The Gigantic work of Ron Mueck

[Richard Bingham]

[QUOTE=Steven Sweeney]Hey, wait a minute

[Enzie Shahmiri]

Sharon, you are right about bigger does not mean better, but here is an artist that decided to magnify. I don't see anything wrong with that. Sort of reminds me of Georgia O'Keefe who took small flowers and blew them up in scale. The effect is interesting to me...that's all.
Black Iris-large

Ergo, the pervading thematic in most cow-college art departments nationwide prescribes that in order for art to have "meaning" and "depth", it must be ugly, and deal with the scatological. by Richard

Richard, I don't think he set out to create ugly art. The figures themselves strike me as the average person you might encounter on a street. There is n.th grotesque or ugly about them, they are just rather plain and average.

It is their hollowness; their lack of anything beyond their physical presence - i.e their lack of idea and creative drive. Their scale is a masking of their philosophical emptiness. Thomasin

Mmmm, interesting point. But remember the image by Margritte "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" ? I see a certain correlation there. Although the spectator sees people, who have left the stage of "mortals" and joined the ranks of giants, there is that shift of forced perception as Steven pointed out .

Steven, I have to say I could not see "Body Worlds", because I didn't have the stomach for it. That exhibit was a bit too overwhelming for me, but I give credit to the person who came up with the idea. I wish I wouldn't have chickened out and could have seen it....

I am a bit surprised at the rather strong negative reaction to Mueck's work and find it rather interesting to read your views and explanations. This sort of exchange of differeing viewpoints always creates an atmosphere that forces us to look beyond the obvious and delve a bit deeper into the meaning of "What is Art" and "Art for Arts Sake".

[Steven Sweeney]

Originally Posted by Enzie Shahmiri

Steven, I have to say I could not see "Body Worlds", because I didn't have the stomach for it. That exhibit was a bit too overwhelming for me, but I give credit to the person who came up with the idea. I wish I wouldn't have chickened out and could have seen it....".

I grew up farming and ranching and have seen some pretty rough things involving more internal components of both animals and people than I really ever wanted to, but both my then-18-year-old son and I bailed out of Body Worlds at about the 3/4 mark. It had a "gateway to hell," Twilight Zone feel about it. When I decided I needed some air, immediately, my son -- not squeamish and, in fact, now pursuing EMT training as part of his current assignment -- didn't argue a bit.

[Steven Sweeney]

Originally Posted by Richard Bingham

How nice for you, Steven.

Moo.

[Richard Bingham]

Originally Posted by Steven Sweeney

Moo.

Ha ha ha.

I don't know why discussions need to get folks all testy, like a steer on the prod, though . . . (my "cure" for 'em is my mean little cow-dog who has no problem grabbing noses).

No question that a discussion is going to change a person's apperceptions from "dislike" to "like" . . . with anyone's work. Mueck's work is a good point of reference for a discussion on content and intent. There's no question of his current acceptability, nor of his craftsmanship, nor even that his work has impact.

You can be sure, however, that even work that succeeds on those three levels (impact, craft and market acceptance) is not necessarily "great art". Let's all post with less invective, and more rational analysis.

It's probably a bad thing to keep on "explaining" one's self, but Steven, I realize my writing style can seem flippant, and I'm sorry I offended you. Really, I had no intention of denigrating "cow colleges" necessarily (I'm a Bovine U grad too!). What I wished to convey was just how ubiquitous the "modernist" party line has become.

[Heidi Maiers]

I think Ron's work is fascinating from a technical standpoint - clearly showing exquisite modeling, molding, and complicated casting skills.
As sculpture, however, it does not move me in the least. There's no warmth, nothing left to the imagination, nothing there to draw me in other than the obvious shock of scale and realism.
For some reason seeing extremely realistic sculpture influences me to make my own work more loose and sculptural.

[Margaret Ferguson]

I saw an exhibition of Ron Mueck's work in Edinburgh 2 years ago. It was stunning, among the most striking art I've seen and even now I can bring its impact to mind.
My 11 year old daughter talked about it for weeks, too, the ultimate test for any sculpture!
Apart from the technical skill demonstrated, the huge pieces were so moving. The main piece was a new born baby, lying helplessly like a beached pilot whale, and I have to say that, having attended births, I was virtually moved to tears. The huge woman in the bed was powerful, too; we were like two year olds creeping round Mum's bedroom, everyone whispering!
The tiny pieces were fantastically well done too.
Funnily enough, the main impact of the sculptures was their sense of vulnerability, whatever the scale

I really enjoyed having my perceptions challenged and I would respectfully encourage anyone to attend a Mueck exhibition

[Carolyn Bannister]

I think his work is more about how one feels as the viewer, to comment on this with any knowledge I would presume one would have to experience the work first hand as the scale, small or large, plays an integral part.

Either way, love it or hate it I don't feel it's appropriate to personally insult the artist.

[Enzie Shahmiri]

You are both so right! The sheer scale must have a different impact then when viewed as a photograph. I also agree that insulting an artist's work is inappropriate. I would love to see his exhibit and after seeing his work in person make a judgment about how the work has affected me.