"I wanted to translate from one flat surface to another. In fact, my learning disabilities controlled a lot of things. I don't recognize faces, so I'm sure it's what drove me to portraits in the first place"
About this Quote
There’s a bracing lack of romance in Chuck Close’s origin story: not inspiration, not epiphany, but a logistics problem. “Translate from one flat surface to another” sounds like shop talk, almost sterile, and that’s the point. Close frames art-making as a controlled transfer of information, a workflow that turns perception into procedure. It’s a subtle rebuke to the myth of the portraitist as emotional mind-reader. For him, likeness isn’t summoned by charisma; it’s engineered.
The confession about learning disabilities sharpens the edge. Prosopagnosia (face blindness) is usually narrated as a social handicap, a deficit in recognition and intimacy. Close flips it into an artistic engine. If faces won’t cohere automatically, you build a system to make them cohere: grids, increments, repetition, time. Portraiture becomes compensatory technology, a way to externalize what others do effortlessly in their heads. The subtext isn’t “disability made me special” so much as “constraint made me methodical.” His work repeatedly demonstrates that “seeing” is not a mystical gift but a practice you can scaffold.
Context matters because Close’s career sits inside late-20th-century arguments about photography, realism, and the death (or reinvention) of painting. His photo-based portraits look like acts of hyper-precision, yet the process admits fragmentation: up close, they dissolve into abstract marks. That tension mirrors the quote’s quiet thesis. Recognition is not immediate; it’s assembled. Close turns a neurological gap into a cultural provocation: if a face is the ultimate symbol of personhood, what happens when personhood must be reconstructed, tile by tile, on a stubbornly flat plane?
The confession about learning disabilities sharpens the edge. Prosopagnosia (face blindness) is usually narrated as a social handicap, a deficit in recognition and intimacy. Close flips it into an artistic engine. If faces won’t cohere automatically, you build a system to make them cohere: grids, increments, repetition, time. Portraiture becomes compensatory technology, a way to externalize what others do effortlessly in their heads. The subtext isn’t “disability made me special” so much as “constraint made me methodical.” His work repeatedly demonstrates that “seeing” is not a mystical gift but a practice you can scaffold.
Context matters because Close’s career sits inside late-20th-century arguments about photography, realism, and the death (or reinvention) of painting. His photo-based portraits look like acts of hyper-precision, yet the process admits fragmentation: up close, they dissolve into abstract marks. That tension mirrors the quote’s quiet thesis. Recognition is not immediate; it’s assembled. Close turns a neurological gap into a cultural provocation: if a face is the ultimate symbol of personhood, what happens when personhood must be reconstructed, tile by tile, on a stubbornly flat plane?
Quote Details
| Topic | Art |
|---|
More Quotes by Chuck
Add to List
