Chromist-made reproductions are -not- original works of visual art, much less by Chuck Close

NOTE: Footnotes are enclosed as: [FN ]

Under U.S. Copyright Law "Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair. [one of which is:] The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes." http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

[mine]

Chuck Close's (American, born 1940) 2002 Self-Portrait is a 43-color woodcut. The esteemed artist has reinterpreted his self-portrait in many different painting and printmaking techniques over the decades. Photo courtesy Jordan D. Schnitzer.

http://newsok.com/video-and-interviews-chuck-close-maps-faces-experiments-with-printmaking-techniques-in-new-oklahoma-city-museum-of-art-exhibit/article/3914930

NON-DISCLOSED CHROMIST-MADE REPRODUCTION

Many of the so-called "etchings, linoleum cuts, lithographs, screen prints, woodcuts, and paper pulp multiples" in the December 13, 2013-February 16, 2014 Chuck Close: Works on Paper exhibition at Oklahoma City Museum of Art were non-disclosed chromist-made [someone who copies an artist's work] reproductions falsely attributed as original works of visual art to the artist Chuck Close for monetary considerations including but not limited to admission fees, city-state-federal grants, and corporate sponsorship, not to mention future outright sales and tax write-offs.

Yet, the Oklahoma City Museum of Art Curator Jennifer Klos stated: "This exhibition has some of the traditional printmaking techniques: We have etchings and silkscreens and woodcuts. But then we also have a variety of these techniques [Chuck Close] utilized that go well beyond even pushing the boundaries of what we think of as printmaking."[FN 1]

[mine]

This monograph will document these contentious issues of authenticity.

MUSEUM ADMISSION* 
"Members: Free, Adults: $12, Seniors (62+): $10, College Students (with ID): $10, Military (with ID): $5, Children (ages 6-18): $10, Children (ages five and under): Free, Tours (15 or more): $7 per person, Senior Tours (15 or more): $6.50 per person, School Tours (15 or more): $3 per person" 
http://www.okcmoa.com/visit/hours-and-admissions/ 

In the NewsOk's published December 15, 2013 "Video and interviews: Chuck Close maps faces, experiment with printmaking techniques in new Oklahoma city Museum of Art exhibit" blog by Entertainment Reporter Brandy McDonnell, the reporter wrote:

• "Along with admiring his artistic prowess, [Curtis Jones, an associate professor of printmaking at the University of Oklahoma] said he considers Close an inspirational person. Close overcame dyslexia as a child and went on to graduate from UW and later Yale. In 1988, a collapsed artery in his spine that left Close partially paralyzed and confined to a wheelchair; he was able to continue painting using a brush strapped to his arm with a Velcro harness."[FN 2]

U.S. CUSTOMS

In U.S. Custom`s May 2006 An Informed Compliance Publication titled Works of Art, Collector`s Pieces Antiques, and Other Cultural Property, it states: "The expression original engravings, prints and lithographs means impressions produced directly, in black and white or in color, of one or of several plates wholly executed by hand by the artist, irrespective of the process or of the material employed by him, but excluding any mechanical or photomechanical process."[FN 3]

Considering how labor intensive and challenging original printmaking can be for a healthy artist, how was the physically challenged Chuck Close, after being partially paralyzed in 1988, able to "wholly executed by hand by the artist, irrespective of the process or of the material employed by him, but excluding any mechanical or photomechanical process?"

The answer is a partially paralyzed Chuck Close was -not- able to continue and chromists [someone who copies an artist's work] were subsequently hired to reproduce Chuck Close's artworks.

How can this be proven?

The rationalization for this -deception-, by Chuck Close and others, is laid out in an excerpt from a May 14-Aug 22, 2004 Miami Art Museum's promotional pdf for their Chuck Close Prints Process and Collaboration exhibition:

• "Close collaboration - Close works alone for long hours when he paints, usually keeping company with a radio or television. Every single artistic decision he makes belongs to him. In contrast, printmaking is collaborative. It requires him to work with a community of master printers, which means managing personalities as well as artistic styles, giving up control, and occasionally (though not often) compromising. For their part, the remarkably skilled artisans involved in these projects have to meet Close’s exacting demands and learn how to translate the spirit of his art into new form. Since his first major print in 1972, Close has continually set printmaking challenges for himself and his collaborators. “I am always pushing the envelope,” he says. In this way, both he and the printmakers have to find solutions together, neither one has the upper hand. Sometimes these artisans — chromists (trained to choose and mix colors), block cutters and screenprinters — spend more time with the print than Close himself. That is not easy for an artist as precise and in control as Close, but with time, he has learned that it makes the best prints. Collaboration has expanded Close’s horizons, resulting in prints and editions he never could have made on his own."[FN 4]

So, Chuck Close would have us believe and act on the belief that "collaboration has expanded [his] horizons, resulting in prints and editions he never could have made on his own."

