

a question of being deliberate about what one is saying through the

work. Hopefully, the viewer may then also sense (perhaps

subconsciously) that a deliberate 'balance' or narrative thread

underlines and emphasises the individual works.

thanks and good wishes.

[enrique_vila1]

Whether we like it or not, people on an exhibit will look at your

images in sequence, and this sequence will affect the viewer.

 

<p>

 

Order is important to maintain the interest in your images troughout

the hole sequence.

 

<p>

 

In general, you should start with a very good picture (but not the

best) to catch peoples attention, then you should oscilate so the

sequence doesn´t get monotone. Finally, finish the exhibit with the

best image, so people will get a good "aftertaste"...

 

<p>

 

Hope this help...

[joe_lipka3]

My current way of working involves creation of a portfolio of multiple

photographs. When exhibited they are hung in a specific sequence.

The best analogy I can use to describe this is that each photograph is

a word. The words must be set in a certain sequence so that they

communicate the central thought of the portfolio. When they are shown

together, the viewer is presented with the complete well-structured

thought rather than randomly placed words. I don't sequence the

photographs to get approval; I sequence the photographs to complete a

visual thought. This process may or may not work for you. Right

now, it's working for me.

[tim_atherton2]

Photographs, by their very nature, are nearly always shown in

sequence, in realtion to other photographs. In fact it is more rare

for a photograph to be shown in isolation - i.e have a whole wall to

itself in an empty room.

 

<p>

 

Otherwisem whether in a book, a magazine layout, an exhibition,

portfolio showing, they are always in a sequence. And of course, as

soon as you do this, it changes the photograph. Put photo a next to

photo b and it changes the meaning of both. add photo c, and it

chnges the whole thing again. Sometimes more, sometimes less.

 

<p>

 

tim a

[dan_smith]

I have curated a number of photographic exhibits & the work gets

sequenced for many reasons. Even if the photographer isn't sure how

they want it, the museums & galleries hang the works while trying to

create a more pleasing show, atmosphere & enjoyable experience for

those who view them. Not 'pretty pictures all in a row', you get that

on the walls of the local elementary school using scotch tape & your

kids drawings.

We try to arrange images so each can get attention as well as give

you a flow from one area to another. Viewing fine art is a sensual

experience and is to be enjoyed. Not a jarring experience that

constantly requires you to refocus and rethink why you came in the

first place. The images flow, even if quite different in character or

subject matter. It is not size nor subject matter, it is how they

feel on the walls and in relation to the room size as well as with

each other.

A straight commercial gallery may arrange images in order to sell

more by placement of both image & how it is lit. A more staid gallery

won't do this, instead placing images more for the feel of each and

how they relate to each other. A good show encourages you to spend

time with each image while at the same time allowing for a flow

through the display space that isn't jarring and uncomfortable, an

enjoyable viewing experience. Even if an artist deals with shock

images, too many will lose the shock value and few will look at the

work with more than a cursory glance. Well placed work will emphasize

the prints and help the viewer to stop & look as they go through

rather than just walking by giving a casual glance.

Any good artist will sequence their work, whether it is a time line,

a grouping of experience or technique or just a way they would like

the work to be seen.

[walter_glover]

Aaron,

 

<p>

 

I maintain that sequencing is essential the moment there is

more than one photograph.

 

<p>

 

I would also suggest that the photographer should critically study

the ralationships of the photographs with one and otherand even

vary the print sizes or orientations (portrait/landscape) to have

the collection form a cohesive, harmonious whole.

 

<p>

 

If the photographs are to be hung as an exhibit I think the

photographer should get a feel for the space and arrange the

photographs to make advantageous exploitation of the design

features and layout of the exhibition space. (What image to place

opposite the point of entry or on structural column, for instance.)

 

<p>

 

Working with proofs, or thumbnails, variations can be tried to

determine the most effective - either alone or in collaboration

with the Curator.

 

<p>

 

Walter

[jim_galli4]

Theses are great answers. Very professional and experienced. Just

curious Aaron, what's really on your mind? Does it seem dis-honest to

you to arrange critically? If you hang them right side up, you may as

well go the rest of the mile and arrange them for the best critical

advantage. Or not? Now folks that have a dialogue next to the photo

that's bigger than the photo........

[aaron2]

Don't know, Jim. Consider this a learning phase for me. Aaron

[bob_moulton]

Aaron,

The previous answers cover the field excellently. I suggest you look

at the portfolios of Ansel Adams. They are sequenced, the portfolios

are small, and you get a good idea about the ways one can sequence

images. Another work to examine is Michael A. Smith's Visual Journey,

his retrospective work. The sequence in either work make sone aware

of the challenge, fun, and power, in not special order, of sequencing

strong by themselves images.

Bob

[r.l.__mac__mcdonald]

Because, I know how important this is to me when I visit an exhibit.

And because, I know how poorly I sequence my prints. I have taken

several quick classes on exhibiting and displaying prints. At one of

those classes it was suggested that you spend as much time as posible

with a set of loose prints, put them on the floor, the wall, the

table, and do this for several days then put them "in"sequence and if

time allows, put them away for a while and then do it again. It

helps a lot. I remember him saying that at the museum where he was

working, they would send several copies home with different people

and that it was amazing that most people agreed on the final sequence.

But for now I continue to ask a friend and she always sets me

straight. She describes it as the same problem as the Dog that ate

the Cat that ate the Bird that ate the Mouse that ate the...... If

any of these are out of order, it's just another story, that most

people will not understand. She then goes on to add that there are

times when it makes for one heck of a story if the Mouse ate the Dog.

[aaron2]

Thanks again for all your generous contributions. They'll be useful

I'm sure. Aaron

[john_elder1]

Dear Aaron,

For my last 2 solo shows I asked a friend of mine, a world class

painter, to help me hang the show. First i arrange the photograghs,

thens he lays out the exhibit. Both times the painter's lay out of

the show was far superior to my own. I bring a certain "prejudice" to

the show to put certain photos together for subjective perhaps non-

artistic reasons which turn out inferior to my painter friend's eye.

Anyway a second talented eye from a non-photographer has greatly

helped my shows. John Elder