Cafarella

Kayla CafarellaRyan GallagherEnglish 12 Period 629 March 2010

Chuck Close

Chuck Close is a modern contemporary painter and photographer whose portraits

speak through his ability to incorporate “photorealism” or “superrealism” (Storr 19) in a

time of Abstract Expressionism in the 1970s.

Close was born into a lower middle class family, as an only child in Monroe,

Washington. His mother was a trained musician, who often nurtured his artistic talents.

His father was an inventor who was dedicated to his career, but had also struggled with

serious health issues throughout Close’s childhood. Growing up, his life changed

dramatically when he lost his father at age 11 (Storr 24).

Throughout adolescence, Close had a hard time keeping good grades. Aside from

dealing with chronic poor health He had struggled with learning disabilities (Storr 24).

He struggled Mostly with dyslexia as a child, making schoolwork a challenge for him. He

had such a struggle with his academic career that was told to just give up on his

education, but that didn’t stop him from excelling in school (Danto 106).

As a matter of fact, it was said that “his artistic gifts helped him compensate”

because it was his art that helped him finish high school through extra-credit projects

(Pongratz 1). It is said that “he had a knack for finding his own solutions” (Storr 24).

Close even recalls making a “ten foot long map of the Lewis and Clark Expedition” for

extra credit (Danto 106).

As he started to excel in school in the later years, Close went on to go to

Washington University, where he achieved high honors. He eventually continued his

1

Cafarella

education at Yale University’s graduate program where he would later graduate with a

Fulbright Scholarship to Vienna (Storr 24).

During Close’s years attending Yale, he became involved in the design

department at Yale through the mid-1960s, when he became part of an artistic community

largely composed of his fellow graduates of Yale, who were as determined to make art

their career as he was. They were known as the “Junior Abstract Expressionists” who

often felt under pressure to create a signature style of artwork. They felt that their ulterior

motive wasn’t just to make good artwork, but “redefine the conception of art”.

Close achieved did exactly that, except he went against the Abstract

Expressionistic movement by doing the opposite, rather than expressing the abstract, he

expressed the real and it showed as he created banner-sized portraits often depicting the

subject of importance (Danto 106). He seemed to have a desire to create his own a style

of work. He wanted to have a style different from any other artist, and it seemed to be the

drive in his career. Close said “There is no self exception in relation to other selves, so

there is no artist except in relation to other artists” (Storr 30).

In an interview Close was asked about realism during the beginning of his career

in of the Pop Art Era and he responded that during the 60s “painting was dead, sculpting

ruled; painting seemed like a senseless activity. If you were dumb enough to make a

painting it had better be abstract. It was even dumber to make a representational image.”

He continued, “Then the dumbest most moribund, most out-of-date and shopworn thing

you could do was make a portrait. And I remember Clement Greenburg said the only

thing in art you can’t do anymore is make a portrait. I thought, well, if Greenburg thinks

he can’t do it, then I’m going to have a lot of operating room to myself” (Danto 106); and

2

Cafarella

he did. He proved his point and it became a contributing factor to the success to the

counter movement of the Abstract Expressionistic Era, and it is said that his artwork was

even gone as far as to change the face of the art world (Danto 106).

What made Close’s work different from the Abstract Expressionist movement

was his realistic artistic style, which managed to “stretch the creative boundaries in two

dimensional arts” (Pongratz 3). He achieved this by starting out mostly creating highly

meticulous, highly detailed paintings of himself and his friends (Yabroff 1).

1967 was the breakthrough year for recognition of Close and his artwork as he

completed a large, nearly 20 feet long. The banner-sized, nude painting was based on a

photograph of a model, which was portrayed in a very “unforgiving” manner. The piece

was very and represented her with all her imperfections; but unfortunately this work

failed to give him the kind of recognition he desired, or deserved in his art career at that

time (Danto 106).

Later that year, Close made a wise decision to turn to portraiture to finally open

the eyes of the art world to his creations. In addition, Gilles Deleuze, a French

philosopher, offered a reason as to why the piece failed to give Close exposure “The

face” he said “is the least bodily part of the human body. When one looked at the nude,

one saw its bodilyness made bland by overexpansion. When one looked Close’s self-

portrait, one saw the individuality of his face intensified by immensification”, (Danto

106) and this theory proved true. Close then created his first famous self-portrait in super

size format, “He leaned back against a wall, lit a cigarette, looked out a bit aggressively

and snapped the shutter” (Danto 106).

