Notes on life, art, photography and technology, by a Danish dropout bohemian.
When you drink the water, remember the river.
▼
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Ron Mueck – Hyper Realist Sculptor
[Thanks Joe]
Ron Mueck – Hyper Realist Sculptor,article. Some of them I find unsettling, some of them I like. They are surely skillfully done, and impactful. Wiki article.
It's odd how this kind of realism in sculpture is okay and can be considered art, but in painting it would be dismissed as mere illustration.
I think I agree, some of it is disturbing but even on that the technique can only be admired. I must add, though, that it does kind of give off a sort of "supersize McFarlane Toys" kind of vibe.
... in painting it would be dismissed as mere illustration
This whole thinking is a con job propagated by incompetent and lazy artists. And sadly, the audiences have fallen for it.
It's not too difficult to grasp: If you are incapable of creating paintings and sculptures as good as those of the masters of bygone times, and given that there is always a risk that others might be able to do that, your best strategy is to redefine good art to mean the crappy stuff that you create, and conversely redefine highly skillful works to be bad art.
And, unsurprisingly, there's an endless supply crappy artists entering the market who are only too happy to join your campaign.
Dalí protested against this notion his whole life, even labeling prominent modern art as “lazy masterpieces”.
Alas, Dalí was a “bad artist” because he put a lot of time and skill into his works.
This is easy to prove too, as it was only in the 1900s that good art suddenly became bad and vice versa.
Another way to prove it is to observe that the exact same conspiracy has been going on in architecture, only the conman architects haven't been able to fool the audience nearly as well as painters have.
The reason for it is that unlike a painting, a building is a functional object, and if after a couple of decades people no longer can stand looking at them or living in them, then they must be crap no matter what the trendy art magazine said back in the days it was built.
Uh... WHICH ones are the sculptures?
ReplyDeleteI'm having a hard time telling them from real people.
The lady in the bed? Or the one in the chair? :-)
But the messy-haired dude still looks a bit fake. ;-)
It's odd how this kind of realism in sculpture is okay and can be considered art, but in painting it would be dismissed as mere illustration.
ReplyDeleteI think I agree, some of it is disturbing but even on that the technique can only be admired. I must add, though, that it does kind of give off a sort of "supersize McFarlane Toys" kind of vibe.
"Technique" is all it is. It isn't art. Basically 3D photographs. Big deal.
ReplyDelete"It's odd how this kind of realism in sculpture is okay and can be considered art, but in painting it would be dismissed as mere illustration."
ReplyDeleteOh, I don't know, I think there's been quite a lot of super-realist paintings in galleries.
---
Even if it was just 3D photographs, if they capture just the right thing, it can be art too, like photos.
... Although I do see your point. Myself I do prefer some level of abstraction.
ReplyDelete... in painting it would be dismissed as mere illustration
ReplyDeleteThis whole thinking is a con job propagated by incompetent and lazy artists. And sadly, the audiences have fallen for it.
It's not too difficult to grasp: If you are incapable of creating paintings and sculptures as good as those of the masters of bygone times, and given that there is always a risk that others might be able to do that, your best strategy is to redefine good art to mean the crappy stuff that you create, and conversely redefine highly skillful works to be bad art.
And, unsurprisingly, there's an endless supply crappy artists entering the market who are only too happy to join your campaign.
Dalí protested against this notion his whole life, even labeling prominent modern art as “lazy masterpieces”.
Alas, Dalí was a “bad artist” because he put a lot of time and skill into his works.
This is easy to prove too, as it was only in the 1900s that good art suddenly became bad and vice versa.
ReplyDeleteAnother way to prove it is to observe that the exact same conspiracy has been going on in architecture, only the conman architects haven't been able to fool the audience nearly as well as painters have.
The reason for it is that unlike a painting, a building is a functional object, and if after a couple of decades people no longer can stand looking at them or living in them, then they must be crap no matter what the trendy art magazine said back in the days it was built.
This whole thinking is a con job propagated by incompetent and lazy artists. And sadly, the audiences have fallen for it.
ReplyDeleteI didn't mean to imply that I thought that way. More abstract stuff is good too, but they both should have their place.