#sevenknotwind

[fleursartificielles]

@sixtyandfour would be happy to share when I get home tomorrow! I’ll tag you.

@sevenknotwind (I couldn’t tell if you were being funny or not) So - vertical, but only because I was looking at Laura Brothers’ work. I’ve read in a few different interviews that posting that way has become part of her practice. She has a moire effect to her work when you scroll by it too.  http://out-4-pizza.livejournal.com 

[baumgartnerartist]

Collaboration project with Kevin Townsend underway.

[ryantippery]

I think that this is something that is very important to talk about, Especially in the time that we are living in. Scale is important, I agree. It affects the overall experience of viewing the work, but that experience can only be felt in reality. Through digital means I feel as though size can be a set back in some cases. Maybe set back is the wrong term to use. I guess I mean it alters our interpretation. There is no opportunity to relate the space you're occupying to the size of the artwork. The beautiful details shrink to a size that is barely noticeable. I personally have noticed when I create larger works that they are definitely more striking in person when compared to my smaller works. When I share them in a digital space though they are often overlooked. The time spent does not translate to this realm of viewing. The pieces get the same amount of attention as smaller works. In most cases less attention. The digital space seems to level the playing field between small and large works. This is something that I find very interesting.

This question came from a conversation I was having with antropomorfisme. We were discussing size when it comes to art, specifically the fact that I tend to work in a smaller scale. He said,

“I saw that you mostly work in smaller scales. It’s kinda special, actually. It gives you a kind of authenticity, in a way. I also don’t know why people tend to like, or even expect artworks that are larger. But I must admit that I’m not different! It’s something that’s indoctrinated in this society, in the people’s minds. The ‘being able to put in a museum’-size tends to be more 'attractive’. It seems to have a credibility of sorts.“

I feel that what he’s saying brings up another interesting question. Is scale a part of the public’s overall perception of what “good” art is? Can scale make or break the interpretation of a given piece of art?

Now for a tangent.

This discussion reminds me of the movie Synecdoche, New York. It’s a great movie that you all should see if you haven’t already. In the movie Caden Cotard’s (Philip Seymour Hoffman) wife, Adele Lack (Catherine Keener) is a painter. She works in an extremely small scale. I was very impressed by this when I saw the movie. She went the opposite direction. She scaled everything down to bring the viewer in.

I just read an article that states...

“Adele’s paintings are minuscule portraits that resemble tiny Lucian Freuds. They are so small that one must wear magnifying glasses to view them and she ships them in miniature crates that look as if they were made for a dollhouse. It’s a visual joke that counters the heroic, macho scale adopted by many New York painters, but the actual work is nothing special, and their size ultimately boils down to a marketing gimmick.“

I don’t think the author of the article was aware of the fact that the paintings were actually by a very talented artist named Alex Kanevsky, and saying they’re “nothing special” honestly infuriates me.

Thank you all for the replies/comments!