Post 2000, the smartphone camera has replaced the P&S camera (and its market) and photographs are displayed online and stored on some type of digital platform. Rarely do they ever take shape as a physical object. These photographs lack a tactile sense of physically and hence, to my eye and sensibilities, they can not attain the status of precious objects.
All of that written, I have been rethinking about downsizing my "standard" printing M.O. - that is, virtually every print I make is 24x24". This size looks good on the walls of my house but in today's gallery world that size is the bare minimum for display. A couple decades ago, the Art World, Photography Division, decided that, if photography were to be considered on the same plane as painting, size mattered - think Jeff Wall / Andreas Gursky whose prints are commonly 12-16' in length.
A recent example of my rethinking is the POD books I made of pictures made during our recent trip to Ireland and Scotland. In the past, POD books of our travels were 12x12" but this time around I decided to make the books 8x8". The purpose of this downsizing was to determine if the book and pictures would look more precious - more like a traditional photo album - in a smaller size.
FYI, the wife did not like the smaller size. I, on the other hand, liked the size of the books but, to my eye and sensibilities, the image size - 6x6" - was still too large to be considered to be precious. Consequently, it would seem that 2 reprints of the 3 book set are in order. One, the 12x12" format and the other in the 8x8" format with the image size reduced to approximately 3x3". In addition, I will be making a few test prints whereon the image size on 24x24" paper will be approximately 8x8".
I'll let you now how I feel about the results.