The Gigantic work of Ron Mueck
 

I wasn't quiet sure where to enter this post, but I thought it might be interesting to get feed back what you think of grand scale realistic art work such as this.

Ron Mueck is an Australian artist working in the UK, whose work is not considered hyper-realistic (didn't know such a word existed!) and gigantic in scale. His work has been on exhibit all over the world and can be found at the Millenium Dome as well as Charles Saatchi's living room! I am amazed at the amount of detail in he so convincingly employs at such a grand scale.

I would think working in such a grand scale must be rather difficult. Has anyone painted s.th this size?

I have more images of his work on my my blog

Working at large scale presents problems aside from those one encounters in easel-sized paintings. Commercial illustration on billboards and exterior walls (which I have done - a lot!) is conceived and designed in small scale, then simply enlarged, which then becomes a mechanical / logistical problem. No reason to think Mueck approaches execution of these big pieces much differently.

When painting, considerable difficulty is encountered keeping broad passages visually interesting and "alive" as the size of the piece goes up. Stage set painters encounter similar problems, and have some really kewl tricks to help solve them.

What do you suppose public reaction (or yours) to Mueck's work would be if it were not of enormous size?

I think one aspect he considers by working so large is the differential distortions imposed by close viewpoints in the venues where his stuff is displayed.)

Richard, I think you have a good point about the going from small scale to large scale. I think I did come across one photo, where the models were small figures.

Sharon, why do you call them hideous horrors? Please explain...

I have not seen these works in person although I will definitely go take a look if the opportunity presents itself. To reproduce the image of a person in any aspect ratio that varies from life size, especially when it's in extremes, always requires a different way of approach and I have great respect for those who can pull that off with success.

For my part, the difference between what Mueck's work is representative of, and what the works Sharon referred to imply, is the "simplistic duality" of good and evil. The Renaissance and the Enlightenment which followed still resonate in our time with the premise that mankind is essentially good, and the human condition can ever be bettered. It is the essence of democratic principles, and the perennial promise that redemption from what is despicable in the human condition is possible.

Nihilism which is the bed-rock of modernism refutes that view. It reduces human beings to mechanical creatures without purpose, inevitably bound to submit to the worst inclinations of their base, brutal natures. The horror that was WW I, and all the subsequent atrocities that escalated through the 20th century and into the present day underscore that rationale . . . and its "aesthetic" is of needs, guts, blood, fecal matter and garbage. The message is that humanity is ugly, loathsome and reprehensible, and there is no hope.

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.

Hey, wait a minute

Yes, but how do you like his work, really? Don't hold back.

I don't know that he is pretentious or simple-minded, as I'm not personally acquainted with him. I rather doubt he's either. He certainly has pushed some buttons here, which likely is exactly what he set out to do, and which means he succeeded rather brilliantly.

[QUOTE=Steven Sweeney]Hey, wait a minute

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


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.

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".

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.

Moo.

Now you're just being churlish, Thomasin, and I don't know what your motivation for it is. You couldn't be aiming at a less apt target.

I can speak for myself and here's what I said. I expressly stated that a small concession to a felt impact of the work -- you obviously felt one, too -- didn't mean that I "liked" it, and I also said it was disconcerting and disturbing, so much so that I declined to even post another image. Why in the world would you bother to go to the trouble to make a self-serving translation of that into my saying that I "liked" it?

Or insist that, because you had declared that I "liked" it, I had thereby somehow directed affront your way? I don't even know who you are -- nor you, me.

In any event, no, I'm not going to spew invective at Mueck or personally brand him as hateful, misanthropic, simple-minded or pretentious just because you don't approve of his work. Your imprimatur isn't the gauge of what interests or affects me.

As is the case with banned books, the stridency of personal vitriol leveled against this guy -- whom I had never heard of before this thread was posted -- now makes me want to know more about him.

I apologise, Steven. I didn't mean for you to take offense.

Thank you. No harm done. Clean slate, I hope.

You're late to dinner, Sharon. We've already exchanged dessert. You wouldn't have liked it.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Sharon,

I presume you intended to put the word not in here.

Either way I didn't say you had insulted the artist personally.

And yes you are of course allowed to respond truthfully, I presume that is why Enzie posted in the first place.

I don't recall reading anywhere that your negative response was not appreciated. The same for any positive feedback.

Generally maybe a more analytical rather than emotional response would enable others to see where one is coming from.

Nice to see such a passionate response anyway, there's nothing worse than indifference.

Carolyn

Do you yourself not often work in substantial,

[QUOTE=Steven Sweeney] . . . Scale is a legitimate element in expression of an idea . . .

Posts were deleted in their authors' discretion, and not by the Forum administrators. It does sometimes create jarring leaps from one sentiment to the next, if the excised materials do not appear as "copied" text in other posts for reference. But it remains the authors' prerogative to reconsider and delete if so desired.

So it goes.

[Later note: Of course, deleting a post from the Forum doesn't delete it from the emailed versions received by members upon the initial posting, so a deletion never completely wipes the slate clean.]

Thanks for that, Steven. Heck, I didn't even know I could "recant" and get away with it !

There are all manner of indulgences and dispensations available here. You just have to pull the right lever in the "Edit" mode. Vote early and often.

And, by the way, members can't edit other members' posts, so no conspiratorial or anarchic mischief need be feared.

Incidentally, the software that runs sites such as this is almost universally equipped with an audit feature that provides an electronic record for the benefit of the site's owner, showing who did what, where, and when. This can be a saving feature, if something done inadvertently needs to be undone, but it also would prevent, say, someone from deleting his or her own posts and then lodging a successful censorship protest about same. Not that anyone would, mind you.

Fearsome and wonderful, this Internet business.

Yep, and for the most part beyond the ken of this guy whose idea of high-tech is pushing colored mud around with animal hair on a stick . . . :)