Re: [collage museum] Jonathan Talbot's Patrin series
- my favorite of talbot's patrin series is "optique."
having said that working on large canvas in collage is disconcerting to
me, that i prefer small and intimate, bobbi you remind me that i've
also found too small (if anything can be too small or too large)
disconcerting, in a different way, and i'll be interested to see your
3x4"s if you can post them. the smallest i've worked is 4x4" -- twice
-- and i was so frustrated and claustrophobic that i wanted to throw
the things out the window. i believe in "small is beautiful," but i
don't know about tiny! that size felt smaller than book or literary,
making me think i wanted to work toward some kind of literal size in
image. but that must be a subjective judgment, every time. (this is
reminding me of a funny picasso incident that i can't quite remember at
the moment. later.)
10x10" and 12x12" are good "compromise" dimensions for me, although
lately 6x8" is the most comfortable, maybe because it's very like the
size of many antique books, even though in the end some of my works at
that size have nothing obvious (or subtle for that matter) to do with
books. these days they're winding up abstract architectural.
i think your inspiration to do a 3x4" series is great, though. this
whole discussion has had me wanting to push in one direction or the
other, and not get stuck in a certain range just because it's
On Nov 30, 2005, at 11:59 PM, Bobbi Chukran wrote:
> >A message for Bobbi and others who were interested in the scale of
> >Jonathan Talbot's "Patrin" series. I've just got this from Jonathan:
> >Please tell them that the littlest ones are 3" x 3" and the largest
> >are 40" x 40".>
> Message received! thanks, dale. My inquiring mind is at peace now.
> Love the ones on your site, too.
> I'm inspired, and bought some tiny pre-cut mats today for a new small
> series.....very small, like 3x4".
> Bobbi C.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- hi nancy!
>having said that working on large canvas in collage is disconcerting toI will, as soon as they're finished. I've been playing around with a
>me, that i prefer small and intimate, bobbi you remind me that i've
>also found too small (if anything can be too small or too large)
>disconcerting, in a different way, and i'll be interested to see your
>3x4"s if you can post them. >
lot of different sizes lately. This started when a friend challenged
me to do some truly miniature paintings. I did one very small, then
a series of 'art cards' and one abstract collage that believe it or
not is 1.25" x 1.75"!! That's TOO small to work in permanently--my
eyes can't take it! <grin>
A friend (printmaker and large scale painter) has been telling me for
years that I need to go bigger with my art. This works for straight
abstract paintings, but I've found that with the collages, I am more
comfortable with smaller because I can't seem to fill up the space
without getting too cluttered.
Yesterday I also bought some 6x8" canvas boards to try, a new size
for me since it's not standard. And another reason--I find it much
harder to "fill up" the space on the larger collages. I'm working on
that. Another change for me is working in a square format, which I
love! Wish there were more stock square frames around.....
>i think your inspiration to do a 3x4" series is great, though. thisRight. Hmm....then I probably need to work on some larger pieces,
>whole discussion has had me wanting to push in one direction or the
>other, and not get stuck in a certain range just because it's
too. That feels more uncomfortable to me than the small ones.