I don’t list the size in the description of my work anymore. This is something that makes me very uncomfortable as I was taught to always list size when titling images. There are obvious reasons for this, but does it matter anymore when the access to the work is essentially the size of ones computer monitor?
I guess you should figure out how many kb or mb it is. We have new measurements.
Or not.
I like the principle.
i dont see that there is any logical reason to not state the size of your work.
what is the size if it’s represented digitally?
its a physical object thats being represented digitally, so i’d like to be given a measurement to give me a reference to the physical size. otherwise, how would i know that it is a physical object? a collage is something physical. is it a digital collage? if it were, then it could be measured digitally. i dont see what the defiance of stating its size has to do with anything other than being “rebellious” for no explicable reason.
well, if you’re never going to see it in real life, isn’t it’s actual size unimportant? What if she lied? Does it’s value diminish if you say it’s 5 inchs tall or five feet tall?
I see what you mean, but I think there is value in the statement.
Thanks for coming aboard, we will all benefit.
It matters to the extent to which one wishes for me to relate to the piece. If you prefer for my understanding to be one of a small scale than by all means leave me to the size of the computer monitor. However, i am not fully committed to computer monitor because i am left in an ambiguous space with no size. One has the opportunity to direct my (physical)relationship with the image through a listing of the dimensions. So, for me it is really just an issue of how the artist wishes to direct me more than a critique on value.
thank you for the compliment! i am excited.
i dont know what else to say though, about this particular discussion. i feel like ive said my piece, i guess.
I’m glad you’re excited Sarah!
Chad, my question would then be this:
Are we showing this only to people with an eye for measurements? What if she measured it in centimeters? Would the average American understand what size it was? Who are we talking to? Measurement is codification? Right? The only way to be understood is to get rid of the codes. This is sort of why the other two conversations on here represent art vs media and art about art. There is a difficulty in art to be understood and to understand, you (as someone educated about art, who also relates to work through size) might be in the minority? Are we producing for the masses, or are we producing for artists? Is art (that is about art especially) for us or them?
Does digital reproduction make something less?
Is it possible to direct everyone? Who do we choose to speak to? The artist cannot possibly speak everyones language, so I guess the question is “who is the audience?”
I have to agree w/ Sarah, but I think it is based on what you decide is the final piece. I don’t see any reason to not give the size if the physical object that is the final piece and you are only using the digital format to communicate it… listing it would only end up enhancing the communication to the viewer.
If the digital format on my screen is to be the final product, then I don’t think any kind of size matters, even storage size.
Bottom line for me, though, ultimately, is that you’re the artist and it’s up to you to reveal or not reveal whatever you want to for any reason.