Large paintings are sometimes necessary to convey a visual message with proper impact. Size can impart a sense of priority. A lartge painting flanked by smaller ones will be the one that first draws one's attention. By the same token, the larger painting should contain elements that might be unnecessary in smaller works. So size should not necessarily depreciate a work, just as neither should it be necessarily a determinant of quality.

Dear Robert,
Tonight I sat in front of my TV watching a documentary about the state of the world we currently live in. Hosted by Leonardo Di Caprio and with dozens and dozens of scientists and experts all claiming the world is in grave danger. There is a danger of global warming with the Arctic and Antarctic disappearing. How rain forests have been depleted to deserts and now cause major flooding because the trees no longer absorb thousands of gallons of water. They said that the fuel company EXXON makes more money than the entire motor vehicle industry. The light bulb moment for me was when Dr David Suzuki spoke about how since the dawn of life on this plant 99.9999% of the living things have become extinct. We as human beings and as important as we think we are, are part of nature. At the excellerating speed that we are depleting the earth within 50 years, human being will be living in state we cannot begin to imagine. I watched this show with my fist in my mouth. So, reading tonights comment about an ancient sculpture being taken away by 900 camels doesn't really seem to matter to me. I want to recycle my plastic paint tubes, trade my car in for an electric vehicle and work at making the world a better place.
John Ferrie

Sometimes size is the most important compositional element of a painting - like the Dali in the lobby of the Beaverbrook, so appropriately named Santiago el Grande, so big it takes up permanent space in your brain. It is spectacular. That large canvas allows the open spaces into which you can transport yourself. A small, intimate painting can be very sweet indeed, but I have not been transported by a small canvas the way that gigantic work carried me away. It makes you fly.

I have to say that if you are Seurat and want to paint a picture of a day at the park, I hope you choose a huge canvas. I have never been so surprised as I was to run into the Grande Jatte painting in Chicago.
However, if you are just a ordinary working stiff making paintings, you had better get a huge house to hang them in. It will take a lot of marketing to get the corporations to hang your work in their lobbies. People usually don't choose paintings the size of Lake Michigan for their livingrooms unless the artist is famous and they are rich.

This reminds me of an exhibition of surrealist paintings I visited in Duesseldorf (Germany) a few years ago. I'm often surprised that famous paintings I admire are in fact smaller than the image of them I have in my head, so when I found myself standing in front of Salvador Dali's melting clock (The Persistence of Memory, 1931, MoMA NY) and realized that it was really very small, in fact only 9 1/2 x 13", I had to think again about relation between the size and value of paintings. Many of Dali's works are of course very big, but at that exhibition there were some quite tiny ones on show and they were just as brilliantly executed, and they all took my breath away. Dali's attention to detail is unparalleled!

I am reminded of a poem by Robert Burns for his mistress who had small breasts
"Why did God make the diamond so small
and why so huge the granite?
Because He meant that man should set
a higher value on it."

Size is just another element in art. If you want something to shout, "Look at me!" of course you paint it big. If you want an intimate painting to look at every day, smaller is better. If you want to draw attention to your display, put up a large painting. If you want to sell to regular people, put your medium and small paintings next to it.
Size is a qualitative element, too -- you have to compose pictures differently if they are different sizes. A paperback book cover should probably have a different design from a poster or billboard of the same item. And, face it, large paintings are usually more impressive than small ones.

Several years ago I went to Tulsa, Oklahoma to see a special exhibit of Thomas Moran's small watercolors and larger works in oil. As a watercolorist the small watercolors were gems. Those small paintings inspired me to do better in my own work. However, seeing the majesty of his huge oil painting "The Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone" just blew me away. I don't think we would have Yellowstone as a national park today if Congress had to rely on the small watercolors even if they are gems.

My greatest desire is mastery and understanding of all elements regardless of the subject in the medium of oils - color, strokes, and so forth - big and small. So when I work early in the morning I work on large and very small paintings.

