Well maybe the ability to draw doesn't justify Picasso's later success but draughtsman or not he and his work became icons of modern art. And though many seem to have a conspiracy theories regarding the popularity of modern art, the young middle class couples down the street from me enjoy these art forms free from the influence of anyone else's judgement or "overrating" by the Art community.

I have heard the comment many times that the artist had good drawing skills before his turn to "Modern Art" but would argue that this is done mostly in response to those that assume artists depart from classic realism because they have no skill, discipline, or ability. Usually followed with thoughtful, intelligent and insightful comments like "it's ugly", "it's not art", "I just don't like it", etc. I recently commented on my annoyance to hear Tom Wolfe say in front of the American Portrait Society that "Picasso could not draw". You can't have it both ways.

In the meantime I will watch the forum closely for the many drawings and paintings that exceed his run-of-the-mill 19th century academic training.

Peter Garrett found the following two early works by Picasso (below). I did not expect to be impressed, but frankly I am.

Picasso was around 15 or 16 at the time he did these?

:thumbsup: Thank you Peter.

"Portrait of the Artist's Mother," 1896.
Pastel on Paper

My feeling is that most classical modern painters (first half of the 20th century) were well trained and very skilled painters. And they would have been good or even great painters in others eras of painting.

The problem begins, in my view, when in the fifties and sixties under the influence of modern art, the academies start to get rid of a lot of the things that one needs to make a good painting. Anatomic drawing, the 'classical' approach to painting, modelling forms etcetera. After I finished my education in art I had the feeling I had to start all over again to learn the techniques the old masters used to make portraits. Making paintings like Mondriaan did (victory boogie woogie for example) requires an advanced insight in painting. Composition, use of colour etcetera. Making a cubist painting is actually a very difficult thing to do. That's why only very skilled painters succeed in making quality modernist paintings. And because much of the classical knowledge is lost, not only realist painting is technically at a low level at the moment, also paintings in a modernist style are technically far below the quality-level of what people like Braque and Mondriaan did.

I have seen technically very good realist paintings by Picasso, Ensor, Mondriaan. They reached a technical skill I don't see in the best realist paintings of today. One could say that they gave an energetic impulse to the art of painting of their time. The art of painting was becoming boring, although I like some of the 19th-century academic french salon-paintings (some of the paintings of Alma-Tadema, Bouguereau, Gerome are actually pleasant to watch).

The response to modern art on the academies was a disaster for the art of painting, is my feeling. One goes to school to be educated, but what does one learn at an academy. I liked my school, but I didn't learn there what I needed, to do what I wanted to do in painting. It took another 7 or 8 years to learn what I had to learn for that (and the learning-process will never be finished, but that's something which every artist will experience, I think).

Greetings,
Peter

Picasso painted this piece when he was fourteen years old... The Old Fisherman (Salmer

It appears, 69 sittings were for the crown...the last sitting was for the rest of the painting.

Queens come and Queens go, but crowns hang around for centuries. I am surprised at how important it must have been to Lucien to get a likeness of that darned crown! Wow.

After looking at some of Lucien Freud's previous works it's clear that he has become imprisioned by his own "style".

I was impressed with the strength of his heavy impastos, harsh colors and exaggerated edges in his earlier portraits of male subjects. These elements also had a place in linear compositional studies. But, the style has little flexibility. It seems to have become a formula that has entrapped him.

Maybe there's a lesson in this?

On Picasso
 

Well, I must admit that I am one of those who has always been quick to downplay Picasso's drawing abilities. I had never seen the images presented here, before. However, I'm still a little skeptical in some ways. First, regarding the portrait of a fisherman, I find it very hard to believe that it was done by the hand of a 14-year old. Yet, it is thus attributed, is it not? My guess is that it was not a portrait from life, but rather, a copy. In either case, it was surely done under the guidance of a competant teacher, such as Picasso's father was. Even so, that doesn't diminish its fine execution.

The reason I think it was a copy is three-fold. First, that was the normal method for training young people in those days. I cannot remember seeing a work from a youngster that was as good as that, except ones that were master copies. Even Millais--who was the youngest graduate of the Royal Academy at age 16--did not do better work than that at that age. Secondly, the title it is given is either a nickname for a very tall fellow (taken from the long beards found on some bearded wheat varieties) or it is a family name. If it were the latter, then I find it unusual that there is no honourific or first name along with it. Therefore, I think it is a nickname. That simply makes me think that no-one knew exactly who it was of, despite what the historians say. Third, many early works by artists, particularly modern ones, are incorrectly attributed as being something they are not. That is, master copies are taken to be originals (I've seen some of this with the early studies by deKooning). I don't think this is something that is done with a malicious purpose, however. It's just that the biographer/reviewer is simply ignorant of historical working practices or of history.

As an example, I am posting one of Picasso's earlier (age 12) studies. It is always wrongly attributed as a cast drawing. That is, it is said to be a drawing done from a cast of an antique statuary. Such was common practice at the time, yes. But, before doing cast work from the real thing, students normally executed a series of copies from two-dimensional drawing models which in turn were themselves often of antique statues. This one is such a case. It is a copy from Charles Bargue's fabulous "Cours de Dessin" pubished in the late 19th century by Goupil e Fils. I have also posted a photograph of the original Bargue lithograph for comparison in the following post.

Picasso's copy is mediocre at best. But, considering he was only 12 when he did it, it is excellent. Such things were done normally under supervision and were an everyday part of an academy's curriculum. So, I continue to find it hard to swallow that by the time he was 14, he could do the painting of the tall man, having only done Bargue copies two years earlier. That, coupled with the fact that his drawing of the matador--executed after the tall man--is a more immaturely wrought work than is the earlier painting, makes me think that these were all guided studies done by an admittedly precocious young fellow. Since he then quit studying when he was still in his teens, his somewhat later works reveal more accurately what his "true" drawing talents were when unguided. He seems to have had a solid foundation and good instruction as well as huge potential. But, that potential as a skilled representational artist went unrealised. The rest is history and I wouldn't change it for a minute.

