How Big Should a Painting Be?
Dilettante
kept painting over and over the same sketch instead of making 10 or 20
and choosing the best one. Finally I arrived at something I think will
work as the real thing. But making the small model and then expanding
it for the finished work can cause problems of scale. What works on a
small scale doesn't always work when enlarged. The larger piece has to
be qualitatively different.
Comments are welcome from any serious poster who has ever had to
decide on the size to go with on a painting.
Dilettante
judith
canvas shouldn't matter to anything more then the impact the image has on
the viewer. That being said, I've seen some small works that pack a bigger
visual punch then large ones no matter the subject.
It's been my experience that when you have the right image, reducing or
enlarging it works only when the same positive & negative areas and tonal &
scale relationship between all objects in the image remain the same as in
the prelim. The grid helps but that can sometimes cause the finished work to
look contrived. The eye will tell you when it's 'right'. Hope this helps
Cheers
Judith
Dilettante wrote in message ...
Mike Stengl
> If the relationship between the parts is well balanced, the size of the
> canvas shouldn't matter to anything more then the impact the image has on
> the viewer. That being said, I've seen some small works that pack a bigger
> visual punch then large ones no matter the subject.
> It's been my experience that when you have the right image, reducing or
> enlarging it works only when the same positive & negative areas and tonal &
> scale relationship between all objects in the image remain the same as in
> the prelim. The grid helps but that can sometimes cause the finished work to
> look contrived. The eye will tell you when it's 'right'. Hope this helps
> Cheers
> Judith
>
as you mentioned, the larger painting will have to be adjusted because
what looks good small doesn't necessesarily look 'right' large. i
would imagine you a) have a size you like to work with, and/or b) have
a size you would like the new piece to be. do the math of course to
get the proportions right (who sat in algebra thinking, this is dumb.
i'll never use this stuff?!) and make a canvas as big as you like! i
agree, a cool small piece can have impact but there is a challenge
that is very seductive in creating very large pieces that work, that
surround you as you stand before them. and it's easier to make a small
cool painting than a really big one. ask mani.
Flying_Naked_People
news:45dd5dd.03101...@posting.google.com...
I figured fewer objects belong on small surfaces. And many objects belong on
larger surfaces.
Also, I could have sworn I read somewhere that the purpose of minimalism (sp?)
is to force the viewer to get up close to the artwork and thus, concentrate on
the image/message being portrayed. Or is that something else?
Anyhoo, that's a clever way to use "size" as a viewer/image communication
tool. It says, "Look at me, dammit."
Naked Angel Art
====
http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl
Erik A. Mattila
Personally, the question "How big should a painting be?" is like the
question "What color should a painting be?" Size and scale are artist's
problems just like any other artist's problems.
We live in an age where we are likely to see a 40' pair of lips
twittering on a cinema screen, after all. Or a zit 6' in diameter.
Does this have meaning? I think it does.
An artist who captures the idea of vast landscapes on a postage stamp
has accomplished something. But when blown-up, the drama may vanish
entierely. It's because part of that "vastness" idea is a function of
scale - the spontaneous paradox caused by compressing a thousand square
miles of landscape onto a postage stamp.
Color field painting depended on a certain scale, I think. Imagine a
Barnett Neuman that was painted on an 8x10 format. I think the image
would lose all it's compelling qualities.
And size and scale are not arbitrary. The invariable is the size of the
human. It's interesting to contemplate how few numbers of works of art
thre are that are built on a one to one scale.
Anyway, size and scale are tools of the trade. I think it's possible to
do initial planning on a smale scale for a large work, but it also
hinges on the artist's experience and ability to know what the large
work requires. There's probably no easy answer to the question of
acquiring this foresight, other that hit and miss experience.
Erik
Babs Boone
>Anyway, size and scale are tools of the trade.
I wonder how many times I've referred to the
works of Chuck Close in this forum in relation
to what is being discussed here - ie; scale?
Mike Stengl
i don't know. he paints large, he uses the grid system, what else do
you think about his work and this discussion?
