Chuck Close 20x24 Polaroids in Vanity Fair

[adelorenzo]

Very cool, I'm going to check my local newsstand to see if the issue has made it this far North yet. Here's an on-line teaser with some BTS and a few sample images:

http://www.vanityfair.com/vf-hollywood/chuck-close-hollywood-portfolio-shoot

[cowanw]

He did the same thing for President Obama a little while ago. Personally I think he needs a longer lens.

[Monty McCutchen]

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

[Peter Lewin]

I agree with the comments about preferring a longer lens, but I also feel quite ridiculous for critiquing Chuck Close! I also wonder if he has an infinite supply of Polaroid, since the rest of us ran out a long time ago. Still, very happy that the link was posted, it's fun to see both the portraits and some scenes of how they were made.

[adelorenzo]

20x24 studios still has a large supply of raw Polaroid materials. More than they can hope to use in the 20x24 cameras, AFAIK.

http://www.20x24studio.com/?page_id=1653

[Tin Can]

Nice, I wish we all could afford to do this. I will settle for my project which is very similar in 11x14, using my infamous friends.

[vinny]

I'm not familiar with his work at all. I think what others are referring to is some of the shots (scarlett johanssen) look distorted like they were shot on a wide angle lens. Hers looks awful btw. It appears that he uses the same lighting setup for each person which we almost never do when lighting actors for motion picture work. Every face is different. Showing actors "as they are" without makeup or retouching is one thing, awful lighting just to get exposure is another. I hate to be so negative but I calls em as I sees em.

[Tin Can]

Look him up, he is a huge long time art star, he has made insane self portraits with mosaics of tiny self images. Most major museums collect anything he produces.


I'm not familiar with his work at all. I think what others are referring to is some of the shots (scarlett johanssen) look distorted like they were shot on a wide angle lens. Hers looks awful btw. It appears that he uses the same lighting setup for each person which we almost never do when lighting actors for motion picture work. Every face is different. Showing actors "as they are" without makeup or retouching is one thing, awful lighting just to get exposure is another. I hate to be so negative but I calls em as I sees em.

[Tin Can]

It's a link to MOMA and Chuck Close.

http://www.moma.org/collection/artist.php?artist_id=1156

[Drew Wiley]

A lot of his actual printing is done down the street here. His self-portraits in particular almost remind me of the shots of our pet squirrel my wife took with her little
BB-lens cellphone camera - all big nosed out of proportion, characteristic of a wide angle up close. But locally, they're printing actual museum and public installations large-scale, including laser etching on huge slabs of granite. Some of the projects are well into seven figures. A lot of Chuck Close's work is enigmatic and involves portraits. But for those of you unfamiliar with his handicaps, one of them is that he is psychologically incapable of face recognition, even his own face - some sort of genetic flaw which causes him to analyze faces according to a multitude of cumulative details. Some of his paintings are fascinating in this respect. I respond far less to his photographs, but his personal limitation does explain his obsession with faces, and why so much of his photography in particular involves self-portraits.

[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.

[Monty McCutchen]

Bill,

That's exactly why I asked the question to get insight into what you didn't like as I believe, as has been stated here that its the use of the lens, or possibly the lens design, by Chuck Close, not the length of the lens in and of itself. At least my experience with a shorter lens on the big format (I've been shooting 20 x 24 for close to a decade, both wet plate collodion and film for PT/PD gum over output) and NONE of my pictures, every bit as close up and one to one as those shown in the link by Chuck Close have big distorted noses. Wisner wrote an article that I'm sure is out there on the web somewhere that discussed this phenomenon in detail about how you don't get the distortion in larger formats that you do in smaller format with short focal length lenses. For example here is a one to one portrait of my son when he was much smaller, four years old to be exact shot on 20 x 24 Ilford FP4 with a Schneider 550XL. I often show this example mainly because digitizing my 20 x 24 isn't worth the cost it takes to do it, and I'm such a lousy digital copy photographer they always come out looking worse for wear. I have examples that are even bigger than one to one shot with that lens and still no distortion. As stated by others it seems to clearly be a choice by Close. Like you I wouldn't choose that for my sitters but hell I can't even pay for digitizing my 20 x 24's with the sales of my work (you can read into that there are no sales of my work!!!) so given the choice of aesthetic's most would be wise to side with Chuck over Monty.

Interesting discussion that I have enjoyed following.

thanks

Monty

[adelorenzo]

Has anyone read Bluebeard by Kurt Vonnegut? This couple of pages (http://books.google.ca/books?id=VOV-eUIWrVIC&lpg=PA283&ots=i3RsSMw_-r&dq=have%20what%20karabekian%20has%20in%20reserve&pg=PA283#v=onepage&f=false) in particular.

I'm pretty sure Chuck Close is a man who has options.

By all means you can not like his work but all this 'his photos are not technically good' and 'I could do it better' shit is just plain hating. Petapixel comment thread style of hating. I hope we can all be better than that.

[Ari]

Hey, I can shoot (hypothetically) with a 20x24 Polaroid camera, too; unfortunately, it won't make my photos any better.


Anthony, I didn't say I could do better; I said the bigger camera won't make my photos better.
And I stand by my assessment of his lighting; if he has options, he should explore them.
Not a hater, but I do think the novelty of this project is far superior to the result.

[adelorenzo]

Anthony, I didn't say I could do better; I said the bigger camera won't make my photos better.
And I stand by my assessment of his lighting; if he has options, he should explore them.
Not a hater, but I do think the novelty of this project is far superior to the result.

Dude's been doing his thing since the 1970s and I'm pretty sure he's explored all those options and many others that you or I would have no idea about. Does anyone seriously think he doesn't know how to light a portrait or what lens to use? At this point he's obviously got a vision of what he wants to achieve and he chooses his techniques and materials accordingly. That's why Chuck Close is an artist and a highly successful one at that.

I was referring to that Vonnegut passage to try to point that out.

[ScottPhotoCo]

Bill,

That's exactly why I asked the question to get insight into what you didn't like as I believe, as has been stated here that its the use of the lens, or possibly the lens design, by Chuck Close, not the length of the lens in and of itself. At least my experience with a shorter lens on the big format (I've been shooting 20 x 24 for close to a decade, both wet plate collodion and film for PT/PD gum over output) and NONE of my pictures, every bit as close up and one to one as those shown in the link by Chuck Close have big distorted noses. Wisner wrote an article that I'm sure is out there on the web somewhere that discussed this phenomenon in detail about how you don't get the distortion in larger formats that you do in smaller format with short focal length lenses. For example here is a one to one portrait of my son when he was much smaller, four years old to be exact shot on 20 x 24 Ilford FP4 with a Schneider 550XL. I often show this example mainly because digitizing my 20 x 24 isn't worth the cost it takes to do it, and I'm such a lousy digital copy photographer they always come out looking worse for wear. I have examples that are even bigger than one to one shot with that lens and still no distortion. As stated by others it seems to clearly be a choice by Close. Like you I wouldn't choose that for my sitters but hell I can't even pay for digitizing my 20 x 24's with the sales of my work (you can read into that there are no sales of my work!!!) so given the choice of aesthetic's most would be wise to side with Chuck over Monty.

Interesting discussion that I have enjoyed following.

thanks

Monty

Whatever the case may be, this image is awesome.

Tim
www.ScottPhoto.co

[Jac@stafford.net]

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.

http://www.karenkuehn.com/series/nmartists01_kirk_gittings.html

[austin granger]

I saw the portraits this morning and have been thinking about them throughout the day, as well as reading with interest people's wildly divergent opinions. I have to say, I really like them, even more so after considering them for awhile. As others have said above, it is very likely that Close knows precisely what he's doing, and if his pictures have an certain "imperfection" about them, it's because he put it there. In fact, I think it's exactly this "imperfection" that gives the portraits their power. Despite the giant camera, they have an artless quality, almost a snapshot aesthetic, which would ordinarily make them well, snapshots, except... when was the last time you saw a snapshot of Robert De Niro, or Scarlett Johansson? And what is a snapshot but a picture of a place or a thing or a person that means something to you? A snapshot is something that's intimate, it is something that's close (no pun intended), and I think that is what's going on here; the perceived distance between these "extraordinary" people and us "ordinary" people has been seemingly obliterated, and it's not because the subjects have been made to look ugly, but because Close has simply refused to elevate them. And in my opinion, that's what makes the pictures wonderful. We look at them and realize that fundamentally, these people ARE ordinary. Any yet, this is no Enquirer Magazine debasing, for we also see that even in their "ordinary" state, these individuals have the innate worth that is the birthright of all beings. Oh, the humanity! I'm getting a little carried away here, but seriously, when I look at that picture of Scarlett, I don't think "Poor Scarlett," I think, "Oh! She's just a person in the world. Like me." And I think that's a beautiful thing.

