sculptural preferences

["Bill Urmenyi" <bill@zzzzzzzzzzzzz>]

Norman

I make the assumption that by monumental pieces you are referring to scale
rather than whether the work is a monument or not.

I don't really want to write a teatise on scale as I'm sure that there are
far more qualified people who would do it much better but here is a short,
incomplete bit of text on the subject anyway. There are really three sizes
that make sense. (It has to be said that in most generalised statements,
there are likely to be some notable exceptions.) There is the very small,
which can work very well in a large space as it makes the viewer look at the
work very intensely. There is the human scale, which of course can easily be
related to. Then there is the very large scale, which leaves the viewer
overwhelmed and dragged, almost forcibly, into the work. The problem with
works on other scales, particularly the small as opposed to the very small
is that they tend to be more like maquetts than final works or are merely
decorative.

The scale that an artist chooses to work in is often more a matter of the
site, subject matter or what the commission requires than other
considerations but there are a number of artists who treat scale as a part
of their territory. Now art is a very obsessional pursuit. Artists tend to
make art not because they want to but more likely because they need to. It
is not surprising, therefore, that some artists are obsessive about scale
and that of course includes the monumental or very large. It has to be said
that there are artists who are obsessional about very small things. So it's
whatever turns you on.

Bill Urmenyi
http://www.urmenyi.co.uk