Sharon, you are right about bigger does not mean better, but here is an artist that decided to magnify. I don't see anything wrong with that. Sort of reminds me of Georgia O'Keefe who took small flowers and blew them up in scale. The effect is interesting to me...that's all.
Black Iris-large
Quote:
|
Ergo, the pervading thematic in most cow-college art departments nationwide prescribes that in order for art to have "meaning" and "depth", it must be ugly, and deal with the scatological. by Richard
|
Richard, I don't think he set out to create ugly art. The figures themselves strike me as the average person you might encounter on a street. There is n.th grotesque or ugly about them, they are just rather plain and average.
Quote:
|
It is their hollowness; their lack of anything beyond their physical presence - i.e their lack of idea and creative drive. Their scale is a masking of their philosophical emptiness. Thomasin
|
Mmmm, interesting point. But remember the image by Margritte "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" ? I see a certain correlation there. Although the spectator sees people, who have left the stage of "mortals" and joined the ranks of giants, there is that shift of forced perception as Steven pointed out .
Steven, I have to say I could not see "Body Worlds", because I didn't have the stomach for it. That exhibit was a bit too overwhelming for me, but I give credit to the person who came up with the idea. I wish I wouldn't have chickened out and could have seen it....
I am a bit surprised at the rather strong negative reaction to Mueck's work and find it rather interesting to read your views and explanations. This sort of exchange of differeing viewpoints always creates an atmosphere that forces us to look beyond the obvious and delve a bit deeper into the meaning of "What is Art" and "Art for Arts Sake".