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? 

duane hanson

the hyper realist and verisimilitude

we're currently covering the hyper realist artists in SOVA and i was doing (actually i'm still doing) the matrix thingy but i'm so amazed that i had the sudden urge to just type some things. after looking through Ron Mueck's work, i can't help but be amazed. if i had the chance to see it in real life, i could probably spend close to 15 mins on one sculpture of this, looking at every singly detail of this sculptures. the same goes for duane hanson's works.

DUANE HANSON

he's a hyper realist sculptor and his works are true to scale, life sized and hauntingly realistic. verisimilitude. seriously. just learnt the process of how he creates his sculpture. (talking about processes, this reminds me of chuck close, maybe one day i'll blog a little about my thoughts on him) i personally think the hyperrealism is really cool. its probably one of the most interesting art movements. this is because the artworks are so real that we can easily relate to it. duane hanson's works emphasizes on the human attitude and relationships, the mundane and banal lifestyles of inconspicuous, ordinary, average people is one of the main themes in this work. the stereotyped and prejudices stored in european (and perhaps chinese or any other race) brains concerning the american lifestyle. 

because the works are so real, you can't help but question them at first sight.  ms ong asked us (in pairs) to form some questions regarding duane hanson's work, such as tourists II. and then we exchanged with the other pair and answer their questions. one of the question the other pair asked was where are the artworks placed and i guess it was placed in a random place in the museum such that it blends in with the crowd. if i were the artist, i would do that. and indeed, that was what hanson did. the sculptures (seen in tourists II) were just placed in the middle of the gallery. at first glance, i would probably ignore the sculptures because they are simply too realistic. i would be oblivious to them, probably thinking their some viewers in the museum. if i weren't observant enough, i may just pass the sculptures without even knowing about them. but if i'm observant enough, i would realize they aren't moving and will cautiously approach them. upon closer inspection would i then realize they are actually an artwork. then. i'll be amazed. and i'll be shock too. then i'll scrutinize the artwork really carefully because its just simply too realistic. 

this would be my reaction.

on a side note, one should bear in mind that his work was created in the 1960s-1990s, so the clothing matches the time period of that era, hence it would really blend in with the surroundings. it would be more obvious that the sculptures are actually sculptures and not real human beings now because the dressing style is different. 

this made me think of a few things.

1. the context and the artist

the 1970s-1980s in america was the age of consumerism, greed and excess. the television was popular and the lifestyle of the rich was shown to everyone who owned a television. unrealistic expectations form and the line between 'want' and 'need' blurred. duane hanson brought together and featured everyday commodities emphasizing on the mundane, everyday imagery. the lifestyle of the middle class people were emphasized. furthermore, the pop period was after WW2. majority of the feelings were jaded, solemn due to post war. however the pop movement reflected a more childish, fun and less matured view of the society. there was more freedom, the age of excess and a reaction to abstract expressionism. why would hanson wanna emphasize the daily activities of human? we have become so oblivious to what we're doing that it has just become a daily routine to all of us. seeing an old man on a bench is a common sight, there is nothing special or grand about it. most of us would probably ignore the old man, helpful Samaritans would go up to him and ask if he needs any help. such a scene has lost it's meaning, for most of us, it exists to exist. however, such artwork would probably lose its initial meaning in the modern world. the dressing style of the cleaner and the tourists are obviously different that people would notice that there's something odd about these people and would soon realize the sculptures.  would these artworks eventually lose their value in the near future? does this mean that they will just become one of the many artworks in the museum, and that there is no longer this essence of surprise?

old man on a bench

2. the artist and the artwork. 

how did duane hanson choose his subjects? is it picked randomly? or is there some sort of specific target group? majority of hanson's works showcase stereotyped people, for example american tourists, museum guard, cleaner. they all have a stereotype. (pls bear in mind we're talking about the 1960s to 1990s.) the typical american tourists would be dressed casually, with a camera hung from their necks, maybe a little overweight. a museum guard would be dressed in a dark blue uniform, probably with a hat, sitting or standing in a corner. a typical cleaner would be in a blue or green uniform, pushing the cleaner's truck or whatever you call that. ordinary people are being stereotyped. is an artist also stereotyped? what's the typical impression of an artist? i've never really thought about it. actually i didn't really make the connection that such people are stereotyped. its just in your brain already. you unconsciously stereotyped them. it may be a good thing because such people are unique and they have a certain characteristic or air that is special and unique to them. however, it may be bad because we are generalizing things way too easily and uniqueness and individuality can be lost through such generalization. it is only when told that these people are stereotyped that you actually start thinking about them. and then you realize your impression of them are already given. there are certain criteria and tags that are associated with them. it's only then that you realize that they are being stereotyped. does this mean that hanson also stereotypes these people? how did he feel while creating these work?

