The Pixel

Theo pointed out a good thing is his comment, we need to enhance the conversation of the pixel to work for us. What is the pixel to us? Architectonically? It is a Pix- Picture -el Element, sure, well and good, but how does the expression happen?

I think that Chuck Close artistic vision is helpful, it carries good values to the conversation. It is Monumental art, even monolithic, it dwarfs other art around it. Also, Chuck Close describes himself as a photorealist or a technician, he avoids and argues that he is NOT an artist. I think that is significant to us as Architecture students. Are we necessarily artists? No. Are we necessarily technicians? Yes. Also, his painting hinge on the modular form of the pixel, but they stretch it sometimes, and they mold the pixel into new forms, scribbles and oblongs (such as are present in his Clinton Portrait). These shapes are more interesting than the traditional 'pixel' but they do not damage the idea or destroy it, the definition still holds. Given by themselves they are an atom or molecule that needs the rest of the atoms or molecules to make sense.