For Bigger, For Smaller

In the 1980s it became fashionable to produce, show or purchase the largest paintings possible.  The scale of the art object indicates the scale of the individual.   Americans are great, and are entitled to the outward appearance of it.  At the time, the government was busy proving that one penniless fool is worth a fortune in justice and well being, while the gurus of the day were adamant that an artist has greater significance than people not owning comparable talents.  It was the origin of Richard Florida's book, The Rise of the Creative Classes.   The human condition advanced in technology enough to let stray thoughts materialize as valuable goods and services.  Size communicates something or other, independent of the image on the canvass.  This letter is all about the significance of being small.

Since the 1980s, there has been a shit storm in corporate downsizing.  Also, declining standards of living.  A formerly plush middle class devolved into a debt ridden, anti-depressant popping one.  Private support for the arts went swirly down the the shit pipe, while the rise of non-profit culture has mechanized and burocratized the humanities.  Sparing more polemics, little people like myself have been reduced to making small art objects, sparing expense commensurate with being a dirt poor peon. And I'm fine with this long-passing turn of culture.  Yet I swear a lot.  They say the 'Burgh is the most livable city.   It isn't the most enlivening one.  But it's a good place to be small.