Venue is everything.
Some artists paint large canvases specifically for museums, huge naturally lit rooms that allow for viewing a piece twenty paces away.
Some paint for homes, smaller canvases that one can admire from a few feet away.
In between are public places, corporate lobbies, hospitals, boardrooms, etc., what I would term a comfortable size that can be displayed effectively just about anywhere.
I personally get annoyed with tiny works, under 8" x 10."
Given the choice go larger. Please.

It is better to have a large piece of glass in your window than a small diamond on your finger.
Different realities demand different solutions. Big or small art must contain a certain magic.

Dear Robert, It is a hope devoutly to be wished that small would be considered better than "might-makes-right." Alas, I fear it will be awhile before this beautiful concept makes it to fruition. In the meantime, we can only work toward that day.

Cy Twombly. Ha Ha. One of the many classics who can't paint

Cy Twombly. Not too good an example of monumentalizing bravado and derring do. Rather the patron saint of wimp made large.

For some reason I need and tend to work in a large format. But I find the intimacy of small works draws one into that depicted world.

Dear John Ferrie,

Your emotion resonates with me loud and clear. The world is on the brink of a huge change. I too, and many others want to do something about it. I don't think that recycling tubes or going electric will do much. Think of the magnitude. I don't have children (for reasons that don't matter here) - but think of the magnitude of impact on the earth of having or not having a child. I don't know if more and more of us childless people are a part of the solution, or just a coincidence. But it can't be ignored that multiplying oneself into the future with prospects of exploding one person into a huge population in a few centuries - with all the human by-product of needs, supplies, needed and needless spending, mindful and mindless destroying that goes with being a human, has an impressive impact. Without having children, there is no future for humankind either, but it appears that some kind of a balance is already starting to happen. I think that it's way beyond our comprehension how it will pan out. I will carry on with my recycling and reducing the effects I have on the environment, thank you for bringing that up.

Don B.

So bigger isn't better? Hmmm. Yeah, no, yeah. I saw a painting once in a stairwell of a giant tomato. It was wonderful. I paint smaller tomatoes and they are also wonderful. You just can't have enough tomatoes.

To John and Don - I'm so glad this thought was introduced into this topic. Don, the LITTLE things done by millions of people DO make a BIG impact. And for more things to do, and things that are being done, please get thee to www.greenpeace.org, www.350.org, or one of the many conservation groups and write your political leaders about how you feel. Time is running out.

Jackie Knott, are you buying?

"Size does matter??"
Americans like everything BIG? Maybe this is good and maybe this is bad. The overriding issue for me is not size per say so much as quality. To have two tons of wheat dumps onto my doorstep would cause me great distress. On the other hand if I receive a loaf of bread; it would be welcome in my house.
I think the issue of ‘big is better’ is changing partly because money is scare and the future is uncertain. But make no mistake, BIG will make a comeback when the economy improves. Just look at what we haven’t learned with the auto industry.
Its human nature to want more; The Biggest, the Best, the Most. It stems from not having. It's the reason humans became hunter gathers from nomads. We create stores of goods for when times are lean. Most of us come from immigrants who had very little, and when the opportunity to have more arose, we ran with it and instilled this notion in us of accumulated wealth. There can never be too much. More is better. Hence bigger is better. It demonstrates to others our wealth and good fortune. A big car, big house or lots of land and possessions.
Only after these needs are quenched do we consider- something small. This only to assuage the notion that yes we can show restraint. We can appreciate little things. This also shows us to others as being more Godly, in tune with nature and not altogether complete gluttons. But make no mistake, when the opportunity arises we will always equate bigger with better.
There will always be big art and small art as well as reasons for purchasing each. But the real bottom line here is to love whatever you purchase for what it means to you, for its quality and value, not its size.

