The Truth About Painting Sizes and Your Art Career

Many emerging painters mistakenly believe that creating monumental canvases is the key to achieving artistic success. After all, mega galleries and museums predominantly showcase artworks of grand scale, creating the illusion that size equals importance. Therefore, in this article, we will demystify the role of the size of paintings from both an artistic and art market perspective. We will explain why all these mega-galleries and institutions seem to prioritize these monumental artworks and how you, as a new emerging artist, should approach the different sizes of your artistic output as a painter.

People often state today’s established painters are successful simply because they go big with their paintings. However, this common assumption confuses cause and effect. Artists aren’t established because they paint big; rather, they paint big because they’re already established. Established artists like Gerhard Richter and his large abstract paintings made with large squeegees or Neo Rauch’s characteristic figurative compositions on a scale reminiscent of historical painting began their careers primarily with smaller sizes suited for private collectors—as most artists do. As they climbed the ladder of institutional and critical acclaim, a transition occurred in which they went bigger for several important reasons.

Firstly, established artists have greater resources to create ambitious, larger canvases, and their galleries have sufficient space, funds, and capabilities to exhibit, ship, and store these monumental pieces. They do it or do it more often because they can. However, additionally and perhaps more importantly, once artists reach a certain level, their audience shifts from private collectors to renowned public and museum collections, requiring larger formats. Private collectors, who predominantly purchase art from emerging artists, often prefer smaller works that fit comfortably in their living room, which also allows them to collect multiple pieces from multiple artists to diversify their collection and hang them on the same wall where only one large work could be installed, whereas institutions like museums prefer larger works because these artworks suit their spacious museum environments.

Conversely, established artists and especially their galleries prioritize institutions and major private collectors for a number of other reasons. First and foremost, if they sell a work to an unknown private collector, the artwork dissapears behind the walls of the collector is likely not be seen again. Whereas with museum collections or important corporate and private collections—such as the collection of Louis Vuitton, which exhibits their collection at the Fondation Louis Vuitton museum in Paris or renowned private collectors such as Dorothy and Herbert Vogel, who are true ambassadors for the artists they collect and donated their collection to the National Gallery of Art in Washington—make sure that the artworks remain active and visible in the art world to support the legacy of the artist, and therefore also the value of the artwork.

Another important aspect consists of the perils of the secondary market for an artist’s career momentum. Mega-galleries are responsible for protecting their artists from the secondary market to ensure the market for their work remains stable. If, instead of prioritizing selling to museums and renowned collections, galleries would continue to sell the works of their established artists to anyone who wants it, including opportunistic private collectors and speculators purchasing artwork by in-demand blue chip artists to take it to auction moments later hoping to make a profit, two things can happen.

Option A: The auction does not go as planned, and the artwork is sold for a price below par or does not sell at all, harming the selling history and sell-through rate for their work and thus the market for that particular artist, which abruptly interrupts the artist’s career momentum. Option B: The artwork gets sold for a stellar price, and the speculator makes more money on the artwork than the artist and the gallery combined. However, one might think this is a positive thing for the artist’s career momentum. Still, in fact, it can initiate a series of secondary market sales of other private collectors who have one of the artist’s works and also want a multi-million dollar sale at auction to make a profit on their investment, as they dump a lot of the artist’s work on the secondary market all at once. However, the highest bidder has already purchased an artwork, and instead of just one artwork available, now there are plenty and the rule of supply and demand will result in a tendency of lower and lower prices, disrupting the artist’s market once more. So, if you hear mega-galleries aren’t selling work to anyone, it is not because they are pretentious or feel better than others; it is to protect their artists.

However, despite the focus on monumental works at major exhibitions, artists continue producing smaller paintings both artistically and commercially. Certain subjects inherently demand intimate sizes—for instance, the small-scale, eerie portraits by Michaël Borremans achieve their emotional impact precisely because of their intimacy. On the other hand, artists like Anselm Kiefer require large canvases to express the monumental weight and power of their subjects effectively. On the other hand, commercially speaking, large artworks demand considerable time, resources, and logistics, limiting the number an artist can realistically create each year. Thus, artists typically create a few significant monumental works—statement pieces that become the cornerstones of their oeuvre and are central to their exhibitions, institutional collections, and publications. Simultaneously, they produce numerous smaller “filler works,” not just to generate additional revenue quickly but also to meet broader market demand, making their art accessible to collectors who may not belong to the elite “blue-chip” category.

So, how must one approach the size of your painting if you are a new emerging artist? Firstly, one must understand that bigger does not inherently equal better. Large canvases are challenging to sell due to higher prices, increased shipping costs, and the practical limitations of buyers’ spaces. Early-career artists investing excessively in large paintings risk accumulating unsold inventory, wasting valuable resources, and potentially discouraging gallery support because the works are not selling. Instead, go for a strategically sound approach that involves diversifying your artistic output to match the behavior of art collectors. Create approximately 40% smaller works with a largest dimension below 75 centimeters or 30 inches. 40-50% can be medium-sized canvases with a dimension between 75 up to 150 centimeters or 30 up to 60 inches. And to conclude, about 10 to 20% can be large-scale paintings, exceeding 150 centimeters or 60 inches.

This suggested ratio aligns well with current market data and collector behavior, yet it’s adaptable based on individual artistic requirements. For every emerging artist, it will be different because the art can also thrive within a particular format. For instance, yesterday, I visited a solo exhibition by Victor Paukstelis at VCRB Gallery in Antwerp, and his works need to have a certain size to have the effect the artist is after. Whereas other artists, such as Maya Makino, who will be having her first solo exhibition with CAI Gallery in the foreseeable future, whose minimal panels excel on a smaller scale. This illustrates that size choices must ultimately align with artistic intentions before anything else.

In conclusion, while size does matter, it does not determine success by itself. Understanding the complex interplay between artistic intention, market demands, and career stage helps emerging painters strategically choose canvas sizes, sustainably build their practices, and avoid misconceptions about what drives true artistic success.

Last Updated on April 15, 2025