Chuck Close Succeeds In Stifling A Creative Homage... But Only For Another 100 Years Or So!
from the copyright-as-censorship dept
Chuck Close is an interesting artist. One of the most famous, most successful artists alive today, he paints giant portraits of people based on photographs. He does so by enlarging photographs, dividing up the images, and copying smaller areas square by square. The effect is quite striking. A couple years ago, there was an astoundingly fascinating interview of both Close and famed neuroscientist Oliver Sachs (who the movie Awakenings was based on) talking about how both have face blindness, in that they simply cannot recognize faces. Given that, it's interesting to see that Close's entire career is based on painting faces.Scott Blake is a long-time devoted Chuck Close fan -- and also a skilled computer artist. In 2001 he had the idea to create a "Chuck Close Filter," which would take images and turn them into something that looks like a Chuck Close image. While it took a lot of work, and was showcased at an exhibit in 2002, he said that computers weren't fast enough to make use of the filter in realitime at the time. In 2008, computers were fast enough that they could take an uploaded photo and automatically generate a "Chuck Close filtered version," so he set up a site called FreeChuckCloseArt.com. Two years later than that, Close threatened to take legal action against him. Blake has now detailed the whole thing in a long blog post. Here's the exchange between the two, though, reading the entire story (and seeing the images) is absolutely worthwhile:
I have trouble believing there's a realistic copyright claim here. If anything, I'd think he would have a stronger publicity rights claim (or possibly trademark name if he's trademarked his name, though a quick USPTO search fails to find a trademark on Chuck Close), but publicity rights claims are a bit messy (and vary state to state) so even that's not entirely clear. But the larger point is how shameful it is for Close to legally threaten another creative individual for doing something that, if anything, would inspire greater interest in Chuck Close's work. The idea that the filter "jeopardizes" Close's career makes no sense at all. Who is really going to see a filtered image and suddenly think they no longer need to see Close's real work? If anything it's likely to inspire the exact opposite.I never intended to rip off Chuck Close, so when he emailed me in November 2010 threatening legal action, I did exactly what he said and took my filter offline immediately. Still, I feel obligated to point out that Close is the 14th richest living artist, worth a staggering $25 million. I really don’t think any work I make is going to “jeopardize” his career or his livelihood.
Here is what he wrote (in all caps):
YOU DO NOT HAVE PERMISSION TO USE MY WORK WHICH IS COPYRIGHTED. NOR DO WISH TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH YOUR PROJECT. YOU MUST SHUT DOWN YOUR WEBSITE IMMEDIATELY OR I WILL BE FORCED TO TAKE LEGAL ACTION.
I replied:
I have attempted to get in touch with you. I think your art is great. I drove 10 hours to see your exhibit at the Seattle Art Museum in 1998 and was blown away. I wish we had met under better circumstances. I understand you do not want me to continue my Free Chuck Close Filter, but I would like the opportunity to talk with you before you take any legal action. I believe my website is not copying your art, but rather is a logical extension of the creative process. Please consider talking with me before you make legal decision, from one artist to another.
Close wrote back:
Even if your motives are not bad, I still do not want my work trivialized. I must fight you because if I know of your project, and do nothing to exercise my legal rights, that will put me in a position where I can’t fight the next, even more egregious usage of my copyrighted image and use of my name. It may be an amusing project and many people might like it, but it is MY art that is trivialized, MY career you are jeopardizing, MY legacy, which I have to think about for my children, and MY livelihood. I must fight to protect it. I hope you will realize the harm you are doing me and my work that you claim you admire and voluntarily shut down the site so as to avoid a law-suit.
I responded:
I respect your decision, and I have shut my free online filter down. I feel obligated to help stop this from happening again. I believe it is better to respond to the situation than delete the project without any explanation. Please review http://www.freechuckcloseart.com.
He wrote:
Thank you so much for your decision. I must say I didn’t expect it. It means a lot to me that you were able to understand my point of view. Thank you. Im in Germany till the end of December, but after I’m back and if you are in New York City, come by and say hello.
