What do you think of wall art that extends beyond the furniture below it?
Even most art collages I’ve created tend to stay within some imaginary lines I’ve drawn – sometimes arbitrarily, sometimes dictated by what’s beneath.
Am I nuts?
I’m starting to think so. I feel like I’ve seen lots of examples of art that is larger – or taken as a whole is larger – than the furniture it relates to.
In the photo at right – from Better Homes and Gardens – several framed waterfowl prints create a fairly large art wall, one that extends beyond the small dresser.
It makes some sense to the right, where the furniture vignette is expanded by the chair. But it appears there’s no furniture to the left.
In the photo below, also from BHG, there are two examples. At right, a grid of six frames extends well beyond the tiny table below it. To the left, a large print hangs above a small chair.
The print above the chair above doesn’t actually bother me. It seems to fit the space and the chair seems less important than the print.
But I’m bothered aesthetically by that small table. Is there something wrong with me?
Take the BHG bedroom above. I don’t understand why that wooden art wouldn’t be hung just a little closer to the center of the wall so that the edges don’t extend beyond the edges of the headboard. (Actually, I’m not sure why you’d hang those at all, but, well, whatever.)
And how about that huge piece at right (from BHG, again) over that tiny settee.
No way. I know the art – a piece of desk top glass from IKEA – fits the wall well but it just overpowers the furniture!
So what do you think?
Am I just obsessive or do you have some invisible furniture guidelines too?