 "Ludo," movements and voice by Ron Mueck (Labyrinth, 1986). Although included in the London-based "Sensation" show as a YBA, Mueck is neither young (he's 44 now), British (he's Australian) or, shoot me for saying this, an artist. Thanks to ad man/collector Charles Saatchi's money and influence, he successfully crossed over from Jim Henson puppeteer to a museum career without significantly changing his schtick--a kind of sentimental high craft. In 1939 Clement Greenberg attempted to nail down what made artists different from illustrators and came up with a dichotomy he called "cause vs effect." Picasso's art made viewers question how the picture was working on them or even what art was (cause) while the Russian neoclassicist Repin painted pictures that told you in every detail exactly how to react to them (effect). For Repin, substitute Mueck's Duane Hanson-style realistic sculptures, which are even less ambiguous than Hanson's because they're deliberately stagy and "spooky." The art world should be more wised up by now. Below: Boy, 2001 (exhibited in the Venice Biennale and elsewhere).
Okay, it's been three days and no one has come forward to defend Ron Mueck. I guess I'm right, it's a conspiracy of Charles Saatchi's in which scores of art institutions and critics have been complicit. Only you and I, dear readers, have seen through the game and know the work for what it is: Wax Museum Art.
I'm not interested in defending Mueck, but as a nominalist I might take issue with your definition of 'artist.' You know ... people call it art therefore its art. Why not call it crappy art instead of "not art"? I'm not particularly interested in preserving the sanctity of the hallowed art halls. What other purpose(s) does the art/not art distinction serve?
My distinction isn't so much art vs non-art as art vs other arts (illustration, puppeteering, advertising design). The most troubling passage of the article I linked to is: He established a lucrative career making models for advertisements before influential art collector Charles Saatchi saw a Pinocchio figure he'd sculpted for his mother-in-law, renowned British painter Paula Rego, and promptly commissioned him to make four pieces – one of which was Dead Dad.
"I didn't try to get out of advertising – Charles Saatchi lured me out of it," says Mueck, disclaiming any ambition to become a serious sculptor. "I enjoyed advertising but I used to make things as an antidote to the 2-D advertising models."
"Art" isn't a term of honor, but a way of locating something within an institutional framework or peer group so it can be judged. Collectors may think the term conveys value but that's their problem--until they start playing curator and/or critic and shifting the creator's work from one category to another. My hope in writing this is to offer a measly counterforce to Saatchi placing his heavy thumb on the evaluation scale. The most damning evidence is that the artist himself claims to be a passive actor in the whole process: he doesn't seem to care what you call him as long as he gets to work.
Besides, it's not "crappy art"--it's excellent puppeteering and modelmaking. It only becomes crappy when we try to shift the category and look for self-reflexive or thought-provoking content. There are lots of examples of people being unfairly judged as "genre" artists and then gradually finding their true following--Philip K. Dick is still working his way over to the "fiction" shelf. But he was an artist who suffered the indignities of being a paperback hack; whereas Mueck "enjoyed advertising."
I think the thing that irks me most about this tale is that Saatchi is not only marketing his artists (fine), but culling them from a media saavy venue in the first place (disconcerting). What if all 'art' was 'product' and 'artists' were 'hired' by their collectors based on their mass appeal? I don't like it, but it doesn't actually sound very far-fetched. I guess its the fact that Muek was not a self-defined artist to start with that causes the squirminess. So is there a kind of right of passage that we require? People must go through the agonies of being fringe-type losers to earn their art stripes? I can mabye get behind this as a valid criteria for value (it certainly plays out in my circles; both politically and emotionally). But I dunno if it's on the order of a definition.
You say: "... it's excellent puppeteering and modelmaking. It only becomes crappy when we try to shift the category and look for self-reflexive or thought-provoking content."
I find this provocative (as is your original suggestion that Muek is 'not an artist') because it posits a definition of "what is art". This is remarkable in this day and age, and merits more discussion. Do you feel that it's time to redefine the term? What is at stake in the larger (ie: larger than Muek and Saatchi) arena?
The distinction Greenberg made between "cause" and "effect" in art (in "Avant Garde & Kitsch"--see above) is a major assumption of the art world, although rarely talked about in those terms. Anytime someone says "I don't know, I just wish it had more thought behind it"--they're wanting to see more "cause." Is the dichotomy still useful? I'd say yes, but there are other things to look for in art (see footnote).
Much philosophical ink has been spilled on the "what is art" question but for me it boils down to two elements: (1) someone with the intent to be an artist and/or make art and (2) a peer group or community that recognizes, in the short or long term, the efforts of artists. Every imaginable kind of content and "quality" can fit into this framework.* It may be that in the short run the community fails to acknowledge someone who meets criterion (1), but through perserverance and time, we like to think recognition comes to a solid achievement. It may also be true that the community can include a creator in the canon who never thought of her/himself as an artist, but again, we like to think it only occurs after critical give and take, scholarly debate, an emerging consensus... Mueck fails under both scenarios. He doesn't consider himself an artist, so he's effectively not asking for a debate that might eventually lead to acceptance. And too little time has elapsed to change his classification from puppeteer to artist without rigging the system--his art world cachet being largely traceable to the will and bucks of a powerful collector (abetted by complacent critics and curators).
