Home › Forums › The Learning Center › Composition and Design › Addicted to making large-scale art?
- This topic has 19 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 7 months ago by KreativeK Moderator.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 22, 2018 at 8:45 pm #449960
When I first started painting, I began working on small canvases, and gradually went bigger and bigger.
Now I’m at the point where I can measure my canvases by the foot, not the inch. When I go to the supply store, I am impressed by the large canvases, and tempted to buy them, even though I would probably need a bigger easel, and I definitely do not have the storage space to create large-scale work, nonetheless a place to hang them on a wall.
I’ve developed this subconscious belief that small work is amateurish, and bigger pieces confirm true artistry, somehow. Pretty sure that’s false . The size of an artist’s work doesn’t equate its quality.
HOWEVER…question for you:
Are you addicted to making large-scale art?
Do you think bigger art is better art? (I mean, it can look impressive, but not all art is intended to impose on people!)Tell me what you think.
January 23, 2018 at 3:43 am #550245To me the best art explores the subject and tells us, the viewer, something about how the artist viewed the underlying essence of whatever they are painting. If you need some space to make your statement as you explore then that is a very valid reason to go large.
Vermeer found he only needed small canvasses to explore while Rembrandt used a wide range of sizes.
Size has nothing to do with being amateur or professional, I’m proud to be an amateur it just means doing something for the love of it.
Dave.
“What peaches and what penumbras! Whole families shopping at night! Aisles full of husbands! Wives in the avocados, babies in the tomatoes!—and you, Garcia Lorca, what were you doing down by the watermelons?”
— Allen Ginsberg
Are you ready for a Journey?
PS Critiques always welcome but no plaudits or emoting, please don’t press the like button.January 23, 2018 at 2:52 pm #550244you’ll need more than a bigger easel.
bigger brushes, paint tubs, walls, vehicles, galleries and bigger ideas.4×8 feet is fun, 4×4′ is fun; 36×48″ is fun and manageable – i don’t go larger than that anymore because it’s too hard to transport and fit into spaces.
you might want to consider exterior murals for the full on big experience, super fun, super big.
la
_____________________________________________
When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know PeaceJanuary 24, 2018 at 3:22 am #550248When I first started painting, I began working on small canvases, and gradually went bigger and bigger.
Now I’m at the point where I can measure my canvases by the foot, not the inch. When I go to the supply store, I am impressed by the large canvases, and tempted to buy them, even though I would probably need a bigger easel, and I definitely do not have the storage space to create large-scale work, nonetheless a place to hang them on a wall.
I’ve developed this subconscious belief that small work is amateurish, and bigger pieces confirm true artistry, somehow. Pretty sure that’s false . The size of an artist’s work doesn’t equate its quality.
HOWEVER…question for you:
Are you addicted to making large-scale art?
Do you think bigger art is better art? (I mean, it can look impressive, but not all art is intended to impose on people!)Tell me what you think.
no.. I used the power of “lack of time” and the feeling of “I am too tired after a full day of work” to force me into small works :P Works wonders :P
"no no! You are doing it all wrong, in the internet we are supposed to be stubborn, inflexible and arrogant. One cannot simply be suddenly reasonable and reflexive in the internet, that breaks years of internet tradition as a medium of anger, arrogance, bigotry and self entitlement. Damm these internet newcomers being nice to to others!!!"
"If brute force does not solve your problem, then you are not using enough!"
January 25, 2018 at 5:36 pm #550251It is really fun to make art on a large scale, but most of the pieces that blow me away are small, not big.
"The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you." Neil deGrasse Tyson
My blog: http://ejsherman.blogspot.com/
Instagram: edward_shermanJanuary 26, 2018 at 5:31 pm #550247I have the same illness as you do– not that it is bad. Museums tend to like huge art– mostly modern– I guess that my interest stems from that. With the large size of homes these days, people want a main focus that is larger than they once had in houses. Houses used to be smaller than 1000 square feet, unless it was a huge farmhouse. Rooms were smaller too. Now they have these mansion-sized houses with huge clear stories and celestial ceilings and all kinds of big blank spaces for art. Public buildings also tend to be large.
Moving art is quite a story. I used to work in a field where many large “mural-sized” art was shipped. They would roll it on carpet rolls, and put the frame pieces in separately, or ship them taped together separately. The receiver would put it together in situ.
