Chuck Close -- Deguerotypist

[Bill_1856]

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

[Steven Barall]

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

[tim atherton]

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

[Scott Davis]

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

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

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

[Ed Richards]

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

[Ralph Barker]

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

So, would that make him a Daguerrosquirtist? ;)

[Michael Alpert]

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

[Tony Karnezis]

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

[Scott Davis]

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

[Michael Alpert]

As far as I am concerned, Chuck Close's work is his. Art comes from the sensibility of the artist. Titian and Rembrandt had workshops, sculptors work with foundries, printmakers work with printers in ateliers, and in a sense Close has his own ad hoc atelier. Jerry Spagnoli is also an artist and deserves recognition for his own images, but his work for Close is that of a highly skilled and respected craftsman. His beautiful technical work certainly enhances his reputation as an artist. Spagnoli is important to the process, but Chuck Close's body of work belongs exclusively to Close.

[Bill_1856]

Scott, I guess that the artist is whoever they make the check out to. ;<))

[paulr]

Is vision enough to claim authorship?

Of course! That's what authorship means. Photographers throughout the ages had other people print for them. Architects don't build their own buildings; symphonic composers don't play all the instruments; authors don't print their own books.

Little do most people know, Michelangelo actually did very little sculpting at the height of his career. He had an army of skilled tradesment working for him. But he gets artistic the credit. The craftspeople, skilled as they were, were all replaceable. Michelangelo's vision was not.

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

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

I can't recall the exact details, but Close (read: Spagnoli) used some incredibly powerful stobes to take the images at f3.5. Jerry told me that you could smell burning hair after the exposure.

[alec4444]

Is vision enough to claim authorship?


Of course! That's what authorship means. Photographers throughout the ages had other people print for them. Architects don't build their own buildings; symphonic composers don't play all the instruments; authors don't print their own books.

Well, perhaps it's enough to claim authorship, Paul. But I have a sneaking suspicion that if Chuck directed someone other than Jerry in the exact same way he'd have a different result. Jerry is not likely an automaton, and I'm sure there's as much of him in every print as there is Chuck. There may even be more....you have to wonder if they chat and bounce ideas off each other while working.

--A

[Scott Davis]

I have my own opinions on this, and I was asking the question as a philosophical one. Is there ever a point at which we lose authorship over creative work we collaborate on? Is Jerry Spagnoli (a very talented photographer in his own right) merely a technician, or is he a co-creator?

To bring up another example, what about John Dugdale, and his assistant Dan Levin? John is now for all intents and purposes totally blind - I know he works collaboratively with Dan, and Dan operates his camera for him and does printing for him as well. But I also know John is highly knowledgeable about his methods, his media, and makes very deliberate choices where he is the director of everything from placement of models and objects to lighting and composition.

In the case of Chuck, I don't know that I have an answer. In the case of John Dugdale, I would say that no, he does not. In the case of someone like oh, say, Thomas Kinkade, where it is an open question these days if he even paints ANYTHING himself anymore, does he still have the claim of authorship to his work?

This becomes an art-historical conundrum that will be battled out for centuries to come - for example, Bellini's "Feast Of The Gods" is now in dispute as to whether to attribute it to Bellini anymore - it may well be Titian's "Feast Of The Gods", as Titian was a student in Bellini's workshop at the time, and all kinds of persnickety scientific analysis of brushstrokes and paint chemistry are now suggesting that more than a small corner of the canvas was actually painted by Titian.

[Gordon Moat]

http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003531185

Seems to be quite simply a working relationship. This is a short version of the magazine article.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Scott Davis]

To me, that article makes it sound like it was actually very much an equal partnership in the creative process. I guess the credit goes to Chuck because he came to Jerry and said I'd like to do this, can you make it happen.

Thinking of which, as another spin-off from the original topic, has anyone here ever worked collaboratively on a photo project? If so, at what point did you determine authorship of the project?

[Michael Alpert]

[QUOTE=Scott Davis;224999]I have my own opinions on this, and I was asking the question as a philosophical one. Is there ever a point at which we lose authorship over creative work we collaborate on?]

Scott,

The Chuck Close Daguerreotypes and other prints are instantly recognizable as his alone. He has the primary vision involved with his work. And his vision, as realized in the work, transcends style or specific technique. This does not diminish the fine effort of his senior "collaborators"; but anyone working with (or for) a major artist knows, or should know, that they will benefit from the experience but they will not gain ownership. I am sure that Jerry Spagnoli is an adult who makes rational decisions for himself. It's not as if he were a child having his talent fleeced.

