Now for the Real Narcissus

The story of Echo and Narcissus is one that everyone above the age of twelve knows. It’s about a nymph who becomes cursed for crossing Juno and can only repeat the last words spoken to her, never making words of her own. The story is also about a man who shuns every woman and nymph that comes to him and becomes cursed by one of the shunned women to fall in love and not have it returned. Well, he fell in love with his reflection the next time he sat near a pool of water, pined after it until he died, and became a flower. Lots of artists have used the story as content for one of their paintings. My personal favorite, Salvador Dali, is among them. The style in which Metamorphosis of Narcissus was done makes it instantly recognizable as one of Dali’s works. With his style being that of the surrealist genre, one notes all manner of seemingly inconsequential things which turn out to have a deeper meaning and lend this rendition of the story its uniqueness. An article by Milly Heyd entitled “Dali’s Metamorphosis of Narcissus Reconsidered” attempts to point out and explain the interesting and baffling points of this piece. While most of Heyd’s points are well thought-out and seem to have research put into the interpretations and conclusions drawn, I find some to be missing the point or reaching the wrong conclusion.

First off, Heyd misinterprets Dali’s use of color. The sitting Narcissus is primarily done with warm and lively colors accompanied by a fiery glow behind his head. Heyd notes that red is the color of blood, which she associates with decay and putrification. I see the warm colors and the red as an association with fire, warmth, and blood as well, but I link these to life and energy rather than decay. After all, the warm-colored Narcissus represents the still-living man, before he undergoes his transformation. The cracked, bony, and emaciated hand juxtaposed to the right of Narcissus acts as a nice contrast to the image of life. It is a pale bone color and is holding a white egg, out of which sprouts a narcissus flower. Heyd takes this flower/hand combination to symbolize rebirth through the sprouting of the flower. I feel that she misplaced the symbolism of the hand because she associated the living body with decay. The hand is meant to symbolize death with its pale cracked surface. That’s what one thinks of when one sees those colors: sterility, death, and ashes. In Catholicism on Ash Wednesday we receive ashes on our foreheads along with the blessing “You are born from ashes and to ashes you shall return.” And lo! Out of the pale ashes springs new life in the form of a flower. It all comes together to form a cycle of life, death, and rebirth.

The flower has more significance to Heyd, though. She interpreted the flower sprouting from the egg as a representation of Gala, Dali’s wife. Along with the white of the flower and the egg Heyd believed that it represented his wife because she was an image of purity in his eyes; an image of unblemished love and beauty. This is understandable because Gala has made numerous appearances in Dali’s paintings, but this interpretation isn’t accurate because of two reasons. Dali loved painting his wife; all of her appearances in his paintings are obviously her and not merely a symbolic representation. Reason number two is that the story of Narcissus is one of self-obsession. Narcissus loved only himself, and therefore a representation of the love that he (Dali) has for another would be both inaccurate and out-of-place. Like I said, the flower is merely a representation of the next step in the never-ending cycle of life, death, and rebirth.

Heyd’s idea of what the hand symbolizes isn’t death, as I interpreted it, but rather Echo herself. In the story she, too, was rejected by Narcissus. When she knows that she cannot have the love she longs for she pines for him and her bones turn to stone. The hand is very stone-like in appearance and texture and is an almost perfect “echo” of the image of Narcissus seen just to the left of it. Again, there are two reasons as to why this theory doesn’t check out. Firstly, Echo has nothing to do with the rebirth of Narcissus as a flower and yet the hand pictured quite clearly connects the rebirth and the death that are symbolized by the hand and the flower. Secondly, Echo is represented by the figures in the background making provocative gestures towards Narcissus. The figures in the back represent Echo because they show her expressions of love and attempts to get the attention of Narcissus and as they fade even further to the background they lose detail, as an echo loses its clarity with each returning ring. Of course this is also a method for showing perspective and distance, but this fact makes the symbolism that much more subtle and abstract. The figures also serve to accentuate the fact that Narcissus has eyes and attention only for himself.

Art is awesome because it has the amazing quality of being generally open to interpretation. Anyone that can look at a piece of art is capable of coming up with his or her own interpretation of it. Surrealist art in particular has this quality because it tends to be so ridiculously odd and out-of-the-ordinary that people will almost inevitably come up with their own unique idea of what each part means. It makes for pretty good discussion and conversation. Heyd interpreted many aspects of the painting Metamorphosis of Narcissus that I couldn’t make head or tail of as far as meaning and significance went, but there were also some parts of her analysis that didn’t sit well with me. I think my interpretation makes much more sense, but then again, doesn’t everyone think that their own interpretation of anything is the only real right answer?

