MUECK. RON MUECK

ron mueck is another amazing guy.

he is an ny based australian sculptor if I'm not wrong and he's also another hyperrealist sculptor and mainly uses silicon or resin/fiberglass to construct 

his sculptures.

in some ways, both hanson and mueck are similar. they both create hyperrealist sculptures and somehow both deal with the human condition. there are slight difference in both of them as well; hanson focuses more on the mundane and banality of life, emphasizing insignificant ordinary people and actions, attending to stereotypes in the american society. mueck on the other hand focuses more on the process of life, for example, birth, death, pregnant women, and sometimes a little on the mundane life as well. however, the most significant difference is how both artist treat the scale of their sculptures. hanson's sculptures are mostly life sized, such that people can relate to it and there is direct interaction between the sculptures and the viewers. mueck's sculptures on the other hand are either extremely big or smaller than life sized. the difference in size of the sculptures and the viewers have a different impact as compared to hanson's sculptures.  the effect of the scale (interaction between the artwork and the viewers) will be discussed later.

-acting god? creating human?

a girl

1. theme, irony and size

In the main gallery, Mueck’s 17-foot-long figure A Girl lies frozen and alone, her giant baby fists clenched and her enormous newborn eyes struggling to open for the first time. Known for using scale to distort viewer perception of his subjects, Mueck crafts his sculptures out of proportion in order to elicit a psychological presence of frailty or dominance.

Demonstrating the monstrosity of birth and the beginning of life with A Girl, Mueck’s exaggeration of size and life situation swings to the other end of the spectrum with Old Woman in Bed, a diminutive sculpture (less than a foot in length) of an old woman nearing the end of her days. Situated in the room next to A Girl, the woman is seemingly curled up asleep underneath a swath of blankets. But upon closer viewing, her eyes and mouth are half-open, with heavy lids barely able to blink and thin lips parted as if taking a last gasp.

Banal items of everyday life, when grouped in the thousands, compels our reconsideration of their relevance around our lives. Much in the same manner, Ron Mueck’s hyper-realistic sculptures amplifies human emotions and situations, forcing one to reconsider the relationship that we all share with one another.

“Ron Mueck does two things very well: he gets under the skins of his hyper-real figures, and he uses scale to expose vulnerabilities. [There is] a supine newborn baby the size of a small bathroom, its fetal blood not fully wiped away and its umbilical cord dangling like a thick, twisted rope. Each figure’s eyes mirror his or her soul. [There is] a hairy nude giant with crossed eyes seems fearful of something small. [There is] a woman the size of a Manhattan bedroom stares over the covers of her oversized bed, unready to face the day. [There is] a black man’s giant round face exudes ambition and, perhaps, frustration. [There is] a naked couple curled, spoon-style, against each other, sharing their warmth but not their thoughts.” (James Cohan) 

there is always irony present in mueck's work. for instance, the size vs the subject matter. for instance, in the work 'a girl' the newborn girl is blown up to the size of a toilet (maybe) whereas 'dead dad' is smaller than life size and the subject matter is a dead man. the juxtaposition of the meaning o the size and meaning of the subject matter is obvious.
huge = overwhelming, strong, brave
subj matter = small newborn baby, have yet to experience anything
small= frail, weak, insignificant
subj matter= old man, experienced many things, full of knowledge
there are different ways to interpret the meanings. for example, the baby is still young, and can absorb and learn many new things, hence the size, all big, full of hope. the old man is already dead, no matter how many things he can learn, he can't because he is no longer alive, hence showing how small and insignificant he is.

and i just realized how tough it is to categorize things because they are all inter related. i guess i'll just stop and continue at the interaction with audience part haha

woman in bed

2. interaction between viewers and artwork

“It is not that we identify with the figures; rather, we wonder who they are and how they are going to resolve whatever dilemmas they seem to face. We empathize. Since scale and size vary throughout Mueck’s work, viewers have off subconscious relations to the spatial displacements between the sculptures. We approach the large ones as though they were giants, even though most of them seem unsure of themselves. Some small ones seem less fragile. Mueck reverses our usual notion that larger is stronger and smaller is weaker. The baby compounds this direction by being huge, strong, and fragile all at once. It is built like a tank, but the unfocused and inward eyes reveal that it cannot serve its own needs. Mueck’s visceral figures engage viewers in what ends up being a philosophical investigation of the human condition.” (James Cohan)

I think the main reason that Ron Mueck’s work is so powerful and affecting is that they all convey themes and feelings that we all understand - anxiety in life, fear of death, unexplainable and illogical phobias, that inherent need to be loved and accepted, the slow burning of desire - these are all emotions that we all can relate to in one way or another. And they become ever more so relatable when projected through massive depictions.