The most boring, run of the mill application of the above framework occurs when someone who intends to be an artist goes to the right school, shows at the right gallery, and is recognized quickly by the peer group. Like it or not, John Currin is in the canon, now it's just a question of how high a position to give him in it. * ...but a nice thing to look for is someone who "changes the visual landscape." That's my friend John Pomara's formulation--think Renaissance painters, Russian constructivists, who knows, maybe the Providence RI collectives. Weight should also be given to what Brian Eno calls "scenius"--it doesn't have to be special individuals. Artists who don't change the visual landscape but merely reflect it acutely also have their contribution: e.g., the "pictures generation" of Levine, Sherman, Prince...
the "is it art" question is all thats keeping the (post)modern art continuum alive and interesting. repeating or emulating old art (and im not refering to the prince/levine etc appropriation process) is not making art let alone good art. recital music is not art. inovative musical composition/proformance might be. a while back curators vested themselves with the validative powers of artmaking via the practice of selective recontextulazition and juxtaposition, thus raising the likes of specific outsider art, found objects and other nonart objects to fine art status. by taking on this authority the curator becomes the/an artist. moma initiated this license with their seemingly non hierarchical inclusion of industrial arts, film and even photography departments. power broking collectors like saatchi can insinuate themselves amongst legitimate curators and usurp that power. saatchi in that role is about as illegitimate as bush jr's place as president. ...and dont lets get started on the andy warhol estate authentification board.
Well, call me a commie, but I am still stuck on the idea that art can (possibly should -- now I'm out on a limb) have value for people outside the 'community' or 'peer group'. Because while I agree there is an operative art system in place, when it is insular and self-defining it is challenging to no one, inside or outside the 'group'. I'd rather err on the side of allowing for blurry boundaries around who gets to be called an artist than closing the ranks. I'm just being selfish: life inside the wagon ring is both precarious AND boring. A lose/lose situation.
I don't think anything I said takes away from art's value outside the community of makers and evaluators. If I say a puppeteer isn't an artist just because he made something, that's not the same as saying that he can't appreciate art. The circle should be widened; I just don't believe you get there by showing people what they already know (ie Wax Museum Art). What you seem to be saying is, let more of them (artisans, gamers, etc) in as artists and let their respective communities come with them; that's just too touchy feely for me. At some point you have to be able to say, this isn't even in the same arena.
Another thought: art schools are regurgitating thousands of grads a year. Perhaps what we need isn't more artists but more tough critics and curators who give the field meaning.
"I just don't believe you get there by showing people what they already know"
Point taken! I agree on this completely. As for the touchy feely dig - I do believe any old dink-wad can legitimately claim to be an artist, not because I want to "let them in", but because it's a fact. Therefore, for all our sakes, the criteria for cultural value should be broader and more rigorous than whether something qualifies as art or not.
That said, I do think the term still has some real use: It gives us a socially acceptable arena to try out strange, unpopular ideas, and sometimes get paid to do it. And I will concede that big specatacle art like giant puppets might jeopardize this safety zone.
But what about guitar solos as art performance? or music art video that rocks the house? A cow in slices ( love that one, but I'd probably love it just as much in a natural history museum as in an art gallery), or a life-sized, super-realistic, gallingly detailed, 3-d rendition of somebody's dead dad?
"Perhaps what we need isn't more artists but more tough critics and curators who give the field meaning." I agree on this one too. That's why I'm all het up.
It sounds like you like Mueck's effigy Dead Dad, or at the very least don't think it out of place in an art museum. I could see including it as craft or puppetry, dropped into an exhibition for context or variety (as Bill mentioned Alfred Barr did with "modern" machines and chairs). But I don't think it transcends those categories or adds to what some New Yorkers call "the discourse." In other words, we were talking about photorealist figurative sculpture in the late '60s/early '70s with Duane Hanson and John De Andrea, and now we're talking about it again, with Mueck? I especially don't want to go there since, as I think we agree, he isn't one of those "dink-wads claim[ing] to be an artist," but a modelmaker that Saatchi cherrypicked from an ad agency.
I'll be happy to reply regarding your other examples. I'd like to keep going with Mueck, if we can.
I saw Dead Dad in Brooklyn at the Sensation show. I thought the show was a shallow and tame attempt at shock-value, but somehow it managed to upset people (not me) anyhow. The only shocking thing was the appallingly patronising didactic panels. But I thought Dead Dad was the creepiest piece. (I am remembering now that it's quite a bit smaller than life-size.) In the arch "this-work-is-all-debased-and-so-are-you-for-looking-at-it" context of the YBAs, the fact that Mueck, armed with big money entertainment industry technique, chose to make a visceral, intimate portrait was actually disturbing and poignant in a way that Damien Hirst's pseudo-science projects were not.
I don't know if I love the piece, but I can't remember any other artwork that has given me such a jolt of mortality. There is a realistic, human, cold-bloodedness in the act of recreating (down to the smallest liver spots and foreskin wrinkles) the details of a dead relative's flesh. At the same time there is an implication of ownership, if not of the corpse itself, then of it's image. What if the artist was trying to create a replacement of the person he has lost? The idea is chilling and sad. The small scale ads to this futility - ultimately this version of dead dad is only just a trinket. There's an even creepier premise, of course, which is that Mueck wishes his dad dead, and this is like an invocation or voo-doo doll. In that case, the mimetic aspect of the sculpture becomes even more craven and desperate. Either way, I think there's more going on than puppetry, and my brain has been thinking some new things about representation and what it means to make images as a result of seeing the sculpture.
As far as "the discourse", I dunno if New Yorker's have a secret one that the rest of us don't know about, but I think the whole shock-value, commodity-based, slacker-art phase probably merits an entry or two, even in the Big Apple. Whether we actually like the genre is another question.
"ever get the feeling you've been cheated?"
Same discourse. I would argue that the "shock-value, commodity-based, slacker-art phase" of art began in New York with Jeff Koons and Haim Steinbach, then gradually morphed into a late "scatter and abjection phase" that included Cady Noland, Karen Kilimnick, even Mike Kelley. Saatchi had been collecting Neo Geo artists in New York, then looked to London to start his own "movement." Employing strategies that were old news here, the "Sensation" artists caused a stir in (then) somewhat more provincial London. Saatchi used that as hype when he brought the "shocking, transgressive" art to NY for the first time. (And was lucky to find the provincial mayor Giuliani willing to demonize...Chris Ofili, of all people.)