Salvador Dali, Narcissistic Pig of Father of Po-Mo Art?

Salvador Dali is probably my favorite artist. The guy that painted the “Persistencia de Memoria,” you know, the melting clocks? Yeah that’s the one. His work is immensely famous, with the “Persistencia de Memoria” possibly being the most well known of all. In Charles Stucky’s article “Dali in Duchamp-Land” he says that Dali was arrogant and saw the world as simply context for his own autobiography. Despite this arrogance, though, Dali was remarkably skilled and has always seemed to bring countless strangers together in enclosed areas to discuss amongst themselves the symbolism behind each detail of his works. The title of the article should have been “Salvador Dali, bringing people together through narcissism and self-promotion.” In Mark van Proyen’s article “On Point” he says that the surrealist style has completely changed the style of contemporary art to center largely around what Robert Hughes called “The Shock of the New.” It was a shock that came in part from the presence of something normal either twisted into or accompanied by something out of the ordinary and absurd. This was exactly what Dali accomplished with many of his paintings.

Stucky uses Dali’s numerous self-portraits to back up his argument. The sheer number of them is a testament to the fact that he loved for others to see him. Perhaps he was in love with himself? Or maybe he was simply full of himself. In “The Railway Station at Peapignan” Dali depicts himself rising up, as if towards heaven accompanying Dali’s ascension is an image of a crucified Jesus in the sunrise. Stucky also describes an unnamed painting from when Dali was a teenager in which he shows himself as Bacchus (or Dionysus if you need the Greek equivalent) holding grapes over his head in greeting to the sunrise. Dali liked to show himself as an attractive and desirable figure in many of his paintings, but then, who wouldn’t if they were a talented artist? Stucky also references a recollection by John Cage of one of his visits to Dali’s place. He said that he was always talking, as if he were a king. Perhaps Dali was a bit full of himself. Hughes, on the other hand argues that Dali had a different purpose for his paintings.

In his article, Hughes argues that Dali’s aim was to bring the “shock of the new” to people. His style was far from generic, and the surrealist theme always kept people looking at his works for a good amount of time in order to pick everything out. Hughes claimed that Dali was the first post-modern artist because he came to the realization that “popular culture was the only real living culture." Dali’s own type of surrealism had more of an impact on people, Hughes said, because he wasn’t trying to do anything truly new, but rather was depicting the surrealism that was modern popular culture. The shock was derived from seeing the man’s interpretation of everyday life and fads all laid out bare before them and shown under a different light.

I feel that each of these articles make valid points. The number of Dali’s self-portraits and his idealistic depiction of himself in most of them are a testament to his love of self; however, I think it is also possible that he painted himself so much because it was his own self that he knew best. His strange surrealist style certainly does bring a shock to people, even after seeing one of these works numerous times it can still be a bit of a surprise seeing the way things are distorted and magnified through the eyes of Salvador Dali. This shock was also his means of becoming well known in the world. Dali knew that in order to leave his mark in the world, he had to go above and beyond what was expected. Not only did he accomplish that, he also twisted that concept back in on itself with the intense level of distortion present in nearly every one of his works.

Publicité d'affiche

I find it ironic how advertising can be considered art, but when one takes the time to analyze the messages being conveyed, it is much easier to see deeper meaning and symbolism. Advertising with posters is meant to make consumers associate products with visual images, therefore reminding them of the product anytime that image comes into conversation or in one’s thoughts. Pretty sneaky if you ask me – but it works. How many people can associate a cartoon tiger with sugary corn flake cereal, o a white marshmallow looking man with reliable tires? Those are just a couple examples of the many images throw into our faces in today’s advertising world. And don’t think that was any different at the turn of the 20th century. In fact, that is when utilization of posters with images became the new method of advertising.

Mark Henshaw and his intern, Simeran Maxwell, published Birth of the Modern Poster discussing the techniques and artwork used to advertising. Jules Chéret mastered techniques and figurative forms in his art and earned the title, “the ‘father’ of the modern poster.” He made his first black and white designs during the mid-1850s and four years later he used lithography to add colors. These techniques have given us the types of posters we see around the globe today.