I agree that the question of authorship in art is an important philosophical question. I suggest you read the book The Phenomenology of Aesthetic Experience, by Mikel Dufrenne, for a serious investigation of this and related philosophical issues. It is not an easy book, but it is worthwhile. I am not going to try to summarize Dufrenne's thinking. When it comes to real philosophy, the Internet is not a good vehicle. On the Internet, many people, including myself, tend toward overreaching statements when a methodical train of thought would serve Insight better. Best regards,

[Gordon Moat]

I suppose as someone who mostly uses a lab to process my E-6, and uses a lab to make RA4 prints for me as fine art, that those might be considered collaborative images. I hesitate to use that exact term for commercial work. Even though I might be given a brief, or a creative concept, my results are under my control and an expression of my interpretation and creative vision; I work as a creative partner in commercial imaging. Under many countries Copyright Laws, collaborative works fall under different rules.

It also seems like this could be taken in many directions. Did I collaborate with Schneider and Shen-Hao because they made the gear that made it all possible (for me)? Should I credit Kodak and Fuji for producing such great films that I can realize my creative vision? I cannot imagine making all my own gear, nor even my own film (or plates), though maybe I am just an artist with a camera. I don't want to imply that Jerry Spagnoli was simply a replacement for a lab, especially that there is nothing automated nor simple about the chemical processes he accomplishes.

The expression of a creative vision is the artistic aspect of a work of art. Any people that help you achieve that deserve recognition and thanks for making that possible. I draw the line at giving co-authorship, though I suppose everyone else will make their own determinations.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[David A. Goldfarb]

The John Dugdale situation is interesting. Daniel Levin mainly thinks of himself, I gather from speaking with him at his albumen workshop, as a color printer. He learned to make albumen prints for John Dugdale and has become a very proficient albumen printer, but I don't get the sense that he begrudges John Dugdale full credit for the vision behind their collaborative work.

[Scott Davis]

I suppose as someone who mostly uses a lab to process my E-6, and uses a lab to make RA4 prints for me as fine art, that those might be considered collaborative images. I hesitate to use that exact term for commercial work. Even though I might be given a brief, or a creative concept, my results are under my control and an expression of my interpretation and creative vision; I work as a creative partner in commercial imaging. Under many countries Copyright Laws, collaborative works fall under different rules.

It also seems like this could be taken in many directions. Did I collaborate with Schneider and Shen-Hao because they made the gear that made it all possible (for me)? Should I credit Kodak and Fuji for producing such great films that I can realize my creative vision? I cannot imagine making all my own gear, nor even my own film (or plates), though maybe I am just an artist with a camera. I don't want to imply that Jerry Spagnoli was simply a replacement for a lab, especially that there is nothing automated nor simple about the chemical processes he accomplishes.

The expression of a creative vision is the artistic aspect of a work of art. Any people that help you achieve that deserve recognition and thanks for making that possible. I draw the line at giving co-authorship, though I suppose everyone else will make their own determinations.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

Gordon-

I meant specifically collaborate in the sense that Chuck Close and Jerry Spagnoli collaborated, or in the sense of two artists sharing an idea and working together to accomplish that idea - not in the sense of taking ones color work to a lab for printing, or using someone's manufactured tool. At what point, if ever, do you draw the line and say "this is my idea"? Have you ever been confronted with this situation?

[Caroline Matthews]

Why Can't People Spell On This Forum? Idiots!!!

[Ted Harris]

Gordon-

I meant specifically collaborate in the sense that Chuck Close and Jerry Spagnoli collaborated, or in the sense of two artists sharing an idea and working together to accomplish that idea - not in the sense of taking ones color work to a lab for printing, or using someone's manufactured tool. At what point, if ever, do you draw the line and say "this is my idea"? Have you ever been confronted with this situation?


I frequently scan and print for others and I also do a lot of work on some of the images for publication in View Camera. When doing this sort of work I never think in terms of it being "my idea" rather, my goal is always to do my best to see that the final image is what the artist who entrusted it to me intended. I have a different mindset when working like this than I do when working on my own images ... I am totally focused on making the reproduced image resemble the original as closely as possible or the finally printed image mirror the original transparency as closely as possible.

With my own work, I have my own mental image as I made the exposure and that influences me in very different ways. Sometimes, when printing for others, I will ask the artist specific questions about how he/she wants the final print. I prefer to work from a proof that I discuss with them. Nonetheless it is their work. That doesn't mean that I am not often proud of what I have accomplished in bringing out the image.