I saw Sensation at Brooklyn, too, and for the life of me I don't remember seeing Dead Dad there. I'm sure I did, but I spent more time looking at and being annoyed by Mueck's "friendly giant" self portrait. There wasn't anything shocking about it, it was well crafted and super-corny. Instead of thinking of the show as a movement, I broke it down into what this or that thing was derivative of (Mueck being a throwback to '60s photorealist sculpture but more melodramatic.) The Chapmans were the only artists that push my "shock" buttons, I have to admit--the penis nosed, anus mouthed children upped the stakes considerably from anything that had been seen in NY [3/25/04 addendum--Paul McCarthy, maybe? I don't think so because no kidp0rn angle. Anyone else have a thought on this?]. I'm amazed the controversy was over dried elephant dung and not those pieces.
Anyway, I like your account of seeing Mueck's late Dad even though I wasn't touched by the same feelings of mortality. Looking at his other work, it's obvious that he's skilled at getting a reaction--maybe that piece was more honest or personal than usual? Also, how much of people's reaction to the piece was attributable to the title Dead Dad? To me, the Oedipal title is the most "art-like" thing about the work. At the end of the day, as they say in London, I maintain he's a talented modelmaker and should be getting the big bucks in Hollwood, doing Gollum or whatever.
phew. that was a pretty good debate. Although I realise I started out by saying "I'm not interested in defending Muek" and ended up doing exactly that. oh well ... as some of us Torontonians say, "C'est la vie."
actually we don't really ever say that here. I'm just muck-raking.
England turns out great writers, musicians, actors and filmmakers but have there ever been any great English artists? Moore, Constable, Turner, how important are they really?
FWIW I do like Fitzgerald.
I pretty much agree with where you guys are going with this except I feel that Mueck's strategy owes a lot more to Charles Ray's than Duane Hanson- the similarities to Hanson are entirely cosmetic. Rays trademark little shifts in scale and material are what drives the psychological effects of Muecks pieces. Incindentally, I hate Ray's mannequin pieces because they are really ugly. Another ugly piece which recently recieved some bizarre critical attention is that one at Barbara Gladstone now- I forgot the guys name but its basically a dead end alley in the gallery. Jerry Saltz referenced about thirty artists in his review without explanation, including Hanson, Rachel Whiteread and um Kafka?. Thats it sorry I keep saying ugly I dont really want to argue about ugliness.
Bill mentioned Charles Ray to me (offline) but Ray's use of mannikins evolved out of an earlier conceptual/performance/body art practice. His work is pretty clinical--Mueck is much more sentimental, even though he uses the same kind of scale changes. As Bill said, Dead Dad being a wee figure puts it into the family of dolls, which are almost inherently emotionally charged. I seriously doubt Mueck knew who Ray was at the time Saatchi waved his magic wand.
Saltz's piece on Gregor Schneider's Gladstone installation--a fake "alley" that leads from 24th Street into the gallery space--is here. I hope I never write anything as inflated as this (from Saltz's description of an earlier Schneider piece): Essentially, Schneider created a walk-in Brothers Grimm tale laced with traces of Kurt Schwitters's Merzbau, Beuys's spiritualism, Nauman's panic rooms, Gordon Matta-Clark's aggressive architecture, Edward Kienholz's surreal tableaux, Robert Gober, Rachel Whiteread and something unmistakably German.
Steve makes an interesting point about British art that I'd like to address in the near future.
Rays work has accrued much of its "meaning" through years of art world discourse around it- not to discredit his own input, I think he's brilliant- my point being that whatever Mueck means to people is pretty much valid via consensus. I guess what this represents is trying to change that, but in a way its also a validation of it. Also, Ray's precedents include Anthony Caro, I've been told (incidentally, a British artist at least worth mentioning. Philip King? I think those guys are fun.) Someone once pointed out to me the similarities between Chris Burden's bridges and Caro's work. I know all of this sounds like 6 degrees of Ron Mueck, but again, sometimes shallow things like this take root and turn real. Think the Caribbean Biennial, or, more to the point, whatever the hell happened in Venice with Cattelan and Ray. What did all that mean? It gets iffy but can also be pretty stimulating.
I have a few more things to say on the "is it art?" issue on my main weblog page. Oh, yeah, I just got this email from Charles Saatchi:
Sorry for not joining your thread directly, Tom, but I just wanted to thank you for the work you've been doing validating my artist, Ron Mueck. I know you thought you were being clever, "exposing" Mueck's past career as a high-paid ad-industry craftsman and cutting and pasting from that ill-advised interview where he admitted not being an artist. But the fact is, my friend, you fell right into the trap--you managed to raise ontological, "is it art" sorts of questions about...Ron, of all people! Also, your indignance is more valuable than gold. The New York print critics knew I was behind him and fell obediently into line, even though if you read between the lines you can tell they think he stinks. With Ron, I need my Kim Levin--who, by expressing honest outrage back in 1992 helped raise John Currin's market to its current inflated level. I realize you're a mere blogger, but I'll take what I can get. I thank you; Ron thanks you; Peace in the coming new year, my man. --Charles
nice. youll have to add that to your clippings page.
