There, the depiction of maternal affection among creatures that initially seem monstrous, but in which, after a moment, we can begin to recognize some part of ourselves. One of the reasons I like Piccinini's work is because it plays with expectations versus actual depictions so brilliantly--the unvarnished description of these works does sound like your standard, unthinking condemnation of science, but like all good works that explore the possible outcomes of technology outpacing our current ethical understanding, we're asked to confront both what is initially unsettling, but what is also beautiful about such potential futures. If you and I are thinking of the same sculpture, I actually find it kind of endearing.

You know how impatient you probably get when people write off science and scientific thought (indeed, you may think Piccinini is one such person)? That's how impatient I get when people deliberately write off art, or don't examine it closely or attempt to delve beyond first impressions. Any good artist worth their salt produces work that rewards closer interrogation, and an artist of Piccinini's caliber rewards such interrogation richly. I think of you approach her sculptures, not ready to leap to the defense of science at the first sign she is criticizing progress (and to be fair to the artist, science has done things that are deeply unsettling even in retrospect, like the Manhattan Project, the Tuskeegee syphilis experiments, etc.), but open to compelx interpretations, you may find it more appealing than it seemed at first.