Why is Scale so Important?

At this point I feel I need to discuss the reasons why scale is so important in art. However, I have still yet to find and read a definitive text on the subject. So I thought that I would layout my (educated) thoughts first and follow them with links to articles that generally support them. I have also copied and pasted useful descriptions and quotes as I have found them (no point in rewriting everything for this blog).

In the context of this project, when we talk about scale we actually mean the size of art works in relation to us, the viewer (the human). I freely admit that this project is asking these questions about large scale works and is tending to ignore miniature works (at this point), which I am classing as anything smaller than A4 in size, which happens to be the size of most of the sketchbooks sold in B&FCs art shop.

Scale is rarely considered as a/the dominant aesthetic element in an artwork by the vast majority of gallery visitors, who may be in awe of the realness, expressiveness and brush strokes within a painting but somehow miss the significance the size of the work has on their experience, even if it is affecting the way they are viewing it. Eli Anapur discusses scale as the ‘dominant element of the artworks’ aesthetics’ in this article for Widewalls [ https://www.widewalls.ch/scale-in-art/ ]. He looks at both large and miniature pieces.

Some statements to consider...

• The size of a work can increase its authority as a valuable (but not necessarily monetary value) object in the eyes of a viewer.

• Large scale works ask the viewer to question their own significance in relation to the piece. It asks them to think about their part in the viewing experience.

• Historically, large scale art was only seen in religious or public buildings, which themselves were vast architectures and the experience of visiting them added to the significance of the imagery. This seems to have left us with a cultural legacy that still affects our viewing experience today (arguably). 

An easy-to-digest illustration of how scale works in relation to the gallery visitor can be found in David by Michelangelo displayed at the Galleria dell'Accademia, Florence, Italy. It raises the questions - would this statue have the same impact? would it give the viewer the same experience? Would it be as famous? - if it was life sized or smaller?


Michelangelo, David

The experience of viewing it in person is something that should not be underestimated, and I very much doubt that more than a couple of my students have seen it in the flesh (if indeed, any). [ https://www.sophia.org/tutorials/design-in-art-scale-and-proportion ]

Jeff Wall is a contemporary artist (photographer) who places great significance on the scale of his work and the viewing experience.


The Giant 1992 (transparency in lightbox 45cm x 59cm)

Wall's The Giant is a fairly small piece at about A2 in size but the content has distinct similarities to David (or at least installation photographs of the sculpture), and is possibly descriptive of this whole project… to mock up and test the scale of works in relation to the viewer and surrounding space.

The White Cube’s website [ http://whitecube.com/artists/artist/jeff_wall ] describes… ‘Jeff Wall is renowned for large-format photographs with subject matter that ranges from mundane corners of the urban environment to elaborate tableaux that take on the scale and complexity of nineteenth-century history paintings.’... ‘Wall calls his photographs, after Charles Baudelaire, ‘prose poems’, a description that emphasises how each picture should be experienced rather than used to illustrate a predetermined idea or a specific narrative.’ (Anon)


Jeff Wall, Dead Troops Talk (417cm x 229cm)


Jeff Wall, Steves Farm, Steveston 1980 (Transparency in lightbox, 58cm  x 229 cm)

The  Museum of Contemporary Art tells us that ‘Wall’s primary desire ‘was to push photography closer to painting’...In works such as Steve’s Farm, Stevenston ’wall imparts a sense of “old master” scale to his landscapes ; using a very large panoramic format - approximately two feet by eight feet - he obtains a painting-like scale the fully holds the wall’ (Koshalek, R in Brougher, K. and Wall, J. (1997). Jeff Wall. Los Angeles, CA: Museum of Contemporary Art.).

In this [ http://www.museomagazine.com/JEFF-WALL ] interesting interview with David Shapiro, Wall talks about ‘monumental photography’ as being a relatively recent phenomenon, breaking out of the documentary/book model that fine art photography was generally based on up to the 70s. He describes how experimentation has led to this style of presentation and that ‘Photography’s gotten a lot bigger in the last ten or twelve years, because it’s become a known thing that a photograph can look great at that scale’. The article alludes to Gursky and Tillmans..

Andreas Gursky is an artist who is hard to ignore when it comes to scale. His hyper-real photographs entice the viewer into the image. Initially from a distance, one is attracted by his super formal aesthetic and secondly, by the fantastic detail captured by his large format camera almost to the point where your nose touches it. The size of the work allows the viewer to investigate details that would be lost if it was printed at a smaller size.
[ http://www.andreasgursky.com/en ]


Gursky, Montparnasse (354cm x 149cm)


Gursky, Montparnasse (detail)


Gursky, Montparnasse (closer detail)

Claes Oldenburg and Jeff Koons use large scale aesthetic in their work. The work that is useful to us are large sculptural pieces that scale up ordinary, mundane objects from daily life, or in Koons' case, up-scaled (massively!) versions of balloon animals.

When Bigger Is Better: Claes Oldenburg...
http://articles.latimes.com/1995-07-02/entertainment/ca-19310_1_claes-oldenburg


Claes Oldenburg

Jeff Koons….
http://www.jeffkoons.com/


Jeff Koons, Balloon Dog

Jeff Koons is the current holder of the record for the highest price paid for a work by a living artist for Balloon Dog (Orange). Which leads us on nicely to...

It is arguable that there is a direct correlation between the ‘aura’ of a great work of art and its monetary value (I can’t remember where I read about it at this point). With this in mind, we can look to Sotherby’s international auction house, to see what they have to say about the size of art works and the value of a piece. This video is one of a series of 10 that discuss different valuation criteria. And yes, the conclusion is that size does affect value.

I will revisit Koons, Gursky and Oldenburg at a later date.

If you are reading this blog and feel you can add something to my research then please comment… even if you are correcting me or don’t agree with something that I say.