Scale

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
2006

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.