The last thing I said to him was:
Thank you for accepting my sincere apology, and especially for inviting me to your New York City studio. I live in Omaha, Nebraska, but I might make a special trip just to see you.
Separately, Close is grossly misinformed in saying that he has to take legal action or he loses the ability to do so with others. While something sort of like that (but not quite) is true with trademark law, it's entirely permissible to ignore infringement under copyright (or even to issue free licenses to those you like).
But the weirdest claim is that this hurts his "legacy." I would argue that being an absolute jerk to someone who created a filter as an homage to you hurts your legacy a hell of a lot more than the filter itself.
Blake notes that while he has shut down the site, he has a plan. Recognizing that eventually Close's works will go into the public domain, he's made plans for the filter to be re-released in 100 years after Close's death, on the assumption (perhaps not a good one due to extensions) that the works will be public domain by then:
I asked my lawyer friend if I could release my Chuck Close Filter 100 years after Close dies and his copyright runs out; my lawyer assured me that I could do so without fear of reprisal. I have not made Close aware of my plans, but if he finds out, I would be surprised if he wasn’t insulted. Don’t get me wrong, I know we will both be dead in 100 years, but the point is that our art will live on, and that is what matters to me most. We all have a legacy to think about; Chuck Close isn’t the only one.Blake also challenges some of Close's claims of originality, including his argument that his paintings came along before computer generated art. Blake shows that's not true, and even shows some compelling evidence that there's at least a greater-than-zero chance that Close, in fact, was inspired by computer generated art that pre-dated his own. Either way, Blake has decided that the best plan at this point -- if he can't actually offer a Chuck Close filter -- is to make sure the world knows that Chuck Close acts this way towards fans and those who create tools that celebrate him.
I believe my art is fair use, but I don’t have a war chest to back up that assertion in a courtroom, so the wealthy bully wins by default. My only recourse is to publicize my defeat in order to shine a light on these types of situations. My hope is that Chuck Close develops a sense of shame and regret, realizes his mistake and offers up an apology. I want this article to serve as a point of reference for current and future artists. The worst part about this whole mess is that it makes established visual artists like Close seem petty. By not embracing new and interesting ways of making art, he is contributing to the widening of the generation gap. His irrational fear of computers has made him wildly out of touch with my generation and generations to come. I feel he singled me out because I choose to work in a medium that he finds inferior.It's always disappointing to see artists harm the works of others with excessive copyright claims. There's simply no reason that Close needed to act this way, and count me among those who has shifted from being a fan of Close's work to someone who just isn't interested in supporting him in any way after actions like this.
I think Close is confusing enterprise with creativity; they are not the same and in some cases can work against one another. In the end, I believe Close’s misguided and hypocritical actions will do more harm to his legacy than any so-called “derivative art” could ever do. His behavior has left me no choice but to carry out my 100-year plan.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: chuck close, copyright, homage, scott blake
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Making a new one
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Frak?
Hell, given the laxity of the USPTO, Blake should just get a software patent for doing this "on a computer"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The Frak?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Is it not possible for him to give his approval for one project, while not allowing it on other, future projects he might not agree with? Or even "license" it for a dollar or something?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Dolt indeed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not new
Cue Streisand Effect.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Why wait 100 years?
Mr. Close's inflamed sense of entitlement ("...MY legacy, which I have to think about for my children"...) seems to be nearing professional sepsis.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"
Close,
I've taken down my respect of your work and replaced it with how much I dislike you and your attitude, which now turns your works into the ugliest things I've ever laid eyes on.
Thank you for the opportunity of showing me how you truly feel about art which I can now share with the world."
But that's just me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I suppose Close will have to fight her as well, lest he lose the ability to "preserve his legacy".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
No fucking way!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Why wait 100 years?