3

Cafarella

Later, He decided to turn the close up photograph into an oversized painting and

titled it ‘Big Self-Portrait, 1967-1968’. After the following two years, “the Walker

Center” purchased ‘Big Self-Portrait,’ and began an ongoing relationship with Close” and

this would only be known as the start to his career (Shepard 1).

Beyond Close’s passion for work in portraiture, his stated “wanted to paint every

man and every woman, just regular folks” as his drive in the field of art (Danto 106). In

an interview with Robert Storr in 1997, Close reflected on what the art world was like

when he entered the scene in New York and described it as “A pretty comfortable place

because so many of my friends from grad school were already here” he said what he had

created was like a “ built-in support system” for himself. He also went on to explain “…it

was a much smaller art world than it is now” and when talked about the his rise to fame

in the era of abstract expressionism he said “I though it was a great time for artists, even

though everyone else hated it, because it was not neatly digested, packaged, presented”

(Storr 85).

Close often said about his work as his career climaxed “I could make any kind of

art marks you wanted…Once you know what art looks like it’s not hard to make some of

it…And the dilemma I found myself in after having gotten out of graduate school is

enjoying art but not liking what I made” (Storr 31). He has come a long way since and is

now one of the few artists whose face is recognized by those beyond the art world; and

currently, Chuck Close’s artwork has been popularized and deemed “immediately

recognizable” by many. He has been one of “America’s leading portraitists for over three

decades” (Feeney 11).

4

Cafarella

But at the peak of his career, in December of 1988, Close was once again became

a victim of poor health at the age of 48; when a weak blood cell in his spinal column

ruptured paralyzing him from the neck down. But this setback didn’t stop the artist from

anything. Even without his hands, the paralysis didn’t stop him from doing what he

loved. He still would paint holding the brush between his teeth. He would always invent

new ways to keep creating portraits, as he began “transforming his impediments into an

entirely new style” (Danto 106).

Fortunately, the artist did manage to make some progression in his attempt to

overcome his disability and managed to “recover partial movement, rebuilt strength,

reorganized his working process, and adapted himself to his new condition without

compromising his overall direction of artistic ambition” (Storr 24). It took him a while,

but he was determined to be able to do what had got him through every rough time in his

life, and in this “mid-career reorientation”, he still had to left to prove “that any

restriction set is an opportunity to make something distinctive and fresh” and his critical

physical condition would not end the road to success for Close (Storr 24).

Throughout Close’s career, some of his most famous works have been displayed

in his exhibits of Photorealism Portraiture. “Photorealism” or “Superrealism” didn’t come

about until this technique was utilized in Close’s daguerreotypes during the late 60’s and

70’s, and it’s what really got Close the recognition he deserved as an artist during the

Abstract Expressionistic Era (Storr 19).

In 1983, Chuck Close reentered the art world with his second ‘Big Self-Portrait’;

but this one was much different from the one that had started a career for him. The in

which he employed to turn the exact photograph into a painting was in his traditional

5

Cafarella

studio practice of grid painting (Danto 106). A grid was placed on the photo and he

reproduced each individual cell in a corresponding manner to create an exact result

painted duplicate of the photo onto a 9 foot tall grid canvas (Danto 106).

In painting this big self-portrait, he still stuck with his superrealistic style, but had

tried a different method in creating this piece. Through this piece he introduces grid

painting or “Divisionism” into his work. His use of divisionism works by separating the

color into the individual grids on canvas, which seem to “interact optically” (Blanc 1).

The portrait is done in a monochromatic gray style of color, yet still the image is

well-defined through the grid. There are said to be 250 shades of grayscale, but it is also

said that Close also only used 24 different of the different shades of gray to make this

picture come to life. That’s a pretty narrow range of shades on grayscale for an image to

be accurately represented; but Close pulls it off very exceptionally well with this

particular style of artwork.

Close isn’t just famous for his self-portraits; he also has done numerous

daguerreotypes of a various people of prominence and notoriety. One of which includes

his intricately detailed portraits of model and fashion icon Kate Moss. Upon first glance,

the portrait speaks for itself in all its supperealistic glory, enlarged pores across her skin,

softly tousled hair and glazed eyes that mirror the light; Showing such depth and beauty

in human imperfections, the eye becomes further attracted to her imperfections by the use

of shadows and lighting to highlight and guide the eye. The lack of focus around the

border is another tactic used by Close as to not distract the mind from taking in the

natural details of the daguerreotype.