Thank you for your timely letter. My husband and I just got back from NYC. Yesterday, we visited the MoMA. We were appalled at some of the displays that were considered art. One blatant, large display was of several walls that had a single yogurt container lid in the center of each (complete with price tag and expiration dates). Not paintings; actual yogurt lids. Other, less obvious jokes of art were very large paintings that, in our opinion, seemed to be very poorly painted, yet these were supposedly the works of masters.
I kept telling my husband that I had better paint a lot bigger, if I ever want to be famous. Hopefully, you are correct and people will go back to appreciating the quality of the painting, and not be so overwhelmed and "fooled" by size.

Monumental is just another characteristic of applied technique. I've wondered though. Some of the Abstract Expressionists produced creditable smaller works. (My first thought was Motherwell's collages.) However, sometimes expanse is part of the necessary language. Despite thinking so, I tend to believe that a lot of contemporary art is made big because that's been the trend, and those are the things that have been purchased at astronomical prices. It's as if some of the artists are adopting the large size as a halo effect. That is to say, they are thinking that if it's big it will be (at least) regarded seriously. They might be right about that. We're not all immune from such notions. Nonetheless, it would be wrong to disregard grand sizes out of hand, as an affectation. I find small, precious work annoying. I prefer my paintings to be a mite more robust. I keep telling myself the only reason I don't have one of the Elegy for the Spanish Republic canvases is that I don't have the wall space. Now how do I justify not having a Homer watercolor?

Big ones, little ones, they're all paintings, except when they aren't. Is installation just monumental assemblage? Ever before wondered if Damien Hirst could have found a smaller shark? Issues of the emperor's clothing aside, there is, after all, some "content" to the scale of the work. (Don't back me into a corner and demand a justification for mentioning Hirst. I'll just cower and defer to the pundits. It could be worse: I might have brought up Tracey Emin, though with her there isn't so much an issue of size as of extent.) I appreciate small gems, but if you can fill a wall in an interesting way, I'm all eyes. I remember seeing a huge picture-- I think it was an Alex Katz-- that was almost all black but for a geometrical bit of deep blue in a corner. Suddenly I realized that I was looking at the side of a building at night. It was almost all negative space, considered from different perceptual perspectives. (In a way it was like Holme's curious matter of the dog in the night.) That picture could not have been done at 16"x20".

As some have pointed out, scale or size is utterly immaterial to the issue of quality. A piece of real art with the soul it takes to engage people across time and culture can be as large or small as it needs to be. Is Michaelangelo's Sistine Chapel fresco better than Da Vinci's "La Giaconda"? Now, I am a hobby painter a dabbler just beginning, so whatever dimension the canvas, it will not be "art", just a student's study, so I paint on whatever I can afford. Nobody will buy it ... I lie, someone did want one for a grand daughter so my years art income was $40. However, size becomes important when your work is presented as a saleable commodity. Then you must know your audience. e.g. Central 'decor pieces' for McMansions must fill large walls so, size, content, dramatic contrast and trendy colour fits are important. If you're in this market better keep constant tabs on paint store brochures to anticipate what background hues your paintings must co-ordinate with next year. Several steps up, your corporate buyers are looking to fit out boardroom and public areas. Sizes will be large but so will buyer's egos, everyone's credentials, reputations, skills and even your artistry. On the other hand, ordinary folk bypass the wall size stuff and gravitate to smaller, more intimate and more affordable works and content they identify with. Making paintings and sculpture are arts but selling arts is a business so find your market and learn it well. Or do a 'Vincent' ... put in your 10,000+ hours, letting your family sell if they can ... maybe you can get discovered on the basis of sheer quality. If so it will be because it is art, not commodity and the dimensions of the works will be utterly immaterial.

Esther, buying what? I see no means to contact you. Am I buying paintings? Buying into a premise a member has posted?

I think that the point might have been - unless you want to buy large paintings, why would you be annoyed at small works...

