What led to this post was a quick read of Jay’s comment the other day on the differing perceptions between an actual painting and the computer screen version of the image. A revelation occurred when I had a showing of my paintings at an arts fair recently: A lot of people responded very positively to the works upon physically looking at the works (these were the same people who had already seen it on the computer screens before and had not thought too much about it). They said that their feelings towards the subject/painting changed when they looked at the painting life-size.
‘Born!’, Oil paint on gessoed MDF, 48″ X 48″. Sunil Gangadharan
I have known this for some time and I am not too sure what solutions are out there that bridges the chasm between real size and the viewers perception on looking at an image of the painting on the computer screen. This problem will be exacerbated even more as we move to the digital realm (some galleries/exhibitions are now asking artists to submit their artworks via the internet).
I feel a time has come where we need to think of a commonly accepted convention that will allow a ‘size’ perception to be automatically factored when they look at artwork. I do not have too many ideas on this subject and the only ones I could come up with are as follows:
– Photograph the artwork in relation to size of a known entity (like a human being)
– Photograph the artwork in the usual way and then add another photo of the artwork in a gallery setting where the roof / floor of the space that accommodates the art is shown in a relative sense (not very practical at home, but could be simulated in a ‘clean studio’)
– Develop a computer program that will help automatically compare the artwork against known standards (like a human being or the Eiffel Tower) – of course this requires the writing of software – (maybe petition Google to create one for struggling artists trying to show their works online).
Your thoughts and ideas are most appreciated..
Our son next to the painting of his.
Sunil:
The son of Sunil.
A year or two ago I took some shots of bare walls at the Cleveland Museum of Art. I then used a copy and paste approach to combining my work with a wall as a background. I fiddled a little with the dimensions and added a little shadow for effect and, by Jove, I was accessioned!
I was talking with the Boundless Gallery guy and suggested a reference interior for displaying work on his site. “By Jove #2” he did it! The thing looks plastic but gives a reading. You might want to give it a look – Google Boundless Gallery.
Can’t artists continue to use the baby as size indicator? I kinda like that idea ;-)
Jay,
I liked the approach taken by Boundless. This is akin to something that I had in mind… Thanks very much for suggesting…
Jay,
Your idea works well on Boundless, with the one apparent drawback that the room seems to be fixed. What if the picture is too large to make sense in the default arrangement? Smaller ones don’t look good by themselves over a large couch. I can also imagine bad color clashes. It would be nice if the artist could select an arrangment from a set of possibilities, or provide his/her own image for scale.
Sunil,
I love the baby as the scale standard! Beautiful boy, by the way!
I also think installation views are helpful. It is a challenge I run up against when teaching art history/appreciation. It’s really hard to talk about Rothko, for instance, without experiencing the scale of his paintings. One thing I do is look for images of someone in front of the art. I think the human element helps us to imagine being there, even more than an installation view. Afterall, gallery spaces have differently sized walls.
Steve:
Boundless works mainly in the UPS/FedEx realm, so I would imagine that that funny room applies to most of their stuff.
some galleries/exhibitions are now asking artists to submit their artworks via the internet
Really? That sounds terrible.
Congratulations on the baby.
Was “relative size” an intentional pun?
Yes, a unit of measurement, perhaps called “Bala”, that is proudly held up in front of the work. Doesn’t have to be too precise – akin to the “pinch”, “smidgen” “some” etc.
Diaper is optional, but the bala should never be allowed to out-cute the work.
Leslie and Arthur,
Thanks.
Looks like the general solutions are to have someone pose in front of the painting. The virtual room idea put forward by Jay is definitely one that can be developed (different settings, locales etc.). If real estate developers can put out software that will allow us to take a virtual tour of the intended sale (home), I am sure that enterprising software developers could develop a solution that will allow us to interject artwork taking in the size of the artwork and meld to the setup of the virtual room which can then be rotated, viewed and displayed at different configurations/angles.
No, relative sizes was not intended to be ‘punny’.
‘Bala’ as a unit of measurement – you are funny. I am about 3.5 balas tall (assuming a bala is about 20 inches long)… I agree about the ‘out-cuteness’.
So why do you paint these portraits so large, Sunil? Is it more for the viewer’s experience or for yours in painting it? Have you worked with different sizes and settled on large for a particular reason?
Steve,
I just like painting large. It is satisfying, it captures me, I could get lost in it, step back and enjoy the whole, play with the paint a bit, over smudge the hair, perfect the eyes and the corners of the mouth, screw up a bit – I don’t know – it is lyrical. I remember playing the four seasons the last time I painted and did not feel four hours go by (mind you this was between 11 pm and 3 am)…
Viewers seem to like it too. It elicits a lot of reaction from onlookers, I see them do the same things I do, flit back and forth enjoy little details up close, realize it does not make sense and then step back for the overall effect…
I worked with smaller sizes, but did not enjoy it as much.
Steve,
Now that you asked…
At this point I do not even clearly know if people would be interested in collecting a painting of mine or a gallery would be interested in showing or representing my works. I would be very flattered but have not heard any noises to the effect. I do it now primarily to experience the pleasure and completeness it gives me. I also know that I have found something that I can carry with me long forward. I do know one thing though, I want the art that I create to be around for hundreds of years hence.
Sunil: Thanks, that makes sense. As far as collecting, I would like to own one some day, but the large size is actually a bit of a disadvantage for shipping and display (and maybe cost?). Do you have a web page showing what is available for purchase?
I came across a painter’s site today, on which he sells his paintings. If you email a photo of a room, he’ll return it with one of his pictures placed appropriately.
Sunil,
What’s even more maddening is that on the web or in photographs, large work shows up as sometimes inferior to small work, because the detail of the small stuff can be seen so clearly. I wish I had a baby to hold in front of my photographed pieces:-)
June,
They grow up fast and run on.. You and me will still be painting and photographing…