Chuck Close 20x24 Polaroids in Vanity Fair

[Tin Can]

And this argument would apply to 'what is a photograph?' thread.

The Museum of Modern Art, MoMA Highlights, New York: The Museum of Modern Art, revised 2004, originally published 1999, p. 274
"No work of art was ever made without a process," Close has said, and Robert/104,072 was made by a painstaking process indeed: it is composed of tiny black dots, each set inside a single square of a 104,072-square grid. The sense of shape and texture—of the distinction between metal and skin, between knitted sweater and bushy mustache—depends on the density of the paint, which Close applied with a spray gun, revisiting each square an average of ten times. Not surprisingly, the work took fourteen months to make.
When Close began to paint portraits, in 1967-68, figurative painting was widely considered exhausted. The figures in Pop art were coolly ironic; and other artists were painting abstractions, or were abandoning painting altogether for more conceptual systems of art-making. Close preferred to apply a conceptual system to a traditional mode of painting. The aggressive scale makes the system clear—close up, the gridded dots in Robert/104,072 are quite apparent—and the black-and-white palette reflects the image's source in a photograph.
Robert/104,072 announces itself as less illusion than code. For Close, a picture like this one is not "a painting of a person as much as it is the distribution of paint on a flat surface. . . . You really have to understand the artificiality of what you are doing to make the reality."

[cowanw]

I want his jumpsuit/warmups. Sweet.

Longer lens, more bellows for 20 x 24 which I've found to be problematic in shooting my 20 x 24 work. I use as short of lens as will cover, most often 550 mm, to compensate when I want one to one portraits or bigger. My longer lenses ( Dallmeyer 30 inch RR and Dallmeyer 8D) i use for 3/4 body and full body portraits. Not sure what lens he has on the Polaroid. What did you find disagreeable if that is the right word about them?
Monty

In the Sept/Oct issue of Photo technique magazine, his portrait of President Obama was profiled. There it was noted that a Rodenstock 800mm, a 600mm Fujinon A and a 360mm Fujinon SW were available, but by changing elements a 450 mm lens was used.
http://phototechmag.com/anatomy-of-a-photo-shoot/
I know there are no more rules about composition and photography and I recognize my idea of portraits is firmly rooted in the first 100 years of photography. I also know that people say you don't need as long a lens as an equivalent to 80mm for 35mm film would be.
Nevertheless I think the choice of lens there made the president look like a big nosed clown.
I expect it would be possible to figure out the lens length from the Vanity Fair setup. one to one enlargement and a lens to subject distance of about 30 inches. The extension looks abut 4 feet at one to one that makes the lens about 24 inches or 600 mm.
Poor Julia Roberts and Scarlet Johansson. Even George Clooney looks not quite as handsome.
Still I realize that lots of people like this look; there was a thread re ideal lens length for portraiture and there were choices for everybody. And I get the cool factor of a Chuck Close 20x24 Polaroid for Vanity Fair.
I just don't like exaggerated noses.

[Kirk Gittings]

Hmmm.......So what he did wrong was not make the photographs with your aesthetic? I've had the unique opportunity to have been photographed by a few relatively well known portrait photographers like Karen Kuehn. In none of these cases was I concerned with looking good. I felt that it was a privilege that they wanted to photograph me and I wanted them to just do their thing. I suspect that this was the attitude of Chuck Close's subjects too.

[cowanw]

Hmmm.......So what he did wrong was not make the photographs with your aesthetic? I've had the unique opportunity to have been photographed by a few relatively well known portrait photographers like Karen Kuehn. In none of these cases was I concerned with looking good. I felt that it was a privilege that they wanted to photograph me and I wanted them to just do their thing. I suspect that this was the attitude of Chuck Close's subjects too.

I didn't say it was wrong.
What I did say was
" Personally I think he needs a longer lens"

[Drew Wiley]

Who knows what his thinking was? Guess I'll have to ask someone who works with him personally. The photographic perspectives tend to be quite different from his
painted ones. Anything made or commissioned by Chuck Close sells for a pile of money, but other than his fame as a painter, I'm not sure why. Reminds me of the
attention David Hockney gets for photographs when he doesn't seem all that adept at it either. ... Or how I've seen movie stars bag conspicuous gallery gigs when
they had little real artistic bent. The almost unique characteristics of Close's manner of perception come strongly across in some of his painting, but somewhow, I
can't personally pick up on this in his big-nosed camera portraits. But he's been apotheosized, I haven't.

[Kirk Gittings]

I didn't say it was wrong.
What I did say was
" Personally I think he needs a longer lens"

Exactly. You think HE needs a longer lens so that he could photograph them the way you would.......

[cowanw]

Monty McCutchen asked me what I found disagreeable in a nice way.
Others have commented on the big nose aesthetic.
What's got your knickers in a knot?

[Kirk Gittings]

I don't know. Maybe I'm reading things into it. Weird day.

For me personally, when I see an established artist that I respect do something out of the norm, I try to step back and give it some consideration. The fact that they are doing something in a way that I wouldn't or different from tradition is a good thing oftentimes IMHO-something I might learn from-not that I am a portrait photographer.

[Tin Can]

At this point in his career Chuck Close calls the shots. Actually he always has. If Chuck Close is making images, it is fine art, by every definition. The artist has defined art for quite a while now, not patrons, buyers, critics, other artists, ad nauseum.

There is plenty of art, most discerning people do not like. I don't like Justin Bieber's art, but if we count the money, he wins.

I'm pretty sure Mr Close knows exactly what he is doing. He deliberately chose vain famous rich people. He made them come to him on his conditions. Did you read his conditions? Fantastic. He is showing us them as ordinary people shot with a recently common style of camera, but he is using the biggest and most iconic Polaroid ever made. Large scale is simply more impressive and popular. Andy Warhol used Polaroid Big Shots by the case. It's a tool, even the image is a tool for him. He makes a statement, with his multiple ugly portraits of commonized people.

Chuck Close through Vanity Fair is showing us the emperors without clothes, so to speak. These prints will be great if they hit museum exhibitions. I sure hope he didn't sell or give them to the subjects.

My only gripe is, I have long been planning a similar series, however by using these as examples, I may get my sitters to acquiesce.

Mine will be pictures, not high art...munmbleing...

[Ari]

Every face is different. Showing actors "as they are" without makeup or retouching is one thing, awful lighting just to get exposure is another.

Bang on; the technical side of things is quite awful.

If this were a no-name photographer/artist, would it get into VF? I hope not.

Hey, I can shoot (hypothetically) with a 20x24 Polaroid camera, too; unfortunately, it won't make my photos any better.
So for me, it's an empty exercise that brings nothing new to the table, nor any insight into these famous people; just poorly executed mega-sized photos from a mega-sized vintage-y camera.

I do like his ground rules, though; I wish I could dictate the terms of a photo session to that degree, even with my family.