The only difference between a small painting and a large one is the distance one must stand while viewing it. Two disparate European masters illustrate the smaller side of things, Vermeer and Paul Klee.

Most of my paintings are 9" x12" or less. I like getting the ideas out there quickly. The small sizes don't take much time; they are affordable, and eligible places for hanging in the home are more numerous.

painting on a large scale has a completely different set of rules than painting small. I have to disagree with Audrey Flacks opinion. There are some emotions and ideas that have to be expressed very small and others very large. Composition for a small area is much different than a larger area. The larger the area to be painted the harder it is to have a good composition. Conversely small works are not easy either as the space being so limited detail becomes important.

Some artists are suited to painting murals or large works while others a more suited to smaller scale works and miniatures. It's like comparing apples to oranges. Both are fruit but not the same.

As much as size is an issue in painting, it is much more so in photography, my chosen medium. With modern digital printing the size of a photographic based image is almost unlimited. Unfortunately there are few subjects that are really better, in my opinion, that big. The "artist" tends to composite many elements to create their scene and make it as realistic looking as possible. I've seen a few, of scenes large in scale, when printed fairly large that work, but too many are going big because they now can.

OK, maybe I'm just a traditionalist. I use Black and White film, process in my own darkroom and make chemical prints. I have given into using a film scanner for proofing and to be able to post images on-line sooner then I could print and scan. I use 8"X10" paper and make images that are the crop I used in the camera, at least for the most part, and are about 6.33"X9.5". I mount them on 11"X14" board with a window overmatte. I have shown a few times and enjoy watching people get close to the work and really look. With my process there is a lot of information in my prints which people see up close. I'm not convinced that a large print would be as enjoyed.

Please keep up the great work with your letters. I enjoy every one.

Some pictures need to be big; some say it all in a small way.

Certainly, when displayed in a gallery, big attracts attention first. I'm often surprised that the painting that looked large and impressive on my studio easel may look small and undistinguished on the walls of a gallery.

I think that in today's world of "art stars", sometimes the artist has become more important than the artwork. Finally, on the theme of size, quality - and projection - your readers might be interested in checking out the work of two European artists: Gottfried Helnwein and Franz Gertsch, who paint monumental, but sensitive portraits. In contrast, there's the work of Karel Funk and Robert Bauer's tiny perfect paintings. Similar subject matter and masterful paint handling, but completely contrasting effects. You ask whether the art world is moving from big and blustery to sensitive and understated. I think that, as always in the past, some artists will paint bluster, some will paint sensitive. Some will choose bluster on stormy days and sensitive to capture the calm.

The "I am big..." quote is from the movie "Sunset Blvd." (1950)

My medium is sumi-e or Japanese Brushstroke. In this method you simplify your work down to the least number of brushstrokes to capture the essence of what you are painting. I paint wildlife and domestic cats and horses primarily. I have found that clients visiting my studio will usually love the work but cannot narrow it down easily to just one piece they would like. They seem to puzzle over it often saying they have never seen work where they would willingly take any or all of them home despite the usual complaint of lack of wall-space.

I have yet to figure out a way to help them with this particular dilemma.

I love small,
I often feel that I make large paintings in order to make the small ones, when i take pictures, my favorites are of small moments,
Charles Seliger's small panels are exquisite,I never cared much for Kertesz until i saw his work presented as the small intimate images that he preferred but i have also never seen a Twombly
that didn't stop me dead in my tracks

I would pass by every Cy Twombly, massive or tiny, and would spend hours before any Velasquez, big or small, and have. Size doesn't matter....if it is finely crafted, beautiful, and contemplative and gives joy from a distance as well as up close, it is art I love. (It helps to be a Velasquez, however).

Washington, DC

Roslyn,

Try not showing your clients many similar paintings - show them just a few which are the most different from each other. That may help them pick what speaks to them the most. Imagine being offered a smorgasboard of cakes - or if you have to select from a 3 (if you can eat only one).

