Chuck Close, one of the most famous portraitists of the last three decades, chatted with Charlie Rose last night. As a Yale MFA alumni who is gifted in gab, he conveyed some simple yet significant ideas that stirs up interest for anybody vaguely interested in fine art by addressing topics including artist vs. art industry, photography’s influence on painting, the interplay between the spectator and the artist, and (last but not least) the love of painting.

Artist vs. Art Industry

Close surrounds himself with artists -- some successful, some not. His view is that every artist should pursue their unique vision as finitely as possible, whether or not it fits into the fad of the fleeting art mainstreams, because success only comes from the lucky chance when the industry discards a passé period and demands an alternative, such as an artist’s often tangential pursuit. Honing in on the faux pas of portraiture during the ‘60s, Close epitomized his exact point of ignoring the trend and perfecting a genre with almost no competition. Whether he chose the genre to avoid rivalry or to simply satisfy his own artist journey is left unknown.

The Appeal of Hyperrealism

Close is categorized in Hyperrealism, a style full of painters who painstakingly piece together photo-like paintings based on actual photographs. To achieve such a status requires an obsessive drive to make sense of the complexities of actuality -- intriguing anyone who hasn’t figured out the mystery of life and satisfying not only the laymen, but the academic critic.

Photography vs. Painting

Close’s work rides a fine line between absolute photographic mimickry to just plain camera envy. It wasn’t until later that his painting exhibited a painterly pixelation -- drawing viewers “closer” to the concept expressed by an involved artist who refuses to give up the physical act of painting, despite the traumatic spinal injury he suffered that permanently placed him in a wheelchair in 1988. The significance of photography for Close’s work is unavoidable. As such, Rose brought up the topic. In reply, Close captured the modernization of painting via photography perfectly. Photos produced perfect perspective, shadow gradations, and, initially, came in black and white only; hence, painting movements grew as an immediate reaction to these uncompromising visual capabilities: Cubism, Vorticism, and Futurism - all styles emphasizing physical movement, multiple perspectives, and unrealistic geometric interplay; Fauvists flaunted neon colors as an antithesis to the early monochromatic photos; Expressionists looked inward to reveal an individual experience more than the moments photographs so easily documented.

The Art Experience

If Chuck Close was a castaway on an island, he wouldn’t use his own blood as ink in the dire need to express himself through painting. The point he makes is that the total art experience includes the artist and art viewer. Art satisfaction is 50% the art making and 50% the art viewer experience and feedback. Close recognizes the social potential energy stored in his works. Without the view from others, art remains incomplete -- an idea that debunks the romantic idea of loner artists who strive to only please their own tormented souls.

Why Paint?

Near the end of the interview, Rose had to ask the most poignant question of all: Why paint? Chuck Close answered with an understandably vague reply -- like anyone who’s asked why one loves any particular passion. He uttered words similar to, “There’s just something mysterious or magical of creating a window of perception by applying colored dirt onto stretched cloth.” I couldn’t of said it better myself.