The cover of the March-April 2006 issue of View Camera was a nude by Peter Gowland. To create that cover I was working with Peter's recollections of what it should look like, several old, bad reproductions and the original 40 year old Ektachrome 8x10 transparency .... now with many scratches from much handling, some registration pin marks and some color shift. I worked long and hard to "get it right" and Peter commented that he had never seen it printed better. For me, his words were a great compliment. It was, is, and will always be his work but his acknowledgement of how I brought the image back to what he, the artist, wanted to see, meant a lot. I suspect Jerry Spagnoli feels the same way.

[Scott Davis]

I frequently scan and print for others and I also do a lot of work on some of the images for publication in View Camera. When doing this sort of work I never think in terms of it being "my idea" rather, my goal is always to do my best to see that the final image is what the artist who entrusted it to me intended. I have a different mindset when working like this than I do when working on my own images ... I am totally focused on making the reproduced image resemble the original as closely as possible or the finally printed image mirror the original transparency as closely as possible.

With my own work, I have my own mental image as I made the exposure and that influences me in very different ways. Sometimes, when printing for others, I will ask the artist specific questions about how he/she wants the final print. I prefer to work from a proof that I discuss with them. Nonetheless it is their work. That doesn't mean that I am not often proud of what I have accomplished in bringing out the image.

The cover of the March-April 2006 issue of View Camera was a nude by Peter Gowland. To create that cover I was working with Peter's recollections of what it should look like, several old, bad reproductions and the original 40 year old Ektachrome 8x10 transparency .... now with many scratches from much handling, some registration pin marks and some color shift. I worked long and hard to "get it right" and Peter commented that he had never seen it printed better. For me, his words were a great compliment. It was, is, and will always be his work but his acknowledgement of how I brought the image back to what he, the artist, wanted to see, meant a lot. I suspect Jerry Spagnoli feels the same way.

Ted- thanks for your response. This is more along the lines of what I was getting after, and it gives me a better perspective on the Chuck Close/Jerry Spagnoli situation.

[Bill_1856]

Why Can't People Spell On This Forum? Idiots!!!

Caroline, I believe that it was either W. Eugene Smith or Eliot Erwitt who said that one of the basic laws of photography is that there is NO correct way to spell Daguerre. (Actually, I looked it up and then screwed it up when typing it. D'oh!)

[Gordon Moat]

Gordon-

I meant specifically collaborate in the sense that Chuck Close and Jerry Spagnoli collaborated, or in the sense of two artists sharing an idea and working together to accomplish that idea - not in the sense of taking ones color work to a lab for printing, or using someone's manufactured tool. At what point, if ever, do you draw the line and say "this is my idea"? Have you ever been confronted with this situation?

Hello Scott,

My second copyright challenge came in the form of an attorney in a band that decided the CD print package and cover I put together for the band was collaborative due to the band giving me a concept of what they wanted. The main idea behind that is a true collaborative work falls under different copyright guidelines. What happened was that went to arbitration, and it ended in my favour. In professional photography (or design) situations, you need to be very careful about ever using that term.

I think perhaps your usage of the term collaborative does not quite fit with how I use it. In my work, that is a legal description that impacts the ownership of copyright. It does not matter how many people I work with, or what the concept, brief or idea stated; when I pushed that shutter button, it became my idea.

I highly value the people I work with, from art directors to stylists to assistants and other designers. In many ways these are the people who make it all possible to realize a creative vision. Some images might never happen without the help of others. They deserve recognition, but (legally) not copyright.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Scott Davis]

Gordon- I understand your distinction, and you're right, I'm not using it in the legalistic sense you are speaking of. Unfortunately, there isn't a good alternative word that means "Collaboration in a legal/copyright sense" vs. "Collaboration in an artistic synergy sense". I'm not talking about the legal sense - I'm talking about the creative sense of collaboration.

I would certainly distinguish the assistants/hired hands/models/crew kind of collaboration from something like the Chuck Close/Jerry Spagnoli collaboration. Working with assistants who help achieve an image is different in that you are still directing them, and you are compensating them financially at the time of their effort for services rendered, to which they have agreed to surrender future claim upon the value of the work you do.

In my way of seeing it, the Chuck/Jerry thing is more of a gray area, because while Chuck had the idea of putting his friends in front of the lens and photographing them in Daguerrotypes, I'd feel fairly confident that without Jerry's involvement, those images might not even exist, because it was specifically Jerry's vision of how to execute these images that Chuck bought into. Obviously, Chuck and Jerry had an agreement that was amenable to both that this was Chuck's ouvre.

