The Gigantic work of Ron Mueck

[Enzie Shahmiri]

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

[Richard Bingham]

Originally Posted by Enzie Shahmiri

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

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.)

[Enzie Shahmiri]

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.

[Richard Bingham]

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.

[Steven Sweeney]

Hey, wait a minute

[Steven Sweeney]

Originally Posted by Thomasin Dewhurst

The hatefulness lies in the artist's misanthropy.

It is the lack of feeling, never mind profound, that makes Mueck's work seem like the end of a bout of stomach flu.

I wonder if he is pretentious or just simple-minded. He probably thinks his works are really good.

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.

[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.