I think that Robert's point was more geared toward evaluating weather the current trends of the high-end art market correspond to the current values of the society. But, such discussions usually trigger "what do I like" - personal responses...which are fun to read, but don't really have much value in the big picture. I think that what the top dogs are doing and selling must have some relationship with the values of the society. If small gems are promoted and get sold at astronomical prices, small dogs start dreaming of small gems as well. But those things change all the time and the ultimate lasting value survives all the trends - or at least the history that we know of shows that. We can all list big and small timeless art respected across generations.

gail caduff-nash, I disagree with you - that was exactly my point. If you try to make million things do dumb useless things, the chance they will buy into the preservation of the planet will go down the drain. If you are honest in what humans need to do in order to preserve the humans - then we are getting somewhere.

All this mumble jumble about art, this is not rocket science! You would think Robert you are the only one that can paint. Stop being silly it was like reading the NY Times, a lot of print that says nothing. Art and painting is for whom ever wants to give it a try.

Robert GREAT video - I'm a professional photographer and very am painter and use the same techniques you describe to make my landscape images - www.photos4calendars.com - I use your website and newsletter in my photography classes a lot - thanks so very much for your great insights. Joseph

Loved the shoulder clip of the forest. To watch you at work and wonder at the deft strokes, the negative space shapes, even the coloured wash that you wipe over all. Copy you? I couldn't, but your work energy is inspiring, to give me at least the nudge to trust my own strokes,patterns and improve on the areas I fail in (composition!) Now I will go back to bed and sleep and dream of finishing my painting of a garden a gate and a cow!

Hi John,
Before trading for the new electric car, please ask yourself how the electricity is generated.
In the U.S. most electricity is generated by coal burning power plants.

Brenda, that comment was rude. This is Robert's web site. Do you also go to someone's house and say - what's the big deal, everyone has a house?

I just love your ease with the brush and truly seeing with your eye's.

I like and anjoy very much to see your landscape paintings. I have tought that Nature always is more beautiful than its representation but in your paintings ther are also Spirit

I think you are correct in thinking that, in most cases, larger is worst. Do the larger artists think that because it is big it will be put in a museum? Seems to be the case many times, whilst the smaller gems don’t get noticed.

I just received your latest book and even my husband was impressed. Not only by the size of the book but the contents. It will keep me busy for years. What a beautiful masterpiece.

Your checklist for a "full" painting is pretty good, but I think you left out one element that is very important, ie,metaphor. The pieces of art that seem to stick in my mind, always "say" something. That something can be as simple as a mood or a feeling, but it must be there to capture my attention. One can always appreciate consummate skill, but the real magic of a powerful painting is the story it tells without words.

In essence what you are saying is "it needs your full attention"!?
So far, in my career no one had ever interrupted me while painting in my own studio and if that should ever happen I can't see myself continuing to paint while someone is chattering away to my left. I have been in a room full of painters when two started a continuing dialogue. I asked them to take it outside
because I needed to give the work my full attention. I realize that many things about the painting process have become automatic after painting so long, but much still needs to have my complete thought process focused on the work. Even when I teach, I keep the talk (instruction) to a minimum and speak quietly when I do speak.
I know I can walk and chew gum at the same time. Doing several things simultaneously is good except I prefer to paint in private with only sounds of music breaking the silence.

Thank you for the painting demo in the forrest ….it was wonderful…I think I was holding my breath while I watched you paint. I think that is what I do when I am painting…I will change that from now on. Thank you for your letters.

Your checklist is one of the most accurate and complete definitions of a piece of art. Thank you again for sharing your most valuable knowledge of a painter at work.

I find that people who buy art, buy lots of art and therefore run out of space for large pieces. People who don't often buy art won't pay what a large piece is worth. So if you are marketing your art the medium sizes are more likely to sell. But then many of us paint for our own pleasure. It is good to be able to sell enough to pay for more supplies.