H-m-m-m

The Emperor's New Clothes ... er ... I mean, the Queen's New Portrait.

Sir John Gielgud in a wig, an interesting approach, but "is it art"? ;)

Does anyone know
 

how the Queen feels about this painting?

Dear Mary,

Compared to the queen, even Emily Post would have the manners of a thug, so if the queen were appalled, I doubt anyone would ever know.

My thought about this painting relates to idea of titling. For example, it this painting had no crown, and it was described as a portrait of a courageous Turkish peasant woman, who had risked everything in her poverty-stricken hopeless life, to bring medicine to pitiful dying children, etc., etc, .etc,. I might view this as a strong, painterly conveyance of character. But as a portrait of the queen, it just doesn't work for me.

Once you see a portrait of a subject about whom you already have an impression, I think that it is difficult to accept if it is far afield of that impression, good or bad, because there is no way to "read" into it your own feelings about the sitter. When a portrait goes only somewhat afield, I think, at least for me, it's easier to become intrigued with the artist's unique perception of some additional dimension of the sitter. I don't think this happens in the same way when you view a portrait of a stranger, as the anonymity gives the viewer free rein.

What do you think?

Chris

PS That being said, I think the negative spaces are too symmetrical to be as interesting as they should be, even with, or perhaps especially with, a tiny painting.

This portrait is on the student level at best. The drawing is weak, and the colors show no real thought or planning. If this were done by a student in a school, it would be judged as it really is, but rather it is heralded because the artist is the grandson of Sigmund Freud.

How can this artist truly communicate, when he hasn't grasped the language?

Perhaps the "modern" art movement is desprately trying to grasp for survival. I for one, will be glad when it is finally dismissed for what it truly is.

The ironic thing about Lucian Freud is that he is a well known, respected "contemporary" artist. He's known for his lifesize figurative paintings full of unusually composed groups of people, wraught with "meaning". I was told in art school by a famous teacher (I never understood him quite frankly) that I paint "too pretty." This was his critique of a portrait actually...anyway...he mentioned that I should study the work of Freud.

I'm glad I didn't. ;)

A happy new year, All!
 

---8:00AM 01/01/2002 now, here in Japan.:)

I found Lucian Freud's self portrait, below.
http://192.41.13.240/artchive/f/freud/reflect.jpg

Lucian Freud must be a great artist, I think.
His work is backed by extraordinary technique (almost magic).

Still nearly 6 hours in my time-zone, Yoshiharu, but all the best for 2002 nonetheless.

Before this posting I was unaware of Lucian Freud, and the Queen's portrait did nothing to endear me to him, but ...

The self-portrait you linked us to is absolutely shattering! The power and vitality is palatable. I was blown away. The brush work is so aggresive it verges on sculpture. How an artist who could produce such a master-work should foist such a farce as this Queen-thing baffles me!

I'm afraid I don't like the self-portrait either. It almost looks like he's really painting the skin and muscles underneath. I researched some other images on the web also and on many, he did a distorted over-emphasis of the eyes.

I have to agree with Cynthia on this one...
 

I don't like his self portrait either..I'm not even going to say what comes to mind when I saw it. BUT, despite the fact that I don't care for his paintings, he does have talent. (Though I wasn't too sure of that based on the Queen)

Lucian Freud's self-portrait
 

Darn, I went and looked at the self-portrait on the web and now I'll probably have nightmares tonight. He does have talent, but still . . . I thought the finished product was scary.

Happy New Year to all,
Joan Breckwoldt