WORK OF VISUAL ART -EXCLUDES- COPIES THAT ARE COLLABORATIVE

Aside the U.S. Customs' requirement, noted earlier, that  "original engravings, prints and lithographs means impressions produced directly, in black and white or in color, of one or of several plates wholly executed by hand by the artist, the Visual Artist’s Rights Act (H.R. bill 5316), which amended the Copyright Act of 1976, and was signed into law on December 1, 1990 specifically addresses the concept of "collaboration." In the 1995 The Visual Artist’s Business and Legal Guide compiled and edited by Gregory T. Victoroff, Esq., attorney Katherine M. Thompson specifically addresses issue of “collaboration” in the 1990 Visual Artist’s Rights Act. On page 28, the attorney wrote: “The VARA amends the Copyright Act to create a definition for a “work of visual art.” According to Section 602, -excluded are items - that generally exist in multiple copies and are collaborative in nature.”[FN 5] 

[underline mine]

This additional excerpt from a May 14-Aug 22, 2004 Miami Art Museum's promotional pdf for their Chuck Close Prints Process and Collaboration exhibition further exposes Chuck Close's hubris:

• "Despite his starting point in a photograph, every aspect of his prints is hand-made. Close is adamant about “not trying to make reproductions.” Even when photographic processes are commonly used in print studios to translate images onto a matrix (as in silk screen or photogravure), he insists it be done by hand. This means, of course, that his collaborators must learn to make marks like Close’s, to render the spirit of his style in woodblock, silk screen, or pulp paper. As he says, 'We make art the old-fashioned way.'"[FN 6]

What a devastating admission by Chuck Close that "his collaborators must learn to make marks like Close’s, to render the spirit of his style in woodblock, silk screen, or pulp paper." At best, that's a reproduction by any other name.

That factual perspective is confirmed in The Fifth Edition of the Artist`s Handbook of Materials and Techniques by Ralph Mayer, where the author wrote: "The major traditional graphic-arts processes of long standing and continued popularity are lithograph, etching, drypoint, woodcutting or wood engraving, aquatint, and soft-ground etching. ...The term `graphic arts` excludes all forms of mechanically reproduced works photographed or redrawn on plates; all processes in which the artist did not participate to his or her fullest capacity are reproductions."[FN 7]

U.S. COPYRIGHT LAW 106A

Additionally, under U.S. Copyright Law 106 A, “The Rights of Attribution - shall not apply to any reproduction?”[FN 8]

In other words, if an artist, such as Chuck Close, authorizes a printer and/or chromist to reproduce their work, the resulting reproductions cannot be attributed to the artist. That printer that reproduced those reproductions would own them. That printer would only be contractually obligated to give the artist the reproductions they paid for. The artist pays for 100 reproductions, they get a 100 reproductions. All of the reproduction overruns [potentially dozens or more], all plates, negatives, digital files and the like used to reproduce those reproductions, would be owned by the printer and if they chose to do so that printer [or future new owner] could reproduce more reproductions without the knowledge or permission of the artist.

PRINTING TRADE CUSTOMS
This perspective is confirmed by the Printing Industries of America, Inc. in their published Printing Trade Customs, which, in part, states: “6. PREPARATORY MATERIALS Working mechanical art, type, negatives, positives, flats, plates, and other items when supplied by the printer, shall remain his exclusive property unless otherwise agreed in writing.”[FN 9]

U.S. COPYRIGHT LAW COMPILATIONS AND DERIVATIVE WORKS
Under U.S. Copyright Law 103. “Subject matter of copyright: Compilations and derivative works,” it states: “The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work.”[FN 10]

SMOKING GUN

Now for the "the piece of physical or documentary evidence that conclusively impeaches an adversary on an outcome-determinative issue or destroys the adversary's credibility" which is one legal definition of -smoking gun-.[FN 11] 

Lyle, 2002, 149-color silk screen, 65 1/2 x 54", Edition of 80, Brand X Editions, New York, printer (Robert Blanton, Thomas Little), Pace Editions, Inc.,, New York, publisher, Courtesy the artist and Pace Editions, Inc., New York 

Photo: http://www.sanjosemuseumofart.org/content/chuck-close-prints-process-and-collaboration

NON-DISCLOSED CHROMIST-MADE REPRODUCTION

CHUCK CLOSE PRINTS, PROCESS AND COLLABORATION

In the Princeton University Press, Blaffer Gallery and the Art Museum of the University of Houston's published 2003 Chuck Close Prints, Process and Collaboration catalogue by Terrie Sulton with an essay by Richard Shiff, the following admissions were made.

