My Chuck Close problem: Scott Blake at TEDxOmaha
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 24 พ.ย. 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.
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!
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.
Scott,
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.
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....
Honestly, I don’t think his and Chucks works are the same
great see sense of humor. good explanation of pixelation
thanks for sharing this experience and story ;)
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.
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.
Sweet, I’m going to start doing this.
That was great!
awesome talk :D
Scott is a really cool guy
Just because you were jelous of her, you had to bring that other girl to the Chuckie's jaws
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
This dude was not making art. He was taking someone’s signature style and intended to profit from it.
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.