The case for smaller art.
One of the things one critic mentioned when judging a show or exhibit to be “amateurish” is the size of the artwork. “Artists work large” was the idea. When he saw a show of relatively smaller sizes, and for this I am not talking about small or miniature art, I am talking about 8 x 10, 11 x 14, even 16 x 20. It seems that anything less than 18 x 24 is amateurish. I know that many college level classes specify larger art but I am still mystified why this is thought to be better. Why is larger better? Why is only large "Serious Art?"
I have done one really large canvas in my life, 36 x 48. It took a lot of time and skill. But I can really say it took more skill, or vision or creativity than my smaller works. Certainly not as much as my miniatures.
And now I have this really large landscape on my hands. I have shown it at several show, and it is greatly admired. But who wants something that big? I have it on a side wall in my sun room, the only wall big enough for it. And I look at it and say. You know, I get it. It’s a great painting, but I also know why, while I have sold many other paintings and drawing, people walk past it. Its huge.
Ok for an attention getter, but not something people want.
So while I do like the painting. It is an accomplishment, I am painting smaller, more initiate works of art. I do have to ask, "Why is larger more serious?"