Mike Stengl
but how large is the original painting?
>
> Color field painting depended on a certain scale, I think. Imagine a
> Barnett Neuman that was painted on an 8x10 format. I think the image
> would lose all it's compelling qualities.
>
> And size and scale are not arbitrary. The invariable is the size of the
> human. It's interesting to contemplate how few numbers of works of art
> thre are that are built on a one to one scale.
you mean, paintings of objects painted full size? does that include
perspective, i.e. a tractor 100 yards away, painted to size?
>
> Anyway, size and scale are tools of the trade. I think it's possible to
> do initial planning on a smale scale for a large work, but it also
> hinges on the artist's experience and ability to know what the large
> work requires. There's probably no easy answer to the question of
> acquiring this foresight, other that hit and miss experience.
it always seems to me, that from a sketch (8 1/2 X 11) to whatever the
painting turns out to be, 18 x 24" or larger, the final painting
requires more than mere enlarging and filling in. then again, i'm not
in habit of tracing a projected image, maybe i'm working too hard...
>
> Erik
Erik A. Mattila
Well, you know...we spend our lives seeing things we think are small and
seeing things we think are large. I can't help thinking of Borges:
"...These ambiguities, redundancies and deficiencies remind us of those
which doctor Franz Kuhn attributes to a certain Chinese encyclopaedia
entitled 'Celestial Empire of benevolent Knowledge'. In its remote pages
it is written that the animals are divided into: (a) belonging to the
emperor, (b) embalmed, (c) tame, (d) sucking pigs, (e) sirens, (f)
fabulous, (g) stray dogs, (h) included in the present classification,
(i) frenzied, (j) innumerable, (k) drawn with a very fine camelhair
brush, (l) et cetera, (m) having just broken the water pitcher, (n) that
from a long way off look like flies... "
-Jorge Luis Borges, 'Other inquisitions 1937-1952' (University of Texas
Press, 1993)
Dilettante
> Personally, the question "How big should a painting be?" is like the
> question "What color should a painting be?" Size and scale are artist's
> problems just like any other artist's problems.
Yes, that is why I brought up the subject.
>
> We live in an age where we are likely to see a 40' pair of lips
> twittering on a cinema screen, after all. Or a zit 6' in diameter.
> Does this have meaning? I think it does.
What would that meaning be?
>
> Color field painting depended on a certain scale, I think. Imagine a
> Barnett Neuman that was painted on an 8x10 format. I think the image
> would lose all it's compelling qualities.
Abstract expressionism suffers from having been the emblem of cultural
machismo of the establishment during the '60's. Wanting big paintings
was the art market's way of boasting about itself. Artists catered to
this and, along the way, fooled a lot of people, because people rich
enough to buy an original by a famous abstract expressionist are
notoriously stupid.
Put in cynical terms compatible with your analysis, the size of the
painting depends on the market the artist is aiming at. Small
paintings will sell to the less affluent middle-class. Huge canvases
will sell to nouveau riche or even old money who want to show off
their ability to buy such things.
Even to make big canvases requires more wealth on the part of the
artist, since it implies he or she has a space large enough to work
in. Such sizes preclude working in an ordinary room of one's home,
implying that the artist either rents separate studio space, or has a
relatively large room attached to his or her home. Such expenditure
usually means the artist already has sold enough to move into such
spaces or, in the the case of students at places like the Art
Institute of San Francisco, gets money from daddy.
Usually, therefore, the size of work in America is a matter of fakery.
I was hoping for something more serious.
Dilettante
Babs Boone
eatn...@humboldt1.com says...
>i don't know. he paints large, he uses the grid system, what else do
>you think about his work and this discussion?
He didn't start out using the grid system
but he has always painted gargantuan portraits
and Erik's mention of huge "zits" made me
think of the early works of Close. When you
blow up a face to gargantuan size, should you
edit out the zits, blackheads and etc?
Mike Stengl
> > you mean, paintings of objects painted full size? does that include
> > perspective, i.e. a tractor 100 yards away, painted to size?