[adelorenzo]

Another thing to keep in mind is that Chuck Close is a painter. Normally what he does with these photographs is turn them into much larger paintings. So if you think Scarlett's nose is too big now imagine what it would look like when it's bigger than your head. :)

[vinny]

http://www.karenkuehn.com/series/nmartists01_kirk_gittings.html
that's frickin' awesome.



I'm not saying Chuck doesn't know how to light a portrait but just because someone has been doing something for decades does NOT mean they are experts in every aspect. I work with people on occasion who have been shooting movies or lighting people for decades who just aren't good at it. I guess their personalities got them this far. Same goes for any line of work.
If chuck wanted them to look awful (not just real) he succeeded by lighting them the way he did. As for the big noses, do they have noses that big in "real" life? No, they don't. Does the lighting used suit each celebrity or the shape of their face?
I haven't seen any of the 20x24's* in person but it seems that most of the people using it are just treating it as a novelty snapshot and the quality worthy of the huge film and expense isn't there.


*polaroids

[Kirk Gittings]

http://www.karenkuehn.com/series/nmartists01_kirk_gittings.html

IMO when you work with someone like Karen you have to relinquish control. I am not the client to demand that a portrait satisfy my ego. It is her vision and I am a subject.

[Monty McCutchen]

that's frickin' awesome.



I'm not saying Chuck doesn't know how to light a portrait but just because someone has been doing something for decades does NOT mean they are experts in every aspect. I work with people on occasion who have been shooting movies or lighting people for decades who just aren't good at it. I guess their personalities got them this far. Same goes for any line of work.
If chuck wanted them to look awful (not just real) he succeeded by lighting them the way he did. As for the big noses, do they have noses that big in "real" life? No, they don't. Does the lighting used suit each celebrity or the shape of their face?
I haven't seen any of the 20x24's in person but it seems that most of the people using it are just treating it as a novelty snapshot and the quality worthy of the huge film and expense isn't there.

Vinny,

you are a thoughtful contributor here who I enjoy reading his thoughts and perspectives, so I'm not bent out of shape at all, quite the opposite I'm intrigued by your use of the word snapshot. Are you referencing the rental use of the photographers that use the polaroid 20 x 24 in your last statement, or 20 x 24 shooters in general that you have seen. I ask as a point of discussion for I believe there are some really fantastic 'big' shooters whose work is far from my definition of snapshot. Craig Tuffin, Alex Timmermans, Gibson out of Kansas City (sorry I forget his first name) Tri Tran just to name a few of the people who are using the big formats to share more of storybook viewpoint (can you tell I'm trying to avoid using the artspeak word 'Narrative') that a larger format offers as a strength. I haven't followed the Polaroid 20 x 24 to know if that is true, but I do enjoy the photographers mentioned above for their use of the strength larger formats offer. Most certainly you are correct in the fact that the expense and effort are considerable and the format is not for every shot or everyone but when used wisely can render subjects in a way that others maybe cannot. Of course at my best I'd like to think I contribute with the format something more narrative in nature than a snapshot. Here's a shot of my daughter where considerable effort went into the thought of her and the dangerous world that is around her and the path that she might hopefully take as she entered adolescence. This is a 20 by 24 Tintype on series labeled 'Before 10'.

Your thoughts are always given with a strong and clear voice and I would be interested in hearing what you define as a snapshot

By the way Kirk, I love the portrait Karen took of you. I think I've been there at that Arrow!

best

Monty

[Drew Wiley]

I've known a number of acclaimed painters and some of them really couldn't conceptually transition into the philosophical distinction between photog and painting. So just because someone has been canonized as a painter does not legitmately make them exempt from criticism. It might indeed give them an inside track, so to
speak. We can call the shots just as we see them, unless someone is just a rote slave to the abstract doctrine that current art critics are always right, and that once someone has reached a certain level of fame, everything they do is worthy of immortal fame. Twenty years ago I wandered thru an old book fair one day and there were some original signed Edward Curtis "fine art" Hollywood prints selling for twenty bucks apiece. They probably wouldn't see for much more today, even though a comparable print of Geronimo would sell for 100K. So even with a given media, the same artist might be viewed in the long run as either a genius or a bellyflop. But I'm not personally knocking Close's stand camera shots - I just don't relate to them. No resonance. Other than the fact that Close took them, there
is nothing in them that especially stands out, big noses or otherwise.

[Kirk Gittings]

Vinny,

you are a thoughtful contributor here who I enjoy reading his thoughts and perspectives, so I'm not bent out of shape at all, quite the opposite I'm intrigued by your use of the word snapshot. Are you referencing the rental use of the photographers that use the polaroid 20 x 24 in your last statement, or 20 x 24 shooters in general that you have seen. I ask as a point of discussion for I believe there are some really fantastic 'big' shooters whose work is far from my definition of snapshot. Craig Tuffin, Alex Timmermans, Gibson out of Kansas City (sorry I forget his first name) Tri Tran just to name a few of the people who are using the big formats to share more of storybook viewpoint (can you tell I'm trying to avoid using the artspeak word 'Narrative') that a larger format offers as a strength. I haven't followed the Polaroid 20 x 24 to know if that is true, but I do enjoy the photographers mentioned above for their use of the strength larger formats offer. Most certainly you are correct in the fact that the expense and effort are considerable and the format is not for every shot or everyone but when used wisely can render subjects in a way that others maybe cannot. Of course at my best I'd like to think I contribute with the format something more narrative in nature than a snapshot. Here's a shot of my daughter where considerable effort went into the thought of her and the dangerous world that is around her and the path that she might hopefully take as she entered adolescence. This is a 20 by 24 Tintype on series labeled 'Before 10'.

Your thoughts are always given with a strong and clear voice and I would be interested in hearing what you define as a snapshot

By the way Kirk, I love the portrait Karen took of you. I think I've been there at that Arrow!

best

Monty

Wow there is a story in that hair alone! Sweet shot. Love all the environment. That arrow Karen used as a "reference point (artspeak)" comes from my childhood growing up next to a RT. 66 curio shop with big arrows to attract tourists. That particular arrow is out side a WholeFoods on Sam mateo and I-40 in ABQ but long predates the WFs. It was there when I was a kid. Karen interviewed me before the shoot and loved that reference to my childhood.

[Drew Wiley]

My contention, is that if these kinds of photographs were not or readily recognized celebrities, and taken by a celebrity himself, would there be anything about them
above the ordinary? Now let's take something down by the hired guns down the street, really impressive - but if any number of photographers on this forum had
something printed up that big for forty or fifty thousand dollars and put in a prominent venue, would it be less impressive than a big-nosed self-portrait of Close?
Otherwise, if we didn't already know that someone of Close's reputation took such pictures, would there even be anything in them which inherently drew praise as
some kind of visual masterpiece? ... So let's momentarily flip the coin over, and surmise that St Ansel bought an oil painting set and fiddled with that - would anyone even pay forty bucks for it? Atget did paint for a hobby, and some of those still exist - nobody says wow or thinks they're valuable just because he has hence become an acclaimed photographer. And while Brett Weston's wood carvings look attractive and might have a modest following, none of these would even
be likely to make the cover of a woodworking magazine. But I can spot one of Brett's 11x14 prints clear across the room. It stands out, on it own merit. Just thinking out loud ....

[Tin Can]

Is Chuck making art or photographs? Does the entire body of work say something substantially different than individual prints?

What will he do with these?

I do think he gave these narcissists an outtake for souvenir.

This would have been a great shoot to be the fly on the wall, hearing and seeing everything, especially reactions to images.

[Drew Wiley]

That's why I made allusion to Edward Curtis. When he took photos of something nostalgaic or catchy in a personal celebrity sense, like Geronimo, his work is itself
famous. When he took shots of famous movie starlets, these have become almost worthless because nobody remembers these individuals anymore. I know someone who recently tried to auction off the last surviving vintage prints of one of the most famous rock n' roll incidents of the 60's and was expecting many thousands of dollars for it. Nobody even bid. And when somebody stumbles over one of today's superstars lying in a street gutter twenty years hence, will they even know or care who they are? I don't mean to sound caustic, but will anybody a hundred years hence even care who Oprah or Brad Pitt were, or that fact that Chuck Close took pictures of them. His paintings might well be admired for many generations, but what exactly qualifies the film portraits as exceptional other than the fleeting fame or the sitters? Does someone else actually see something in them -inherently - that I don't? Please explain, if you do.

[austin granger]

His paintings might well be admired for many generations, but what exactly qualifies the film portraits as exceptional other than the fleeting fame or the sitters? Does someone else actually see something in them -inherently - that I don't? Please explain, if you do.