6

Cafarella

The portrait shows perfection at depicting meticulous realistic detail and each

minor detail, over-looked by the human eye is captured in such refinement. The eye is

drawn toward the imperfections, as they bear some sort of purpose or significance, telling

a story through one’s own interpretations; as if the picture could speak louder than she

could.

Another great representation of Close’s work with portraiture can also be seen in

his current daguerreotype of ‘Self Portrait 2008’ from his “Manquettes and Multi-Park

Work” portfolio. The portrait is yet another great self-portraits of the many created by

Close. What makes the portrait stand out is his use of enlarged, black and white

Polaroids. Each Polaroid is placed together as if it were a puzzle. Each piece combined,

creates a larger, rather distorted, incomplete image of Close, seemingly expressing his

natural disposition.

The work itself is not just a portrayal of the artist, but a portrayal of how far his

personality has changed and what he’s become in his own life. It shows imperfection that

has come together in every aspect to create his own sense of satisfaction. The missing

Polaroids create empty corners representing incompletion; that he’s still changing and

developing as a person yet it also draws attention to the smile on the last Polaroid, the

only picture on the bottom of the daguerreotype.

Although the simple smile on his face is one part of the portrait, it still completes

and defines the piece as a whole. They say there are 50 different ways to smile. A smile

can send a powerful message and for that reason much about a person’s character and

background is interpreted though a person’s a smile. Is the smile indicating that the

person is happy, or is the person just smiling because it’s what someone expects of them?

7

Cafarella

The secret as to what creates that smile is the key to understanding the artists’ expression.

The look of relaxation seems to encompass his appearance in the expression of his aged,

fragmented face seems to convey a sense of shear satisfaction for Close.

Having the smile piece complete the daguerreotype despite the missing corners

signifies that contentment with his life is all he needs to be satisfied. There seems to be

no need for closure, isn’t exactly necessary in his life anymore; his own satisfaction is

enough closure for him, for this reason, there was no need to complete the last two

corners of the portrait.

Another self-portrait from the “Manquettes and Multi-Park Work” portfolio

shows a much different side to Close’s portrayal of himself. In ‘Self/Portrait Diptych’,

two sides of Close are shown. His face shown fragmented down the center shows split

sides of the artist’s portrayal. The piece shows two different hemispheres of his

personality. On the right, his face expresses a serious aspect about his character. The

photo seems subtly smaller in scale compared to the left side and also appears notably

shadier than its counterpart; but what’s interesting is the expression of the left side.

With a simple raise of the eyebrow a viewer can make so many assumptions

concerning the relationship between each side in coexistence, creating the make up of his

entire appearance; but how can these two sides possibly form a condition of coherence in

creating this piece? The idea of the two sides coming together is that they fit together and

belong together. The artist placed these two images beside each other to draw attention to

the contrasting relationship. Their opposing expressions compliment one another and

complete one another.

8

Cafarella

Close’s portrait ‘Emma, 2002’ has also portrayed a different aspect of his abilities

as an artist. ‘Emma, 2002’ is a large scale, polychromatic, oil painting of his niece

utilizing a grid method of painting. In this particular piece, Close does a phenomenal job

experimenting with a mix of color, something that appears to be a contrast compared to

most of his daguerreotypes.

Not only did he was the piece vibrant and beautiful but, Close had experimented

with a technique called “Pointillism”, which is shows much similarity to his method of

the method of “Divisionism” he had used previously to create his self-portrait in 1983.

Pointillism is a sort of variation that is differentiated from Divisionism by his use of

color. This particular portrait intergraded Pointillism into his collection, which is a

technique created by Georges Seurat and used by 18th century artists, (Duchting 8) but

Close seem make this technique his own by intergrading it into contemporary art. The

way it has evolved his line of artwork in this particular collection really displays his

modern mastery of this technique.

Close’s use of pointillism within each grid is displayed in such clarity and

precision, but viewing the painting at a distance, the eye mixes these colors, producing

secondary colors. The tiny fragments of the image come together creating a

comprehensible image of the portrait itself.

Color and technique weren’t the only two aspects of the portrait that made it stand

out but shadow as well produced a more vibrant and lively portrayal of Close’s niece

displaying the contour around her face and facial features. In this particular

daguerreotype, Deep tones of navy blue were mixed with dark emerald green and shades

of Indigo to create this sense of depth rather than having adumbration partially

9

Cafarella

concealing the face of the child. Depth was not created by applying lighting, but by use of

darker shades of color.

10