I have always loved big art. I remember nearly falling over when I first saw Leutze's Washington Crossing the Delaware in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. I had no idea it was this big. (149"x255")
Seurat's Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte has always been my favorite. (81.7'x121) Of course everyone is in awe of Michelangelo's David... and wait- how about that Sistine chapel? Bigger is simply better when it comes to art... Or is it? It's certainly impacting. And difficult to transport.
When I was in art school I once constructed a 7 foot sculpture of a woman out of 1/8" dowel and dental floss. She was enormous. However when the apartment building caught fire, the two of us escaped down the stairwell only to find that she wouldn't fit in my tiny Toyota. Thanking God for friends with trucks! Bigger art requires a lot more thought into logistics; and if it doesn't sell, where does one put it? My own studio seems to be shrinking as a result of this problem. Which is sometimes why I envy the miniature artists. Have you ever seen paintings on a grain of rice? What patience! What eyesight! And, hey, no storage issues!
So as I'm sketching the preliminaries on my 30 ft painting project... I'm wondering, do yo prefer big art? Or is a small piece just right? Leave a comment. I'd love to hear your thoughts.