Chuck Close is an interesting artist. He has great ways to make paintings look like pictures taken from a camera. For example I give you Phil. This painting is interesting because when I first saw it I thought it was a picture taken from a camera. But no, this is a genuine painting. One of the most intriguing things about Phil is his expression. I say that it looks like Sylvester Stalone. But I’m pretty sure that’s not what his expression is about. I really like his style and it should be considered of more than it is now. Shouldn’t it be true that when a drawn picture looks like a picture from a camera it should be a better portrait then something that still looks drawn? I think that should be true because real art is capturing life in a painting and if it is that close to a real person than I say it should be the best. That is a definite reason that shows that Chuck Close’s "Phil" is a better portrait than the "Mona Lisa" is.

I have here two great paintings. A religious detailed artist during the Renaissance made one, and the other made by a man of pop art in the time of the future. No matter what, both paintings are great. But I have to settle a debate about which is better. Ultimately in my opinion I don’t believe that any one of them is the best. But if I had to choose then I would say it to be Phil. In any other case it would be Mona but Phil is literally real life captured in art. The Mona may follow you but you can tell it has been painted. With Phil you have to look closely to see that it is a painting and not a photograph..