[tim atherton]

sometimes it just comes down to what is essentially a power balance.

Chuck Close is an artist with a fairly major international reputation. Jerry Spangoli isn't.

However amicably they may work things out and however friendly their collaboration, that's the reality of it.

[JW Dewdney]

Not to drag on a moot point - but let's just reverse the roles in order to illustrate that this has nothing to do with fame or power. If Mr. Spagnoli had hired Mr. Close to process the Daguerrotypes and the whole idea was Mr. Spagnoli's - it seems to me the credit would go to HIM (Mr. Spagnoli) with Mr. Close getting a possible credit as a technician.

Does that not make sense? Why is this so hard for people to fathom? Does a construction contractor get the credit for designing a building if they're faithfully following (esp. since they are under contract to do so) a set of drawings produced by an architect - since "they're the one's who ACTUALLY built it"??





sometimes it just comes down to what is essentially a power balance.

Chuck Close is an artist with a fairly major international reputation. Jerry Spangoli isn't.

However amicably they may work things out and however friendly their collaboration, that's the reality of it.

[tim atherton]

Not to drag on a moot point - but let's just reverse the roles in order to illustrate that this has nothing to do with fame or power. If Mr. Spagnoli had hired Mr. Close to process the Daguerrotypes and the whole idea was Mr. Spagnoli's - it seems to me the credit would go to HIM (Mr. Spagnoli) with Mr. Close getting a possible credit as a technician.

Does that not make sense?

actually, no it doens't - because it wouldn't really happen. If Joe Blow architects hired Picasso to paint and decorate a house, I bet it would be known as the house by Picasso, no matter how cool the architecture actually was....

In addition, as I understand it, Spagnoli was really working as more than "just" a technican

[JW Dewdney]

Can't really say I agree with that, Tim. if Picasso was working under their instructions - and bore no mark of it having been painted by Picasso - it would not recognizably bear his mark, as it would not be 'his work'. However - if it bore the gestural marks of his signature style on the exterior- then maybe there might be something - but then that would be HIS IDEA and HIS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. I think people become a bit confused and giddy when it comes to fame and authorship. Sorry if I see things like this in black and white... but I do... it makes things a lot simpler. I think it's fair - and legally defensible, too.

I had a roommate in NYC who was a painter. He was always raving on about how his friend, who worked for Jeff Koons, producing his art - was the real author of the work. I say, if they could never have come up with the idea on their own, except under instruction by Koons himself - then that sort of negates any sort of claim to authorship by them... don't you think?

[Scott Davis]

It is my understanding that Chuck Close went to Jerry Spagnoli and said, "I like YOUR daguerrotypes. Help me make some?". Inasmuch as the subject matter was chosen by Chuck, they are Chuck's work. But how much of the rest was Jerry's work perhaps will only be known to the two of them. Was the lighting, and composition, and of course the processing, all Jerry?

One way to look at this is that Chuck came to Jerry and said, I want to photograph these headshots of people, and I like your style of doing it - can you help me make these photos with your process? Had it been someone less famous than Chuck, I'd bet you dollars to donuts that the only name we'd be hearing about in connection with these photos would be Jerry Spagnoli. I know, if someone came to me and asked me to shoot photos in my particular style, using a particular medium which I happen to be highly talented in, and then sold those images as their own creation because they chose the subject matter, I'd be peeved to say the least.

In the long run, I'm sure that Jerry has no complaints, because having done this project, he's getting more visibility and more press than he ever would have without it.

[JW Dewdney]

Oh I see... so you're saying that Mr. Spagnoli had a process that Mr. Close was using to get the result...? Perhaps it's different then - but still - I think even collaborations like this should be considered a subcontract. In this case - Spagnoli would be the subcontractor, or consultant for Close. As long as there's an agreement between them that Close is the author - I really don't see the problem.

[tim atherton]

Can't really say I agree with that, Tim. if Picasso was working under their instructions - and bore no mark of it having been painted by Picasso - it would not recognizably bear his mark, as it would not be 'his work'. However - if it bore the gestural marks of his signature style on the exterior- then maybe there might be something - but then that would be HIS IDEA and HIS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. I think people become a bit confused and giddy when it comes to fame and authorship. Sorry if I see things like this in black and white... but I do... it makes things a lot simpler. I think it's fair - and legally defensible, too.


well, in some ways it would be nice if these things were black and white, but they rarely are (and it has little to do with what is legally correct or not - that is set out in copyright law and any contract they might have - balanced or imbalanced).