>
> Well, you know...we spend our lives seeing things we think are small and
> seeing things we think are large. I can't help thinking of Borges:
>
> "...These ambiguities, redundancies and deficiencies remind us of those
> which doctor Franz Kuhn attributes to a certain Chinese encyclopaedia
> entitled 'Celestial Empire of benevolent Knowledge'. In its remote pages
> it is written that the animals are divided into: (a) belonging to the
> emperor, (b) embalmed, (c) tame, (d) sucking pigs, (e) sirens, (f)
> fabulous, (g) stray dogs, (h) included in the present classification,
> (i) frenzied, (j) innumerable, (k) drawn with a very fine camelhair
> brush, (l) et cetera, (m) having just broken the water pitcher, (n) that
> from a long way off look like flies... "
>
> -Jorge Luis Borges, 'Other inquisitions 1937-1952' (University of Texas
> Press, 1993)
> >
i can see clearly now the rain is gone...
Erik A. Mattila
Dilettante wrote:
> "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message news:<3F92FB54...@oco.net>...
>
>
>>Personally, the question "How big should a painting be?" is like the
>>question "What color should a painting be?" Size and scale are artist's
>>problems just like any other artist's problems.
>
>
> Yes, that is why I brought up the subject.
>
>
>
>>We live in an age where we are likely to see a 40' pair of lips
>>twittering on a cinema screen, after all. Or a zit 6' in diameter.
>>Does this have meaning? I think it does.
>
>
> What would that meaning be?
Assuming that question is not rhetorical, just consider "monumentality"
for starters. If Speer's Nuremburg Stadium was the size of a Winnebago,
whould it have carried it's zeitgeist? You've seen those 8' hight
replicas of "David" and the "Eifel Tower."
>>Color field painting depended on a certain scale, I think. Imagine a
>>Barnett Neuman that was painted on an 8x10 format. I think the image
>>would lose all it's compelling qualities.
>
> Abstract expressionism suffers from having been the emblem of cultural
> machismo of the establishment during the '60's. Wanting big paintings
> was the art market's way of boasting about itself. Artists catered to
> this and, along the way, fooled a lot of people, because people rich
> enough to buy an original by a famous abstract expressionist are
> notoriously stupid.
Would the same be true in 19th century France, which saw quite a few
very large paintings. Delacroix, David, and so on.
> Put in cynical terms compatible with your analysis, the size of the
> painting depends on the market the artist is aiming at. Small
> paintings will sell to the less affluent middle-class. Huge canvases
> will sell to nouveau riche or even old money who want to show off
> their ability to buy such things.
That's not cynical, it's just uninformed. And by the way, I didn't make
an "analysis."
> Even to make big canvases requires more wealth on the part of the
> artist, since it implies he or she has a space large enough to work
> in. Such sizes preclude working in an ordinary room of one's home,
> implying that the artist either rents separate studio space, or has a
> relatively large room attached to his or her home. Such expenditure
> usually means the artist already has sold enough to move into such
> spaces or, in the the case of students at places like the Art
> Institute of San Francisco, gets money from daddy.
I think the size is a matter of choice for artistic reasons. I know
plenty of artist who paint large and do no get money from their daddies.
>
> Usually, therefore, the size of work in America is a matter of fakery.
> I was hoping for something more serious.
"Usually, therefore..." What a hoot.
Erik
>
> Dilettante
Dilettante
> >
> > What would that meaning be?
>
> Assuming that question is not rhetorical, just consider "monumentality"
> for starters.
Assuming the original statement to which mine was a response was an
example of something other than intellectual cowardice. It is not
informative simply to recite vogue ideas and coded jargon as a
substitute for meaning.
Clear reading would show that such a very simple question ("What would
that meaning be") could not be rhetorical to one who was not
predisposed to avoid giving clear answers.
If Speer's Nuremburg Stadium was the size of a Winnebago,
> whould it have carried it's zeitgeist? You've seen those 8' hight
> replicas of "David" and the "Eifel Tower."
Are you trying to answer a question by not answering it all, but
hoping our reader will answer it for you. Can we do better next time?