If by "legacy" he means "income generation", then give them your money now, Chuckles, don't make them wait til yer dead. Copyright's too damn long and should not have anything to do with lifespan, makes some people weird.
Share back and lighten the hell up, Mr. Close; you'll live better, if not longer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The Frak?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Making a new one
But if Blake just sits on it until he dies and then it's released in 100 years, it'll be irrelevant, if even remembered, because in the mean time (and maybe even soon because of this story getting out) someone else will have duplicated the filter's functionality without making the mistake of using a touchy, legally ill-informed artist's name or a reference to their work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This sentence says it all to me. Those in established positions seem to think that they're the only ones that are allowed to be creative, and that only the ones that are lucky enough to get rich making art get to dictate who can be creative and who can't.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Careful there, dudes. That's still plenty of time for the cartels to have copyright protection extended a few more decades.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: The Frak?
Wouldn't it be funny if in five years some kid with a tablet walks into a Close exhibit and says, "I have filter for that on my tablet".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chuck Who
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not new
That is a great visual image. :D
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Aesthetics
I don't think you have a clue about what it means to trivialize someone's art. Artists who do not wish to see
their art trivialized should be respected. I believe litigation can destroy technological innovation but this is about art, not a new chip design.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: What Whine?
If anyone is whinging it's Close.
Blake only passed on, in point form, what he and Close had discussed. To go by the emails Close has seen what's there and approved of it.
Blake is right in his assertion of a generational divide on how art is made between how Close sees it and how he sees it. I suspect many other "traditional" painters do as well.
Let's remember Close himself bases his work on portrait photos which, I assume, he had permission to use as the professional photographer who took the portrait would be the copyright owner of those. After this I hope he did.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chuck Close
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Frak?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Chuck Who
Never heard of Chuck Close myself, but I think he should change his name because it's too similar to Chuck Nice, who is an artist I love and respect.
/sarc (well, except for the Chuck Nice part, he really is a great guy. Happy that he is now a regular on Startalk Radio.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Aesthetics
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Making a new one
Close is better served and would have been better served putting a zipper on it because it's out of both Blake's and his control in the event that it is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am shocked.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Chuck Close
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Aesthetics
Besides, one man's "trivialization" is another man's homage, and another man's critique, and another man's independent idea, and another man's improvement... Do you really believe artists have the moral right you are attributing to them?
I don't.
Once an artist has released his work to the world, it's not up to him what others build on top of it, or how they react to it. If someone wrote a bad review of Close's work, should Close be able to censor that review for "trivializing" him?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: What Whine?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Legacy intact...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Aesthetics
Was Nikolai Tesla trivialized when people gave the measurement of energy his name to it?
Was Lord Kelvin trivialized when a temperature scale was given his name to it?
I don't think you have a clue about trivializing really means.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Chuck Close
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Why boycott such a nice guy?
But in what are supposedly his comments, the "artist" comes across as such a nice and humble guy genuinely appreciative to the world for his success and completely devoid of any hint of ego. Or maybe just another business.
On a related note: copyright must be killed dead. Whatever the lies of its original purpose (and even centuries-old pure bullshit still sounds like pure bullshit), it is being used by very EVIL "people" as a weapon to accomplish even more EVIL.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Aesthetics
their art trivialized should be respected."
And why should we respect the wishes of one person to feel special over another person or persons wishes to create cool stuff?
Which is of greater benefit to society?
Copyright is not, have never been, and should never be about protecting someone's feelings.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Making a new one
With no referance to the artist this technique should be completely legal, no matter what.
There is something to be said about fighting it to avoid more "egregious works". It is a legal tradition in some civil courts, that you have to sue someone you know is using your work without permission because if you do not, for a long enough period, it will be seen as an implicit permission (which is logical if you think about it.).
Therefore it would be stupid of him to ignore the knowledge of the site and just do nothing.
The best way to go for Close would be to give permission since it would put him in a better light publicly and he would avoid having to deal with "legal reasoning".
