sculptural preferences

[Norman Watts <Norman_Watts@zzzzzzz>]

It has been really interesting to review the responses to my initial
question about why people prefer working on a certain scale. There is
also quite a lot of consensus.

-Pretty well everyone agreed that there were about three size ranges
(roughly SML, with M relating to human-sized). Interesting insights
about the size ranges emerged.

-All depend on the environment, e.g. very small things in a large space
for instance will cause the viewer to look closely and intensely; and
material, e.g. stone can look larger than steel.

-Human-sized pieces are something we can "relate" to, either by sheer
equivalence of size (we deal with them 'one on one'), and, as Clive
pointed out, how well we can actually see them (human-sized allows us
to view the whole object and its forms at once (i.e. without
perspective distortion or steric hindrance) and its textures.

-Large objects are harder to relate to both visually, and
psychologically -they tend to be alienating, dominating, intimidating,
overwhelming. But it depends in part on position (above or below the
viewer). The effect is both on the sculptor (a novel thought for me)
and the final appreciator.

-Objects between the SM size ranges can confuse the viewer, or worse,
are merely decorative (I find it noteworthy that this last fact has
already crept into my fears -how to avoid the merely pretty and
decorative? Now I have at least a few clues as to the origin.)

There have also been some interesting outliers:

-such as Karen Bereza's interest in architecture -it can't be small-
and its underlying desire to bring order (emerging again in an interest
in computer assisted graphic design -where else does one have such
readily reversible control in art?).

-another unique point (amongst others) was made by George Graham  -it
takes a lot of time and energy to work large!

-some small objects are still powerful e.g. Cycladic art, as pointed
out by John Pitt. Personal note: I had been unaware of this art and can
only say it was both an intimate and humbling experience for me to look
at it. I can't get over wondering who that mysterious ancient person
was who made this thoroughly modern object which makes me still and
attentive.

-I noticed that no one said anything about enjoying (or not) the actual
technique and engineering of working large. Maybe it gets old? In my
work day the mechanical acts and manipulations are as important a part
of my daily experience (and maybe more so) as the mental processes and
the academic outcome.

Thanks everyone,