Tracy Lebenzon
New member
I guess using spell checkers is a mixed blessing !
It sometimes is for me, when I don’t look closely at the word selected to replace the misspelling, but using spell checking is always worth the effort.
I will make the work at the size that suits it and not the viewer. this is not a product like a can of juice. i expect and demand the viewer to work. if they dont want to work then they can (in scots) git to france.
While it’s your work and you can do as you wish, at the end of the day most anything is a product and as such, should be presented in a way that invites the viewer.
Consumers want things that are easily accessible. I guess it amounts to successful communication. Visual art needs to be presented large enough so that people can not just view but appreciate the work comfortably from a typical viewing distance. I guess the cynical way of stating that is that one never wants to depend on the viewer’s willingness to work for anything. Presenting too small will tend to discourage people during that 2.465422368 seconds where most decide if they want to continue looking, or maybe even buy.
Consider Andy Warhol’s famous soup can series, for example. The evidence shows that this series rings with millions of people. Would it have been as successful if the individual images of cans were 2” x 3” rather than roughly 16” x 20”? Probably not. Viewers want the opportunity to take in the details.
I cant remember doing a "redundant themed" work.
The work above has a redundant theme. So do Warhol’s soup cans. Both consist of essentially the same image repeated many times with only slight differences. A couple of other ~ equivalent terms would be repetitive or iterative.