Chéret painted advertisements for many publishers, hat makers, entertainers, and other advertisers. But the most noticeable aspect of his works is that he uses very few figures throughout his portfolio. The most common figure used is “a pretty, blond, rosebud-lipped young woman whose association with the product she advertises is…tenuous at beset,” (28). Because he used such common figures in his works, it was easy for consumers to identify Chéret as the artist, but perhaps it made the products sort of run together because the same figures were used. This is why each poster he made had bold and flamboyant print as well, to distinguish the advertisements. Chéret uses a lot of yellow therefore catching the consumers and viewers’ eyes. Also, his use of women furthers the idea that sex sells, which we find so often in our society today. Obviously, not much has changed in the last 150 years…

Chéret had a long and successful career, Henshaw and Maxwell note that he made over 1000 posters, some painted for the opening of the famous Moulin Rouge and for the Folies Bergère. If you don’t know much about these venues, imagine them as today’s Las Vegas shows or Broadway musicals with maximized glitz and glamour, but only in mid-nineteenth century Paris. The advertisements for these shows and facilities were huge to accomplish because those accounts in advertising were on the rise at the time. The posters had to represent the performances while making potential audience members want to pay to attend. Some of Chéret’s most coveted works are of such performances by dancer Loïe Fuller. Fuller had Chéret match each poster’s colors for each performance’s lighting and costumes – talk about really connecting the advertising to the venue. Using the colors and figures in his posters only furthered his contributions to advertising. These techniques revolutionized the idea of the association principle; it also triggers previous audience members and consumers to tell potential viewers of those connections when the posters are seen in public.

Chéret’s works changed the world of advertising with the use of color and the association principle of certain figures to translate into a good time. His efforts can still be seen in today’s advertising, and one doesn’t even have to look very hard for influences. His painted posters also revolutionized the performing arts industry because they were used as advertisements. Without Chéret’s art, advertising might not be as bright or forward and appealing as it is today. It had to start somewhere.

Pop Artist or Rightly Celebrated Genius?

Imagine an artist who created hundreds of works with fewer than maybe 20 subjects. This is the incredible statistic that describes the work of Andrew Wyeth. Once his career really began, his only subjects came from his home in Pennsylvania and his summer cottage in Cushing, Maine. He painted his neighbors and those closest to him, believing that since they were what he knew they would truly make the best subjects. Wyeth is one of America’s most well-known and publicly celebrated painters. In the article “Wyeth’s World” in the Smithsonian magazine, Wyeth’s reputation with critics is thoroughly discussed. The author supports Wyeth, and I also agree with the validity of Wyeth’s fame as well as the positive qualities of his paintings. Despite or possibly because of his popularity however, he has been unable to attain extensive support and celebration from art historians and critics. Due largely to his success in the art world, Wyeth has become a very controversial artist, with not only his methods but his value as a painter constantly being questioned. Many have ruled him out as a “serious” painter, basically reducing him to a pop artist, someone only in it for the money and fame. It seems to me however, if you look at the details of his works, they are much too subtle and seemingly simple to be the attempts of a man seeking only public attention.
A work of art that grabs the most attention of the largely art ignorant public is through the use of outlandish, big, bright images. If one cannot help but see a painting, obviously they will pay attention to it. In my opinion if an artist were truly just going for popularity and attention from the public, they would be better served by painting a more ‘obnoxious’ piece of work. One of the most resilient qualities of Wyeth’s works is the dark, subdued colors he uses. Desolate browns and grays dominate the landscapes and only a few, if any bright patches are present.
The genius of Wyeth’s work is his ability to make his simple, dark images appealing to the public. I think that this wasn’t his main goal when he started out. In fact he was not even behind the showing of his first paintings. Wyeth was truly a man who painted for himself, which is why he continued to use the subjects he liked best and stuck to his style. He has received much criticism for being so dark and melancholy, with claims that he is not accurately depicting the areas he paints. The former curator of the Museum of Modern Art, Robert Storr holds that Wyeth does not even accomplish what his works are most famous for, truly depicting the lives that he sees, saying that instead the paintings are “a very contrived version of what is true about simple Americans....I was born in Maine. I know these people and I know. Nothing about Wyeth is honest. He always goes back to that manicured desolation....He’s so averse to color, to allowing real air—the breath of nature—into his pictures.” And yet he does not change. Wyeth continues to paint to this day, and he has refused to give in to the critics and change what his works are. His paintings are still of the people, places and objects that he sees every day. The fact that he paints ordinary, typical objects further contradicts the argument that Wyeth only paints for money or public attention. Again paintings with such simple subjects will not be likely to draw much attention from the public. Nothing about Andrew Wyeth’s work truly alludes to a primary concern for fortune and fame.
One of the instances that made Wyeth such a target as a potential pop artist was his reveal of more than one hundred paintings that he had completed in total secrecy.
These paintings became a huge topic of discussion not only in the art world but in the discussions of everyday Americans. They received so much attention that they were almost immediately put on display as a complete collection. All of the paintings were of his neighbor Helga, many of them nude or in extremely intimate positions, which only helped to encourage the discussions, though Wyeth and his wife have attempted to dispel rumors of a sexual relationship. While Wyeth maintained that he only kept them hidden because they didn’t flow as well with the subjects of his other paintings, many critics continue to label it as an underhanded publicity stunt. While the reveal did bring him further fortune and fame, it seems that the timing is quite obscure. If it had really been a final attempt for attention in the public eye it seems that a reveal close to his time of death would have been the most opportune.
While Andrew Wyeth has undoubtedly achieved great fame and renown as an artist and received the inherent wealth that accompanies that stature, I think the style and subjects of his work show that it has never been his intention to create purely for such trivial gains.