I actually like the pictures, but I think this does get to the heart of it. The photos would indeed be nothing if it wasn't for the fame of the sitters. Or I should say, they would be nothing superior to a billion other snapshots. But, the fact that we DO know (or think we know) who these people are-after all, we've seen a million glamourous pictures of them-sets us up perfectly to see these pictures in a way that floor us. Or at least some of us. My overwhelming sense when I saw the pictures was that I was seeing these people clearly (and sympathetically) for the very first time. And that, considering the subjects, is a pretty exceptional thing!

[JMB]

Close’s personal story is moving, but his work unfortunately strikes me as repetitive pop photography that usually depends heavily upon the celebrity status of his subjects or image size for any sort of impact.

[StoneNYC]

Nice, I wish we all could afford to do this. I will settle for my project which is very similar in 11x14, using my infamous friends.

Infamous?

[Peter Lewin]

Aside from my discomfort in second-guessing as well-known (and collected and displayed) an artist as Chuck Close, this thread has made me think more about portrait photography.

Quite a few posters have suggested that Chuck Close's portraits would not be noteworthy if not for the fame of the subjects. It seems to me that that same critique can be applied to virtually any of the famous portrait photographers. If I think of Karsh, his portrait of Churchill jumps to mind; for Newman, it is Stravinsky and his concert grand piano; if I think of Annie Liebovitz, it is probably John Lennon. The point is that we know all of these photographers not only because of the photographer's skill, but because of a combination of the photographer's approach and the subjects themselves. Newman is known for placing the subject in an environment which speaks to the subject, Liebovitz may have been the first to essentially construct movie sets for her subjects, but in the end, it is the subject who made the photograph famous. Chuck Close is one of the very few portraitists to use the Polaroid 20x24, so his work also is a combination of a relatively unique technique plus the fame of the subject.

I also don't think Mr. Close is the first artist whose fame in one field gave him a "leg up" in another. I have a numbered print of one of Henry Moore's "Sheep Sketches" hanging in my living room, and I like it a lot. But I doubt that there would be monographs of his Sheep Sketches, nor much of a market, were it not for his primary fame as a sculptor.

By trying to separate each of the elements from the other (i.e. the subjects are famous, we aren't taken with his technique - those large noses, and Chuck Close's primary fame is as a painter) I suggest that we are doing something unfair, we have to take the work in its totality. I can't believe that the Museum of Modern Art, and the other benchmark institutions that display Chuck Close's photography have gotten it so wrong.

[Drew Wiley]

I will say that Close painted from photographs and in many ways has a deep-rooted affinity to photographic process, as well as an artistic dependence upon it, due
to his inherent limitations. I heard some things about this form people who know him, but it's also probably common knowledge by now. So from an art critic's standpoint, there probably is a lot of genuine interest in how all this kind of camera activity plays into his personal pysche. I can understand that. But somehow it
doesn't really translate for me into most of his photograph-only output, where he hasn't gone the extra interpretive step of painting it. Kinda reminds me of how
AA was hired to take the official color portrait of Jimmy Carter under strict guidelines. Yeah, they wanted somebody famous, competent, and efficient to do it; but
the result was something any competent commercial photographer could have done. Nothing of AA's special personal vision seems to have come thru; and color was not his thing anyway. Same with Annie L. and the official portrait of Queen E. Obviously they didn't want another "creative" Avedon kind of fiasco. But what's
the point if some famous photographers is just reduced to a commercial machine? (Still thinking out loud)

[Drew Wiley]

Peter - lots of people have used 20x24 Polaroids. They were routinely rented in several major cities for quite awhile, including in the West here (SF). Tons of work
out there. I agree with what you are saying, but still have a big question mark from a different standpoint. For example, I look at the conspicuously
pre-Raphelite Victorian work of Julia Cameron and most of those prints really move me, each in a different way, despite her stereotyped poses and sets. She took
pictures of some very famous people, and those shots are indeed highly collectible today. But her photographs of otherwise total unknowns - domestic servants,
neighborhood girls - have fetched even higher prices based upon their inherent beauty as images. But since some of Close's self-portraits are being plastered
everywhere, redundantly, and are even being laser-engraved onto big granite slabs, I wonder if archaeologists two millennia hence will surmise that he was some
kind of Pharaoh. "Archival" is an understatement in this case.

[austin granger]

By trying to separate each of the elements from the other (i.e. the subjects are famous, we aren't taken with his technique - those large noses, and Chuck Close's primary fame is as a painter) I suggest that we are doing something unfair, we have to take the work in its totality. I can't believe that the Museum of Modern Art, and the other benchmark institutions that display Chuck Close's photography have gotten it so wrong.

Exactly! That's what I was trying to say, though I didn't say it nearly as well as Peter. Close's pictures may work only because of all the knowledge that we bring to them (who the sitters are, who Close is, the pictures of these people that have come before, etc), but does that make them lesser? I'm temped to say that EVERY work of art, every picture, painting, book, piece of music, etc, is not so different. Their worth relies on what we know. I mean, take any hallowed work, say Starry Night, or Love Supreme, or 1984, or whatever, stick it in a time capsule and send it back a couple of hundred years, or to a place wholly unfamiliar with the context it arose from, and more often than not, it would turn to complete gibberish. Does that make it less good?

[Kirk Gittings]

Kinda reminds me of how
AA was hired to take the official color portrait of Jimmy Carter under strict guidelines. Yeah, they wanted somebody famous, competent, and efficient to do it; but
the result was something any competent commercial photographer could have done. Nothing of AA's special personal vision seems to have come thru; and color was not his thing anyway. Same with Annie L. and the official portrait of Queen E. Obviously they didn't want another "creative" Avedon kind of fiasco. But what's
the point if some famous photographers is just reduced to a commercial machine? (Still thinking out loud)
Drew, Its not just being famous by itself. People think that if you do one thing well like landscape then you can anything well. Its happens to me a lot because i do architecture and landscape well then people will say "wow I want you to shoot my daughters wedding". With photography people don't understand talent restricted to a particular genre. And sometimes, in all honesty, because of financial needs or the desire for variety or a new challenge, I will take on something I probably shouldn't (never weddings)

[Drew Wiley]

Now that I only 50% agree with, Austin, because anytime I approach an original work like Starry Night (indeed, any original Van Gogh) I am obsolutely floored by it,
and I mean as a discrete visual presence. It might be interesting to read about various takes on Van Gogh's life and times, and various hypotheses about his personal psyche - and I have done that, and while some of that literature might have been informative and interesting, exactly zero of it explained what went thru his head
when he painting such thing. I think my own gut instincts are better at that. Doesn't mean I can articulate it to others. And I've never read very many monographs
which really tell us how photographers think. I don't think we can even explain it ourselves, most of the time. In the case of Close it does help to have some
background information. Nonetheless, as much as I find his paintings compelling, I still find his camera-only work to be repetitious and formulaic.

[ScottPhotoCo]

I believe that in the visual world there are many different ways to look at things. Some are general view/beauty driven, some are content view driven and others are subject driven. Consciously or unconsciously we look at things in different ways based on our experiences, knowledge and frame of mind at the time of viewing. It also varies based on if you're looking at images as a photographer, an artist or an "average" consumer. There are so many variables here in perception, message and reception that there is no one right answer.

These particular images may communicate different things in different contexts (there will be some crossover as I cannot completely compartmentalize all of the distinctions. Your results may vary:

General view/Beauty driven – "Ok, those are some big heads. Why is there a series of people with big heads?"
Content driven – "Holy cow! Is that _________? Why do they look like that? I thought they were much better looking."
Subject driven – "Is that how _________ really looks? It's really refreshing to see that they are human just like me. I've never seen them like this before."

As a photographer/artist – "Chuck Close, obviously. Only he could have the pull to have celebrities be willing to come and be seen in a way that their publicist and manager would NEVER approve. Kudos Mr. Close for making and taking an opportunity to create this work/perspective and share it with the world in a very visible way. But damn(!!!), I wish I could have had this opportunity. I would have done it soooooooo much better!"
As an "average" consumer (surmised, as I am not an average consumer. I work in advertising) – "OMG. I love __________! I have never seen them like this. How cool! Wait, they look like I do when I wake up in the morning and the color is kinda weird. What's going on here? I think I'm going to watch Legends of the Fall again. Brad Pitt was sooooooo much better looking in that."

My favourite part about this series? It made people talk, discuss, debate and share points of view. Isn't that what "art" is supposed to do anyway?

[austin granger]

Now that I only 50% agree with, Austin, because anytime I approach an original work like Starry Night (indeed, any original Van Gogh) I am obsolutely floored by it,
and I mean as a discrete visual presence. It might be interesting to read about various takes on Van Gogh's life and times, and various hypotheses about his personal psyche - and I have done that, and while some of that literature might have been informative and interesting, exactly zero of it explained what went thru his head
when he painting such thing. I think my own gut instincts are better at that. Doesn't mean I can articulate it to others. And I've never read very many monographs
which really tell us how photographers think. I don't think we can even explain it ourselves, most of the time. In the case of Close it does help to have some
background information. Nonetheless, as much as I find his paintings compelling, I still find his camera-only work to be repetitious and formulaic.



