Ron Mueck

["Charles Kibby" <ckibby@zzzzzzzzzzz>]

My gut feeling is that interesting as it may be to see a cold dumb plastic
lifelike naked representation of ourselves many times larger than life that
does not necessarily make it art.

It is probably worth pushing this just a little further, given that 40 or 50
or maybe more years ago artists invented the idea that anything could be art
if they said it was. There were howls of protest initially but we all got
used to it, I for one now find myself seriously questioning whether the
simplistic idea has finally run out puff.

Clive,  I respect your opinion but I must respectfully take issue with you
on this one (God knows that too much passes for Art Worth Taking Seriously
in these days of cultural inflation) ......the sculptures are indeed
ultra-realistic and an exercise in technique, but the simple choice of scale
elevates them above the level of mere absolute reproduction.  This is such a
great question to raise, because artists of the Western persuasion have been
struggling with this one since the early Renaissance, when technique finally
caught up with perception, at least for a while.   The simple choice of
scale is the primary element of these pieces, the rest is secondary.  Though
I haven't actually experienced them in person, I can well imagine from the
images that they would cause me to re-examine my own perception and
preconceived notion of what sculpture ought to be....

Thanks,

Chaz

CK Arts, Inc.

P:310-877-3112

F:310-476-9216

E:ckibby@-----------

Website:www.ckarts.com