tourists II

3. the artwork and the viewers

like mention above, my initial impression of the works and final impression are different. first it was assumed that the works are real people however after realizing that it's an artwork, my attitude towards the work changes drastically. so what's the difference between and human being and a non living thing. why, as a human being, have we so much more interest in a non living thing than a living being? and why do our impression and reaction change so much? why do we care more for a non living thing that our fellow counterparts? why are we so amazed at this work when we see such a scene everyday? we see shoppers, tourists, cleaners but are oblivious to them but when we see it in a gallery we get all worked up. has it got to do with the place where they are found? if an object is placed in a gallery, is it's worth increased? is so why? okay gonna digress a little, if something is placed in a museum, it becomes an artwork. what if it's placed at home, will it's value decrease? why so? is a museum all that powerful? why why why?? i don't get the point. for example, if duchamp's work was placed at some random place, its called junk. if it's placed in the museum, its called art. so what is art? must art only be art when it's in a museum? or is art already everyday but have yet to be discovered/made? if art is defined as a way of expressing oneself then everything would be art. daily conversations would be art as well. but why do some art go unnoticed while some are held so highly and of great importance?whats the difference? would art then disappear one day since its a routine thing and everything thats routine would somehow soon become oblivious to us. so would art end? and the cycle repeats, art will then start of as a method of recording things again? or would it be a reaction to photography or any machine/technology things? since traditional art uses skill and effort while modern art can be ready mades or just making use of technology. would traditional art disappear? techniques from neo classicism and romanticism would disappear? would anyone attempt them again if the emphasis is on modern art, art that is thought provoking, abstract and new, and not just a picture or painting or record of things?

museum guard

4. viewers and viewers, the human condition

why are we more interested in non living beings as compared to our fellow human beings? we encounter so many human beings everyday but we're not as interested in them as compared to the art work. why when we see a realistic sculpture we get amazed and would spend time looking at the work, observing every detail. do we expect these detail or would it come as something new and interesting to us? why are we/should we be amazed at such things? these are common things that we see everyday. we notice every strand of hair on the sculptures and go 'woooooooow'. but look at yourself, and you go 'meh'. what's the difference? isn't a living being more interesting than a non living being since they can talk, they have thoughts, they can question and react while a non living being can do nothing? why do we only pay attention to artworks in a museum and ignore every other person that's in the same museum as you? is it time for us to slow down our pace, maybe time should stop for a while. would it help? if we had the day off to observe anything you want (i think one day would not be enough for me though) would we still be amazed at these artworks? or will they appear normal and uninteresting/less interesting to us? we interact with the artworks more than we interact with one another and that's weird. even though we are humans, why are we still figuring out the human condition? why is the human condition so complex? why do we think so much? why do we question? would there be lesser misunderstandings if we can't question/lose the ability to question? why are we so interested in these sculptures but would rather spend our time with real human beings? i would like to know when seeing these sculptures, what goes though your minds? when viewing these sculptures, we probably would be so amazed and would look at every detail but when put in a room with the sculptures, we may be afraid of them as they are very real. why so? why the sudden change in attitude due to the change in environment? also, we can get bored of these sculptures after a while but why do we not get bored with our best friend? our spouse? our partners? isit because of their ability to speak? what is it that attracts us to these works?

queenie

okay these are just thoughts and i just wrote it in the stream of consciousness way. theres a lot a lot of questions, dramatically incorrect. these are raw thoughts heh. will do one on ron mueck soon!

jon rappleye

Fantastic Planet

acrylic and spray enamel on paper

42.375"x72" 

2008

A Litany in Time of Plague 
acrylic and spray enamel on paper
22.25"x30"

2008

andy goldsworthy

today we had SOVA lessons as per normal and covered Andy Goldsworthy. He is AMAZING. here are some of his works

                                         (toner value)

(forms, shapes, lines)

introducing an artist the same age as us: lee lip jiang!!! haha, he was in my primary school, he is now in SOTA. never talk to him but his talent is crazy!!! he has this series of work (its ongoing) and it is all base on a simple template of his face

every week or so, he would post a new picture of his face and these pictures are based on themes. so far he has 189 pictures. how cool is that? 

paying for a photo with nude artist

(this essay is slightly informal)

ECO ART

aurora robson makes art from recycled materials

Robson’s work uses recycled materials to such an extent that she now enjoys receiving junk mail because it gives her new material to create her work. “The language and costly graphic devices and fancy printing used in junk mail gives it a persuasive, positive and personal flavor, making it great fodder for my work. My practice is ultimately about recognizing and embracing new possibilities and encouraging others to do the same,” she writes in her artist’s statement. Some of her more memorable pieces involve plastic bottles carved, cut and twisted into romantic, unrecognizable forms. Like the best artists working with recycled materials, Robson makes the trash she works with a thing of beauty and mystery.