"...a mere blogger."
you should ask if hed consider exchanging some of his gold for your indignance. but, of course, youre giving it away for free. didnt your mother tell you the whole thing with the milk and the cows and the giving.
just to demean your page more, a quick search came up with this item. i hope theyre out having some fun and not just sitting at home muecking things up.
i suppose the question is why people go to galleries? when i started my dissertation i thought maybe it was because people wanted to see something interesting. Something they couldn't do. I suppose a lot of art goers visit for inspiration - but maybe they go for consolidation, for comfort. Sure, Mueck never intended to be an artist, but is this important? As a modelmaker i am aware how awesome his work is technically, but the reason i like it is that it isnt a 3d photo. When studies closely the figures anatomy is distorted, the postures impossible. Perhaps muecks past makes him more able to communicate with the general public and ask the same questions we do. To envoke the same emotions. Feelings of separation, isolation, of being stared at - as an outsider. Think about the social implications of voyeurism, nudity, seeing the most sacred moment when i child is born, laid open
i guess i'm interested because i am currently trying to write about both mueck and damien hirst and was interested here as i have found few other sites which was questioning muecks validity as an artist. i am interested in why we seem to connect the artists so regularly. as you have done earlier. why are they so comparable when they are so different in background and style? i think maybe they both ask the same questions. or at least we project the same questions on to the work. but which artist is a true artist. it could be said hirst is the direct opposite - but interestingly still backed by that bizarre Kaiser Jose character mr saatchi. may be its all about money. but i don't think so - not to the artists.
ok to be perfectly honest i (after reading your many comments about ron muek) have come to question as to whether muek really needs to be forced into a category such as an artist? His work is of excellent standards which none of you can really deny
(no matter how much you appear to want to) and he appears to be passionate about what work he has produced in the past and the work he will no doubt produce in years to come. Instead of actually attmpting to characterising him in the manner that you have previously doing why dont you accept the fact that this amazingly tecnical work does need to be admired by the public he has a talent which cannot be found necessarily in the same way in other sculptors and modelmakers. Therefore surely the public have a right to see this work as much as they do the work of jake and deanos chappman for example who again could be critisised and once again could be argued over as to whether these are also artists or whether they are simply out to make some easy money by shocking a few traditional art lovers and parents! Returning to whether Muek can really be considered to be an artist in my opinion the answer would be yes do to the fact that if people such as Damien Hirst can be considered to be some sort of conceptual artist quite frankly why can't Muek, finished now!
puddle jumping
Saw Dead Dad at the Saatchi Gallery in London recently and thought it was amazing - moving,scary, beautiful.
Why should an artist not be technically brilliant at what they do as well as conceptually challenging. Artists get away with too much crap these days. Went to the Frieze Art Fair recently also and overall was so disappointed with what passes for good international art.Where is the talent ? - whats new out there ? - show me something amazing , something I will remember, something I will think about and wonder what it's about how it was done, why it was done.Show me something new?
im an art student and muecks work is............art if its not why we looking at it.
Ron Mueck's work is art. It is also craftmanship. Just as many painters tried to recreate the curves, contours of the body to produce something realistic, so has he. Just as some artists like to shock, provoke debate and discussion over their work, so has he. I think if we are debating whether or not some artists work can actually be called art, you should be discussing Tracey Emin and her unmade bed and hand stiched tent!
more to the point, this discussion hinges on "is mueck an artist" and not "is stuff he makes art."
This thread has become a magnet for Mueck lovers who can't be bothered to respond to the arguments further up the thread, but just want to declaim their undying love for him.
mueck huggers unite! (but indeed, make your case.)
buy hold sell
SAATCHI TO SELL MUECK COLLECTION
British megacollector Charles Saatchi is selling his holdings of hyper-realist sculptures by Ron Mueck, according to a report by Colin Gleadell in the London Telegraph. The move is particularly ironic, since Saatchi is credited with discovering the artist, who was then working as a model-maker, and getting him a show at Anthony d'Offay Gallery in 1998. (Saatchi isn't Mueck's only connection to the professional art world; he's also the son-in-law of painter Paula Rego.) The miniature sculpture of his father, Dead Dad, a prize piece of the 1997 "Sensation" exhibition, is priced at more than £1 million
just read the first few posts and sounds to me Tom's a bit of a wanker, and possibly not very good at craft skills but then again most "con"- artist can't look at a pile of shit without quoting a page from "ART in THEORY" oh but the way reread if you could Greenberg but remember to have a tissue ready to clean up your mess....... dugs@freeuk,com
You're leaving your email for what reason exactly...?
Art supposed to show what the artist see and nobody else see. Art suppose to show a vision, a discovery, a view. Art suppose to be something that changes the person who is interacting with the art in any way (seeing, listening, touching, etc) and make this person to experience something that transform this person to a different person, perhaps a better person.
If we use these concepts - in a very cold and non-emotional analisys - then I have to admit that Ron Mueck pieces makes me feel puzzled, astonished and even shocked. Perhaps is art?
Those horrid (yes, this is a statement, an opinion and not so cold and not so non-emotional) manufactured human bodies by Gunther von Hagens already did this job, in a much more shocking way, since there are REAL people bodies preserved thanks to technology. Ok, so Gunther von Hagens was the reality preserved and Ron Mueck are fake imitating in a very realistic way the reality, three dimensional.
Honestly I don't see a point. A show of technology? "I made it cause I can"? "Look how they look real"?
Just doesn't seems to be enough for me to classify something as "art". Cause me nausea, makes me feel shocked and even sad, but is this art?
the thread that keeps on giving. "its alive, alive..."
that's not me (in case there was any doubt).
(Spam from the other Sally deleted.)
Hi Tom, thanks I've found the above discussion about Ron Mueck interesting. Just back from his exhibition in Edinburgh which I found extraordinary. how would your comments about the merits of his work apply to other 'realist' artists like Rodin or Holbein!? I find very strong parallel's in their work. They are also very fine craftsmen, who explore fundamental universal human themes. I think you overplay RM not seeing himself as an artist, he has happily gone the route of being able to make more personal work which is shown in galleries. He made that choice, even if saatchi gave the oppotunity. Cheers, Rhett
Briefly, Holbein and Rodin are much better. Mueck is picking up the realist tradition after photography and digital reproduction made it superfluous--he has the craft but no tradition in which it's validly rooted. Other than entertainment, wax museums, etc. Fine as far as it goes but many other artists have "moved on."
|
"Ludo," movements and voice by Ron Mueck (Labyrinth, 1986). Although included in the London-based "Sensation" show as a YBA, Mueck is neither young (he's 44 now), British (he's Australian) or, shoot me for saying this, an artist. Thanks to ad man/collector Charles Saatchi's money and influence, he successfully crossed over from Jim Henson puppeteer to a museum career without significantly changing his schtick--a kind of sentimental high craft. In 1939 Clement Greenberg attempted to nail down what made artists different from illustrators and came up with a dichotomy he called "cause vs effect." Picasso's art made viewers question how the picture was working on them or even what art was (cause) while the Russian neoclassicist Repin painted pictures that told you in every detail exactly how to react to them (effect). For Repin, substitute Mueck's Duane Hanson-style realistic sculptures, which are even less ambiguous than Hanson's because they're deliberately stagy and "spooky." The art world should be more wised up by now. Below: Boy, 2001 (exhibited in the Venice Biennale and elsewhere).
