Renaissance vs. Chuck Close

284 Words2 Pages
Obviously as anybody can tell Chuck Close’s Portrait looks more realistic then Rembrandt’s portrait. But Rembrandts portrait stands the test of time and truly states that Rembrandt was ahead of his time. What I love about Chuck Closes portrait is the astonishing detail of the little things such as the frizzle in the hair and every hair on the man’s beard. Nobody would know that it’s not a photograph. What I love about Rembrandts portrait is (like I said before) every single thing about his portrait due to his time period. It’s nearly like staring at somebody’s face hundreds of years ago, literally, it’s like looking into the past. The textures in the skin, the details in the nose, the unending detail in hair on the man’s face. Truly ahead of his time. When you look at Rembrandts Portraits you truly realize that this man was born with a gift. He was born in the 1600’s and he made portraits that could closely resemble details of a photograph today. He brings people born this century and brings them all the way back to his point of view straight through one of his portraits. He’s basically the closest thing we have to a time machine (when it comes to seeing what people looked like back then.) Now Chuck Closes Portraits just take Rembrandts talent to a whole new level. I could possibly place a real photograph and one of Chuck Closes portraits on a table and nobody would realize that it’s not a photograph at all. Both of these artists attention to detail is still basically unmatched today in my opinion. Both true artists that have a serious love for art.
Sources:
(All

More about Renaissance vs. Chuck Close

Open Document