I've tried to thik of a name for this, but everything I come up with "longing" "Yearning" seems so cliche!
Katherine Tyrrell made a great blog post yesterday on the size of artwork entitled: Juried Art Competitions: Does Sixe Matter. She brings up the fact that artwork seems to be getting bigger and bigger in many galleries and asks the question if size can influence an artwork's effectiveness in a juried show. To which I answered:
Personally, when I view shows, I admit size does make a difference, but size must be backed up with skill. A big painting does not make it good, but a good painting that's big makes a huge impact. On a another note, the smaller pieces in shows that are MAGNIFICENT despite their size, get a boost from the size matter as well, IMO. I'll never forget going to my first CPSA convention in Chicago and being able to see Cecile Baird's work clear across an adjoining room of the gallery and it pulled me to it. When up close it was just as beautiful; that makes a winner as well. So in short, yes i believe larger work (if good or up to par) can be a shortcut to success in a show where the winners are juried in person, but that doesn't mean small works can't have impact as well. I just believe the smaller works have to be just a bit better in skill terms to win the prizes.& in honor of that great post of Katherine's, here's a shot of this image in my studio so you can a feeling of the scale. Not too big, not too small.