Miniature Sculpture

[kathleenfen]

Hi Everyone,

How many of you out there work primarily in miniature? Are any of you carvers working in minature? What prompts you to choose miniature over large works?

Thanks to all who respond

[mavigogun]

'Suppose miniature means "anything I squint at and complain about eye-fatigue and say 'god, this would be so much easier if it was bigger'"? If so, then the answer is- maybe. How do you regard 'larger' (than what?) work that is composed of minutely detailed members? Take a look at Kris Kuksi's work- does he work primarily in minature? The question is: is it a mater of detail, or size? If size is relative to a represented thing, how is the question answered for 'pure' abstraction?

[GlennT]

I work through a very small body on a very small planet in the far flung edge of a galaxy in a remote corner of the universe, when I could be out sculpting cosmic space using galactic dust and quasar beams. So in that sense I've been constrained to working miniature all of my life here on Earth!

[evaldart]

For me, the "miniature-ness" of art that is excessively tiny becomes the only subject. And while aggressively pursued tedium is quite the physical challenge, I would suppose that there is more worry over the development of the require steady-hand and skill and not enough worry over the bigger aesthetic issue which is the consideration-of and interaction-with significant form. Besides, ideas come in ALL sizes. Why would anyone execute them all just tiny.

And yes Glenn...it is indeed relative. Are we due to have a new discussion about the nature of "scale" and "size" (and scope). Maybe.

[kathleenfen]

@evaldart
I'm not quite sure what you mean specifically in regards to:
"For me, the "miniature-ness" of art that is excessively tiny becomes the only subject."
I think what you're saying is that in the piece(s) being miniature works, "miniature" becomes the sole focus. Please elaborate or correct me if need be.
I would suggest that producing large works also has it's own form of tediousness. A steady hand is a requirement; however, is that not true of all art to one degree or another? Ideas do come in all sizes and no, I don't think they should be limited exclusively to being executed in a tiny size. I certainly would not limit myself that way.

@GlennT
LOL!!! Brilliant

@mavigogun
I hadn't thought of specific size limitations for miniature works. I suppose something that can be held in the hand and not squinted at would be along the lines of my own preferences at this point. Larger works, well, I'd again hesitate to put specific size limitations, other than to say not a piece that will fit intimately in one hand and as large a piece as one chooses, how about that?
Kris Kuksi's work is very interesting, although, far too busy for my personal tastes. I wouldn't say he works in miniature at all. I would say that the elements that comprise his work are miniature in nature, however, not the finished works themselves. So, it would be a matter of overall size.
To answer your question "If size is relative to a represented thing, how is the question answered for 'pure' abstraction?", is a little more complicated. There are miniaturist societies who set forth very strict rules in relation to actual size of piece, size of subject matter in relation to the piece and so forth. Abstraction isn't usually done in those organizations from what I remember. That said, I have seen abstract and minimalist master works done in miniature. Those that I saw, were close to the size of the original subject matter.
My own viewpoint is not so structured and in my opinion, unless adhering to a particular school/style is the focus (and even then, I believe in pushing the limits), art should not be constrained with such rules and structure.

[evaldart]

It would be very convenient to work only in miniature...materials tools, space, labor.....all of it would be at a "minimum", wouldnt it. The kitchen table would feel HUGE; no studio necessary.
No rules. I agree. Make things as small as you want. I make small things sometimes too....when the idea calls for it.

[Nelson]

Originally Posted by kathleenfen

Hi Everyone,

How many of you out there work primarily in miniature? Are any of you carvers working in minature? What prompts you to choose miniature over large works?

Thanks to all who respond

Yes,it`s all relative, but considering we`re stuck here on this "tiny" planet, and within these tiny bodies and minds, then our reference needs no discusion. For me, both tiny and very large works, have particularities which makes them tougher to deal with than a convinient scale found somewhere between those extremes. Again moderation seems the most convinient, and where a better balance of detail/size is attained. However, I find "little" significance of a tiny elephant sculpture. The opposite seems to make more sense, like a huge flea...

[shaas]

My S.O. works in very small scale. She is an art jewelry type and produces some remarkable work, mostly fabricated.

[racine]

sometimes do, havn't for a couple of years but might do another show one day, it was fun. http://www.londonsartistquarter.org/...and-jim-racine

[Ryder]

I lack the vocabulary presently to describe various aspects of miniature vs larger sculpture but in my corner of the world I can make a big piece and it sells for more money compared to the amount of time invested. Everybody loves my little horses that they can hold three of in the palm of their hand but a 15 hand high life sized sculpture sells for a price more in line with the time and materials invested. I personally enjoy the art in tiny and large pieces.

[KatyL]

I have very big hands, and really get very frustrated working in a tiny way. I had this debate with myself of how "big" I wanted to sculpt when I started out on this perilous new pathway back in 2009. I started with a comfort zone of what I would call "desk" size. I am now doing "lobby" size. I like a size that can be seen from across a room.