On the other hand: If he feel so strongly against it because of the naming, I think it is the right thing to do, to treat it like a potential upcoming case...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
He also should sue for (laughing) copyright infringement all the video codecs out there that use squares to recreate pieces of image, this is why all images have blocky artifacts because they are divided into squares that are filled with image data after, frak look at how JPEG does compression.
http://www.ams.org/samplings/feature-column/fcarc-image-compression
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Aesthetics
I can't imagine anything more trivial than art anyway. "Art" is everywhere and potentialy in everything.
More to the point, how does copying a style do anything to the worth of the original art? Is Van Gogh's work made less worthy by someone having themselves painted in the style of his self portrait? To my mind, if art can be "trivialsed" so easily it really can't have been that great in the first place.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Of course. Mr Close is apparently confusing copyright with trademark (or perhaps the counsel he has retained is incompetent).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
100 year old software
Its sometimes difficult to get 10 year old software to run on current hardware/operating systems (for example written for WindowsXP, trying to get to run under Windows 7). Add in the same problems we face with digital archival - hardware and formats may no longer exist to be able to read something after extended time periods.
While it's not clear exactly how his filter works, I can bet that Photoshop version 2112 won't recognize it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: 100 year old software
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Chuck Close
His style came from surviving horrendous physical tragedy and emotional pain; I completely understand his urge to keep a tight grip on the style that allowed him to keep working.
That being said, his actions are an over-reach in my opinion, but understandable from a human perspective.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Empty.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Chuck Close
He did not make it famous. His audience, his fans, did. He owes those supporters everything he has, without them he would wallow in obscurity.
"...seems like people that are not artist feel they are entitled to use and reproduce something that someone else created..."
As Mr. Close did by reproducing photographs in a different medium? As Mr. Close (or any artist) did by educating and training himself in the arts over his long career? I wouldn't call what Mr. Close does "reproducing" a photo, he is reinterpreting it in his own way using his own methods. What Blake did is even further removed from reproducing anyone's work since it's purely a method or process, a tool to be used. Like a paintbrush or a thumb used to create a painting of a photograph.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Chuck Who
Now when I hear his name I will know they are talking about a rich bully with an overdeveloped sense of entitlement suffering from the ever popular tortured artist effect.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Aesthetics
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Chuck Close
Is there a single component of his process that hadn't been done before by other artists? I'd really like to know this. As far as I can tell, all he does is bring various techniques together. His style seems to me little more than a parody of the four-color printing process, something we have thanks to the skilled innovations of a number of far more gifted artists than Close. What an inflated, narcissistic gas bag.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Progress
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Frak?
(Note that I understand our patent office is way off base and pretty much does approve patents for general ideas these days, that is however not what they are supposed to be doing)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Aesthetics
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Perhaps
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Aesthetics
And, please, let's not be completely ridiculous and compare this to defacing an original painting. In that situation, the original work is irretrievably lost -- nobody is condoning the destruction of one piece of art in order to create another.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Close keeps his copyright, which he would have anyway, gains control over the uses of the results of the via the Creative Commons License and takes away any commercial value some twerp might think it has through the watermarks and the use of the NC switch on the CC license.
There were and still are lots of avenues other than threatening a lawsuit.
All Close may have done is to have set off the Streisand Effect where the filter, if it's in the wild now, starts getting used again off line before posting the results and suddenly the world is awash with Close works run through the darned thing. Or, now that this has happened, a far superior filter will start making the rounds. One that works in The GIMP, Photoshop and Paint Shop Pro. I'd rather that didn't happen but I'd be blind, deaf and dumb if I didn't say that very soon something will surface.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Does the name Charles Carreon ring any bells? :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Aesthetics
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What Whine?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Go have some more whine with your lunch please :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Aesthetics
Let me ask you a question... do you find Mr. Close's transformation of photos into his art pieces disrespectful to the original photographer?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Aesthetics
I am opposed to the defacement because it destroys the original. Anything that doesn't impact the original, such as what Blake did here, is fine in my books. Sorry, I have no interest in "respect" for artists - a great deal of art is based on disrespect for things, sometimes artists who came before. I'm not going to stand here and tell artists what is okay and not okay for them to say/make. So if someone wants to print out copies of PIcasso, or of a living working artist's painting that they just released yesterday, and then spraypaint stuff on it and sell it -- I think that's completely fine. Nobody is harmed, even if some people are "disrespected". A rich culture requires the right to disrespect.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Chuck Close
Why does it matter who came up with this process?