Different Sides of Andrew Wyeth

Andrew Wyeth is one of America’s most well-known artists. His pictures have been said to truly represent our country, not only because he is an American, but because all of his works depict locations in America. There are many art lovers and students who are enthralled by Wyeth’s works, but how many really understand it? That depends on who you ask. Some art historians believe that despite his reputation as being an “all American” painter, his work really does not represent the life of most Americans, but rather memories of the way they wish they could still live, as discussed in “The Ghosts of Andrew Wyeth: The Meaning of Death in the Transcendental Myth of America”. Other historians do not question how American the paintings are, but how well they are appreciated by the American public as in “Andrew Wyeth and the Transcendental Tradition”. Both of these ideas question the simplicity and universality that most audiences love about Wyeth’s work, but at the same time these studies help create a deeper understanding which can lead to further appreciation. One article focuses in on the more ‘American’ feeling that Wyeth’s paintings provide for his audience, while the other focuses more on who affected Wyeth and his work.
All of Andrew Wyeth’s paintings were of people and places in Maine and Pennsylvania. This instantly creates alienation of the other 48 states of the union; no two states look completely alike. More importantly though the ideologies that are so dispersed in our country are not represented through these limited scopes. People in the south, Midwest and pacific regions have very different ideas on how to best live their lives. Region is one of the starkest ways in which Americans are divided and the differences between the regions constantly and consistently show themselves. The quaint images depicted are not ones that would seem out of place in some parts of the northeast, especially in the past, but even long ago there were no such sights to be seen out in California. Many people are unable to correctly identify why they like Wyeths’ so much. While they think they are admiring his ability to capture American life, they really enjoy his representation of the way life in some parts of America USED to be. These people are longing for ‘simpler more carefree’ times and see what they want to in Wyeth’s paintings.
The second article focuses in on Wyeth’s inspirations in the literary world. This author equates Wyeth with transcendentalist authors such as Emerson and Thoreau. Transcendentalists believe that human intuition holds many answers, more in fact than can be provided through science and empirical thought. This would lead one to believe that Wyeth’s paintings are indeed more simplistic and tied up in the old ways of the world. Emerson and Thoreau wrote of going into the woods to think and lose themselves, and the suggestion is there that that is what Wyeth was trying to accomplish through his art. He was not trying to give Americans a view of themselves but rather to create an escape for himself. While this does not contradict the first article, it looks at it from the causal point of view instead of the effect. Wyeth’s art is an opportunity for him to let his intuition and thoughts flow without being held down by the weights and limitations of what science says to be real. However it is also discussed how this individual thoughtful drive behind the paintings is hard to explain. Again because Americans are so wrapped up in interpreting things the way that suits them best, they search for a deeper American meaning that isn’t there. Ironically, Wyeth is enforcing one of the most American ideals of all, individualism, not searching for the best way to represent the spirit of America.

Waiting in the Wings

If you’ve ever been backstage for a production, you know that it is an entirely different world than what one would find in the entrance and or house of an auditorium. The mood is chaotic yet organized, stressful yet soothing, and (most vividly for the performers) nerve-racking yet exciting. Truly, there is nothing else like it.

