Design Observer

About
Books
Job Board
Newsletters
Archive
Contact



Observatory

About
Resources
Submissions
Contact


Featured Writers

Michael Bierut
William Drenttel
John Foster
Jessica Helfand
Alexandra Lange
Mark Lamster
Paul Polak
Rick Poynor
John Thackara
Rob Walker


Departments

Advertisement
Audio
Books
Collections
Dear Bonnie
Dialogues
Essays
Events
Foster Column
From Our Archive
Gallery
Interviews
Miscellaneous
New Ideas
Opinions
Partner News
Photos
Poetry
Primary Sources
Projects
Report
Reviews
Slideshows
The Academy
Today Column
Unusual Suspects
Video


Topics

Advertising
Architecture
Art
Books
Branding
Business
Cities / Places
Community
Craft
Culture
Design History
Design Practice
Development
Disaster Relief
Ecology
Economy
Education
Energy
Environment
Fashion
Film / Video
Food/Agriculture
Geography
Global / Local
Graphic Design
Health / Safety
History
Housing
Ideas
Illustration
India
Industry
Info Design
Infrastructure
Interaction Design
Internet / Blogs
Journalism
Landscape
Literature
Magazines
Media
Museums
Music
Nature
Obituary
Other
Peace
Philanthropy
Photography
Planning
Poetry
Politics / Policy
Popular Culture
Poverty
Preservation
Product Design
Public / Private
Public Art
Religion
Reputations
Science
Shelter
Social Enterprise
Sports
Sustainability
Technology
Theory/Criticism
Transportation
TV / Radio
Typography
Urbanism
Water


Comments (12) Posted 05.12.09 | PERMALINK | PRINT

Adam Harrison Levy

An Interview With Philip Glass


Chuck Close, Philip Glass Tapestry, State II, 2006 - Jacquard Tapestry. Courtesy Magnolia Editions, Oakland, CA. © Chuck Close, Courtesy PaceWildenstein, New York. Photo by Donald Farnsworth.

In 2005, I interviewed Philip Glass for a BBC documentary film about Chuck Close. Glass was seated in front of the monumental painting Phil, 1969. The following exchange never made it into the final film.

Adam Harrison Levy:
 
What do you think about when you see Chuck Close’s painting Phil, 1969

Philip Glass: 
I never really think of me as the picture, in fact it’s always just been an image. It’s an image that happens to be me. I don’t feel attached to it at all. Though other people might say, there’s Phil, but I never say that. I don’t think when Monet was doing haystacks, the haystacks thought, hey I’m the haystack — it’s just another haystack! I don’t think it was a portrait in the sense that when Rembrandt did a portrait or when Van Gogh did a portrait those portraits were partly to reveal some character of the person — those portraits were about the person. If this is a portrait at all, and I don’t think it is, its not about revealing the portrait of the person. It’s about revealing the artist.


AHL: You mean it’s a portrait in the other direction?

PG: The shift is completely the other way. Recently Chuck and I were talking about the fact he’s now being shown with portrait painters. Of course everyone knows that obviously he does portraits and yet in a way the enterprise of painting is what Chuck’s involved with, the occasion for him to exercise his art. He might’ve done something else. Once he got involved with portrait portraiture it — gave him the opportunity he needed to develop the clear aesthetic that we know but I don’t think he wanted to be a portraitist — is that the word?

AHL: It is now!

PG: I don’t think he’s thought of as a portraitist. I don’t think I ever thought of him as that way either. I think if you look at the work you see what the strategy of the work is and what the painterly style is — it has to do with technique.

AHL: Is there a parallel with what you were doing in music at the same time?

PG: The kind of music I was doing in the Seventies was very radical. The structure became the music itself. It became identical. In that way it was closer in a way to maybe Jasper Johns was painting and I was very influenced by his painting — when Jasper Johns did a painting of a flag, he painted a flag. So the question is: is it the flag or is it the painting of the flag? In the same way when I did a piece, I had reduced everything to scales and to a few simple notes. The process of the music became the structure of the music. So what was interesting for me was that the content and the form were identical — that was a very radical idea in music and in many ways it may still be a radical idea.

AHL: When did you start to explore these ideas?

PG: When I began this kind of work that would’ve been the mid Sixties. For the first ten years all I did was work with, let’s say grammar, with the vocabulary and the grammar. I didn’t really worry about anything else. That meant figuring out all the ways that scales can go up and down. It’s a very simple idea and yet if you do it exhaustively and you do it with every element, with rhythm and melody and harmony, you can spend ten years on it and I did.

AHL: And this music was welcomed by visual artists?

PG: It had very strong following in the art world because they recognised what I was doing. I played at the Whitney Museum in 1969 in a show called Anti Illusion. A woman named Marsha Tucker co-ordinated it. She was the curator at that time. We had passionate followers but also people who really hated it. The rate of change in art is very quick and the rate of change in music is glacial. I was already considered a complete barbarian by the music world, whereas in the art world it was — they wanted to know what’s new, what’s happening, what are people doing? And so I was much more comfortable in an artists’ environment. On the weekends we would visit all the studios, go to all the galleries. It was like a religious practice. On Saturday afternoon you went and visited all the galleries, that’s all everyone was doing. We were each other’s audiences. It was a very exciting time.

AHL: How has Chuck’s work developed since he painted Phil??

PG: I look at the painting that he does now and each unit, each cellular element is so expressive and so free. I think it always was but I think it’s more overtly so now. It looks like each stroke is improvised. What’s interesting about the new work is that it resolves the freedom and the structure into one thing. In the early work it looks like all structure and at a certain point it just tips over. It is an amazing thing to do, I think, for anyone whether you’re a writer or a painter or a musician, is to unify an expressive free way of working with an overall sense of form. I mean if you look at Rembrandt, that’s what Rembrandt does, isn’t it? You look at the strokes, and you say my God, how do those strokes make the picture?