As someone who has been profoundly impacted by Van Gogh, it never ceases to amaze me just how few people appreciated his pictures during his lifetime. I have this book called "Van Gogh: A Retrospective" (edited by Susan Alyson Stein) and it's filled with quotes from artists and dealers and critics from Van Gogh's time, and almost all of them run along the lines of: "He paints like a madman." They really just couldn't see it at all!

But I understand your point about visual presence, something Close's pictures might not have, at least not in the way of a Van Gogh. It is my opinion though, that the worth of a thing can sometimes come from beauty, but other times from other sorts of thoughts or ideas. In truth, when I saw Close's portraits, I wasn't thinking that they were beautiful OR ugly, but that they did move me in a certain way. They made me feel a kind of tenderness toward the subjects, and I don't think that was because Close made these stars look ugly, but because he made them look... ordinary. He showed us that these people are subject to time and traumas like the rest of us. He made them look human.

Speaking of repetition though, I was thinking that I'd like to see Close do "ordinary" people that exact same way, and then show all the pictures together, so that you get a string of anonymous persons and then say, Brad Pitt, and then another string of anonymous people and then Robert De Niro, and so on, all of them "flattened" into a common (but still individual) humanity. I think that would be a powerful thing.

[austin granger]

See, that right there is one of the reasons that I don't engage in these threads very often. It's because while I'm trying to gather my thoughts and slowly (every so slowly) type them out, inevitably someone like Tim comes along and says what I was trying to say, only much better, rendering my post immediately obsolete. Great points Tim! :)

[Monty McCutchen]

I've been so moved by some of his paintings that my wife became irritated with the length of time I was taking walking around the room having the painting deconstruct, and come together based on distance, angle of view etc. She left for lunch without me came back and I still wasn't ready to leave. I love his paintings. I love the daguerreotypes he did with Jerry. It would be interesting to me to see these that are in discussion in this thread in a show hung on a wall to see if they deconstruct up close (big noses etc which in essence is what we get on the web or in the magazine) and come together much nicer from a distance like his paintings do. That would be fascinating if they were shot with similar ideas in mind and in distance of view or angle of view changed their perception to me, and thus, allowing me to access them better. I agree we should take an artist of Chuck Close stature and thus his work in totality but that doesn't necessarily mean I have to accept and like at face value every body of work from said artist. For me as they are presented on the web/magazine, I'm left with some unsettling questions that have no answers. One being that there is always a power that is exchanged between sitter and photographer. What is given, what is taken, what is exchanged. In these photos as they are presented that flow of power seems out of balance, that all the power is on Close's side of the table, starting with all the rules placed on the sitter as mentioned in another post. The way I view my own photography with the 20 x 24 work is that the best work is a collaboration, an exchange of power that makes its way into the photograph. While I agree with Kirk that it should not be the photographers job to make the sitter necessarily look beautiful, if he/she is intentionally trying to make the sitter look bad, or have a mental illness exploited, or highlight a freakish nature to the sitter then I rarely respond to that and in fact don't appreciate such work. I don't think that Close's work for Vanity Fair has reached that level but I am left feeling the balance of power between him and his 'famous' sitters was out place and the pendulum swung too far in one direction for me personally to respond to it as favorably as I have most of his other work. Take Kirk's portrait as an example by Karen Kuehn (a great photographer by the way), her goal wasn't to make a beautiful portrait of Kirk but she did listen to his stories of youth and incorporate them into a stunning portrait that is beautiful in its total concept--a great photo resulted in that collaboration of familial history and current talent in the form of Karen. Photography at is height to my way of thinking.

All that being said, these portraits by Chuck have forced me to consider my work, think about portraiture in a very contemplative way and in the end isn't that what great art is supposed to inspire in us?

Monty

[Kirk Gittings]

A lot of good thinking expressed in that Monty.

I am not in any way a portrait photographer-I can create an acceptable commercial editorial image of somebody as a part of an editorial piece on an architect or homeowner etc. I actually am more competent at creating a portrait of an object like a building than I am of a person and I have great respect for people like you who do have that ability.

What I most object to in this conversation is the ideas expressed here and there that somehow there is a right way to do a portrait and that the Close Polaroids don't fit those preconceived parameters. Like some PPA "standard". To which I think thank god they don't. And BTW neither do your portraits Monty-thank god. There is a place for such but I expect a creative artist to violate such "academy standards" with vigor and relish. The precipice that any artist faces when striking out from their own success or the academy's rigidity is that more often than not you fail.

I don't have a strong opinion in that regard as to the Close Polaroids-though I do like them. I love the fact that he bent these strong personalities to his creative will. I love the fact that he was unconcerned with whether the subjects look good or heroic or even interesting. I think in a sense he was looking for the everyday mundane in celebrity. The payoff for the celebrity is not just the reward of being "special" enough to get Close's attention but the inner strength shown in being willing to lift the mask of your own celebrity and expose your own mediocrity to Close's photographic scalpel. Its like going in for exploratory surgery-"go for it Doc, what the hell-see what you can find". In all this I most like the vulnerability and strength displayed by the subjects in submitting to this dissection.

[StoneNYC]

I think I would be happy if I could even get a lens to cover 20x24 and expose a portrait properly :) hah!

[Ramiro Elena]

I see your point Austin and I like what you say. I think you're right but, there's a point in between. Is it really necessary to light them THAT badly? It almost seems like he tried to make them look bad on purpose.

[Drew Wiley]

The life story of Close and how he has forged a truly brilliant career that inspires both empathy and respect is certainly an undeniable factor in his personal ethos.
And it unfair to force comparisons, but I still do it. I look at a portrait of someone famous, say JP Morgan by Steichen, and somehow, despite all the predictable
logistical options of those Pictorialist circumstances, it still has Steichen written all over it, in a very compelling way. And it differed from one subject to another.
I should probably just keep my mouth shut, but I've only taken a handful or really good portraits in terms of personal satisfaction, versus a number of others just
for pay - and people photography has never really been my gig, anyway. But I do think like an artist, and have very well known artists who were equally famous in
their own era, as well as museum types, most of whom are either now retired or have passed away. But a lot of things never change in this respect. Much of art
is about fashionability and conncections ... and borrowed fame. A lousy shot of a famous person is far more likely to gain circulation than a great shot of a relative
nobody. No different in landscapes. Most of what I shoot need to "grow" on the viewer. If they want a postcardy stereotype, go elsewhere. None of this is meant
is meant as a put-down, cause Close is plainly brilliant. I just don't happen to buy into the doctrine that if someone is artistically brilliant, everything they do
automatically equates to their own top standard. Nor do I happen to believe just because people do work in a museum or critic environment that they really see
things. That bubble was popped long ago. Sometimes my own eyes happen to be the best judge. And sometimes I do need some help to understand.

[Drew Wiley]

Kirk - I follow you. People have seen my landscapes framed up in some venue and then asked me to do their portrait work. I don't pretend that kind of thing is
my game, but they know I do LF and can print well, and will have a different approach and impart a different look than a commercial studio - and if they pay well,
what the heck. I don't solicit that kind of work, but if it falls on my lap, I won't turn it down either. But I price per piece, all hand printed, mounted, and framed
and delivered, just like any other fine art print. And it makes them happy.

[Ari]

Picking up a little bit on what Tim said so well, but not so much wrt to the beauty-driven aspect.

When I look at a photograph, many things go through my mind; after the dust settles, I take a closer look at the technique.
With portraits, I go through all that analysis in a second, as I've been shooting portraits and little else for a long time.

I don't mind that these people are not groomed and made up as they would normally be for a photo session, nor does the unflattering perspective bother me much.
What struck me right away about Mr Close's portraits was the lack of good (I don't mean proper) technique wrt to his lighting; not that it didn't flatter or beautify, but that it ended up detracting from the rest of the image.
Couple that with the conventional framing and pose, and the result was mushy and vague; something that seemed ill-conceived.

Yes, I admire the fact that he got them to bend to his will, but he also had 3 hours with each person, and not once did he deviate from the previous photos, or try to inject a different something based on the personality of the sitter.
When I was shooting these kinds of people, we'd consider ourselves very lucky to get 3 minutes with them, as 30-60 seconds was the norm.
And if I ever showed up at the editors' with a shot like any of these, I'd never work another film festival again.

Far be it from me to suggest I, or anyone I know, could do better; that's not at all why I'm rambling here.
Mr Close is a celebrity in his own right, and works on his terms, so he has nothing to prove.
I just wish he had handled the basic technical details better from the outset, then the chances of a successful portrait would have been greatly enhanced.
If you want celeb-on-celeb portraits, Bryan Adams is ok, and he's actually been improving over time.