- tom moody 12-03-2003 7:37 pm
Okay, it's been three days and no one has come forward to defend Ron Mueck. I guess I'm right, it's a conspiracy of Charles Saatchi's in which scores of art institutions and critics have been complicit. Only you and I, dear readers, have seen through the game and know the work for what it is: Wax Museum Art.
- tom moody 12-07-2003 7:02 am
I'm not interested in defending Mueck, but as a nominalist I might take issue with your definition of 'artist.' You know ... people call it art therefore its art. Why not call it crappy art instead of "not art"? I'm not particularly interested in preserving the sanctity of the hallowed art halls. What other purpose(s) does the art/not art distinction serve?
- sally mckay 12-08-2003 12:39 am
My distinction isn't so much art vs non-art as art vs other arts (illustration, puppeteering, advertising design). The most troubling passage of the article I linked to is:
"Art" isn't a term of honor, but a way of locating something within an institutional framework or peer group so it can be judged. Collectors may think the term conveys value but that's their problem--until they start playing curator and/or critic and shifting the creator's work from one category to another. My hope in writing this is to offer a measly counterforce to Saatchi placing his heavy thumb on the evaluation scale. The most damning evidence is that the artist himself claims to be a passive actor in the whole process: he doesn't seem to care what you call him as long as he gets to work.Besides, it's not "crappy art"--it's excellent puppeteering and modelmaking. It only becomes crappy when we try to shift the category and look for self-reflexive or thought-provoking content. There are lots of examples of people being unfairly judged as "genre" artists and then gradually finding their true following--Philip K. Dick is still working his way over to the "fiction" shelf. But he was an artist who suffered the indignities of being a paperback hack; whereas Mueck "enjoyed advertising."
- tom moody 12-08-2003 1:54 am
I think the thing that irks me most about this tale is that Saatchi is not only marketing his artists (fine), but culling them from a media saavy venue in the first place (disconcerting). What if all 'art' was 'product' and 'artists' were 'hired' by their collectors based on their mass appeal? I don't like it, but it doesn't actually sound very far-fetched. I guess its the fact that Muek was not a self-defined artist to start with that causes the squirminess. So is there a kind of right of passage that we require? People must go through the agonies of being fringe-type losers to earn their art stripes? I can mabye get behind this as a valid criteria for value (it certainly plays out in my circles; both politically and emotionally). But I dunno if it's on the order of a definition.
You say: "... it's excellent puppeteering and modelmaking. It only becomes crappy when we try to shift the category and look for self-reflexive or thought-provoking content."
I find this provocative (as is your original suggestion that Muek is 'not an artist') because it posits a definition of "what is art". This is remarkable in this day and age, and merits more discussion. Do you feel that it's time to redefine the term? What is at stake in the larger (ie: larger than Muek and Saatchi) arena?
- sally mckay 12-09-2003 7:06 am
The distinction Greenberg made between "cause" and "effect" in art (in "Avant Garde & Kitsch"--see above) is a major assumption of the art world, although rarely talked about in those terms. Anytime someone says "I don't know, I just wish it had more thought behind it"--they're wanting to see more "cause." Is the dichotomy still useful? I'd say yes, but there are other things to look for in art (see footnote).
Much philosophical ink has been spilled on the "what is art" question but for me it boils down to two elements: (1) someone with the intent to be an artist and/or make art and (2) a peer group or community that recognizes, in the short or long term, the efforts of artists. Every imaginable kind of content and "quality" can fit into this framework.* It may be that in the short run the community fails to acknowledge someone who meets criterion (1), but through perserverance and time, we like to think recognition comes to a solid achievement. It may also be true that the community can include a creator in the canon who never thought of her/himself as an artist, but again, we like to think it only occurs after critical give and take, scholarly debate, an emerging consensus...
Mueck fails under both scenarios. He doesn't consider himself an artist, so he's effectively not asking for a debate that might eventually lead to acceptance. And too little time has elapsed to change his classification from puppeteer to artist without rigging the system--his art world cachet being largely traceable to the will and bucks of a powerful collector (abetted by complacent critics and curators).
The most boring, run of the mill application of the above framework occurs when someone who intends to be an artist goes to the right school, shows at the right gallery, and is recognized quickly by the peer group. Like it or not, John Currin is in the canon, now it's just a question of how high a position to give him in it.
* ...but a nice thing to look for is someone who "changes the visual landscape." That's my friend John Pomara's formulation--think Renaissance painters, Russian constructivists, who knows, maybe the Providence RI collectives. Weight should also be given to what Brian Eno calls "scenius"--it doesn't have to be special individuals. Artists who don't change the visual landscape but merely reflect it acutely also have their contribution: e.g., the "pictures generation" of Levine, Sherman, Prince...
- tom moody 12-10-2003 5:38 am
the "is it art" question is all thats keeping the (post)modern art continuum alive and interesting. repeating or emulating old art (and im not refering to the prince/levine etc appropriation process) is not making art let alone good art. recital music is not art. inovative musical composition/proformance might be. a while back curators vested themselves with the validative powers of artmaking via the practice of selective recontextulazition and juxtaposition, thus raising the likes of specific outsider art, found objects and other nonart objects to fine art status. by taking on this authority the curator becomes the/an artist. moma initiated this license with their seemingly non hierarchical inclusion of industrial arts, film and even photography departments. power broking collectors like saatchi can insinuate themselves amongst legitimate curators and usurp that power. saatchi in that role is about as illegitimate as bush jr's place as president. ...and dont lets get started on the andy warhol estate authentification board.
