Nonsense. "Proper viewing distance" might be something of a misnomer, but there is a general distance at which art works are best appreciated, and that distance is one in which you can take in the entire work. There's a reason for standing closer than that -- to examine technique, which can be a perfectly legitimate thing to do -- but that's not the same as grasping the feel and intent of the art work. If you print so people can get nose-to-print so they can see a crab, that they can't see when looking at the entire work, you're simply engaging in a technique trick. Which is fine if you think the summit of an art work is expressed in the trickiest of technique. I think that would place you in a tiny minority of people who are serious appreciators of art; in a minority who would be more interested in Whistler's Mother's nose rather than Whistler's Mother the painting.
John,
The best appreciation of any art work, whether painting or photograph, can exist only in the mind of the viewer. Each individual has different tastes and interests, at least to some degree. There might be a general consensus that a particular photographic print of a particular size is best viewed from a specific distance in order to appreciate an
'over all' artistic intent of the image.
However, photographic images tend to have much more detail than modern paintings. They are closer to certain forms of Renaissance art which were very realistic and detailed. In order to appreciate the curious expression of a smaller figure in the background, or the fine detail on a costume a lady is wearing, one has to get closer to the painting. This is not the same as getting close to a modern painting in order to examine the brush strokes.
As we should all know, this detailed style of Renaissance painting, or naturalism, gradually went out of fashion as the camera developed. What's the point of spending hours or days trying to paint fine detail as accurately as possible, when the camera, with a single click, can produce much more accurate detail??
The great strength and attraction of the modern digital camera is the ease with which it can create amazing detail. The higher the resolution, the more options one has to create different prints from the same original image, through cropping, whilst still maintaining acceptable resolution from the so-called 'proper viewing distance'.
Of course, if you are a Cartier-Bresson style of photographer, or street photographer, only interested in catching a specific event, such as a man jumping over a puddle, then you certainly don't need a Z7, or even a Z6. Who cares what type of watch the puddle-jumper was wearing, or what brand of shoes!
On the other hand, it could have been interesting to see the expression of anguish, or perhaps excitement, on the puddle-jumper's face, which would of course have required the viewer to get close to a large print of the scene, if such detail existed.