The Gigantic work of Ron Mueck

[Steven Sweeney]

Originally Posted by Thomasin Dewhurst

Actually it was you who pushed my buttons by suggesting you liked his work.

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.

[Thomasin Dewhurst]

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

[Steven Sweeney]

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

[Steven Sweeney]

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

[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.

[Carolyn Bannister]

Originally Posted by Sharon Knettell

Carolyn,

I am insulting him personally.

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