- bill 12-10-2003 6:54 pm
Well, call me a commie, but I am still stuck on the idea that art can (possibly should -- now I'm out on a limb) have value for people outside the 'community' or 'peer group'. Because while I agree there is an operative art system in place, when it is insular and self-defining it is challenging to no one, inside or outside the 'group'. I'd rather err on the side of allowing for blurry boundaries around who gets to be called an artist than closing the ranks. I'm just being selfish: life inside the wagon ring is both precarious AND boring. A lose/lose situation.
- sally mckay 12-11-2003 6:24 am
I don't think anything I said takes away from art's value outside the community of makers and evaluators. If I say a puppeteer isn't an artist just because he made something, that's not the same as saying that he can't appreciate art. The circle should be widened; I just don't believe you get there by showing people what they already know (ie Wax Museum Art). What you seem to be saying is, let more of them (artisans, gamers, etc) in as artists and let their respective communities come with them; that's just too touchy feely for me. At some point you have to be able to say, this isn't even in the same arena.
Another thought: art schools are regurgitating thousands of grads a year. Perhaps what we need isn't more artists but more tough critics and curators who give the field meaning.
- tom moody 12-11-2003 7:21 am
"I just don't believe you get there by showing people what they already know"
Point taken! I agree on this completely. As for the touchy feely dig - I do believe any old dink-wad can legitimately claim to be an artist, not because I want to "let them in", but because it's a fact. Therefore, for all our sakes, the criteria for cultural value should be broader and more rigorous than whether something qualifies as art or not.
That said, I do think the term still has some real use: It gives us a socially acceptable arena to try out strange, unpopular ideas, and sometimes get paid to do it. And I will concede that big specatacle art like giant puppets might jeopardize this safety zone.
But what about guitar solos as art performance? or music art video that rocks the house? A cow in slices ( love that one, but I'd probably love it just as much in a natural history museum as in an art gallery), or a life-sized, super-realistic, gallingly detailed, 3-d rendition of somebody's dead dad?
"Perhaps what we need isn't more artists but more tough critics and curators who give the field meaning." I agree on this one too. That's why I'm all het up.
- sally mckay 12-11-2003 8:17 am
It sounds like you like Mueck's effigy Dead Dad, or at the very least don't think it out of place in an art museum. I could see including it as craft or puppetry, dropped into an exhibition for context or variety (as Bill mentioned Alfred Barr did with "modern" machines and chairs). But I don't think it transcends those categories or adds to what some New Yorkers call "the discourse." In other words, we were talking about photorealist figurative sculpture in the late '60s/early '70s with Duane Hanson and John De Andrea, and now we're talking about it again, with Mueck? I especially don't want to go there since, as I think we agree, he isn't one of those "dink-wads claim[ing] to be an artist," but a modelmaker that Saatchi cherrypicked from an ad agency.
I'll be happy to reply regarding your other examples. I'd like to keep going with Mueck, if we can.
- tom moody 12-11-2003 9:04 am
I saw Dead Dad in Brooklyn at the Sensation show. I thought the show was a shallow and tame attempt at shock-value, but somehow it managed to upset people (not me) anyhow. The only shocking thing was the appallingly patronising didactic panels. But I thought Dead Dad was the creepiest piece. (I am remembering now that it's quite a bit smaller than life-size.) In the arch "this-work-is-all-debased-and-so-are-you-for-looking-at-it" context of the YBAs, the fact that Mueck, armed with big money entertainment industry technique, chose to make a visceral, intimate portrait was actually disturbing and poignant in a way that Damien Hirst's pseudo-science projects were not.
I don't know if I love the piece, but I can't remember any other artwork that has given me such a jolt of mortality. There is a realistic, human, cold-bloodedness in the act of recreating (down to the smallest liver spots and foreskin wrinkles) the details of a dead relative's flesh. At the same time there is an implication of ownership, if not of the corpse itself, then of it's image. What if the artist was trying to create a replacement of the person he has lost? The idea is chilling and sad. The small scale ads to this futility - ultimately this version of dead dad is only just a trinket. There's an even creepier premise, of course, which is that Mueck wishes his dad dead, and this is like an invocation or voo-doo doll. In that case, the mimetic aspect of the sculpture becomes even more craven and desperate. Either way, I think there's more going on than puppetry, and my brain has been thinking some new things about representation and what it means to make images as a result of seeing the sculpture.
As far as "the discourse", I dunno if New Yorker's have a secret one that the rest of us don't know about, but I think the whole shock-value, commodity-based, slacker-art phase probably merits an entry or two, even in the Big Apple. Whether we actually like the genre is another question.
- sally mckay 12-12-2003 3:17 am
"ever get the feeling you've been cheated?"
- bill 12-12-2003 3:40 am
Same discourse. I would argue that the "shock-value, commodity-based, slacker-art phase" of art began in New York with Jeff Koons and Haim Steinbach, then gradually morphed into a late "scatter and abjection phase" that included Cady Noland, Karen Kilimnick, even Mike Kelley. Saatchi had been collecting Neo Geo artists in New York, then looked to London to start his own "movement." Employing strategies that were old news here, the "Sensation" artists caused a stir in (then) somewhat more provincial London. Saatchi used that as hype when he brought the "shocking, transgressive" art to NY for the first time. (And was lucky to find the provincial mayor Giuliani willing to demonize...Chris Ofili, of all people.)