IN 2002, THOMAS LITTLE, BY HIS OWN HAND, DREW THE MYLARS FOR THE SCREENS, NOT CHUCK CLOSE
On page 97 of the Chapter titled: "Silk Screen" with the subtitle: "Robert Blanton and Thomas Little, Brand X Editions," Thomas Little is quoted stating: 

• "Once it was decided that we would work on Lyle, I went to see the painting. I had my Pantone color guide, the book that most printers use for color matching and mixing, and we spread the pages and began to look at color. We planned to go from light to dark, warm to cool, yellow to purple. Then, form a transparency of the painting, we generated a Duratrans, which is like a big 35 millimeter slide. It's translucent and gives a good representation of the mark, which is very important in Chuck's work. From the Duratrans, we made decisions about color separations, and then I hand drew the many layers of Mylars that we needed for the print. From there we made the screens."[FN 12]

In other words, Chuck Close is knowingly having others reproduce his work which he in turn -falsely- claims as original works of visual art attributable to him.

On page 137 of the Seventh Edition of Black's Law Dictionary, -bait and switch- is defined as: "Most states prohibit the bait and switch when the original product is not actually available as advertised."[FN 13]

                                        

Plate 97 (opposite) Emma, 2002, 113-color Japanese-style ukiyo-e woodcut, 43 x 35 in. (109.2 x 88.9 cm), Edition of 55, Pace Editions Ink, New York, printer (Yasu Shibata), Pace Editions, Inc., New York, publisher. [page 115, 2003 Chuck Close Prints, Process and Collaboration catalogue by Terrie Sulton with an essay by Richard Shiff]  

Photo: http://glasstire.com/2003/09/02/chuck-close-prints-process-and-collaboration/

NON-DISCLOSED CHROMIST-MADE REPRODUCTION 

IN 2002, YASU SHIBATA, BY HIS OWN HAND, CUT AND PRINTED THE WOODBLOCKS, NOT CHUCK CLOSE
On page 112 of the Chapter titled: "Japanese-Style Woodcut" with the subtitle: "Yasu Shibata, Pace Editions, Inc.," Yasu Shibata stated: 

• "This technique is three hundred years old. Traditionally, it takes two people to make such a print. One person decides about the colors and the color separations, draws on the blocks and prints. The second person just does the carving. That is the way it works in Japan, even today. When I started at Tyler Graphics in 1991, I was the only printer for woodblocks, and so I had to cut the block and print it too. This is how I worked on Emma."[FN 14]

In other words, Chuck Close is knowingly having others reproduce his work which he in turn -falsely- claims as original works of visual art attributable to him.

Once again, on page 137 of the Seventh Edition of Black's Law Dictionary, -bait and switch- is defined as: "Most states prohibit the bait and switch when the original product is not actually available as advertised."[FN 15]

Leslie, 1986, woodcut, Edition of 100, 31 3/8 x 25 1/4 inches, Woodcut printed in colors, Signed, dated and numbered in pencil

Photo/Text: http://www.printed-editions.com/artwork/chuck-close-leslie-18351

NON-DISCLOSED CHROMIST-MADE REPRODUCTION 

IN 1986, TADASHI TODA BY HIS OWN HAND, CUT AND PRINTED THE WOODBLOCKS, NOT CHUCK CLOSE

Unfortunately, Chuck Close's use of chromists to reproduce by their hands his paintings was not a decision he made after 1988 because of "a collapsed artery in his spine that left Close partially paralyzed and confined to a wheelchair" and that left him able to continue painting only using a brush strapped to his arm with a Velcro harness. On page 111 of this same Chapter titled: "Japanese-Style Woodcut" with the subtitle: "Yasu Shibata, Pace Editions, Inc.," Chuck Close is quoted stating:

