My Chuck Close problem: Scott Blake at TEDxOmaha
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 лис 2013
- While best known for his Barcode Art, Scott Blake has created new works that are scandalous, witty, fun, pornographic, humorous and about a thousand other adjectives viewers might use when seeing them for the first time. Blake has exhibited in London, Paris, San Francisco, Vienna, and beyond. The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Huffington Post, FHM, and Adbusters magazine have featured his Barcode Art, in addition he was interviewed on ABC World News Tonight, Boing Boing, and Tech TV. The creators of Photoshop recognized his artwork at the Adobe Design Achievement Awards, held in the Guggenheim Museum NYC. Blake was commissioned to create custom art for the actress Jane Fonda and Universal Studios theme park. He received a B.F.A from the Savannah College of Art and Design in 2003.
Scott Blake's talk recounts the story about how he was inspired by an artist, emulated that artist, and was eventually shut down by the same artist. Blake addresses the questions of who owns concepts, who owns techniques, and ultimately, who owns art.
In the spirit of ideas worth spreading, TEDx is a program of local, self-organized events that bring people together to share a TED-like experience. At a TEDx event, TEDTalks video and live speakers combine to spark deep discussion and connection in a small group. These local, self-organized events are branded TEDx, where x = independently organized TED event. The TED Conference provides general guidance for the TEDx program, but individual TEDx events are self-organized.* (*Subject to certain rules and regulations)
Nothing to see here except what has always been: New artists rise up and challenge the old. The old respond by trying to protect what they have accomplished. Eventually, the new become old and the process repeats. Art History in three sentences.
Chuck Close doesn’t own the grid method. But he is right in that you shouldn’t have used his name without asking him first. Also all of you making comments about boring uninspired art don’t understand hyper realism or the evolution of an artist work.
I don't think that it was the method or style that was Chuck Close's problem, it might be the fact that he was using the pieces of his paintings without permission. Though I think even that should be considered free use because he was constructing something new even if it's made from pieces of another person's paintings.
The fact that he gaves such a vague explanation on Chuck Close's artwork kind of point me in the direction of saying that he actually do trivialized Chuck Close's work!
Scott,
I'm sooo glad you chose you share your experience. You have much to offer ALL artists out in the world. I wish my brain worked the way yours does. Never quit!
The main point everyone seems to be missing here is that he not only used Chuck Close's image and name, he scanned actual Chuck Close paintings and then cut all the grid pieces apart in Photoshop and indexed them to use with his software. When you used his app to create a painting from your photograph, it was using the actual scanned Chuck Close image pieces to construct it. It would be one thing if the guy was just mimicking Close's style, etc. But to use the scanned images of his actual work without permission? This is a no brainer and I'm surprised that this guy thought that it was acceptable in the first place.
The other artist that he discusses in his talk only mimics the mosaic style of Chuck Close by constructing elaborate pieces using spools of thread instead of paint. These are original art works created from 100% original material, there is simply no comparison. But hey, I guess you got a TED Talk out of the deal.
yeah there is a big difference in having a similar style and actually stealing someones work cause literally what they did is take his work and take it apart. Here is the problem now society has devalued art to the point that many think that this is acceptable cause it is "just art".
Yeah, Blake mysteriously forgot to mention that his "Chuck Close" filter used actual pieces of Chuck Close's art. Would have been infinitely more interesting if the filter generated the pieces itself.
Watch the documentary about Chuck Close to see his painstaking process. And yea, the difference between his art and the other artist’s he mentioned is that he used another man’s life work and name without his permission. And I’m sure if Chuck Close never threatened him, he would have eventually found a way to profit from his clever photoshop technique.
thanks for sharing this experience and story ;)
I don't understand the problem... All artists borrow and steal from other artists. the difference is if you copy an artists work and try to sell it as your own for profit. this artists wasn't trying to sell anything... if anything this seems like a homage to chuck close... this disappoints me about chuck close because im a fan of chuck close....
Close is an old fart, a boring old fart. A boring old fart who harasses thos kind of guys with threats. Dissapointment.