I saw Sensation at Brooklyn, too, and for the life of me I don't remember seeing Dead Dad there. I'm sure I did, but I spent more time looking at and being annoyed by Mueck's "friendly giant" self portrait. There wasn't anything shocking about it, it was well crafted and super-corny. Instead of thinking of the show as a movement, I broke it down into what this or that thing was derivative of (Mueck being a throwback to '60s photorealist sculpture but more melodramatic.) The Chapmans were the only artists that push my "shock" buttons, I have to admit--the penis nosed, anus mouthed children upped the stakes considerably from anything that had been seen in NY [3/25/04 addendum--Paul McCarthy, maybe? I don't think so because no kidp0rn angle. Anyone else have a thought on this?]. I'm amazed the controversy was over dried elephant dung and not those pieces.
Anyway, I like your account of seeing Mueck's late Dad even though I wasn't touched by the same feelings of mortality. Looking at his other work, it's obvious that he's skilled at getting a reaction--maybe that piece was more honest or personal than usual? Also, how much of people's reaction to the piece was attributable to the title Dead Dad? To me, the Oedipal title is the most "art-like" thing about the work. At the end of the day, as they say in London, I maintain he's a talented modelmaker and should be getting the big bucks in Hollwood, doing Gollum or whatever.
- tom moody 12-12-2003 4:44 am
phew. that was a pretty good debate. Although I realise I started out by saying "I'm not interested in defending Muek" and ended up doing exactly that. oh well ... as some of us Torontonians say, "C'est la vie."
- sally mckay 12-12-2003 8:49 am
actually we don't really ever say that here. I'm just muck-raking.
- sally mckay 12-12-2003 8:57 am
England turns out great writers, musicians, actors and filmmakers but have there ever been any great English artists? Moore, Constable, Turner, how important are they really? FWIW I do like Fitzgerald.
- steve 12-13-2003 9:49 am
I pretty much agree with where you guys are going with this except I feel that Mueck's strategy owes a lot more to Charles Ray's than Duane Hanson- the similarities to Hanson are entirely cosmetic. Rays trademark little shifts in scale and material are what drives the psychological effects of Muecks pieces. Incindentally, I hate Ray's mannequin pieces because they are really ugly. Another ugly piece which recently recieved some bizarre critical attention is that one at Barbara Gladstone now- I forgot the guys name but its basically a dead end alley in the gallery. Jerry Saltz referenced about thirty artists in his review without explanation, including Hanson, Rachel Whiteread and um Kafka?. Thats it sorry I keep saying ugly I dont really want to argue about ugliness.
- anonymous (guest) 12-15-2003 4:33 am
Bill mentioned Charles Ray to me (offline) but Ray's use of mannikins evolved out of an earlier conceptual/performance/body art practice. His work is pretty clinical--Mueck is much more sentimental, even though he uses the same kind of scale changes. As Bill said, Dead Dad being a wee figure puts it into the family of dolls, which are almost inherently emotionally charged. I seriously doubt Mueck knew who Ray was at the time Saatchi waved his magic wand.
Saltz's piece on Gregor Schneider's Gladstone installation--a fake "alley" that leads from 24th Street into the gallery space--is here. I hope I never write anything as inflated as this (from Saltz's description of an earlier Schneider piece):
Steve makes an interesting point about British art that I'd like to address in the near future.- tom moody 12-15-2003 5:09 am
Rays work has accrued much of its "meaning" through years of art world discourse around it- not to discredit his own input, I think he's brilliant- my point being that whatever Mueck means to people is pretty much valid via consensus. I guess what this represents is trying to change that, but in a way its also a validation of it. Also, Ray's precedents include Anthony Caro, I've been told (incidentally, a British artist at least worth mentioning. Philip King? I think those guys are fun.) Someone once pointed out to me the similarities between Chris Burden's bridges and Caro's work. I know all of this sounds like 6 degrees of Ron Mueck, but again, sometimes shallow things like this take root and turn real. Think the Caribbean Biennial, or, more to the point, whatever the hell happened in Venice with Cattelan and Ray. What did all that mean? It gets iffy but can also be pretty stimulating.
- anonymous (guest) 12-15-2003 9:04 pm
I have a few more things to say on the "is it art?" issue on my main weblog page. Oh, yeah, I just got this email from Charles Saatchi:
- tom moody 12-28-2003 12:26 am
nice. youll have to add that to your clippings page.
"...a mere blogger."
you should ask if hed consider exchanging some of his gold for your indignance. but, of course, youre giving it away for free. didnt your mother tell you the whole thing with the milk and the cows and the giving.
just to demean your page more, a quick search came up with this item. i hope theyre out having some fun and not just sitting at home muecking things up.
- dave 12-28-2003 12:51 am
i suppose the question is why people go to galleries? when i started my dissertation i thought maybe it was because people wanted to see something interesting. Something they couldn't do. I suppose a lot of art goers visit for inspiration - but maybe they go for consolidation, for comfort. Sure, Mueck never intended to be an artist, but is this important? As a modelmaker i am aware how awesome his work is technically, but the reason i like it is that it isnt a 3d photo. When studies closely the figures anatomy is distorted, the postures impossible. Perhaps muecks past makes him more able to communicate with the general public and ask the same questions we do. To envoke the same emotions. Feelings of separation, isolation, of being stared at - as an outsider. Think about the social implications of voyeurism, nudity, seeing the most sacred moment when i child is born, laid open
- harriet (guest) 1-03-2004 4:04 pm
i guess i'm interested because i am currently trying to write about both mueck and damien hirst and was interested here as i have found few other sites which was questioning muecks validity as an artist. i am interested in why we seem to connect the artists so regularly. as you have done earlier. why are they so comparable when they are so different in background and style? i think maybe they both ask the same questions. or at least we project the same questions on to the work. but which artist is a true artist. it could be said hirst is the direct opposite - but interestingly still backed by that bizarre Kaiser Jose character mr saatchi. may be its all about money. but i don't think so - not to the artists.