• "I am used to making every mark myself. I like to make every decision, carve everything, draw every line. It wasn't until I went to Kyoto in 1986 with Kathan Brown from Crown Point Press to make Japanese woodblock print that I ever gave over the responsibilities for separating the image out to anyone else. I had sent a watercolor gouache over to Japan for the master printer to work on it ahead of time, and I was shocked to see when I got there that it had become his piece. Then I had to wrest it away and make it mind again. The printer I was working with, Tadashi Toda, is very highly regarded in Japan. With us also was Hidekatsu Takada, a printer who had spent the first twenty-one years of his life in Kyoto working with a printer, and another twenty years working with American artists in California as an etching printer with Crown Point. He was acting as translator. When we arrived, a lot of work had already been done. I pointed to a specific shape and said to Takada, 'Tell him it is too green.' He started talking and talking, and there was an intense reaction from Mr. Toda. Finally, I asked, 'Why is it taking so long?' Takada said, 'You don't understand what I have to say is, 'Chuck is thrilled with what you have done, he thinks you are a genius. He thinks it is perfection. Beyond his wildest dreams. Nothing could be done to improve it. However, in the interest of intellectual curiosity, not that it would be better than what you have done, just to see what would happen, could you possibly make it a little less green?' We had to go through this process every time. I needed to be positive about any corrections I wanted to make. I found it strange yet interesting to let someone interpret the work, to make decisions about color and separations. I realized we had to work together to get a good print."[FN 16]

In other words, Chuck Close is knowingly having others reproduce his work which he in turn -falsely- claims as original works of visual art attributable to him.

To belabor a point, on page 137 of the Seventh Edition of Black's Law Dictionary, -bait and switch- is defined as: "Most states prohibit the bait and switch when the original product is not actually available as advertised."[FN 17]

Plate 106, Lucas/Woodcut, 1993, Woodcut with pochoir, 46 1/2 x 36 in., (118.1 x 91.4 cm,)m Edition of 50, Karl Hecksher, New York, printer, Pace Editions, Inc., New York, publisher

[page 121, 2003 Chuck Close Prints, Process and Collaboration catalogue by Terrie Sulton with an essay by Richard Shiff] Photo: http://www.vmfa.state.va.us/Exhibitions/Chuck-Close-People-Who-Matter-to-Me/

NON-DISCLOSED CHROMIST-MADE REPRODUCTION

IN 1993, KARL HECKSHER, BY HIS OWN HAND, CUT AND PRINTED THE WOODBLOCKS, NOT CHUCK CLOSE

On pages 125-126 of the Chapter titled: "European-Style Woodcut" with the subtitle: "Karl Hecksher," Karl Hecksher is quoted stating:

• "Chuck decides what image he wants to do; he decides what size he wants, what the margins around the image, he likes me to have the painting so I can see the color balance, so I can see firsthand what he has done. In the case of Lucas, I didn't have the painting. I don't know how it would have changed the print if I had the painting in the studio. I worked from an 8 x 10 inch transparency and had a color C- print made to the scale of the image. I used this to pull off the forms that I would then transfer to the block and carve, and I drew the forms by hand. In this case, the print is the same size as the painting."[FN 18]

In other words, Chuck Close is knowingly having others reproduce his work which he in turn -falsely- claims as original works of visual art attributable to him.

Once again, to be labor a key point, on page 137 of the Seventh Edition of Black's Law Dictionary, -bait and switch- is defined as: "Most states prohibit the bait and switch when the original product is not actually available as advertised."[FN 19]

In A GUIDE TO THE COLLECTING AND CARE OF ORIGINAL PRINTS sponsored by the The Print Council of America and authored by Carl Zigrosser and Christa M. Gaehde, the authors wrote: "An original print is a work of art, the general requirements of which are: a. The artist alone has created the master image in or upon the plate, stone, wood block or other material, for the purpose of creating the print. b. The print is made from the said material, by the artist or pursuant to his directions. c. The finished print is approved by the artist."[FN 20]

By published admission, since 1986 [some 28 years], Chuck Close has been either incapable or unwilling and/or both to always be the "artist who alone has created the master image in or upon the plate, stone, wood block or other material, for the purpose of creating the print." 

Chuck Close, participating chromists, printers, collectors, galleries and museums have, with or without intent, no shame.

