I voted 'NO' on this poll.:thumbsup:

But Lucian Freud's self- portrait is a masterpiece and attractive.
Cover his face with your fingers and see only hair and ears, on his portrait.
I was surprised by his strokes, relation between hair - ears - and a background.

Although I don't like the work of Lucian Freud, one of my former teachers (for whom I have the greatest respect), considered him a great painter.

When thinking of Freud's work, I am reminded of an article I once read in which a very fine wildlife painter was interviewed. He declared that unless he painted bloody, eviscerated animals, etc., his work would probably never hang in a museum because it was not "ugly enough." Unfortunately, it seems that the many of the paintings which received the most attention in the 20th century were those that were ugly or grotesque. Hopefully, this attitude has been left behind and will not continue into the 21st century.

The critic Robert Hughes once asserted that Freud was the finest portrait artist of the 20th century. Perhaps he (Hughes), too, will tire of unattractive representations of the human form.

Men unite!
 

With a definite gender bias brewing on Freud's self-portrait, let's hear from some more men. Only Steve has chimed in on the lady's side.

Just you and I so far, Yoshiharu. :cool:

Where did Lucian go wrong?

To the best of my knowledge Lucian did not submit his painting to this forum for critique and most likely is not keenly interested in the measurements and opinions of a group of artists who have have chosen a very defined and limited range of artistic expression. He is among a number of artists who will continue to be recognized as major contributers to fine art/painting of this era. If they had a like forum and behaved like us they would be discussing the smallness of our creative world where we devote so much time to trying to figure out how to stay a few small steps above sweet photographic copies.

Egon Schiele, Picasso, Munch, Modigliani and others did works including portraits that were dismissed as "ugly" or worse and having stood the test of time have held up as noteworthy and often left us with a more revealing representation of the subject than slavish realism.

One of the great benfits of my career in illustration, design, and portrait painting is that it taught me a lot about who I am and where I fit in this world and to be open to the new, the unexpected or unanticipated and to be willing to give these things a chance show their value.

Therefore, I am at a loss to understand why so much time is given to dissing alternative expression. At several portrait seminars over the last few years the guest speakers were given to put down all that was not classic realism and drove one of my favorite authors to say that "Picasso could not draw". Which is factually not true and in any event does not make him any less a giant contributer to fine art.

I was one of the first three to vote that the portrait of the Qween had merit. I am already liking it more and I am going to find more of Freud's to see how this painting fits to the whole of his output. I may change my vote to yes.

My Grandfather suggested that it was a good idea to talk to and get to know someone you think you dislike. You might find that he is your friend.

Freud's self portrait
 

Wow. Freud's self portrait at (link no longer working - see portrait in next 2 posts)
is awesome. I'd seen some of his work before and didn't like it any better than I liked his portrait of the Queen.

However, his self portrait is sooooo exciting and "painterly" that I wonder if liking the subject matter (i.e., himself) inspires him to do better work.

I'm going to look at more of his paintings, maybe I judged him too quickly....

Lucian by Lucian
 

For those who have not found the Lucian self-portrait here it is:

Here's a closeup:

My, my...I had no idea when I posted that this would be such a popular topic. :)

Since some interest is now stirred in seeing other works by Freud, I thought I'd make it easier and provide some links:

http://www.godardgallery.com/freud.htm
http://www.af-moma.no/english/kunstnere/freud.html

A little excursion...here is a quote from the site above:
During the 1960s and 1970s and right up until the present, Lucian Freud has painted both male and female nudes which have a disquieting and shocking effect on the viewer. Many of his images make one feel almost like a voyeur, an intruder into the intimate lives of others. They are experienced as a massive attack on our traditional sense of decorum and seemliness and on conventional expectations of the nude image in its idealized form. Freud himself says that precisely this feeling of embarrassment and discomfort is his ally, because a picture should disturb and shock, and thereby involve the viewer.

My personal comment on "a picture should disturb and shock":

If a painting is to "disturb and shock" me, then I am willing to accept that if the purpose is to make me more aware of some human condition that needs some action, some correction. However, the shock of Freud's work seems to me to be nothing more than shock for the sake of shock, which I find annoying. I'd prefer to be "deeply moved" by finding a connection with the subject in a way other than pure visual shock...and I have found this in paintings that didn't use shock for the sake of shock.

And, perhaps one might think that I only want to see portraits of beautiful people and things. However, I've seen awesome portraits that I loved of some very unattractive people and unattractive situations.

Continuing with the links:

http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/AWork?id=4549
http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/WorkImage?id=4548
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/ftptoc/freud_ext.html

As for myself, I am personally very capable of enjoying a very painterly style, even something non-traditional and have done so. But, I still don't like Freud's work. Nor do I like Picasso and haven't since I was very young and first saw his work.

For me, a painting can show great talent, and/or can be technically correct in every way, but if it doesn't touch me emotionally in a certain way, I don't care that everyone in the world thinks it's wonderful and that the artist is a great talent. Below is a portrait by Michele Mitchell along the same theme that I find deeply moving:

Folloiwng Michelle's portrait and on another end of my taste, here is a portrait that I would consider non-traditional in style, but that I really like. Though, of course, it doesn't evoke the emotions of Michele's work since it's a totally different type of painting. It's by Jonathan Linton who will soon be on Stroke of Genius.]

There are some contemporary portrait artists that are deemed wonderful by many. But, I find their work does not move me...yes, it's technically correct and there's great talent...I can acknowledge those things. But, I will take a painting that is less technically correct that moves me any day.

However, if Freud were to read this forum, he'd probably be very happy that he's created such a stir (not that I know him personally :), but he seems from his art to like to create a stir).

Cynthia,

I agree with every word you said. Michele Michell's painting is a wonderful example of a moving portrait. I've seen the original and it's an exquisite work.

Steve

Steve,

Thanks. If someone had said, "could you be moved by a painting of an old man with a naked chest", I would have been doubtful, but Michele's painting is so wonderful. I was overjoyed when she won grand prize at the ASOPA event since the painting is not the traditional type of portrait that might typically be chosen for grand prize of a portrait competition. But, she well deserved it.