With that in mind, it is understandable as to why an artist like Edgar Degas spent countless hours in the dressing rooms and other backstage areas in order to capture these images on his canvases. Marcus Verhagen wrote of this in All the World’s Backstage where he described Degas’ intent for such subjects in his masterpieces. The use of the rise in popularity of stage performances during Degas’ time and Emile Zola’s story of a courtesan to depict Degas’ backstage interest emanates that everyone can see what happens on the stage – but very few get to witness what goes on behind the curtain, in the wings, and in the dressing and rehearsal rooms. Verhagen uses this truth of Degas’ paintings to show not only Degas’ enjoyment of backstage, but also the scenes painted to define what was deemed important to those backstage, be it the costumes and or the intensity of their focus. Through his paintings, Degas uncovers the truth of the times with the scenes of his dancers, yet leaves some of the works open to individual interpretation.

From Zola’s novel Nana, the backstage area called the coulisses is where Verhagen draws all of his reasoning for Degas to have had desire to paint scenes of dancers in the wings, onstage, and in rehearsal. Zola felt that the coulisses were a “place of demystification” (Verhagen 74). Because modern theatre and stage performances had gained popularity at the time, understanding and seeing the backstage happenings was new, different, and intriguing. No one usually got to see the coulisses, so it became a place to find new stories and scenes – a place of new realism in the art era of impressionism. Degas could use his talents to show reflections of backstage, yet his impressionistic strokes left much of the scenes to be left in the imagination of the viewer.

In this work, the dancer in the foreground appears more distinct than those stretching in the background. Her gaze is focused, on what we don’t know, but notice those dancers in the background. Yes, they just seem splotched in there to fill in space – but there is one dancer in the back who appears to be looking out of the painting into the eyes of the viewer. Her face isn’t distinguished, but one can get the impression that she is deep in thought (maybe about choreography). Also, the others in the background are stretching showing their focus on their work ethic as dancers.


Verhagen makes good points, but he has to use a novel by Zola to further what he wants to say. But along with this idea of impressionism giving a scene some details but having loose strokes to leave indistinct areas where the viewer could fill in his or her own ideas, the art blog “Arts and Mind” discussed Degas’ ability to do this. Objects in the background were painted with such quick and slack brush strokes that the objects are only left as impressions; therefore they don’t seem as important to the entirety of the painting. This leaves the viewer open to weave in more personal details. However, the blogger states that even in the foreground details are left missing with fuzzy strokes giving the viewer this same ability to imagine.


Degas’ impressionism in this painting of “Dancers in Pink” gives the viewer distinct dancers against a blurry background. But even their faces are a little blurry when given proper time to examine this painting. In keeping with the idea that this leaves us the possibility of filling in our own images with Degas’ works, perhaps we can put faces on the dancers and more detail into the background. One very important thing to notice about all of Degas’ pieces of dancers is that they seem intently focused on their work, be it technique in their movements or appeal of their costumes. This adds to the air of being backstage, drawing the viewer away from the idea of the subjects being staged models.

Degas is my favorite artist not only because I like impressionist art the most, but also because of his love of dancers as subjects. Leaving the faces and backgrounds less distinct, I feel like I can have a more personal connection with his works. Verhagen is correct too about backstage being so exciting. There is no wonder in my mind why Degas would paint such scenes – not many get to see it, and that’s a shame. Verhagen does however mention the possibility of Degas’ focus of these dancers as sexual desire, which I don’t necessarily agree with. Zola seems more accurate in this sense because being backstage was new and different, especially with the rise of theatre in Degas’ lifetime. It is ironic though how a blogger seems to be more credible in their analysis of Degas’ work than a scholarly article author…

Arrogance or Invisible? Chuck Close's Effect on Modern Art

One of my favorite artists is Chuck Close. I admire the level of realism in his paintings, which are indistinguishable from a photograph. By using a grid, he can take a photograph and replicate it on an abnormally large scale. Close’s portraits are a cornerstone of modern art, and are subjects of much attention and debate in the art world. However, his artistic methods lead critics to question the meaning behind his art. His Big Self Portrait is so big that Donald Kuspit argues Close creates his art on such a large scale to emphasize the “importance” of artists. In his article, “Heroic Isolation or Delusion of Grandeur? Chuck Close's Portraits of Artists,” Kuspit finds Close’s art to be pretentious. In another article, titled “Chuck Close: Recent Paintings,” John Ewing claims Close’s art, despite its size, risks being overlooked by the viewers. He claims the subjects of Close’s portraits, relatively unknown artists and friends, cause the paintings to lose some of their meanings.

