Chuck Close 20x24 Polaroids in Vanity Fair

[jcoldslabs]

The conditions under which the photos were taken meant EVERYTHING to these women you're speaking about, because chuck insisted on "do your own makeup and hair" no fancy artists and no photoshop. The perspective /focal length also skews and enhances flaws...

His technique and equipment choices were very important in creating the final look of the images, yes, but knowing about those things is not required to appreciate the end result. These young bloggers are liking what they SEE in the final prints not what they READ about his set up.

Similarly, my appreciation for a motion picture is not reduced because I don't know what camera was used or who the DP was or what a "key grip" is. If I like the movie I like the movie, full stop. Anything beyond that is gravy.

J.

[Darin Boville]

It might be interesting to compare Close's portraits of the glitterati to those of David Bailey, whose exhibit just opened in London at the National Portrait Gallery. Here's a google image link to his work:

https://www.google.com/search?q=davi...=1680&bih=1244

--Darin

[StoneNYC]

It might be interesting to compare Close's portraits of the glitterati to those of David Bailey, whose exhibit just opened in London at the National Portrait Gallery. Here's a google image link to his work:

https://www.google.com/search?q=davi...=1680&bih=1244

--Darin

Seems his style is like mine lol

Maybe I'm famous too!

:-p

I don't think his work is photoshopped, but high key lighting, probably touched up, but not overly, just different (in my opinion better) lighting and focal length/framing.

[Kirk Gittings]

if your going to look at David Baily's whole body of work you should therefore look at Close's body of work and not just his latest project.
https://www.google.com/search?q=chuc...w=1280&bih=635

[StoneNYC]

if your going to look at David Baily's whole body of work you should therefore look at Close's body of work and not just his latest project.
https://www.google.com/search?q=chuc...w=1280&bih=635

+1

[Ari]

I have to admit I enjoyed his previous work more than this VF commission.
I can roll with it, and look at this VF work alone or in the contact of his previous work, but it won't make the VF stuff any better, I'm afraid.
A rose is a rose is a rose.

There's context for you

[EdSawyer]

Monty nailed it re: hoffman portrait. Well said, and 100% accurate.

[Darin Boville]

if your going to look at David Baily's whole body of work you should therefore look at Close's body of work and not just his latest project.
https://www.google.com/search?q=chuc...w=1280&bih=635

And a further note for those who are not familiar with Close's work in general, many of the photographs linked to in Kirk's google search link are in fact not photographs. They are paintings. In most cases those paintings are essentially copies of photographs.

--Darin

[Kirk Gittings]

They are definitely from photographs, as many painters work from landscape to still life, but are they copies? What does that mean to you exactly? I have only seen a couple originals and I wouldn't call them copies even though he is looking for a photographically realistic effect in his portrait paintings.

[Darin Boville]

They are definitely from photographs, as many painters work from landscape to still life, but are they copies? What does that mean to you exactly? I have only seen a couple originals and I wouldn't call them copies even though he is looking for a photographically realistic effect in his portrait paintings.

I think "copy" is a fair enough word. Not pixel for pixel but not all that far off. He grids out the photo and the canvas and paints each grid. Later, after his health problems, he started doing sort of the same thing but with a lower resolution, more colorful technique. So he's sort of been doing photography, in a way, all along, so his new photographic work isn't quite the departure it might at first seem to be.

--Darin