No longer a member of WC. Bye.
February 25, 2018 at 8:55 pm #550255It’s not always what you say but how you say it.
http://www.juleshilliardfineart.com
February 27, 2018 at 4:22 am #550246It’s not always what you say but how you say it.
Agree. A Vermeer is close, intimate. If he had painted these same themes super large they wouldn’t be personal at all, and they would probably be much weaker paintings. Rembrandts Jewish Bride is reasonably large and looks powerful in person. Had he made it small it might have looked cheesy.
What are you painting? What do you want to convey to the viewer? Quiet, calm, intimate? Bold, powerful, overwhelming? Something else? The subject matter, the mood, the color palette…. all will guide you to the proper size.
Being born places you at a greater risk of dying later in life.
http://www.artallison.com/February 28, 2018 at 10:15 pm #550259I have always been addicted to making bigger paintings. I believe it is human nature. We believe we must make a big statement. It probably goes back to my first museum trip where the old masters paintings covered an entire wall. So I associated their big paintings with what I need to produce to gain any recognition.
What changed me was looking at what sold to the average individual. A well known art dealer in my area told me he would love to sell only 10″ by 14″ oils, acrylics or water colors picturing flowers, kittens and puppies – all day long. He claimed he could sell 10 times as many of those as he could sell bigger “fancy”paintings. He claimed”… they come in here, grab the 10″ by 14 and buy it on the spot. The bigger stuff I have to sell my blank off… ”
Ever since 90% of what I paint is small…with the occasional glimmer of wanting to be Claude Monet and paint a Giverny mural…
Eliminate timidity. Failure is only experience to get us to the next level.
March 10, 2018 at 8:36 pm #550242Addicted to making large-scale art?
No, not at all! One of the largest awards I’ve ever received at the local art competitions I enter was one of my smallest paintings–an 11″ x 14″ of a cityscape.
My primary concern with painting large is how in the heck I’d ever store them.:eek:
wfmartin. My Blog "Creative Realism"...
https://williamfmartin.blogspot.comMarch 13, 2018 at 9:12 pm #550256Thanks for your response. Yeah, I can see why smaller paintings sell more easily, as opposed to large statement ones. That’s definitely a good thing to keep in mind!
March 13, 2018 at 9:14 pm #550257Agree. A Vermeer is close, intimate. If he had painted these same themes super large they wouldn’t be personal at all, and they would probably be much weaker paintings. Rembrandts Jewish Bride is reasonably large and looks powerful in person. Had he made it small it might have looked cheesy.
What are you painting? What do you want to convey to the viewer? Quiet, calm, intimate? Bold, powerful, overwhelming? Something else? The subject matter, the mood, the color palette…. all will guide you to the proper size.
well said. love your point here.
July 13, 2018 at 5:33 pm #550260I like to use a big canvas for the simple reason that I have recently begun doing portraits, and it’s harder to put in the small details on a smaller canvas. I sketched my most recent portrait on 2 different canvases before I finally faced that fact that what I really need is a 3 foot by 3 foot canvas to make it work. So I threw away all my hard work, and started over on the 3rd canvas, finally happy. Also, I think that when a person uses a big canvas it does send the message that this person is serious about their art. What comes to mind is that painting, “Sunday in the park” by Georges Seurat. It’s 10 feet by 6′ 10″ and when you get up close it’s really just a bunch of dots ! And then to think, the Mona Lisa is only 2’6″ by 1’9″.
July 14, 2018 at 2:19 pm #550253I can agree that small doesn’t mean less; nevertheless, I admit I’m more likely to be impressed by something larger than smaller.
I believe if something is big enough, it can get away with less careful composition (especially if you can only take in parts of it at a time) and even less care in paint-handling (if you have to stand back a long way to view it all). The mere size of a wall-sized painting can be impressive.
I wish I could “play big” but like so many, space restrictions, transport, and the cost of art supplies all force me to work smaller. . .and more carefully.
July 15, 2018 at 10:27 am #550250Your story is my story, i went from 30X40cm to 120X200cm canvases, from small impressionistic works to abstracts. Yes large art looks better to me! (the most famous artists are known for their big frescoes!!)
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Register For This Site
A password will be e-mailed to you.
Search