>
> >>Color field painting depended on a certain scale, I think. Imagine a
> >>Barnett Neuman that was painted on an 8x10 format. I think the image
> >>would lose all it's compelling qualities.
In some cases size in abstract expression was necessary for the
method. Painters like Clifford Still and Pollack put their whole
bodies into the work. Such works would physically not have been
possible on smaller canvases. This does not necessarily justify so
vague a term as "compelling qualities."
> >
>
> > Abstract expressionism suffers from having been the emblem of cultural
> > machismo of the establishment during the '60's. Wanting big paintings
> > was the art market's way of boasting about itself. Artists catered to
> > this and, along the way, fooled a lot of people, because people rich
> > enough to buy an original by a famous abstract expressionist are
> > notoriously stupid.
>
> Would the same be true in 19th century France, which saw quite a few
> very large paintings. Delacroix, David, and so on.
Once again we are trying to answer a question by avoiding an answer.
Are we capable of making a direct declarative statement? If you think
carefully about the social positions of the painters you mentioned and
the places their work was to be hung and their potential clients, you
will be able to see the similarities to the abstract expressionists.
>
> > Put in cynical terms compatible with your analysis, the size of the
> > painting depends on the market the artist is aiming at. Small
> > paintings will sell to the less affluent middle-class. Huge canvases
> > will sell to nouveau riche or even old money who want to show off
> > their ability to buy such things.
>
> That's not cynical, it's just uninformed. And by the way, I didn't make
> an "analysis."
It was not your non-analysis that I was referring to as cynical, but
the terms of my response to it. Once again, "informed" is such a vague
and relative term, somewhat doubtful now that you seem to have ignored
the obvious analogies between the court painters of then and now.
You are right you did not make an analysis. A collection of adjectives
and questions does not say anything does it? Why don't you make the
leap of courage next time and try a real analysis like John Berger?
>
> I think the size is a matter of choice for artistic reasons.
That is what we are discussing, some of us, on this thread, isn't it?
Are we going around in circles again?
I know
> plenty of artist who paint large and do no get money from their daddies.
That was addressed by my first reason, which you ignored, in that
paragraph. We can always adduce anectodal evidence as false refutation
of a point.
>
> >
> > Usually, therefore, the size of work in America is a matter of fakery.
> > I was hoping for something more serious.
>
> "Usually, therefore..." What a hoot.
So far, a hoot is all your meanderings are worth. For example--the
lame repetition, "I think the size is a matter of choice for artistic
reasons." Try giving us something concrete next time. Or, in the
tradition of the academic art teacher, there is always the gutter.
Dilettante
Erik A. Mattila
Dilettante wrote:
> "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
>
>
>>>What would that meaning be?
>>
>>Assuming that question is not rhetorical, just consider "monumentality"
>>for starters.
>
>
> Assuming the original statement to which mine was a response was an
> example of something other than intellectual cowardice. It is not
> informative simply to recite vogue ideas and coded jargon as a
> substitute for meaning.
Hmmmm...let's see...this was the statement you have in mind?
"We live in an age where we are likely to see a 40' pair of lips
twittering on a cinema screen, after all. Or a zit 6' in diameter. Does
this have meaning? I think it does."
How do you get "intellectual cowardice" out of that?
> Clear reading would show that such a very simple question ("What would
> that meaning be") could not be rhetorical to one who was not
> predisposed to avoid giving clear answers.
Sure it could. I'll just bet even you could derive a meaning from a 40'
pair of lips if you set your mind to it.
>
> If Speer's Nuremburg Stadium was the size of a Winnebago,
>
>>whould it have carried it's zeitgeist? You've seen those 8' hight
>>replicas of "David" and the "Eifel Tower."
>
> Are you trying to answer a question by not answering it all, but
> hoping our reader will answer it for you. Can we do better next time?
Well, you know, maybe you just don't get it. Every considered that?
>
>>>>Color field painting depended on a certain scale, I think. Imagine a
>>>>Barnett Neuman that was painted on an 8x10 format. I think the image
>>>>would lose all it's compelling qualities.