every single detail is reflected on the sculptures, from blemishes and moles to eye bags. such blemishes are often covered up in real life and is hidden from the world. such blemishes can only be seen by the person themselves, after the clothes and makeup fall off. however, in his sculpture, everything is clearly shown. its like staring into a mirror, the sculptures are a reflection of us. so technically, viewing mueck's work is like looking at yourself in the mirror, with your flaws shown to you. it is because of this that the audience can connect so well with the artworks.

mask

dead dad

3. materials and procedure

 ron mueck uses a variety of materials for his work, mainly resin, silicon and fiberglass. for this particular work pregnant woman, mueck used fiberglass/resin (i forgot which) to create the body. however the face is created using silicon. by using silicon, mueck can easily achieve an extremely realistic face whereby he is able to put/punch each individual strand of hair, eyelash, eyebrow into the sculpture's face.

i have never actually work with resin/fiberglass/silicon but i would like to try working with them 

i couldn't upload part I :/ but here's part 2.

the way he works with his mediums, from the draft to a scaled down version with realistic and precise features made of clay, to the blown up sculpture made of a mixture of materials. to me, hyper realism is a style only suitable for perfectionists who are willing to spend so much time and effort on a single piece of work. it is also because of the perfectionist nature in the artist that the sculptures are able to appear so real. i think an impressionists artist or futurist artist/sculptor will probably never achieve such perfection and detail. i like the effect of the first clay sculpture he made. this sculpture serves as a basic model which gives him an impression of how the sculpture would look like. there is little to no detail, only rough outlines and silhouette. the clay  model is rough and uneven (i like the texture). the clay he uses is different from what i had in mind. i guess this is due to the lack of experience?furthermore,  the materials i've been exposed to are not a lot. my idea of clay is like those pottery clay haha. i'm not sure whether its the same clay but it looks kinda different in the video. 

anyways, this is only the basic model. after deciding on the pose, he works on a larger and detailed sculpture. by using a wire armature to support the sculpture, he added clay around to shape the sculpture into the form of a pregnant woman. with his tools and hands, he carefully shapes the facial expression, fingernails and other details into the sculpture. after this is done, he will have a extremely detailed mini sculpture. he then creates the final sculpture. (my goodness so many steps zzz) so for the giant sculpture, first, mueck uses wires to build the basic structure of the sculpture, he then uses bandages (gauze) soaked in plaster of paris and wraps it around the wire armature. after the bandage has dried, mueck then slaps on clay  to create the mould. slowly shaping it, smoothing it, adding clay, subtraction clay, the forms of the pregnant woman slowly appears. after he is done with the mould, he goes on to coat the mould in silicon (if i'm not wrong, or at least grease it to prevent the initial sculpture from sticking to the mould. not sure about this) he also uses wooden pegs to mark the specific spots so when he puts the mould together, he would know exactly which crack fits which crack. it is this kind of planning and detailing that allows him to create such realistic sculptures. sometimes, the clay sticks to the mould and it's hard to remove cause there are tiny crevices and lines. in this case, mueck has to cut/chip/saw/break  the clay in order to take out the mould. he then reattaches it using the help of a wooden scaffolding. 

 it is a really complicated and tedious process. 

so he fills it the mould up with liquid resin/ fiberglass (not sure how its done, I'm guessing its poured into the mould when is in liquid form). he look the face out and made one more using silicon. he then slowly and tediously sticks each strand of hair into the silicon since silicon is soft. (i will go crazy at this point) with this, he has full control over how the facial hair/hair will look like, enabling him to fully recreate an extremely real sculpture

for the sculpture dead dad, this is the only sculpture in which mueck uses his hair for the whole sculpture. i guess its like respect for your late father, using his hair to represent his father's hair, its a little like transferring his soul (which is made from his mum and dad, aiya you get the meaning) into the sculpture.

pregnant woman 2002

mueck's work prompts us to question the ideal real in contemporary art. 

what is real? his works are looks absolutely real. yet it looks fake because its sooo real to the point that its too real to look real. okay this sounds confusing. the blemishes which he proudly shows are something that even normal people try to cover up (be it with makeup or clothes). cause of all these cover ups, we don't even see these blemishes in real life. seeing all of these on the sculpture kinda makes it seem unreal. the size of his sculptures are also not real. but he captures emotions so well such that there seems to be some sort of soul in the artwork. 

so what is the ideal real? 

the artist, artwork and the audience

its been a while~ didn't do well for my exams sigh.

anyway we were given an intro to h3 some time ago and my post today would revolve around the artist, the audience and the artwork. i guess different people have different definitions of what an artwork is, who can be considered an artist. i'm very sure my response will change from now on as i know very little about the art world. my knowledge on artists and their artwork is very, very limited. as i explore and learn more, i can say for sure that my definitions will eventually change.