- harriet (guest) 1-03-2004 4:12 pm
- anonymous (guest) 1-28-2004 3:55 pm
ok to be perfectly honest i (after reading your many comments about ron muek) have come to question as to whether muek really needs to be forced into a category such as an artist? His work is of excellent standards which none of you can really deny
(no matter how much you appear to want to) and he appears to be passionate about what work he has produced in the past and the work he will no doubt produce in years to come. Instead of actually attmpting to characterising him in the manner that you have previously doing why dont you accept the fact that this amazingly tecnical work does need to be admired by the public he has a talent which cannot be found necessarily in the same way in other sculptors and modelmakers. Therefore surely the public have a right to see this work as much as they do the work of jake and deanos chappman for example who again could be critisised and once again could be argued over as to whether these are also artists or whether they are simply out to make some easy money by shocking a few traditional art lovers and parents! Returning to whether Muek can really be considered to be an artist in my opinion the answer would be yes do to the fact that if people such as Damien Hirst can be considered to be some sort of conceptual artist quite frankly why can't Muek, finished now!
- anonymous (guest) 2-06-2004 12:17 pm
puddle jumping
- bill 2-24-2004 11:06 pm
Saw Dead Dad at the Saatchi Gallery in London recently and thought it was amazing - moving,scary, beautiful.
Why should an artist not be technically brilliant at what they do as well as conceptually challenging. Artists get away with too much crap these days. Went to the Frieze Art Fair recently also and overall was so disappointed with what passes for good international art.Where is the talent ? - whats new out there ? - show me something amazing , something I will remember, something I will think about and wonder what it's about how it was done, why it was done.Show me something new?
- anonymous (guest) 10-30-2004 2:59 am
im an art student and muecks work is............art if its not why we looking at it.
- shut up 1-18-2005 9:52 am
Ron Mueck's work is art. It is also craftmanship. Just as many painters tried to recreate the curves, contours of the body to produce something realistic, so has he. Just as some artists like to shock, provoke debate and discussion over their work, so has he. I think if we are debating whether or not some artists work can actually be called art, you should be discussing Tracey Emin and her unmade bed and hand stiched tent!
- anonymous (guest) 1-21-2005 3:43 pm
more to the point, this discussion hinges on "is mueck an artist" and not "is stuff he makes art."
- bill 1-21-2005 7:07 pm
This thread has become a magnet for Mueck lovers who can't be bothered to respond to the arguments further up the thread, but just want to declaim their undying love for him.
- tom moody 1-21-2005 7:34 pm
mueck huggers unite! (but indeed, make your case.)
- bill 1-21-2005 7:39 pm
buy hold sell
SAATCHI TO SELL MUECK COLLECTION
British megacollector Charles Saatchi is selling his holdings of hyper-realist sculptures by Ron Mueck, according to a report by Colin Gleadell in the London Telegraph. The move is particularly ironic, since Saatchi is credited with discovering the artist, who was then working as a model-maker, and getting him a show at Anthony d'Offay Gallery in 1998. (Saatchi isn't Mueck's only connection to the professional art world; he's also the son-in-law of painter Paula Rego.) The miniature sculpture of his father, Dead Dad, a prize piece of the 1997 "Sensation" exhibition, is priced at more than £1 million
- bill 3-10-2005 6:46 am
just read the first few posts and sounds to me Tom's a bit of a wanker, and possibly not very good at craft skills but then again most "con"- artist can't look at a pile of shit without quoting a page from "ART in THEORY" oh but the way reread if you could Greenberg but remember to have a tissue ready to clean up your mess....... dugs@freeuk,com
- dugs (guest) 7-23-2005 2:30 am
You're leaving your email for what reason exactly...?
- tom moody 7-23-2005 3:02 am
Art supposed to show what the artist see and nobody else see. Art suppose to show a vision, a discovery, a view. Art suppose to be something that changes the person who is interacting with the art in any way (seeing, listening, touching, etc) and make this person to experience something that transform this person to a different person, perhaps a better person. If we use these concepts - in a very cold and non-emotional analisys - then I have to admit that Ron Mueck pieces makes me feel puzzled, astonished and even shocked. Perhaps is art? Those horrid (yes, this is a statement, an opinion and not so cold and not so non-emotional) manufactured human bodies by Gunther von Hagens already did this job, in a much more shocking way, since there are REAL people bodies preserved thanks to technology. Ok, so Gunther von Hagens was the reality preserved and Ron Mueck are fake imitating in a very realistic way the reality, three dimensional. Honestly I don't see a point. A show of technology? "I made it cause I can"? "Look how they look real"? Just doesn't seems to be enough for me to classify something as "art". Cause me nausea, makes me feel shocked and even sad, but is this art?
- DaniCast 2-07-2006 2:37 pm
the thread that keeps on giving. "its alive, alive..."
- bill 2-07-2006 5:08 pm
that's not me (in case there was any doubt).
- sally mckay 5-13-2006 2:33 pm
(Spam from the other Sally deleted.)
- tom moody 5-13-2006 5:55 pm
Hi Tom, thanks I've found the above discussion about Ron Mueck interesting. Just back from his exhibition in Edinburgh which I found extraordinary. how would your comments about the merits of his work apply to other 'realist' artists like Rodin or Holbein!? I find very strong parallel's in their work. They are also very fine craftsmen, who explore fundamental universal human themes. I think you overplay RM not seeing himself as an artist, he has happily gone the route of being able to make more personal work which is shown in galleries. He made that choice, even if saatchi gave the oppotunity. Cheers, Rhett
- rhett 10-09-2006 9:24 pm
Briefly, Holbein and Rodin are much better. Mueck is picking up the realist tradition after photography and digital reproduction made it superfluous--he has the craft but no tradition in which it's validly rooted. Other than entertainment, wax museums, etc. Fine as far as it goes but many other artists have "moved on."
- tom moody 10-10-2006 1:50 am