Chuck Close -- Deguerotypist

[Bill_1856]

The very well-known painter, Chuck Close, was featured in a segment of the CBS Sunday Morning program today. In the last few minutes he was reported to be making Deguerotypes, and some very large ones (several square feet, I would guess) were shown on display in NYC public parks.
Mr. Close, severely handicaped from a spinal stroke, was shown being helped under the darkcloth of an 8x10 camera. There's no way that he could perform the incredibly complex technique of preparing, exposing, and finishing the plates.
I have two questions: 1) Who does the actual work of making the photograph and finishing the Deguerotype, (he, no doubt, takes all the credit), and 2) how do they get from 8x10 to the huge sizes shown?

[Steven Barall]

Dags can not be enlarged because each one is a unique finished product and not a negative that can be printed. The Dag expert who is helping him is Jerry Spagnoli and this is no secret and Close does not take all the credit for the technical stuff but of course he takes credit for the photos because they are his photos. Chuck Close is also a very well known photographer and not just a painter. You should take a look at his work from the past few decades.

[tim atherton]

there was a cover article on this in Photo District News three or four months ago - I'll see if I still have it.

[Scott Davis]

He made some dags (I forget what size the originals were), and then had them scanned and digitally enlarged for display prints. He is selling a portfolio of these inkjet prints for something on the order of $15K per portfolio, in a limited edition. There was also an article about it in PDN a couple months ago, if you have back issues, or access to the online magazine you can read it there.

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

The orginal Daguerreotypes were full plate (6.5 x 8.5") and as Scott writes, these were scanned and ink-jet printed.

[Ed Richards]

He also used some limited nuclear blast as a flash so they could be really short exposures to do away with motion artifacts. He might have been kidding, but in the story I read he claimed the models got instant sunburn.

[Ralph Barker]

. . . these were scanned and ink-jet printed.

So, would that make him a Daguerrosquirtist?

[Michael Alpert]

A few years ago, the Art Institute of Chicago exhibited a Chuck Close Daguerreotype along with a large silver print and an inkjet print. It was part of a highly intelligent and very instructive exhibit in which images by many artists were shown with technical and aesthetic variations presented for comparison. I must say that Close's Daguerreotype was unfair to the prints. It had a richness and presence that was unmatchable.

[Tony Karnezis]

His work was also presented at the SF MOMA early last year. I agree with Michael--the Daguerrotypes were my favorites by far.

[Scott Davis]

Chuck's own disability brings up an interesting point - at what point does the work cease to be his, and at what point does it become Jerry Spagnoli's? Chuck may be aiming the camera, but the rest of the work is Jerry's. Is vision enough to claim authorship? At what point is someone an artist and at what point are they a camera operator?