Museum Paper
The piece I have chosen is an oil painting by Chuck Close entitled Robert, made in 1997. I observed it at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (SFMOMA). The painting, which measures an enormous 102 by 84 inches, is a straightforward portrait of one of Close's friends and fellow (pop) artists Robert Rauschenberg, although its dazzling style and ingenious execution are anything but straightforward.The subject matter is typical of Chuck Close: a large, frontal view of a person's head. The technique of the piece reflects Close's later style, where the painting is divided into a diagonal grid in which each square contains an assortment of painted geometric shapes, ranging widely in colors, many of which, curiously enough, are not even normally found on the human face (green, violet, blue, etc.). However, when observed from a distance, the many separate squares and the varying shapes and colors within them seem to merge together to form a complete, convincing human face. The individual conflicting colors disappear and, oddly enough, the familiar pigments and features of the human face are readily visible. Like most of his portraits, Chuck Close shows his subject from a close, disorienting vantagepoint. Robert Rauschenberg's grinni
To me, Chuck Close is one of the most astounding and talented artists in the world. However, seeing this does not make the painting seem any clearer, only more perplexing; it becomes even more difficult to imagine how the arrangement of such a piece is even humanly possible. Instead, the canvas was divided into thousands of squares, each mere inches across. To look upon a Chuck Close painting is to fully understand that the whole is so much more than the sum of its parts. Aesthetically speaking, Seurat and Close's paintings are very ordered and meticulously arranged. Rauschenberg is depicted in a very warm, genial, and unassuming manner, which is understandable considering the artist's relationship with him - they are not only fellow artists, but friends, as well. These two artists both have amazingly unique styles of painting, ones that should be scrutinized and admired just as much as whatever the styles are being used to show us. He then starts again at the top, painting in each square an array of loose shapes like squares, circles, diamonds, lozenges, etc. Specifically, the increased general interest in the process of making art and on the artists themselves. Indeed, if Chuck Close had painted Robert an hour later or earlier than he did, then it would no doubt look substantially different (actually, the fact that Close has captured such a specific moment in relation to lighting is a direct cause of the fact that the painting was based from a photograph; instead of painting rapidly to "capture the moment" in the manner that the Impressionists often did, he used the camera to automatically record the intricacies of light). This is the typical starting point for many Photorealists (the artistic movement Chuck Close is most commonly identified with). Close paints a background color for each square from top to bottom, ranging from deep reds and blues to light yellows and greens. Furthermore, in the numerous other paintings of Chuck Close, his subjects are almost always shown directly from the front or side. Robert and A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte are paintings wrought with contradictions. However, the manner in which the two artists have portrayed them is similar.
Common topics in this essay:
Chuck Close,
Robert Rauschenberg,
Grande Jatte,
Robert Rauschenberg's,
Seurat Close's,
Jatte Instead,
Grande Jatte's,
Whereas Seurat's,
Robert Close,
Jatte Robert,
chuck close,
la grande,
la grande jatte,
grande jatte,
subject matter,
robert rauschenberg,
frontal view,
loose shapes squares,
seurat's painting,
robert rauschenberg's,
squares circles,
pigments paint,
squares circles diamonds,
shapes squares circles,
square array loose,
|
Acceptance Essays