As anyone trying to get a grant knows, you can't sell your project on the basis of which camera you'll be using; so why should these photos be seen as better (in and of themselves) because of the size and type of camera used?

Ok, to sum up, I criticize because I'm looking at the work of a colleague (for lack of a better term); I'm not looking at the work of "Chuck Close" or "celebrity photographer..", just another guy who works in a similar sphere.

[C. D. Keth]

By the way, how much strobe power do you think he was cranking for those portraits? They have more depth of field going than a lot of 8x10 portraits.

[Drew Wiley]

Some more stuff to chat about next time his hired gun printers are in my office. I've handled a few of the original b&w negs. Other than being competently exposed
and developed, everything else is left up to the high-tech skills and imagination of the hired guns. I'm only a gear and related idea source way,way down that food
chain. The last time I was involved they were doing the digi programs to laser etch the pattern for what were essentially thousands of little picture puzzle pieces
made out about twenty different shades of solid hardwood. The nature of this project was not feasible CNC, so they came to me to discuss it and I sold them the
appropriate equip. The end result was going to be a huge self-portrait of Close, all done in true hardwood colors. The idea was his, all the practical execution up to
them. I'm sure the final result was stunning, but didn't even bother to ask where the final installation was going to be, or if it was a private commission. I deal with
a number of very creative artists and hired-gun craftsmen, so just another day at the office (except the past two days, stuck at the desk more than usual due to
a gout attack in my left foot!)

[Tin Can]

A lot, there are power packs everywhere.


By the way, how much strobe power do you think he was cranking for those portraits? They have more depth of field going than a lot of 8x10 portraits.

[Tin Can]

Ah, gout attack, Drew, I comisterate. My first attack 3 years ago had me seriously considering shooting my big toe off. I figured it would hurt less. Gout pain as you know, is right at the top of the scale. The only thing worse is all the stupid advice you get.

I am lucky to have not had an attack in over a year...

And I don't know the cure.

[Drew Wiley]

So now you know why I get cranky and often give out stupid advice ! Anyway ... seems to be settling down at least enough for a darkroom session tomorrow, and I'll probably be on the trail again with my 8x10 in a week or so. It's raining like crazy here anyway (finally). All my habitual typos are from finger "rheumatiz" more
related to the sudden weather change itself.

[austin granger]

I see your point Austin and I like what you say. I think you're right but, there's a point in between. Is it really necessary to light them THAT badly? It almost seems like he tried to make them look bad on purpose.

Well, maybe Close is sort of "righting the ship," in the sense that because we've seen so many elevated, exalted portraits of these subjects (as if the photographers were reinforcing the idea that these stars are gods, separate from us), that in order to bring them back down to "ordinary" people status, to return them to the real individuals that they are, Close had to make the pictures look somewhat ugly. In any case, I don't think they're mean-spirited pictures. If anything could describe how I feel when when looking at them, I guess "sympathetic" would be the word. Not sympathetic because the subjects look bad (I really don't think they do), but because they look ordinary. I think Close did what what he had to do to get this feeling across. Maybe that is what is required: to make a "real" picture of a star they have to be made to look like the guy that picks up your garbage. Conversely, to make a "real" picture of a garbageman, you have to make him look like a saint. The truth of course, is somewhere in the middle-everyone on earth is both a flawed and holy individual.

*No offense to garbagemen. It was just an example. I don't even know what my garbageman looks like. He might look like Brad Pitt for all I know.

[Drew Wiley]

Taking plain "down to earth" portraits of celebrities is very old hat by now. At least he's not wearing them down with fatigue to the point he's claiming to reveal their
"inner soul" like Avedon did, which was in fact just a ploy of popping the shutter when they were at optimum exhaustion and looked downright haggard and depressed, like sitting in a dental chair for hours on end. Possibly the same rationale behind using a less than flattering perspective with a relatively short focal length
lens. Besides the folks doing all the real printing decisions for Close, I've had some good discussions with surviving assistants to Hurrell, and have even seen a number
of the original negs, and have discussed any number of bit of logistical and tech lore. An interesting contrast in how celebrities were treated. But in both cases,
most of the work and even creative heavy-lifting was actually done by someone other than the artists themselves.

[StoneNYC]

Taking plain "down to earth" portraits of celebrities is very old hat by now. At least he's not wearing them down with fatigue to the point he's claiming to reveal their
"inner soul" like Avedon did, which was in fact just a ploy of popping the shutter when they were at optimum exhaustion and looked downright haggard and depressed, like sitting in a dental chair for hours on end. Possibly the same rationale behind using a less than flattering perspective with a relatively short focal length
lens. Besides the folks doing all the real printing decisions for Close, I've had some good discussions with surviving assistants to Hurrell, and have even seen a number
of the original negs, and have discussed any number of bit of logistical and tech lore. An interesting contrast in how celebrities were treated. But in both cases,
most of the work and even creative heavy-lifting was actually done by someone other than the artists themselves.

I've heard this from a lot of assistance, including some who said that their photographer that they worked for for years, never knew how to use a view camera, and how he had them set it up and then he just clicked the shutter... But was getting $20,000 a shoot... Amazing... Lol

Then again that's hearsay from the assistance, so who knows what really happens, but it wouldn't surprise me...

[Kirk Gittings]

You here so much bullshit from former assistants about how they were really the ones responsible for this and that. I would not put the slightest weight behind such statements. I've heard of ridiculous claims even by my former assistants yet the quality of my work just goes on and on through many assistants whereas they disappear from the profession.

[Drew Wiley]

First of all Kirk, Close is handicapped and in fact incapable of doing anything other than elementary camera operations. He still paints with extreme difficulty, I am
told. Second, the people who process his work have a very very sophisticated facility and proprietary skills that make anything in the world of mere mortal Photoshop skills and inkjet printing look like something from the Pliocene. They've done this kind of things for several decades and once were at the top of the heap when it came to Pt/pd capacity. Emigrated here from NYC, but now nearing retirement. Their "minimum" lab fee is 40K and they won't even accept work from anyone whocan't fetch seven figures for the end product. ... In the other case I referred to the "lab AND cameraman" worked directly with Hurrell for many years, and still possesses many of the original negs, separation negs, and early Kodachromes - I've seen em and handled em, and discussed stuff at length which nobody could possibly know unless they had been thoroughly integrated into the whole workflow. So in at least the first instance I referred to, even the bulk of the
esthetic decisions were made by the craftsmen en route. Close merely furnished the neg and the general idea of what he wanted. You can't get too specific when
the entire method of display reproduction has to be outright invented before anyone knows what it will finally look like. That is what these folks specialize in.
I suspect that in the hardwood puzzle project I just described, they got around 75K and Close probably ten times that, but that's how it works!

[Drew Wiley]

... I don't think that it's any big secret that Hurrell employed camera operators as well as lab helpers and studio set designers, and was himself more of the supervisor
and marketeer. Usually someone else did the actual shooting. The last big portrait studio in this area worked in the same manner, essentially as an assembly line where the owner/"photographer" outlined the workflow, but left everything else, including actual shooting, to employees. Last nite I was watching a new documentary on the Civil War, and there too, Matthew Brady did very little if any of the actual photographer. He hired employees for that disgusting business, under
those conditions, and concentrated on marketing. And it's unthinkable that Close works without helpers. That he trips the shutter himself is commendable, but after
that someone else has to take over. Not a criticism... he's already earned his wings as a hands-on painter.

[jcoldslabs]

I will reserve final judgment until I have seen the prints in person because scale matters. I remember seeing some of Avedon's "American West" portraits in a magazine article at the time and I thought they were good, but a bit stark. Then I went and saw the whole exhibit at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston and was blown away. BLOWN. FRIGGIN'. AWAY. It was not only the size of the prints and the clarity of them but seeing them all together that affected me so deeply.

Last October there was a Chuck Close exhibit (http://www.blueskygallery.org/exhibition/chuck-close/#1) in town of enormous 103" x 79" woven tapestries made from some of his Daguerreotype portraits. I almost didn't go because it sounded gimmicky, but I was downtown and checked it out anyway. Again, as with the Avedon, I was floored. I stayed in the gallery longer than I have for any show I've seen there, stepping forward to examine the individual threads and then back to take in the portraits as a whole. Amazing work. (This was also true of a Crewdson exhibit I saw a decade ago. The scale of the prints is part of the impact.)

Jonathan

[Tin Can]

+1 and all in one show could be amazing. I also look forward to viewing for several reasons, not the least to actually view the print quality. Who knows maybe I will sell everything to chase the magic bullet 20x24 camera print.

Not likely.


I will reserve final judgment until I have seen the prints in person because scale matters. I remember seeing some of Avedon's "American West" portraits in a magazine article at the time and I thought they were good, but a bit stark. Then I went and saw the whole exhibit at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston and was blown away. BLOWN. FRIGGIN'. AWAY. It was not only the size of the prints and the clarity of them but seeing them all together that affected me so deeply.

