[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: BIG


> For the metrically challenged: that's 21x30 inches.


Yes, the Mona Lisa is surprisingly small for all the hoopla about it.  Isn't
that funny that, with all the attention it gets, I would assume it is large
in person, and then you come upon this little teeny thing.  But Mona smiles
on and on.  There's been books written on that smile, and what gives it its
enigmatic lasting power....
     There was, as of late, an exhibit I want to say in FL that dealt with
the issue of size, and presumption of such.  Because our repros of artwork
is book or magazine size or smaller, we have no idea of the actual size of
most pieces, and size is majorly integral to the read of a piece.  That is
not of course to say that big is better; just that size affects meaning.  I
have a friend, now a doctor, who years ago wrote an entire thesis on the
mathematical correct viewing distance of different sizes of artwork.  How he
got from that to the medical field I'm not sure...
     I would hope that a rejection of a piece into a juried show would have
nothing to do with size per se, but only insofar as size is appropriate to
the read of the piece.  But that would be in a perfect world, wouldn't it?
Chris