influenced by Seurat, Russian avant garde of the 1900’s and a whole host of modern architects" as well as modern pixel-based images. . . .
But apparently not Chuck Close.
[edit: Hey. don’t get me wrong, they’re very nice, and I don’t mean to sound like some art snob, but credit where credit is due.]
Sooo…the same as what Chuck Close has been doing since the late 70’s?
And doing better, I might add.
If you’re hungry they look like a ton of hors d’oeuvres on tiny crackers.
Yeah - I hate to be a dick, but if the first words out of your mouth aren’t, “Thank you, Chuck Close”, you’re being kinda jerk in my book.
Well, no need for the comment I was going to leave.
Thanks everyone.
yup, came here to type “Chuck Close”, thank you
…credit for the celebrity portrait photographers, as well.
The technique is interesting but the content - famous beautiful movie stars of the past depicted without context or comment - just leaves me empty. Empty in a looking at the same beauty in a pose that I have seen on a thousand posters,coffee mugs, etc. way - not empty in a completely blown away and devastated by the implications of the art way.
Keep painting - but start thinking, analyzing, exploring.
Interestingly creative, nice way to paint!
Looks like I’m in good company. The very first thought I had was “it’s a sad knockoff of Chuck Close”. And what’s worse is that the source material looks like stock photos of celebrities. At least Chuck Close worked from original photographs of every day people and himself – tho some have gone on to become famous. His work elevated the common structures of the human face into something glorious at every scale. This new work is just a gimmick, and a poor knockoff of an original concept.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
