Fourteenth International Conference on the Arts in Society

Abstract

The human figure dominates art, differently in different ages but through many historical periods and in most, although not all, cultures. The terms life-sized, miniature, and over-sized remind us that we view the scale and proportion of human figures in an artwork on the basis of our own real body dimensions. Certainly, size helps determine how human images will affect a viewer, but it is seldom the main factor in a work’s success. The 30 x 20 inch Mona Lisa is as broadly admired as Michelangelo’s over-sized David. The artists keep perpetual control of the size ratio between their human images and the people who view them. Today’s new technologies have given the viewers this control. Screen sizes alter their experience of proportionality—viewing over-sized human figures on movie screens, various sizes on TV screens, and smaller images on tablets and smartphones. Observers of the actual statue of David typically respond with awe at its aesthetic strength, symbolism, and historical context. Smartphone viewers see David’s image not only as small but also as contextualized by proscribed narratives—plus numerous other cached images and messages waiting for screen time. What are the physiological and psychological effects of experiencing varying proportional differences between human images and real humans? Does size really matter? My guess is yes—it matters a lot. And I am impatiently waiting on brain scientists and psychologists for more specific, sure-to-be intriguing answers.