The funny thing about portraits is that the photographer has the same amount of control over the shot as the subject. Planning aside, the lasting message of the photograph what's behind the eyes, and that doesn't change bye cue.
I've always been obsessed with portraits. Not only are they the only thing I really like to draw, but the face tells of a lifetime. Beyond assuming a personality/identity through the eyes, there's hair (a blatant personal choice), skin quality, scars, and overall uniqueness (or likeness to relatives I guess).
Yesterday I went to an exhibit of Chuck Close's work, a famous portrait artist who's, yes, still alive. A lot of the work was large-scale and woven through tapestries, but they were still photorealism, as is his schtick.
I noticed a lot of his subjects were contemporary artists. I wonder if that was an easy arrangement to set up:
Chuck: "Hey guys [at a huge NY reception]. Who wants to sell themselves out for me?"
Cindy Sherman, after long drag of cheap cigaratte: "Yeah, if I can get you to strap on a codpiece for my new project."
Here's some work:
(A Picasso that I just took a pic of because it's from a famous guy..I don't really much care for this piece in particular)
This was another piece that reminded me of rain reflecting off of streetlights in the raaaaain.
For my first time to the Austin Museum of Art, I wasn't really super impressed. Facility was small, carpeted (smelled dank), but was flanked by a cool looking "Family Lab" with trendy retro/futuristic furnishings.
Mmmm...love Chuck, but can't really see myself just chilling there unless Liz Miller shows up or something...