but anyway, here are my thoughts at this moment.

my definition of artist is rather strict and many of you may not agree with it but its my own personal thoughts.  an artist must be someone who partakes in the making of his artwork. meaning he has to be physically involved in his work. and to call an artwork his, he has to come up with the idea of the work himself. okay this all sounds really confusing but let me try and give an example to clarify things. lets say marc quinn, most of his sculptures aren't done by him. he came up with the idea, so the artworks such as "plane" and "chemical life support" can be said to be HIS artworks. however i wouldn't call him the artist in this case because he doesn't create the sculpture himself. at most he'll pop by to check out his work and make sure everything is right but he doesn't make the mold, etc. maybe he does the mini clay armature... okay so does it make him the artist? since he made the initial clay armature itself?? my definitions are so hazy that I'm sure they'll change.. someone who helps another person create his/her work is not an artist because although he is physically involved in the creation of the artwork, the artwork is not his. and back to my definition: an artist must be someone who is physically involved IN HIS ARTWORK. yeah this is a rather strict definition and it'll be tough to categorize 'artists'. however i realize yet another loophole, and that is my definition may change yet again depending on 'leisure artists' and 'commercial artists'

the artwork. the artwork, as mentioned above, is the work created by someone. it can only be called eg. XXX's artwork if XXX came up with the idea/concept. if not it can only be called an artwork but not XXX's artwork. then again, what constitutes an artwork? i mean how do you brand it a work of art? when is a work a work of art and when is it not? what is art? if its created by the artist (link to the above para on what is the def of an artist) then its called an artwork? what if its not created by the artist? XXX comes up with the idea, but he doesn't make the work. instead AAA makes the work. so both XXX and AAA are not artists (according to my definition) but the work is placed in an art gallery. therefore is the work an artwork?? or just a work? is there even a difference between an artwork and a work of art? my definitions now are rather confusing so please don't mind me. it'll be interesting to ask yourself what do you consider an artwork, who do you consider an artist and the audience.

for audience, there's 3 kinds of audience. one is the general public. ANYONE who sees the work is immediately called an audience. whether he or she knows about the artist/background of the artist or work/ meaning behind the work. they are allowed to form their own interpretation and understanding of the work. the other kind is the intended audience. audience of that specific time/period whereby the artwork (I'm using the term loosely here) and the audience resonate with each other. e.g. duane hanson's tourist II may be intended for the people of that time whereby the dressing suits that period of time and the work is able to blend in with its surroundings. the last group of audience is the people of the artwork. the critiques, the art buyers/traders/collectors. they will have their own thoughts an ideas which may be different from others. fauvist works such as those by matisse were actually rejected by critiques of that time, saying the works resembles those of a beast. but look now, fauvism has become a well known style.

i also feel that to be an artist, one must not be too sensitive. there are many people in this world and there are many interpretations of one single work. all the various interpretations may not have been your initial interpretation/what you want others to think. however you must accept the other interpretations as they may be more insightful that your very own impression. or, you can see it in another way. your skills aren't up to par such that your technical control, composition and etc does not help in bringing out your message, such that people can derive other meaning from your work. then if you wanna be angry, you can only blame yourself. there is no contract/ obligation that others must follow your meaning. in fact, i personally feel that the audience should at least try to understand the work and derive your own meaning before listening to guides on what the artwork is like. because you will be swayed and immediately think 'ohhhh so this is what the artist meant' and your own creativity and imagination is killed. it'll be more interesting to go 'hmm i think its ...' then 'ohhhhhhhhh so its like that. but its cool that i thought of it differently/ yup yup that was what i thought too/ i knew it!' it makes art exploration much more meaningful.

also, lemme say a little on what i think the function of art is. the function of art is to EVOKE AND PROVOKE. to me, an artwork is not really effective/ interesting to me when all it does is to paint what people see. unless you're talking about skills like photorealist. their skills are so good that i can stand and stare at the painting for hours thinking of the methods the artist use to create his work. art should make you think. think about the material, the technique, the process, the message, the meaning, the hidden meanings. sometimes i would step into the shoes of the artist and think, is there anything i'll change about this work to bring about this particular meaning and why? i like artists who use new mediums and i'll think of how the work is being done. i also like artist who uses traditional medium to create interesting hidden messages. weird and unique artworks for example, merging of different animals/humans? instead of painting a scenery. i think weird works are more interesting. however, a work that is too abstract would not be able to catch my attention because its too 'far'. i cannot really 'interact' or 'click' with the works. (okay I'm losing all my words here somehow i can't think of the correct words now. maybe too tired :/) art cannot merely capture what we see because now we have cameras. art has to evoke thoughts from the audiences/provoke them, allowing them to think.

okay thats it. I'm gonna sleep. will edit this another time. bye~