Chuck Close, Phil/Watercolor, 1977. Watercolor and acrylic on paper. © Chuck Close, Courtesy PaceWildenstein, New York. Photo by Ellen Labenski.

Chuck Close, Phil/Fingerprint, 1980. Stamp pad ink on paper. © Chuck Close, Courtesy PaceWildenstein, New York. Photo by Al Mozell.

Chuck Close, Phil, 1980. Stamp pad ink on paper. © Chuck Close, Courtesy PaceWildenstein, New York. Photo by Al Mozell.

Detail of above image: Chuck Close, Phil, 1980. Stamp pad ink on paper. © Chuck Close, Courtesy PaceWildenstein, New York. Photo by Al Mozell.


Adam Levy is a filmmaker and writer. He recently produced "Selling the Sixties," a BBC documentary about consumerism, advertising and culture of the early 1960s.
|
Share This Story

Comments (12)   |   JUMP TO MOST RECENT COMMENT >>

Just saw the piece about Philip Glass on PBS's American Masters a couple weeks ago. Wow! What a follow-up.

But who the heck is "Chuck Close?"

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

VR/
Joe Moran
05.17.09 at 07:15

Literally moving works from both masters!

We had the opportunity to go and see one of Glass's operas of Jean Cocteau's film La Belle et la Bete in the late 90's... an absolutely exquisite performance!
Lorenzo Morales
05.17.09 at 09:21

Principles of art do not vary that much between disciplines.
Philip Glass has complete appreciation for the concepts and techniques in the visual arts. And he makes amazing music.
Howard Stein
05.17.09 at 09:26

So the question is: is it the flag or is it the painting of the flag? In the same way when I did a piece, I had reduced everything to scales and to a few simple notes. The process of the music became the structure of the music. So what was interesting for me was that the content and the form were identical — that was a very radical idea in music and in many ways it may still be a radical idea.
— Philip Glass

The answer is: the question
it is both: the flag + the painting of the flag

process is reduced to structure
content and form are identical

process > structure
content = form

p > s
c = f

Chuck + Phil are designers.
c + f = d
Carl W. Smith
05.18.09 at 03:50

This is great. Glad to see this on DO.
Daniel Kent
05.18.09 at 04:48

Very thoughtful interview about Philip Glass, his work, and his relation to other forms of art...
Daviel Lazure Vieira
05.19.09 at 09:32

Interview with Philip Glass:

My name is Philip Glass.
My name is Philip Glass.
My name is Philip Glass.
My name is Philip Glass.
My name is Philip Glass.
My name is Philip Glass.
My name is Philip Glass.
My name is Philip Glass.
Call me Philip.
Call me Philip.
Call me Philip.
Call me Philip.
Call me Philip.
Philip is my name.
Philip is my name.
Philip is my name.
Philip is my name.
Philip is my name.
Philip is my name.

Da capo ad nauseam.
Thoughtlessly
05.20.09 at 12:35

All those years of studying Chuck Close in art history, I never realized that these pictures of "Phil" were Philip Glass! Two of my favorite artists, all in one place. Cool.
Angela
05.26.09 at 07:49

Phillip Glass is a genius! Thanks for letting me into his mind for a few moments...
Ares Vista
05.27.09 at 05:16

Philip Glass has complete appreciation for the concepts and techniques in the visual arts. And he makes amazing music.
Lipoaspiração
10.11.09 at 12:28

You have to admire the work of Phillip Glass. Very interesting, thanks.
Domain Names
01.18.10 at 07:51

mmmmyyyy nnnaaammmeee iiisss GGGlllaaassssss, Phillips Glass
NoOtherNamePlease
06.14.11 at 01:21


Design Observer encourages comments to be short and to the point; as a general rule, they should not run longer than the original post. Comments should show a courteous regard for the presence of other voices in the discussion. We reserve the right to edit or delete comments that do not adhere to this standard.
Read Complete Comments Policy >>


Name             

Email address 




Please type the text shown in the graphic.


|
Share This Story



ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Adam Harrison Levy is a writer and freelance documentary film producer and director. He specializes in the art of the interview. For the BBC he has conducted interviews with a wide range of actors, writers, musicians and film-makers including Meryl Streep, Philip Glass, and Paul Auster. He was the U.S. producer for Selling the Sixties, a cultural history of advertising in New York and Close Up, about the artist Chuck Close. He is the author of  essays for Hiroshima: Ground Zero 1945, an exhibition at the International Center for Photography, and Saul Leiter: Retrospective. He teaches at the School of Visual Arts and in the Film Studies Dept at Wesleyan University. In 2012 he was a Poynter Fellow at Yale University.


More Bio >>

DESIGN OBSERVER JOBS









RELATED POSTS


Blues, Baptisms, and Prison Farms: The Lomax Snapshots of 1934-1950
Blues, Baptisms, and Prison Farms: The Lomax Snapshots of 1934-1950

Personal Packaging
Fondly revisiting the look and feel of the mixtape.

From the Archive: Brian Eno, Artist of Light
An early profile of ambient musician and producer Brian Eno’s parallel career as a visual artist.

Soft Machine's Dysfunctional Mechanism
An alternative cover for the French release of The Soft Machine’s first album alludes to the history of the machine in 20th-century art.

On Dapper Dan
A look at the spectacular logo-remix aesthetic of rap-culture style pioneer Dapper Dan.