17 USC § 102 - Subject matter of copyright: In general
Copyright doesn't extend to processes. The Copyright Act sez so right there.
So why does it matter who came up with the process?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Chuck Close
And I could say the same for Blake's software - it could never be mistaken for a Close work any more than a Close work would be mistaken for the original photo.
Perhaps the greatest offense Blake did was come up with a lousy url - freechuckcloseart.com
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Aesthetics
Respect is key - clearly something you aren't familiar with.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Aesthetics
You can try to make it sound trite and obvious by pulling bullshit examples like the Mona Lisa versus a napkin doodle, but we all know that a comparison like that is not where the problem lies. As I said, many great artistic movements were initially dismissed as inferior or stupid. Once you start drawing lines, where do you stop?
Respect is key - respect for art, not for a particular artist. Humility is also key - the recognition that you have absolutely no right or ability to pass judgement on which art is objectively more valuable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Chuck Close
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Aesthetics
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Aesthetics
The overreaction by some guy who probably don't even understand what it is involved?
The guy didn't copy his art it made use of his techinique which is not covered by copyrights at all and doesn't require "respect", "permission" or any of the load terms you want to use.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Making a new one
Bit it must sting a little bit to know a computer can do in 30 seconds the one thing that made you unique and famous.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Aesthetics
Respect is deserved simply becaise you produce art, it is earnt based on what you do and say. It goes well beyond just how talented someone is. Close is only going to lose respect with his actions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Aesthetics
The disrespect shown by some artists is equally reprehensible position to many people. Artists who are concerned about their "career, legacy, children, and livelihood" (Close's words) should consider that before they act in a manner that alienates potential fans and customers. I'm quite certain his actions will lose him more sales than it will gain.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Aesthetics
Funny that you say that. I personally think that what Close does is the exact definition of a gimmick. I'm sure a LOT of people would agree with me.
To some, I guess gimmicks are art, but that's ok, since they are entitled to their opinions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Why boycott such a nice guy?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Aesthetics
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Am I the only one?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: 100 year old software
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Chuck Close
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I don't think Close is "behaving like a scumbag". His central concern is valid. The legal system is so screwed up that Close needs to fight this whether he wants to or not.
There are certainly faults on both sides; Blake shouldn't, for example, have used Close's name. In Close's mind, this may be the lesser of two evils. It's still evil, but not necessarily scumbag behaviour.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Aesthetics
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Why boycott such a nice guy?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
So, no, his central concern is not valid.
Yes, he's behaving like a scumbag.
And no, Black should not have used Close's name.
Agreeing with one out of three points isn't bad. Better than most!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Chuck Who
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Am I the only one?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Chuck Who
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Am I the only one?
How dare those people cut something up and make art.
Collage
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Permission here was a nicety not a requirement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Making a new one
It's like the fake vs real Rolex, they're actually serving different markets.
As long as there's no actual danger of customer confusion, where is the harm?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Frak?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
apparently...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
confidence trixter
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Chuck Close
This is begging the question. What gives him the right you claim for him?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Chuck Close
It doesn't in the least, but L.A.B. seems to think it does. Both he and Close seem to think the process itself is something that merits special protection. As an artist, I am curious about the process of other artists, and where they come from, but it has no bearing on the controversy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: confidence trixter
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: confidence trixter
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chuck Close Filter
[ link to this | view in thread ]