I think the problem here with Andrew's hypothesis about the benefits of small prints, is an issue of degree.
It's true that one can usually grasp the totality of a large scene, as depicted on a small print, with
less eye movement than would be needed when viewing the original scene, but not with
no eye movement at all. When viewing the original scene, one might need to move one's head as well as one's eyeballs, if the scene is vast. One would probably never need to do that when viewing a small print, although one might need to move one's head if the print were large, and especially if it were a panorama stretching the length of a wall.
I also see another problem in relation to Andrew's comment,
'You can actually see the textures, the details, all the little facets of the scene, all at once.' This just doesn't seem true to me.
It's really surprising how narrow the focussed view of our eyes is. We tend to think that a so-called standard lens, 45 or 50mm on full-frame 35mm format, represents the field of view of normal human vision. This seems way off to me, and at best is a very rough approximation. If one includes peripheral vision and the general awareness that 'something' is there, including the perception that something has moved, then the field-of-view of human vision is wider than any rectilinear wide-angle lens, probably as wide as a fish-eye lens.
Most of the detail, even coarse detail within that wide angle of view, cannot be discerned. At the extreme edges of the view, only movement can be detected. At narrower angles of view, broad shapes and a hint of colour begin to be discerned.
However, in order to clearly see details such as texture, the focussed angle of view of our eyes becomes very narrow indeed; more like that of a telephoto lens with a low magnification in the camera's viewfinder, or alternatively like an image with a very shallow DoF at each point on the print that the eye focusses.
No way can one see 'the textures, the details, all the little facets of the scene, all at once', even on a very small print. Sorry, Andrew!