Artist and any one that has a "product" can feel like if someone uses their technique or stye or some approach that is similar it may cheapen what the original does which may devalue it. So in some ways that is legitimate. So even if isn't making money it can be a problem. In the end it all has to do with the types of conflicts we have in the way the world is set up. In "someone's" perfect world then both can exist, but chances are those on top will have step to the center with those from the bottom moving up and we al know people on top want to remain on top.
great see sense of humor. good explanation of pixelation
Honestly, I don’t think his and Chucks works are the same
That was great!
Sweet, I’m going to start doing this.
This guy I’m sure never listened to Close speak on his work and all it’s psychological and conceptual underpinnings. Had he had the interest in the artist, he would have learned why Mr. Close accepted the work of his artist friend (even appearing with her) who made work in a similar vein but rejected the actions of this man giving the talk. In the end, there is a real difference between blind appropriation for the purpose of “creating a computer program” to make that appropriation easier and broadening and furthering the conceptual reasons why the work exists in the first place. I’m with Chuck here.
I think it's an interesting discussion. I think Scott can take what he's learned (I'm sure he's worked on other types of programming) and make his own unique mark in the world. It is funny that in many ways I ran into the same problem not so long ago. "Search my name and "art" at the end." I too went through a battle of depression and lost a lot more that has nothing to do with the case. In many ways I learned about the things we all know...you can't win those on top. Not unless you have a lot of money and you have people willing to fight all the way for you. You also have to be clearly right and for the most part all these things fall into a gray area.
awesome talk :D
Scott is a really cool guy
You don't understand till you are a fine artist.. I wouldnt want to make it that easy for people to use my style, and yea i would be offended
all artists borrow from other artists.
Learn from other artists not completely rip off
Nick S I’m an artist and I wouldn’t mind at all.
Just because you were jelous of her, you had to bring that other girl to the Chuckie's jaws
In principle the style is actually nothing like Chuck Close, but if I'd made 25 million from painting, I reckon I'd be a little more generous than Chuckie, then again, I'm not a self absorbed arsehole.
No you wouldn’t. You obviously don’t make art because if you did you might understand why you’d protect your work from copycat wannabes
This talk seems quite bitter and has no real point.
This dude was not making art. He was taking someone’s signature style and intended to profit from it.
Platinum Rich Rose he said his website was up for free for anyone to use, you need to listen
Also I wouldn't call this a style it's more of a technique for making high quality art. Close has no right to keep others from implementing this method and expanding upon it., especially if they are not directly copying his work to pass it off as their own. I have seen different forms of grid drawing my entire life. Let's not forget: Lesser artists borrow; great artiststs steal.
you're wrong. he's right
Ted has really gone to the dogs
The camera work in this is horrible.
This guy has a fantastic attitude about being attacked by a gutless pretender lol. Chuck Close is a gimmick master. I’d definitely recommend the documentary. Look closely at his supposed mobility barriers and you’ll see he has none. Moving a manual wheelchair with his legs and feet… using a power chair as a prop; “I can’t hold this” when an assistant is present, next frame he’s deftly wielding a brush with his own hand. He turned an undoubtedly frightening but temporary medical condition into cash money and clearly values his wealth and status in the art community more than art itself.
Scott Blake's work, in comparison to Close's, is vacuous and boring. Personally, as a painter myself, I can't see why Chuck Close would be concerned about this guy's attempts. The whole threat of a lawsuit is rather silly. I love Close's artwork, but his ego is very unattractive.
Yeeah.. Sorry, but I think Close is petty on this one. =/
For someone who got famous making tedious and unimaginative paintings out of squares and circles Chuck Close seems to take himself a bit too seriously
tedious yes, unimaginative no, you need to have an amazing imagination and perception to create light values through abstract squares that together make up a 10ft painting portrait
Chuck Close is dead
This is idiotic. How do you compare what is done by hand with what is done by computer? Chuck’s use of pixels is incredible being that he is using his hands and own perception, not a forking computer program. Stop exploiting his name.