Saturday, August 05, 2006

So, what do you think of the art of Chuck Close?

In a comment at Ann Althouse's site, I called an exhibition of work that my wife and I saw in San Francisco, "barfarama." Althouse rightly pointed out that I gave my conclusion without giving my reasons. That was fair. So, I wrote this in response:
I didn't give my reason, just my conclusion.

Yes, I feel that his pieces are ugly.

I'm also put off by the constancy of himself as subject.

Of course, Art doesn't have to be beautiful and there is a tradition of artists presenting studies of themselves. But the ugliness is unmitigated and unrelieved in Closes's work.

Grim is the word that comes to mind. And maybe is the way his life feels. But the combination of grimness and self-absorption is off-putting to me, if for no other reason than these are two prime characteristics of all artistic expression these days, including film and music.

This touches on a more general observation: The artistic world is about as prone to sameness and a lack of originality as the corporate realm or any other area of human endeavor, for that matter. I read a great definition of creativity several days ago. It's not fashioning something completely new. It's fusing old ideas and different ways. The artist is someone whose calling, in part, is to take old realities and synthesize them in new ways.

When it comes to visual art and my lamenting the lack of creativity, I'm not referring so much to the images themselves, but to the feelings or the moods that lay behind them.

Darkness, alienation, and self-absorption have all become notable motifs in the visual and other arts.

This allows the artist to forego originality while simultaneously claiming that she or he is expressing what is felt toward a world that tries to make us all conform. Many artists of today seem to scream, "I'm so unique!" while safely conforming to the preferred moods of the culture.

Art, to me, is meant to be countercultural, always challenging us. Guys like Close are today's Norman Rockwells...

...I'm not disparaging Rockwell. He's a fine illustrator, a chronicler of at least a somewhat romanticized part of America. But he isn't an artist in the sense that his contemporary Picasso was.

In assessing artists today, it seems to me that we focus on form rather than function. If someone does something that sort of reminds us of Andy Warhol, we proclaim it artistically significant because of its form. What we should pay more heed to, it seems to me, is its function: How does the piece re-work themes, motifs, and media that is original?

Measured in this way, not only do I find Close's work aesthetically displeasing, but also lacking in those qualities I associate with Art.
That may have been a bit snobbish on my part, as pointed out by Knoxgirl:
I dunno, the argument could be made--and could even be correct--that Norman Rockwell was "just" an illustrator. But something about when people dismiss him like that rubs me the wrong way. I don't think to qualified as an "artist" you have to be re-working things, I think you just have to be good. Again, I could be totally wrong.
I responded:
I could be wrong, too. I may even be a bit of a snob on this subject. But the thing is, it's art. So, the bottom line for us all is that our judgments are subjective. That was one reason why in my initial comments, as Ann pointed out, I gave my conclusion without my reasons.

In fact, I love Rockwell. But in my mind, I put him in a different category from Close. Maybe that has to do with what they were seem to be trying to do artistically, too.

But you make a good point, one that's an effective antidote to the snobbishness of which I may have been guilty.
But one commenter, David, apparently has no use for Chuck Close's work. He wrote this comment:
Chuck Close has a technical ability to make banal the seamy side of life. He has succeeded in making the bad look worse.

His paralysis is apparent in his work. It is a paralysis of spirit that begs the viewer to feel guilty for not suffering as much as his subjects.

If I want a tour of the denizens of the 'under the overpass crowd' I will buy a newspaper from one of them at the freeway off-ramp or visit them at the local rehab clinic.
Ouch!

2 comments:

  1. I admire the excellence of Chuck Close's portraits. They're amazingly reflective of our time. The detailing is astonishing. Art isn't necessariy pretty... it's expressive.

    Would I hang it on my walls? No,. probably not. Not our personal style. They all look so tired. LOL Might make us tired, too. :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Deborah:
    Thanks for the interesting comment. I agree, no Chuck Close on our walls.

    Mark

    ReplyDelete