Last October there was a Chuck Close exhibit (http://www.blueskygallery.org/exhibition/chuck-close/#1) in town of enormous 103" x 79" woven tapestries made from some of his Daguerreotype portraits. I almost didn't go because it sounded gimmicky, but I was downtown and checked it out anyway. Again, as with the Avedon, I was floored. I stayed in the gallery longer than I have for any show I've seen there, stepping forward to examine the individual threads and then back to take in the portraits as a whole. Amazing work. (This was also true of a Crewdson exhibit I saw a decade ago. The scale of the prints is part of the impact.)

Jonathan

[Scott --]

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.


Absolutely spot-on, and eloquently states my current dysfunction with format choices in general.

[Andrew O'Neill]

(except the past two days, stuck at the desk more than usual due to a gout attack in my left foot!)

Ooh I feel your pain! I haven't had a gout attack for years, since I got control of my cholesterol and started exercising regularly, and staying away from foods that are high in purines.

[Jim Graves]

Joining this discussion late ... I will only interject two questions:

1) If you viewed this portfolio and did not know who shot it or what media was used, what would your opinion of the portraits be?
2) Should it make a difference who shot it and what media was used?

[Peter Lewin]

Drew: Apologies for a question which is slightly off the main subject, but related to your comments in two posts about cases where the "named photographer" didn't really take the pictures, merely "directed" the shoot. You mentioned George Hurrell. I just finished reading (and trying to learn something from the photographs in) "George Hurrell's Hollywood" by Mark Vieira. At least from my reading of the text, Hurrell not only took the pictures, he essentially performed one-man routines (singing, telling stories, jumping around), anything to get the expressions he wanted from the Hollywood personalities he was photographing. He also was responsible for most of the lighting. However, you seem to know people who were directly involved, and present a different version. Could you elaborate a little? It's an interesting subject, because some recent posts about Mapplethorpe pointed out that he had relatively little involvement in many of his photographs as well, again leaving the bulk of the process to assistants, and I have heard similar things about some of the current crop of "large format theatrically staged" photographers, like Gregory Crewdson, who have entire set construction staffs, "cherry pickers" to photograph from, and so on.

I guess this leads to two discussions: (1) I'm curious specifically about Hurrell, since your actual experience with his printer and assistants seems different from the book, and (2) a more general discussion about how much a photographer has to be responsible for to be "the photographer" of an image.

[Dave Wooten]

Www.hyperallergic.com54104/my-chuck-close-problem/

[Dave Wooten]

Try googling my Chuck Close problem hyperallergic Scott Blake
Interesting

[Tin Can]

Your link was off a bit, maybe this is better.

http://hyperallergic.com/54104/my-chuck-close-problem/

I love it! The guy is right, he is sampling and all art is derivative.

He needs to fight!


Try googling my Chuck Close problem hyperallergic Scott Blake
Interesting

[StoneNYC]

Joining this discussion late ... I will only interject two questions:

1) If you viewed this portfolio and did not know who shot it or what media was used, what would your opinion of the portraits be?
2) Should it make a difference who shot it and what media was used?

Context matters...

110118

Does the subject matter?

Does the photographer matter?

Does the timeframe in history matter?

Does the timeframe within the subjects life matter?

Does the medium matter?

Could go on and on...yes, yes, yes, YES....

[Jim Graves]

You've attached an iconic photo of two famous people to buttress your statement that context matters ... but is that photo any less powerful if you don't know who they are? ... or when it was taken ... or what medium was used ... or who took the photo?

Does it add a point of interest that it is Lennon and Ono and that it was taken by Leibovitz ... absolutely ... does it make any difference what camera, lens, or film she used ... or where or when the photo was taken or who the subjects are? Do those facts make it a better or more powerful photo ... I don't think so.

I'm not a big Leibovitz fan ... she pretty much exemplifies the "context" argument for photography ... but the photo of Lennon and Ono is a great photo regardless of who it is or who took it.

In 100 years it won't matter who it was or who took it ... It'll still be a great photo.

[StoneNYC]

You've attached an iconic photo of two famous people to buttress your statement that context matters ... but is that photo any less powerful if you don't know who they are? ... or when it was taken ... or what medium was used ... or who took the photo?

Does it add a point of interest that it is Lennon and Ono and that it was taken by Leibovitz ... absolutely ... does it make any difference what camera, lens, or film she used ... or where or when the photo was taken? Do those facts make it a better or more powerful photo ... I don't think so.

The photo is powerful, very, it's wonderful...

The fact that it's john Lennon, and that it's the last photo of him ever and he died the same day or what-not, yes it makes it way more powerful...

Just like that tintype of Phillip Seymour Hoffman is way more powerful since he died right after, there are many more powerful images in the set of tintypes, much better images, much more emotive and famous people, but the context in time when the image was taken make it a way more powerful image.

I'm not saying images that are good only come from famous people, I'm saying context matters...

If I told you I shot this 4x5 chrome of a young girl, is it interesting, maybe

110119

Now if I told you it was Tori Anos as a young girl looking toward a bright future, does the image suddenly have more appeal, are you now drawn to look at the image, to analyze the bright red hair, the shimmer in her eyes and the innocence, knowing what has happened to her since and her path in life... Don't you want to take a second look, and suddenly it's more powerful?

110119

And then...

I tell you that this is just a girl, a young artist, not Tori Amos... Just some girl... She's interesting, but seeing it you would pass by it quickly, no second looks, no deeper thoughts.

[jcoldslabs]

If I told you...

Now if I told you....

I'd rather you tell me nothing. If there needs to be explanatory text to accompany a photograph then the photograph is incomplete in some way. I prefer to encounter photographs without any context at all, at least on first viewing. I don't want to know who took it, or why, or with what gear, or on what film. I want to evaluate images at face value with as little bias as possible, like a blind taste test.

As for the Chuck Close portraits under discussion, if in order to truly appreciate them I have to know who he is, and I have to know the strict conditions under which he took them, and I have to know who his famous subjects are, then the photos have failed in a fundamental way. What makes them good photographs should be contained within the images themselves, not outside of them.

One of the things I love most about Avedon's In the American West portraits is that the staging is always the same and the people are anonymous, and therefore what shines through is the character of each subject and the mastery of the photographer. By leaving the film borders visible in the prints Avedon is signalling to the viewer that he used 8x10 film, a visual clue that requires no added words to convey.

Jonathan

[SergeiR]

Sorry. Dont like them. At all. Thats about it. I am sure there are reasons to collect or like them. But they dont speak to me artistically or photographically (nothing of interest going on there). 20x24 is cool, but thats about it.

[Monty McCutchen]

The photo is powerful, very, it's wonderful...

The fact that it's john Lennon, and that it's the last photo of him ever and he died the same day or what-not, yes it makes it way more powerful...

Just like that tintype of Phillip Seymour Hoffman is way more powerful since he died right after, there are many more powerful images in the set of tintypes, much better images,…….



And the



Funny you should use the tintype of Philliip Seymour Hoffman as an example of lauding context when in fact for me it is the negative connotative epitome of many of the points highlighted in this discussion about Close's work. A celebrity photographer, Victoria Will, gets the assignment to shoot celebrities digitally, decides on a whim to watch some youtube videos on wet plate work, buys pre-made kits from Bostick and Sullivan before heading out to Sundance, uses her celebrity to sell the idea and then proceeds to shoot plates for the first time that I wouldn't show privately, much less publicly. Everything wrong with how to use access to a unique opportunity and in the process make not bad, but horrible work from a craft perspective and for me even an art perspective. And then due to an awful event in a celebrity's life, the photograph is lauded for somehow tapping into Seymore Hoffman's last days of turmoil. Give me a break. If I were Katie Couric, Maggie Gyllenhaal, and Kurt Russell I would sue her for slander those plates are so horrific. When context, OR PROCESS, OR FORMAT SIZE, becomes THE ONLY REASON a photograph has value then the photographer has failed on so many levels as to be embarrassing. Kirk said it best earlier, that pushing boundaries and breaking rules can be exhilarating, exciting and filled with art--but you have to have mastered the rules, the craft first so you can be their master, not have that dynamic of mastery reversed and be at the whim of context or interpretation, or format size to hope your work has merit. My kid puts every subject dead center in his photos, he's twelve, and I can assure you he's not 'creating tension' in the composition. The example of the tintype work by Victoria Will, a twelve year old equivalent, who's brought the work home from art class and is hoping you will be her mommy and put it on the refrigerator. Its awful work that is only cool because Wet Plate is hot right now and the in alternative process. I've said this before and unfortunately will probably feel the need to say it again--I can't wait for Wet Plate to become more mundane so that it can assume its rightful place as one form of photographic syntax that when used properly can convey a visual language that is meaningful because the artist used its properties with skill and vision. The same can be said of 20 x 24 big camera work, or Polaroid materials or any combination of those tools. But if you use those tools for the sake of the tools like the example above then you are manipulating status, or craft to hide your lack of artistic vision and you are no different than the musician that has one hit and then spends his/her entire life trying to repeat work. The tintypes referenced above fit many of those characteristics and are low hanging fruit at its worst.