Kuspit, an art history and philosophy professor, compares Close’s self-portrait to Albrecht Durer’s self-portrait. Both portraits convey the artist as more important that they really are. Durer’s portrait portrays himself as a Christ-like figure. Close’s portrait is different. Kuspit claims his painting lacks the emotion of Durer’s. This lack of emotion causes Close to seem more arrogant and self-obsessed. Kespit believes Close’s portraits offer “little sense of sharing and communicating the common lot of humanity, and virtually no sense of belonging to the human community and being subject to the vicissitudes of life.” The author wonders why Close has conveyed this in his art and decides that Close is attempting to raise the artist above the average human being. He often paints other artists in his photorealistic portraits. Kuspit writes, “What we have in Close's portraits is a bombastic elevation of the artist above the human condition--a glorification of the artist carried out by means of a monstrous enlargement (indeed, grotesque monumentalization) of his appearance.” He follows by claiming the use of enlargement is to convince the viewer that the artist is superior. That is not too farfetched, usually things that are big are important, so why not pictures of artists? Lincoln has his own monument, why can’t Chuck Close and the artist have theirs? Kuspit believes Close paints the artist in such a way because the artist’s way of life is threatened. If the artist is not superior, why should non-artists shell out big bucks for their paintings and sculptures?

Kuspit criticizes the “lack of introspection” found in Close’s art. Despite pretentiously painting himself, Durer still managed to provide some self-perspective. However, Close’s art uses its domineering size to make up for its emotional shortcomings. The writer even calls Close’s art pugnacious for brandishing its power. The art’s sheer size wants to make the viewer feel inferior to protect the modern artist’s lifestyle. Apparently, the artist “has to be a hero to himself because he feels isolated and alienated, however economically and socially successful he may be.” Kuspit finds Close’s portraits of himself and other artist to be nothing more that self-made advertisements. Modern artists can no longer rely on their work for publicity. Instead, they have to rely on overbearing portraits of themselves, which make them seem more important than they really should be.

Kuspit finds himself quite disgusted with Close’s advertisements – I mean artwork. For something that is so reprehensive, it is unlikely it would go unnoticed. However, according to an article by John Ewing, Close’s art has become commonplace to the extent that it is invisible. According to Ewing, the photorealistic portraits are so accustomed in the public eye, that they risk suffering the same fate as Andy Warhol’s pop art did in the 1980’s. He believes Close’s art is in danger of being unnoticed because of his subject matter. His portraits of relatively unknown artists and family friends require the viewer to ask, “Who’s that?” The viewer who fails to ask the question will not appreciate the portrait.

Why does it matter if the viewer recognizes the subject, there are many paintings of unknown individuals. Perhaps it is the level of realism in Close’s art. The portraits (at least the older ones) are nearly indistinguishable from the photographs of which they are based.
The viewers know the portraits represent someone, but whom? The viewer who doesn’t know the subject is just looking at a photograph of some random person. Photorealistic paintings leave no room for symbolism. In older portraits such as Durer’s, the artist could alter the appearance of a certain object to create extra emotion in the painting. There is no denying Close’s art appears slightly empty and there is little emotion involved. The still-faced stare of Big Self Portrait looks more like a mug shot than an insightful portrait.

Interestingly, Kuspit and Ewing disagree about the subject matter and its effect on Close’s artwork. Kuspit finds the large-scale interpretation of artists to be pretentious. Ewing claims Close’s artwork suffers from the unknown subjects it sometimes portrays. Kuspit’s extremely critical argument hurts its own credibility by being so harsh. The author does not find one thing to admire about the portraits. He only uses his own opinion, which allows the reader to think he is the only person with that viewpoint. On the other had, Ewing describes an art gallery showing Close’s recent work. He mentions the whispers of “Who’s that?” creeping through the gallery. Plus, Ewing didn’t resort to criticizing every facet of Close’s art. His criticisms are stated in a professional manner and he avoids expressing his own opinion about the arts purpose.

1. Kuspit, Donald. “Heroic Isolation or Delusion of Grandeur? Chuck Close's Portraits of Artists.” Art New England 19.4 (June/July 1998): 11.
2. Ewing, John. “Chuck Close: Recent Paintings: PaceWildenstein.” Modern Painters (September 2005): 108.