FTC POLICY STATEMENT OF UNFAIRNESS

The United States Federal Trade Commission's" Policy Statement of Unfairness" states: “A seller’s failure to present complex and technical data on his product may lessen a consumer’s ability to choose, for example, but may also reduce the initial price he must pay for the article.---Finally, the injury must be one which consumers could not reasonably have avoided.”[FN 21]

CONCLUSION

The reputations and legacy of living and past artists, present and future consumers ie. the art-buying public deserve the re-establishment of the obvious; that the living presence and participation of the artist to once again be required, as it always should have been, to create the piece of art attributable to the artist if indeed it is attributed to them, much less purported to have been signed by them.

FOOTNOTES: 

1. http://newsok.com/video-and-interviews-chuck-close-maps-faces-experiments-with-printmaking-techniques-in-new-oklahoma-city-museum-of-art-exhibit/article/3914930 
2. Ibid
3. http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/legal/informed_compliance_pubs/
4. http://www.pamm.org/sites/default/files/mam_cclose_gnotes.pdf
5. Publisher: Prentice Hall (October 20, 1994), ISBN-10: 0133045935, ISBN-13: 978-0133045932
6. http://www.pamm.org/sites/default/files/mam_cclose_gnotes.pdf
7. Copyright © Bena Mayer, Executrix of the Estate of Ralph Mayer, 1991, ISBN 0-06-461012-8 (pbk.)
8. www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#101 - § 106A. Rights of certain authors to attribution and integrity37 (a) Rights of Attribution and Integrity. — Subject to section 107 and independent of the exclusive rights provided in section 106, the author of a work of visual art — (1) shall have the right — (A) to claim authorship of that work, and (3) The rights described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) shall not apply to any reproduction, 
9. www.graphicsquote.com/tradecustoms.html
10. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/103
11. page 1394, Seventh Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, © 1999 By West Group, ISBN 0314022864
12. Publisher: Princeton University Press (August 25, 2003), ISBN-10: 069111577X, ISBN-13: 978-0691115771
13. Seventh Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, © 1999 By West Group, ISBN 0314022864
14. Publisher: Princeton University Press (August 25, 2003), ISBN-10: 069111577X, ISBN-13: 978-0691115771
15. Seventh Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, © 1999 By West Group, ISBN 0314022864
16. Publisher: Princeton University Press (August 25, 2003), ISBN-10: 069111577X, ISBN-13: 978-0691115771
17. Seventh Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, © 1999 By West Group, ISBN 0314022864
18. Publisher: Princeton University Press (August 25, 2003), ISBN-10: 069111577X, ISBN-13: 978-0691115771
19. Seventh Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, © 1999 By West Group, ISBN 0314022864
20. Publisher: Crown (June 1, 1983), ISBN-10: 0517038056, ISBN-13: 978-0517038055
21. http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/policystmt/ad-unfair.htm

PRIOR VENUES FOR A "CHUCK CLOSE PRINTS PROCESS AND COLLABORATION" EXHIBITION:
Blaffer Gallery, the Art Museum of the University of Houston, September 13 - November 23, 2003

The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, January 13 - April 18, 2004

Miami Art Museum, May 14 - August 22, 2004

Knoxville Museum of Art, Tennessee, October 29, 2004 - March 27, 2005

Mint Museum of Art, Charlotte, North Carolina, April 16 - August 7, 2005

Addison Gallery of American Art, Andover, Massachusetts, September 6 - December 4, 2005

Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth, April 16 - June 18, 2006

Fine Arts Museum of San Francisco, California Palace of the Legion of Honor, July 14 - September 24, 2006

Bellevue Art Museum, Washington, October 22, 2006 - January 7, 2007

Orange County Museum of Art, Newport Beach, California, January 28 - April 20, 2007

Boise Art Museum, Idaho, May 12 - August 11, 2007

Portland Art Museum, Oregon, September - December 2007

Sungkok Art Museum, Seoul, Korea, June 19, 2008 - September 28, 2008

Frist Center for the Visual Arts, June 25 - September 13, 2009

San Jose Museum of Art, October 6, 2009 - January 10, 2010

Corcoran Gallery of Art, July 3, 2010 - September 26, 2010

Scottsdale Museum of Contemporary Art, 2010

Kunsthal Rotterdam, January 28, 2012 - May 20, 2012

Museum der Moderne, Salzburg, Austria, October 27,  2012 -  February 17, 2013

White Cube Bermondsey,  March 6, 2013 – April 21, 2013

Museo de Arte Contemporáneo Esteban Vicente, Segovia, 2013

• 
  
• Oklahoma City Museum of Art, December 13, 2013-February 16, 2014