Looking at Art:

I have always loved the work of Chuck Close who brought portraiture back into contemporary art while most painters were creating abstract images. The artist, who recently passed away at the age of 81, became incredibly famous and his work is in the collections of many major museums. Close is known for creating gigantic portraits consisting of tiny vibrant colored squares in graph paper-like grids. His life was unusual because he overcame tremendous physical challenges, continuing to paint despite an illness which left him, in large part, paralyzed.

In May of 2017, the National Gallery cancelled a Chuck Close exhibition because of accusations of sexual misconduct (which the artist denied). After he passed away this year, both the New York Times and the Washington Post included articles by art critics suggesting that Close’s work did not develop beyond a certain point, implying that his legacy as a great artist may not last. Because I have always admired his work and have never seen anything quite like it, I was shocked to read these reviews. If you look at art by Chuck Close, do you think these assessments are fair? Should critics determine an artist’s legacy?

Work in the Studio:

Art critics are supposed to be qualified to assess artists and their contribution. For me, reading about the legacy of the art by Chuck Close reinforces my belief that I better love making art, because what other people think about it is beyond my control and any desire for fame and recognition should not be why I (or any artist) choose to work in the studio.

The painting shown here started as an experiment. I was trying to present a portrait in a new way. Like so many of my recent works, it became a statement about the pandemic that has isolated us from family and friends.

Separated, Watercolor and Gouache, 12” x 12”