>>>
>
> In some cases size in abstract expression was necessary for the
> method. Painters like Clifford Still and Pollack put their whole
> bodies into the work. Such works would physically not have been
> possible on smaller canvases. This does not necessarily justify so
> vague a term as "compelling qualities."
It's not a vague term at all. But you can always experiment - use the
grid method to reduce a Barnett Newman down to postage stamp, and see if
it moves you.
>>>Abstract expressionism suffers from having been the emblem of cultural
>>>machismo of the establishment during the '60's. Wanting big paintings
>>>was the art market's way of boasting about itself. Artists catered to
>>>this and, along the way, fooled a lot of people, because people rich
>>>enough to buy an original by a famous abstract expressionist are
>>>notoriously stupid.
>>
>>Would the same be true in 19th century France, which saw quite a few
>>very large paintings. Delacroix, David, and so on.
>
> Once again we are trying to answer a question by avoiding an answer.
> Are we capable of making a direct declarative statement? If you think
> carefully about the social positions of the painters you mentioned and
> the places their work was to be hung and their potential clients, you
> will be able to see the similarities to the abstract expressionists.
What you mean "we" Kemo Sabe? If you look closely, you'll see that you
didn't ask a question at all. But I did. So what are you talking about?
>>>Put in cynical terms compatible with your analysis, the size of the
>>>painting depends on the market the artist is aiming at. Small
>>>paintings will sell to the less affluent middle-class. Huge canvases
>>>will sell to nouveau riche or even old money who want to show off
>>>their ability to buy such things.
>>
>>That's not cynical, it's just uninformed. And by the way, I didn't make
>>an "analysis."
>
> It was not your non-analysis that I was referring to as cynical, but
> the terms of my response to it. Once again, "informed" is such a vague
> and relative term, somewhat doubtful now that you seem to have ignored
> the obvious analogies between the court painters of then and now.
Well, let me put it another way then: you don't know what you're talking
about.
> You are right you did not make an analysis. A collection of adjectives
> and questions does not say anything does it? Why don't you make the
> leap of courage next time and try a real analysis like John Berger?
Then why did you use the term "analysis." Because you thought it
sounded cute? or profound? But in answer to your question, well...I
wasn't making an analysis. Oh, you already knew that, didn't you.
>>I think the size is a matter of choice for artistic reasons.
>
>
> That is what we are discussing, some of us, on this thread, isn't it?
> Are we going around in circles again?
I have no idea what you are discussing, Dildotantte. Seems to me you're
just getting your rocks off pretending to be a bad guy.
> I know
>
>>plenty of artist who paint large and do no get money from their daddies.
>
>
> That was addressed by my first reason, which you ignored, in that
> paragraph. We can always adduce anectodal evidence as false refutation
> of a point.
That was a respons to your words:
"Such expenditure usually means the artist already has sold enough to
move into such spaces or, in the the case of students at places like the
Art Institute of San Francisco, gets money from daddy."
So what planet are you on?
>
>
>>>Usually, therefore, the size of work in America is a matter of fakery.
>>>I was hoping for something more serious.
>>
>>"Usually, therefore..." What a hoot.
>
>
> So far, a hoot is all your meanderings are worth. For example--the
> lame repetition, "I think the size is a matter of choice for artistic
> reasons." Try giving us something concrete next time. Or, in the
> tradition of the academic art teacher, there is always the gutter.
Had you any argumentative skills, you would have defended your
"brilliant" statement; "the size of work in America is a matter of
fakery." So why are you drifting? Get focused. Check back with me
when you feel you can give it a shot.
Erik
>
>
> Dilettante
Dilettante
> pair of lips if you set your mind to it.
Now the real you is coming out. The more I expose your false reasoning
and class codes, the more the nasty establishment artist comes out. I
have no more time for you. Please don't respond to me again.
D
Erik A. Mattila
Er, you responded to my response to another, my friend. The only thing
you exposed is that you don't know what you're talking about.
E