The Triviality of Technique

Take a Close look at the photograph below. Are you taking a Close look? Would you believe that it is not actually a photograph, but instead is a nine foot tall painting on display in the upper level of the St. Louis Art Museum? The artist is 20th century painter Chuck Close (please refrain from throwing rotten tomatoes at me for using a corny pun to get your attention). He is a pioneer of the artistic style known as Photorealism.

Emerging in the 1960’s, these artists attempted to produce near-perfect reproductions of photographic images.

This month we are going to talk about Keith, the painting shown below. As always, we are going to ask questions about the worldview of the style and content of the piece. You may already be thinking, “How can Keith express a worldview, it just looks like a simple yearbook picture of a man?”

Before we begin, I must admit that I received a lot of valuable input this month from readers who registered their comments about Keith. I invite you to do the same by going online to www.wisdomofthepages.com, and looking under the section called “Art.” This is a web log (otherwise known as a “blog”) that you can post comments on and join in the discussion.

Now, let's get back to the worldview of Keith and Photorealism. Let’s begin by stating all the positive things.

First, how refreshing it is to find a piece of Modern art that is neither offensive because of the content, nor is it difficult to understand. Whether you enjoy Keith or not, no one should be offended or confused as to what is being shown – a man whose hair and glasses place him clearly in the late 60’s. There is a deeper message to Keith, but at least we can all enjoy the basic understanding of it without Art Museum Cliff Notes.

Second, upon learning the technique used to create Keith, it becomes a fun piece to show to people for the first time. Close chose a photograph, constructed a grid of squares over it, numbered all the squares, and then recreated each square one at a time on a larger scale. He focused his attention solely on each individual mini-portrait that composed the larger picture, and painstakingly painted exactly what he saw. This method took time and patience. One of Close’s earlier works took nearly four months to complete! How many of us would stick with a project that long and see it to completion?

Third, there is raw honesty and truthfulness to the piece. Would you want a nine foot tall photo of your face hanging in an art museum? I wouldn’t! In a world of airbrushed perfection and the doctoring of photographs, Keith invites us to notice his less than perfect face. Going to the see it in the museum, you will witness even more clearly the deep pores on his nose, the large ears, numerous hairs out of place, etc. – this man is not going to win a beauty contest. Keith shouts, “Like me or not, I am what I am!”

Now, a Few Negative Thoughts About Keith

Photorealism places the focus squarely on the technique of the artist, with the barest minimum possible to say about the content. If this particular portrait was in fact a photograph, I seriously doubt that it would be hanging in a museum. Instead, it is considered art almost solely because of the technique. The notion that art should speak about something is eclipsed by the method used to create the piece. As a result, what is there to inspire the soul? Unfortunately, the most pressing question about Keith becomes “How did the artist do it?” with very little compelling reason to ask, “What is the artist saying?”

In writing about 20th century art, intellectual historian Jacques Barzun once wrote, “Literature and the arts ever since the First World War may be said to have specialized in pastiche, parody, and destruction by caricature.” I think this is true of Keith.

Barzun continued, “Making fun of everything on the one hand, and depicting man and nature in endless distortions inevitably undermined the will to control and achieve. The double lesson taught to the spirit has been: ‘Nothing is worth the effort’ and ‘viciousness is all.’ …The dominant purpose is bare design, absence of idea.” Although not speaking specifically about Photorealism, Barzun’s indictment certainly fits this style of art.

True, we can easily relate to Keith. He is one of us. His blemishes are there for us to see. He is honest. He is forthright. He invites us to invade his personal space. He begs us to giggle about his now-outdated fashions. But what does he inspire us to do? To become? To dream about? To achieve?

Does Keith challenge us to respond to evil in the world? No. Does Keith teach us there is anything good and noble to embrace? No. Nothing false, nothing true. Nothing good, nothing evil. Just Keith, looking up into space. Much like Andy Warhol’s soup can paintings, there doesn’t seem to be anything worth getting too worked up about.

To be fair to Chuck Close, this is not the only style in which he has worked. Most recently, he made a mosaic portrait of President George Bush. If you look close enough at the piece, you will see that the piece is actually composed of the tiny photographs of actual soldiers who have died in military combat. There is an obvious political statement being made here. A value judgment is on the table, open for debate. We may agree or disagree with Close regarding his political views, but the point is that the mosaic of Bush at least provides fodder for discussion of “Big Ideas.”

As Christians, we must be active in thinking and acting upon things that matter most. Even when we are talking about the normal activities of life – home, family, work, finances – we simply must refuse to think in terms of bland nothingness. Our goal should be Soli Deo Gloria – to God be all the glory! And with that starting point, even our daily routines take on deep significance - full of content and meaning.

W. Scott Lamb is a pastor with Providence Baptist Church in South St. Louis County, MO. He and his wife Pearl enjoy the challenges and pleasures of raising their four sons. Feel free to contact Scott at www.pbcstlouis.com.