"We walked up three flights of steep stairs, and there, at the far end of the narrow loft, was a huge black-and-white portrait of an unshaven, bar-shouldered young man. Standing next to it, greeting me apprehensively, was its towering, slightly glowering, six-foot-three painter, no less formidable-looking than his scraggly-locked image on the canvas." These words describe the first seconds of what would become a four-decade friendship between Chuck Close and Martin Friedman, Walker director from 1961 to 1990. The year was 1968. The painting was Big Self-Portrait, the first of Close's paintings using his trademark style and the first painting he ever sold. And Friedman ended up buying it for the Walker.
The recollection appears in his new book Close Reading: Chuck Close and the Artist Portrait (Harry N. Abrams, 2005), available in the Walker Shop. Coincidentally released just as the Walker-organized exhibition Chuck Close: Self-Portraits, 1968-2005 begins its national tour, the full-color volume is remarkable for both the intimacy and authoritativeness that comes from its author being an art historian and personal friend of Close. It includes a comprehensive biography of Close's life and work, from the 1988 illness that left Close paralyzed, and his recovery, to how he perfected the technique behind his epic-scale portraits, and includes interviews with many of his subjects, including Kiki Smith, Lucas Samaras, Cindy Sherman, William Wegman, and others. Looking back at that first encounter, Friedman recounts, "To this day, if I happen to be in the audience during a public occasion when he is being honored, Close never fails to mention the price the museum paid for his first self-portrait and, to his delight, my face never fails to turn bright red." The price: $1,300.
Having just closed at the Walker, Chuck Close: Self-Portraits, 1968-2005 makes its next appearance at SFMOMA, where it opens November 19. Click here to read an interview between exhibition curators Siri Engberg of the Walker and SFMOMA’s Madeleine Grynsztejn on the “topography of the face.”
Nico And The Velvet Underground Caught In Fox News Sex Scandal
Myspace.com’s censorship of Cindy Sherman’s art is one of many violations that continue to threaten Nico and The Velvet Underground’s first amendment rights. The controversy surrounds the band’s artistic use of artist Cindy Sherman’s 1992 Untitled #256, Courtesy Sammlung Goetz, München. In the most recent spat with Rupert Murdoch’s baby, Nico and The Velvet Underground were kicked off Myspace.com on Monday 19, 2005. This is the fifth time the band has been kicked off the site without warning.
The band continues to lead the message of gender equality, while supporting the many modern and post modern artists like Frida Kahlo, Annette Messager, Louise Bourgeois, Barbara Kruger, and Guerrilla Girls. Like the subversive art of the Vienna Aktionists, Nico and the Velvet Underground continue to push the sexual barrier with such shocking secrets in hyper realized performances that include film, video, mixed media and Rock and Roll.
While Nico and The Velvet Underground arent ruling out a record deal with Viacom, Paramount, and MTV, it is concerned about this shocking news. Nico’s press conference is set to air on several media outlets including WBBM AM/FM Chicago and Spike TV. In related news, Paramount bought out rival Dreamworks for $1.5 Billion, wrangling entertainment giants Steven Spielberg, David Geffen and Jeffrey Katzenberg. Viacom, which owns Paramount, reportedly negotiated a purchase of Myspace.com before the shocking buy out from Fox News on July 19, 2005. Spokeswoman Anna Astley is concerned about these recent developments and commented on the censorship fiasco. “Myspace.com and Fox News made no warning that the band’s account was being cancelled. Cancelling Nico and The Velvet Undergrounds’ Myspace.com account is tantamount to censorship and a violation of their First Amendment rights.”
Amidst the controversy and swirling allegations, Nico and The Velvet Underground had accumulated thousands of fans, with hundreds of thousands projected for 2006. PR spokeswoman Anna Astley also spoke of Nico and The Velvet Underground's projected lost revenues from the XM and Sirius Satellite Radio MTV tributes scheduled for 2006-2007. Fox News’ censorship of Nico and The Velvet Underground will likely threaten their efforts for their much-anticipated Video iPod syndication in the EU, American, and Asian markets. Having been forced underground by Fox News and Myspace.com, the band members fought to regroup under the band name "000000000001,” and are topping at number 1 on Microsoft’s popular online portal CNET.
Myspace.com seemingly disregards its policy that images not contain pornography, nudity, violence, offensive material, or copyrighted images. Arguably, Myspace.com contains thousands of nude pictures, violent and offensive material and copyrighted images ranging from Jesus Christ, Harry Potter, Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton, Angelina Jolie, and Snoop Dogg.
Myspace.com is filled with flash images asking members to “slap” President George W. Bush, Paris Hilton, or Brad Pitt in order to win a free iPod.
Media giant Rupert Murdoch, who is the majority shareholder of News Corporation, recently bought out Intermix Media, owner of Myspace.com for 580 Million.
New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer has accused Myspace.com of false advertising and deceptive business practices. Within the last year, Myspace was fingered for spyware attacks to redirect members to its search engine.
Intermix Media agreed to settle for 7.9M, having admitted no wrongdoing.
Anna Astley refused to comment regarding any future legal action against News Corporation, Fox News, and/or Myspace.com regarding Nico and The Velvet Underground’s First Amendment rights. “We cannot make a statement at this time,” stated Astley. The investigation will result in an announcement in early January.
Anna Astley suggests that everyone reflect on Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson’s 1943 opinion that "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." - West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)
Comment by Ms. Anna Astley — 12/21/2005 @ 3:32 am