Monty

[Dave Wooten]

Funny you should use the tintype of Philliip Seymour Hoffman as an example of lauding context when in fact for me it is the negative connotative epitome of many of the points highlighted in this discussion about Close's work. A celebrity photographer, Victoria Will, gets the assignment to shoot celebrities digitally, decides on a whim to watch some youtube videos on wet plate work, buys pre-made kits from Bostick and Sullivan before heading out to Sundance, uses her celebrity to sell the idea and then proceeds to shoot plates for the first time that I wouldn't show privately, much less publicly. Everything wrong with how to use access to a unique opportunity and in the process make not bad, but horrible work from a craft perspective and for me even an art perspective. And then due to an awful event in a celebrity's life, the photograph is lauded for somehow tapping into Seymore Hoffman's last days of turmoil. Give me a break. If I were Katie Couric, Maggie Gyllenhaal, and Kurt Russell I would sue her for slander those plates are so horrific. When context, OR PROCESS, OR FORMAT SIZE, becomes THE ONLY REASON a photograph has value then the photographer has failed on so many levels as to be embarrassing. Kirk said it best earlier, that pushing boundaries and breaking rules can be exhilarating, exciting and filled with art--but you have to have mastered the rules, the craft first so you can be their master, not have that dynamic of mastery reversed and be at the whim of context or interpretation, or format size to hope your work has merit. My kid puts every subject dead center in his photos, he's twelve, and I can assure you he's not 'creating tension' in the composition. The example of the tintype work by Victoria Will, a twelve year old equivalent, who's brought the work home from art class and is hoping you will be her mommy and put it on the refrigerator. Its awful work that is only cool because Wet Plate is hot right now and the in alternative process. I've said this before and unfortunately will probably feel the need to say it again--I can't wait for Wet Plate to become more mundane so that it can assume its rightful place as one form of photographic syntax that when used properly can convey a visual language that is meaningful because the artist used its properties with skill and vision. The same can be said of 20 x 24 big camera work, or Polaroid materials or any combination of those tools. But if you use those tools for the sake of the tools like the example above then you are manipulating status, or craft to hide your lack of artistic vision and you are no different than the musician that has one hit and then spends his/her entire life trying to repeat work. The tintypes referenced above fit many of those characteristics and are low hanging fruit at its worst.

Monty
Wow! Well said!

[StoneNYC]

Funny you should use the tintype of Philliip Seymour Hoffman as an example of lauding context when in fact for me it is the negative connotative epitome of many of the points highlighted in this discussion about Close's work. A celebrity photographer, Victoria Will, gets the assignment to shoot celebrities digitally, decides on a whim to watch some youtube videos on wet plate work, buys pre-made kits from Bostick and Sullivan before heading out to Sundance, uses her celebrity to sell the idea and then proceeds to shoot plates for the first time that I wouldn't show privately, much less publicly. Everything wrong with how to use access to a unique opportunity and in the process make not bad, but horrible work from a craft perspective and for me even an art perspective. And then due to an awful event in a celebrity's life, the photograph is lauded for somehow tapping into Seymore Hoffman's last days of turmoil. Give me a break. If I were Katie Couric, Maggie Gyllenhaal, and Kurt Russell I would sue her for slander those plates are so horrific. When context, OR PROCESS, OR FORMAT SIZE, becomes THE ONLY REASON a photograph has value then the photographer has failed on so many levels as to be embarrassing. Kirk said it best earlier, that pushing boundaries and breaking rules can be exhilarating, exciting and filled with art--but you have to have mastered the rules, the craft first so you can be their master, not have that dynamic of mastery reversed and be at the whim of context or interpretation, or format size to hope your work has merit. My kid puts every subject dead center in his photos, he's twelve, and I can assure you he's not 'creating tension' in the composition. The example of the tintype work by Victoria Will, a twelve year old equivalent, who's brought the work home from art class and is hoping you will be her mommy and put it on the refrigerator. Its awful work that is only cool because Wet Plate is hot right now and the in alternative process. I've said this before and unfortunately will probably feel the need to say it again--I can't wait for Wet Plate to become more mundane so that it can assume its rightful place as one form of photographic syntax that when used properly can convey a visual language that is meaningful because the artist used its properties with skill and vision. The same can be said of 20 x 24 big camera work, or Polaroid materials or any combination of those tools. But if you use those tools for the sake of the tools like the example above then you are manipulating status, or craft to hide your lack of artistic vision and you are no different than the musician that has one hit and then spends his/her entire life trying to repeat work. The tintypes referenced above fit many of those characteristics and are low hanging fruit at its worst.

Monty

I said powerful, not "good" I agree that tintype sucks, some of the other ones aren't so horrible. Still, I'm saying context matters. People look at that image because is context, no one would have even seen them if he hadn't passed.

PS I wish yiu said that whole thing in the thread, that was some great wording on her just picking it up recently. Didn't know that.

[cowanw]

I doubt very much any one knows Hill and Adamson's subjects now. Or who August Sander's subjects ever were. Or Man Ray's. I suspect good strong images remain that, even after Societal Alzheimer's kicks in. Context passes quite quickly these days.

[Kirk Gittings]

Some are asking why all the buzz about these crappy portraits. In architecture you oftentimes see architects do their most innovative work later in their careers. In many cases these innovative ideas were hatched decades ago but they did not have the reputation to get clients to commit millions of dollars to get their ideas built and when they are built, problem plagued or not they get massive exposure and press. The art press is not a sanctifying body but a purveyor of what it sees as newsworthy. Almost anything well established international artists do is newsworthy hence all the buzz about Close's recent work is closely related to who he is and is virtually unrelated to the quality of that work. All the press does not suggest that the project is "good" but simply interesting because of who did it.

[Darin Boville]

Or who August Sander's subjects ever were.

Not by name but we know their occupations, their "type." That is integral to the work, although we don't see the work quite the same way as Sanders intended.

--Darin

[Jim Graves]

I go back and forth on the importance of context in critiquing art ... to be "successful" art it must somehow engage the observer ... and context can certainly enhance the experience ... and, StoneNYC's choice of the Leibovitz Lennon/Ono photo is a perfect example ...

Many factors create great art ... but ... to me, at least, context is probably the least important. Of course, as always, that opinion is worth what you paid me for it.

[Kirk Gittings]

[/QUOTE] I'd rather you tell me nothing. If there needs to be explanatory text to accompany a photograph then the photograph is incomplete in some way. I prefer to encounter photographs without any context at all, at least on first viewing. I don't want to know who took it, or why, or with what gear, or on what film. I want to evaluate images at face value with as little bias as possible, like a blind taste test.[/QUOTE]

Need this be an either or proposition? Because there is text does that mean the photograph cannot also stand on its own? Because there is text does that mean that it needed text?

[jcoldslabs]

Kirk,

I shouldn't be so dogmatic, but this issue is a personal bugaboo. I was being reductionist in my comments, perhaps unfairly.

It is not either/or per se, but my preference is to see photos without context. If a photograph needs to be buttressed by text then the photographer has missed the mark. It reminds me of the old "show don't tell (http://litreactor.com/essays/chuck-palahniuk/nuts-and-bolts-%E2%80%9Cthought%E2%80%9D-verbs)" adage for writers. If I want to take a melancholy portrait, then I should imbue the image with that mood through my technique, not take an ordinary portrait and title it, "Woman Feeling Sad" or describe in a sidebar the effect I was trying to achieve.

I was talking with my wife about the Chuck Close portraits and she was telling me that many blogs she follows, especially those written by young women, were abuzz about the Scarlett Johansson and Kate Winslet photos. Why? Because these famously glamorous actors looked so plain, so ordinary....so much like them. That was their take-away. 20x24 Polaroid meant nothing to them. Lens choice meant nothing. Who Chuck Close is meant nothing. The conditions under which the photos were made meant nothing. Nor should they.

That's not to say that explanations or historical context can't ultimately enrich one's appreciation of a photograph, but I think they are more often a crutch for the photographer than an integral part of the viewing experience.

Jonathan

[StoneNYC]

Kirk,

I shouldn't be so dogmatic, but this issue is a personal bugaboo. I was being reductionist in my comments, perhaps unfairly.