This post sets out clearly how grey it quickly becomes:

One way to look at this is that Chuck came to Jerry and said, I want to photograph these headshots of people, and I like your style of doing it - can you help me make these photos with your process? Had it been someone less famous than Chuck, I'd bet you dollars to donuts that the only name we'd be hearing about in connection with these photos would be Jerry Spagnoli. I know, if someone came to me and asked me to shoot photos in my particular style, using a particular medium which I happen to be highly talented in, and then sold those images as their own creation because they chose the subject matter, I'd be peeved to say the least.

[Scott Davis]

Oh I see... so you're saying that Mr. Spagnoli had a process that Mr. Close was using to get the result...? Perhaps it's different then - but still - I think even collaborations like this should be considered a subcontract. In this case - Spagnoli would be the subcontractor, or consultant for Close. As long as there's an agreement between them that Close is the author - I really don't see the problem.

That's my understanding from reading the various interviews and articles about it - Chuck wanted to make daguerrotypes, looked at a lot of daguerrotypist's work, and turned to Jerry and said, "I like yours! Can we make some?". I'm sure that there was a substantive negotiation between them about the work and whose rights were what before the first shutter ever clicked, so this is pure intellectual argumentation on our part.

As a professional photographer, if a client came to me, even bearing bundles of cash, to get my copyright to images I created (even under their direction), it would take a LOT of cash to get me to surrender my copyright. I remember those famous Bruce Weber ads he did for Calvin Klein back in the 80s as a good example. They came to him and said they wanted to hire him to shoot this job, and that they wanted to buy all rights to the images outright, including if I'm not mistaken, the original negatives. His name would not be credited anywhere the images appeared. This set him aback, but then the Calvin Klein folks said, "We're prepared to compensate you highly for this. How does $1Million per ad sound?"

At a million bucks an ad, I'd gladly surrender my copyright.

[Maris Rusis]

The Chuck Close / Jerry Spagnoli relationship highlights the difficulties of artistic attribution but there are more egregious examples.

A friend of mine insists that he has an Andy Warhol print. But did Andy make it? No! It was made after Andy got bored with printmaking by someone Andy hired to make prints in the style he would make were he to make them. Was it signed by Andy? No! Andy was bored with signing prints so he hired someone to sign stuff for him. The strict rule was that only Warhol style pictures would get signed.

Well what then made the picture a Warhol print? Could it be that Andy saw and approved the work so making it his? Actually no. It apparently is enough that Andy could have been in town around the time the print was made to make it authentic.

Taken a little further there is a chance of genuine Warhols being produced posthumously. Provided the style and standards are maintained, provided the original imaginative recipe is recooked faithfully there could be no objection by at least the gullible segment of the art world.

The Chuck Close collaboration with Jerry Spagnoli is very well documented and the provenance of their works is secure and uncontroversial. Any one who buys their work knows what they are getting.

[artworksgallery]

A friend of mine insists that he has an Andy Warhol print. But did Andy make it? No! It was made after Andy got bored with printmaking by someone Andy hired to make prints in the style he would make were he to make them. Was it signed by Andy? No! Andy was bored with signing prints so he hired someone to sign stuff for him. The strict rule was that only Warhol style pictures would get signed.



There are at least a few major artists that have worked in that way with allowing others to create their prints. I have mixed feelings on this, but it is not uncommon.

[cowanw]

Reminds me of Hill and Adamson. Adamson was the technician and as such unrecognized at first. Hill was the vision guy and got recognition. Both were actually required as neither produced photographic work of value separately.
Regards
Bill

[Drew Wiley]

Chuck Close earned his credentials as a painter, so there's no question about his foothold in actual craft. But his photographic work per se has been farmed out in several directions. I know of some 8x10's some of his "self-portraits" which must have involved a cameraman, and then of these being printed up almost twenty foot scale on textiles. Obviously, the actual input by Close is ONLY conceptual, and involves virturally zero actual work. And in fact, it involves very proprietary techniques which have to be farmed out. And it's done as a museum commission. There are advantages
to having a big name.

[Drew Wiley]

An interesing update to all this - was just chatting with the owner of the outfit doing
a lot of Chuck Close's "printing". Right now they're taking his photographs and laser
etching them into large slabs of granite, which will then be shipped back to NYC for a
serial installation. The overhead in a project like this is many millions. An even more
involved project for someone else involves dual etching big slabs then respectively filling in the grooves with some kind of dye or whatever to yield a 3D image for someone wearing dual-colored glasses like in a 3d movie. The glasses probably cost
fifty cents; the printing technology requires a 9000 sq ft workshop.