07/08/2005: "Does SIZE Matter?" by Michael Corbin

There's no denying that we live in a society that is obsessed with
appearances. Tall, short, thin, fat, black, white. It doesn't seem to end.

Fortunately, for many of the artists I know, my obsession with all things
"art" has a tendency to give their wallets a bit of a jolt. It's all based
on what I see when I look at their work. Appearances.

We talk about so many things when it comes to art. Light, composition,
balance, etc. However, I rarely hear artists or art enthusiasts ever
address an issue that crosses over into both aesthetics and practicality.

Does SIZE matter?

I have paintings in various dimensions. The smallest is probably five
inches by seven inches. The largest is probably six feet by six feet. I
cannot say that I like the smaller ones or the larger ones better. They're
all "my kids."

However, one of the first things that I always notice about a piece, whether
I'm in an art gallery, museum, or looking at paintings online, are its
dimensions. Let's face it, there's nothing better than a HUMONGOUS abstract
expressionist piece that covers an entire museum wall! They rock! The
Museum of Modern Art has plenty of those. Yet, small still-life paintings
and portraits are probably the most personal, elegant works that collectors
can ever hope to own.

I have several paintings from artists who reside in Texas. Looking at them,
one would certainly believe the stereotype that Texans always "do it big."
Perhaps it's all that wide open space and big Texas sky that gives them
their inspiration. If that's true, I'm glad. I love my BIG, BAD-ASS Texas
paintings! I'll also admit that when I buy a large piece, somehow, I feel
like I'm getting more bang for my buck. Silly? Yes. Superficial? Yes.
Still, it's true. I believe that most collectors who are being truthful
will admit to this as well.

It's just the way we're programmed. It's almost human nature. Bigger is
supposed to be better, somehow. However, what if the painting is HUGE and
really BAD? Wouldn't it be much better to replace it with that small,
elegant still life or portrait? Hmm.

Of course, I suppose a lot of this issue rides on what the artist is trying
to express. Today, he or she may be able to say it all on an index card,
tomorrow, it may take a football field!

Size also presents the issue of pure practicality. How much will it cost to
ship to my home? Will they pack it well enough? Who will deliver it? Can
I trust them? Will "X" amount of insurance coverage be enough?

It's the whole snowball effect. Size.

Which brings us back to the question. Does size matter?

Well, that depends. Do you want a small painting or a HUGE one?

MICHAEL CORBIN IS A WRITER AND AVID ART COLLECTOR

Replies: 5 Comments

on Tuesday, July 12th, paul said

Size,its all relative,but if you paint for galleries,then you probably have to paint big,but if you paint for peoples homes like me,then the size can vary,not all big,also medium and small,and minature,and one curious notion is that whenever you are in a gallery looking at big art,if you reduce it down to a small size,it often becomes less impressive,also the only difference between prof artists and amateurs,is size,its like inflation,the more money one gets the bigger the work gets,but big work can be inclusive of a person looking at it,and really we all like to do a big canvas now and then,but where to put the bloody things if they dont sell!

on Sunday, July 10th, hyacinthe@barongallery.com">Hyacinthe Baron said

I have been painting professionally for 50 years. That is, painting what I love and feel and selling everything and making a living.

Size is important in regard to the collector. If a collector is going to live with a work and the allocated space is over a couch, or on a foyer wall, naturally they want a canvas that is at least 3'x4' or larger. Nothing wrong with that. Daily I receive correspondence from collectors who have loved such a work for all the years.

There are artists who have chosen to appeal to collectors and galleries in hope of ending up in museums...and weren't they surprised! Warhol and Rauschenberg and others old for pennies to collectors like Sidney Janis and Scull and never benefitted from the acruition of their works until later in their careers.
Not many collectors have wall space to accomodate large works...or even the budget.
There was a time in the long ago when the art world was booming and collectors could take large tax breaks...and individuals had a lot of dollars in their pockets and could buy art on whim. They bought art like wallpaper...so much a foot and so on.
Artists must make concessions if they wish to succeed at selling. You bet size matters.

on Saturday, July 9th, Gabe Langholtz said

I agree completely. People associate size with "quality" initially. I did when I chose to become a painter. I thought large canvases and oil paints made the artwork more important. I've come to realize that size is nothing more than the difference between a yell and a whisper - if you took identical paintings and placed them on opposite sides of the "size" spectrum, the largest piece would naturally be the loudmouth, but not necessarily the best. unfortunately as an artist one can't pick what size their favorite pieces will be, or should be for that matter. It's simply wait and see. But there's one thing for certain, the larger the size the more the artist has to pay; expenses and time. The High price of a large work often reflects the artists own costs, but not necessarily his/her opinion of the work in comparison to the others. Although I do admit painting a large piece is much easier than painting a small one. To paint small you must have the hands of a surgeon.

on Saturday, July 9th, studiosughi@albertosughi.com" target="_new">shirley babshoff said

size does matter? yes it does... no way to say it does not. And our dearest God will look at us (wherever He is) and He will never stop to laugh laugh and laugh
shirley

on Saturday, July 9th, Karen Freedman said

Size does matter. I agree there seems to be a status attached to larger works of art. I also think the public doesn't think it's "real" art unless it is large. As a fine artist I made the decision to paint in a smaller scale after working in an art gallery for three years. During that time the art market had depreciated. The only people who could afford these pieces were often older and downsizing. The younger people were totally shut out.
I also began to notice the walls in peoples homes and realized that they contained two, maybe three walls big enough to hold such large paintings. There were plenty of smaller spaces that needed filling.
I am trying to create works in modular units that can be rearranged, split up and bought in increments as finances permit. Newly independent people should be able to fill their homes with original art too.
Hopefully, with this theory, I will make up in volume what I will certainly lack in prestige.

Art Blogs - Artblogs - Art Weblogs - absolutearts.com - wwar.com

07/08/2005: "Does SIZE Matter?" by Michael Corbin