It is not either/or per se, but my preference is to see photos without context. If a photograph needs to be buttressed by text then the photographer has missed the mark. It reminds me of the old "show don't tell (http://litreactor.com/essays/chuck-palahniuk/nuts-and-bolts-%E2%80%9Cthought%E2%80%9D-verbs)" adage for writers. If I want to take a melancholy portrait, then I should imbue the image with that mood through my technique, not take an ordinary portrait and title it, "Woman Feeling Sad" or describe in a sidebar the effect I was trying to achieve.

I was talking with my wife about the Chuck Close portraits and she was telling me that many blogs she follows, especially those written by young women, were abuzz about the Scarlett Johansson and Kate Winslet photos. Why? Because these famously glamorous actors looked so plain, so ordinary....so much like them. That was their take-away. 20x24 Polaroid meant nothing to them. Lens choice meant nothing. Who Chuck Close is meant nothing. The conditions under which the photos were made meant nothing. Nor should they.

That's not to say that explanations or historical context can't ultimately enrich one's appreciation of a photograph, but I think they are more often a crutch for the photographer than an integral part of the viewing experience.

Jonathan

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...

Context...

[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=david+bailey&client=safari&rls=en&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=O634UpfMA8L6oAT54YCIDw&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=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=david+bailey&client=safari&rls=en&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=O634UpfMA8L6oAT54YCIDw&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=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=chuck+close&espv=210&es_sm=119&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=D_X4Us2NJ83toATAmYGgCA&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=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=chuck+close&espv=210&es_sm=119&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=D_X4Us2NJ83toATAmYGgCA&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=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=chuck+close&espv=210&es_sm=119&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=D_X4Us2NJ83toATAmYGgCA&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=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

[Kirk Gittings]

To characterize them as copies I would have to see the original photos side by side with the paintings I guess. Are you using that term in a derogative sense?

[Darin Boville]

Are you using that term in a derogative sense?

Oh, not at all. I like Close's work, although--as you know--you really have to see the real things, at least with the paintings--to really get it. They are quite large. And with the later paintings, with all the color patches, you have to be able to stand back a ways and then walk up.

But I think even Close would describe the paintings as something like a copy. Not sure what a better word might be. Maybe there isn't one.

--Darin

[Tin Can]

Yes, Chuck Close paintings must be seen in person and looked at from several viewing distances. They are impossible to appreciate on a computer, let alone a phablet.

But most won't bother.

I have never seen a 20x24 Polaroid, it's on the list.

[Darin Boville]

A little serendipity. Flipping through a used book that came in the mail a week or so ago--and there is a page on Close with him talking about how he used photographs for his painting, how he came to do photographs as the finished art work, and a sample of one of his early photographic works that actually has the grid lines I mentioned penciled on it. Very cool.

--Darin

110249110248

[Darin Boville]

The forum software made the grid lines very hard to see. Here is a closer shot:

--Darin

110250

[Tin Can]

He is unique in his vision. So he considers his paintings to be reproduction photographs? How are his hand made paintings any different than a digital machine squirting ink in patterns, like inkjet photographic prints.



The forum software made the grid lines very hard to see. Here is a closer shot:

--Darin

110250

[StoneNYC]

Anyone who ever has taken a standard art class in high school would know this technique it's a very traditional way to make a drawing from another piece of imagery, I did this in high school for sure but the gridlines and then reproducing it onto another medium.

[Darin Boville]

Anyone who ever has taken a standard art class in high school would know this technique it's a very traditional way to make a drawing from another piece of imagery, I did this in high school for sure but the gridlines and then reproducing it onto another medium.

My high school kid uses the technique all the time--it's been used forever. But it does go a long way toward answering whether Close's paintings are in some sense "copies"...

--Darin

[Drew Wiley]

Again... go back to how he has to compose things mentally. He cannot recognize faces, so he broke up each one into grids than worked from that. Eventually, in
some of his later paintings, these grids sections took meaning on their own, and the painting works as a composite of them, vaguely analogous to how a cubist might
break things up and reassemble them on a flat surface. To say he was simply reproducing a photograph on canvas might have been partially correct back in his
strictly "photorealist" days, but not really, because a painter can introduce many subtle changes that distinguish it as a painting rather than a photograph. But the
manner in which Close did this, and not really the scale, is what became so interesting. And it is that transition from one to another, particularly when he had taken
a little more liberty with it, that I find way more interesting than just huge photographs, printed by others.

[Tin Can]

Some of my generation were never allowed art or shop classes. I changed schools yearly and in every one I was only allowed math, science, language, history. I didn't take an art class until I went to art school in my 50's. MFA 2001.

Sputnik, 1957, changed my education to science and math. I entered college with 2 years tested AP college credit, but soon quit, when they tried to force me take 4 years anyway. Waste of time.

Assuming common experience is always a mistake, as is assuming Chuck Close is not operating on a higher level, despite known handicaps.


Anyone who ever has taken a standard art class in high school would know this technique it's a very traditional way to make a drawing from another piece of imagery, I did this in high school for sure but the gridlines and then reproducing it onto another medium.

[Drew Wiley]

I was forced to stay in High School four years, despite finishing all the requirements in two. So nothing to do except either take art classes or run cross country for
hours all day. Chose the latter, and since it was way out in the country, just felt like getting let out of school early. Spent a lot of the warmer months swimming in
the creek down in the school Ag Farm. So we certainly were in shape. And I wasn't allowed to take shop classes - only the "dummies" were. Was forced to read
Sophocles and all that nonsense. College was worse, but I managed to do a lot of independent study and actually learn something. Took one mandatory art class
in college. Was that ever a waste of time.

[StoneNYC]

I was forced to stay in High School four years, despite finishing all the requirements in two. So nothing to do except either take art classes or run cross country for
hours all day. Chose the latter, and since it was way out in the country, just felt like getting let out of school early. Spent a lot of the warmer months swimming in
the creek down in the school Ag Farm. So we certainly were in shape. And I wasn't allowed to take shop classes - only the "dummies" were. Was forced to read
Sophocles and all that nonsense. College was worse, but I managed to do a lot of independent study and actually learn something. Took one mandatory art class
in college. Was that ever a waste of time.

So basically you're telling us that you're background is that of an aristocrat was also a mental genius, along with being a physical god...

[Drew Wiley]

Nope. Just another hillbilly in a cowboy and Indian town (literally) - a high school district larger than six New England states, literally back then, but mostly uninhabited. All my old running pals are apparently still alive - something pretty rare in that demographic. Almost 50% of my high school class was dead by the 10th
reunion. No sense telling any stories. Flatlanders would never believe them anyway. Anyone from that part of the world would. I've seen just too many Country
Western songs play out in real life. But it was the Reservations that where the violence really got out of hand. One of my ole crosscountry cronies has since established a school to try to keep at least one of the local dialects alive, and some of the authentic culture. Another became a bigwig in the Forest Service - I'm
really surprised, in his case, that he survived those three-man shoulder stands climbing waterfalls (he was the little guy at the top, who had to tie the rope off).
We sure did a lot of dumb things as kids, but's that's just the way it was in the mountains. ... No danger of injury or getting crippled - we made certain of that -
if we did fall, it was going to be unequivocally fatal.

[StoneNYC]

Nope. Just another hillbilly in a cowboy and Indian town (literally) - a high school district larger than six New England states, literally back then, but mostly uninhabited. All my old running pals are apparently still alive - something pretty rare in that demographic. Almost 50% of my high school class was dead by the 10th
reunion. No sense telling any stories. Flatlanders would never believe them anyway. Anyone from that part of the world would. I've seen just too many Country
Western songs play out in real life. But it was the Reservations that where the violence really got out of hand. One of my ole crosscountry cronies has since established a school to try to keep at least one of the local dialects alive, and some of the authentic culture. Another became a bigwig in the Forest Service - I'm
really surprised, in his case, that he survived those three-man shoulder stands climbing waterfalls (he was the little guy at the top, who had to tie the rope off).
We sure did a lot of dumb things as kids, but's that's just the way it was in the mountains. ... No danger of injury or getting crippled - we made certain of that -
if we did fall, it was going to be unequivocally fatal.

Are you native?

[Drew Wiley]

Nope. But my square dance partner as a little kid grew up to be worth tens of millions due to all the casino stuff these days. Some of the Bugsy types tried to get
rid of her for trying to use casino earnings to set up college scholarship funds for Indians kids. The area was about 55% native American back then, and I had the
rare (now impossible) opportunity to get to know a number of very very old Indians who grew up completely aboriginal. Even most of my own generation knew no
English when they first boarded the school buses, and still harvested acorns. But I don't know what any of this has to do with Chuck Close. There were some amazing
basketmakers among them, and some of their work is now in museums. Not surprising that the mob got involved with that too, and pulled off some big time basket
heists. And exceptional California basket can sometimes fetch as much as 50K on the black market.

[adelorenzo]

I don't want to re-open the discussion but if anyone is interested the full set of images is now posted online.

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2014/03/chuck-close-hollywood-portfolio

[Tin Can]

Goody!