How Big Should a Painting Be?

I just finished doing a rehearsal for a painting. This time, I just 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.

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

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.

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

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.

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?

i don't know. he paints large, he uses the grid system, what else do you think about his work and this discussion?

but how large is the original painting?

you mean, paintings of objects painted full size? does that include perspective, i.e. a tractor 100 yards away, painted to size?

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...

Yes, that is why I brought up the subject.

What would that meaning be?

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.

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?

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.'

Would the same be true in 19th century France, which saw quite a few very large paintings. Delacroix, David, and so on.

That's not cynical, it's just uninformed. And by the way, I didn't make an 'analysis.'

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...' What a hoot.