Thursday, September 30, 2010


After seeing this on T.V. this morning I cannot stop thinking about how scale can take the ordinary to the extraordinary.

Then it had me thinking...
Does something need to have an extreme scale to be great?
Can something with an average or medium scale still be interesting?
I will say that I love when things are tiny- everyday objects and artwork alike. For example the work of Thomas Doyle:
Thomas Doyle:
The reprisal
Mixed media
10 x 12 inches diameter
Seriously- great stuff and definitely a cause for further investigation... so go to his site and check out the work.

And there is no doubt that things on a large scale get attention....

Jeff Koons- Cantor Roof Garden of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2008.

But in the case of art, does that really mean something is automatically worthy of praise? I feel like large pieces often get acclaim simply based on their size, you know, the whole skewed notion of "bigger is better".

I just keep going back to the didactic words that get adhered to art/craft, value placed on size, and most of all, gendered associations that are commonly stuck to small/large works. I hope that someday we can step away from this type of categorization.


  1. i definitely dig stuff that adheres to art/craft handmade scale. these things dont beg for the grandiose; they are often humbler, often more personal. lots of large scale sculpture lack the human touch element that are essential to intimate scale works. there is a show up in santa fe...
    his vibrant ceramic works are super fussy and casual at the same time. they definitely urge viewers to rethink scale/value relationships. they are being sold for big sculpture prices but are small. but they achieve in their scale what big sculpture is incapable of. beyond an economic value system they achieve what is important to me (an artist, a human, and a big art fan) they capture my interest!

  2. thomas doyle's works are amazing! thanks for posting the link to his website!