top of page

The size of paintings.

When the artist has chosen the size of the painting, s/he will have thought about the effect that decision will make on the viewer. For example, a large canvas will make a more dramatic effect. Probably the viewer won't be able to take everything in at one view. They might even feel dwarfed by the canvas.

 

Joseph Wright of Derby probably wanted precisely that effect for some of his work.

 

Recent thinking about Monet's Water Lily canvases is that he wanted viewers to stand very close and be enveloped by the work.

1024px-Joseph_Wright_of_Derby_-_Vesuvius

Eruption of Vesuvius

120cm x 180cm

Joseph Wright of Derby

1775

monet.png

When the patron (the person paying for the painting) chooses the size, a much more pragmatic factor comes into play:

"How much will it cost?"

This works both ways of course. If I have my portrait painted, life-size, by a leading artist then people will know I paid a lot for it. And full-length portraits cost more than half-portraits, which cost more than head and shoulders.

In the Renaissance, artists' contracts often stipulated the amount that would be paid per square metre of painting. Again, a larger painting displayed more wealth.

Water Lilies

200cmx 427cm

Claude Monet

post 1916

mw58402.jpg

Ian McKellan

Clive Smith

2001

4ermine.jpg

Lady with an Ermine

Leonardo da Vinci

1483

Thomas_Gainsborough_-_Mr_and_Mrs_Andrews

Mr and Mrs Andrews

Thomas Gainsborough

1750

Cocktail Party fact:

It was said that when Gainsborough found a sitter boring, he would introduce an animal into the painting to liven things up ... 

bottom of page