As I roam around reading various photo blogs or actually going to galleries to look at photos, I run into the two same phenomenon; first, that the meaning seems to exist more in the mind of the critic than in the photo and second that the larger the print the more the actual presentation of the print seems to affect the critique.
To deal with the second issue first. I had a chance to look at smaller (11x 14) images of the art hanging in much larger sizes in one gallery.
The smaller pictures were very unimpressive, not as well printed and since I wasn't impressed by the technical aspects, I could concentrate on the subject matter which, on its own, was easy to dismiss as being relatively trite, a simple idea belabored intensely over a series of images that used male nudity as a 'selling point' while the nudity had no relation to the idea incorporated. (I understood the idea only because I read the notes printed on the wall of the gallery.)
The much larger (20 x 30) framed versions were actually magnificently printed; the colors were deep and vibrant, the edges sharp and defined where appropriate. While color was irrelevant to the subject matter, the larger images had both a real presence from the size and color and an implied authority because they had been actually treated this way.
The remainder of this post is at my blog on oursalon.net