Whether what I suggest here is accurate or not, one thing that does bother me a bit is that people are so quick to defend Picasso's later work on the basis of his apparent early skills. (Jim alluded to this phenomenon). The reason it bothers me is that we do not say such things about other artists. Do we say that in fact Velazquez or Leighton, for example, were not all that great because we point to their work as teenagers? No, we look at their mature work and judge it. With Picasso, Mondrian, etc., on the other hand, it seems okay to do the opposite I guess. I would say that that is having it both ways.

In the end, I could certainly be wrong about all of this and it might only be my envy speaking. However, considering also that by the time he was in his late teens/early twenties, Picasso's drawing was already weaker than it was in the "Salmeron" painting, yet still wholly representational, I'm going to stick to my theory that these very early works were tutored copies. Good ones, yes. But, not the independant hand that I believe most are inclined to suggest they were.

Anyway, food for thought.

All the best.

Juan

On Picasso, addendum
 

Here's the original Bargue lithograph of the antique torso.

Juan

Your recent post on Picasso has left me wondering just who it is that "wants it both ways". You admit to "downplaying" Picasso's drawing abilities, have recently seen evidence of his early skill, have disputed the authenticity of same, and finally imply that those who appreciate modern art are the ones who insist on citing early drawing skills to justify the value of their "mature work". Perhaps I was not clear in my earlier post when I tried to point out that defending modern art by noting evidence of drawing skills of artist such as Picasso is usually PROVOKED and I used the example of Tom Wolfe (again) who has said "Picasso could not draw". Why would that be neccessary if we measure the artist by their work which, in my mind, has enlarged the range of things to be made, created, and expressed and should not, does not, need to be exclusive or threatening to classic/realistic painters.

It seems that the only thing worse then believing that modern artist cannot draw is learning that they could/can.

The examples that I posted are dated in the 1920's and therefore long after Pablo was a teeny bopper and less likey to be bogus. Given that fact that his mode of expression departed from the illustrative/narrative purvasive mostly associated with classic realism and would not have given him much incentive to develope conventional drawing skills, they ain't too shabby.

I don't think those who practice or enjoy "modern" art find much reason to dwell on this question nor be as inclined (or bother) to diss our art form. It would seem that a lot more might be accomplished by focusing on those things that can make us better painters rather than beating up Freud, Picasso et al.

Jim and Juan:

It's all question begging, in the end, wouldn't you say?

What IS "good drawing" or "good art"?

Is traditional African or South Pacific art "bad" because it didn't/doesn't rely on "western" or "representational" tenets?

They used to be labelled "primitive": just who is being primitive here?

Heh heh....

Cheerfully,
Peter G

Peter,

I don't know what "question begging" means and have no idea what the question: ("who is being primitive?") asks.

Otherwise I think I agree. The discussion has been more focused on Freud and Picasso but there are many other categories of art that should not be critcized because they fail to meet the standards of conventional portraiture. My failure, I guess, has been my attempt to say that we, as artists, should be more inclusive. I would not have participated in this thread except to answer the suggestion that the above artists (among others I would guess) are incompetent, mean spirited, and will otherwise reside in a portrait artist hades sniffing toxic solvents and forever cut off from north light.

As Micheal Killelman said in the New York Times recently fidelity in art is about integrity and that were he an artist he might also do anything to narrow the unbridgable gulf between greatness and he. Unfortunately there are no shortcuts to genius. Lets get back to work.

...Well, since I am living in a free country I have the right to like or dislike anything I want. No-one can be forced to like the work of Picasso or Freud or whatever kind of art. No-one is obliged to like anything, and no-one should feel guilty for not liking something.

Apart from all these discussions or exchange of information about these artists (which is useful and educational), I just wanted to make that clear.

Peter

Jim, and Peter J:

"(to) beg the question" (Oxford English Dictionary)-"assume truth of the matter in dispute".

In this case, to assume, perhaps, that figurative, traditional "realist" Western approaches to art are "good" and that "good drawing" is part of that...

I would argue that "good drawing' is also about the quality of marks, the way the picture is put together (internal consistency, visual logic etc)

Is a native American totem pole "good art". Depends on the totem pole, maybe, that we happen to look at- but you get the drift...

Peter J: absolutely! Like whatever you like!

This has been a worthwhile thread, I think. For instance, I never would have seen those early Picassos if I hadn't been challenged by all this argument about Freud.

The "primitive" question, Jim: just questioning our assumptions about the sophistication of our own art traditions.

Maybe we need a new thread- ?? Gotta go. Thanks for the stimulus, everyone!

Jim, Peter(s), et al.;

Hmmm. This seems to be the longest post I have ever seen on this forum. Sorry about that. Do I get a prize? (I know, I'll get the "blowhard" award.) Anyway, if no-one responds for a week, or a month, or ever, I will understand. In order to respond you will have had to read the darned thing and digest it. Perhaps I'm just getting things off my chest. But, for those who are interested, or who are like me and have no life . . . enjoy:
------------------

This line of discussion invariably leads to no clear resolution, but I find it interesting and challenging nevertheless. With that in mind, I shall press on with my lengthy essay.

First, I agree that all are free to like what they like and I'm not about to suggest that that shouldn't be so, or that certain types of art should be disallowed. My difficulities with Modern art and with Picasso--as one of its chief architects--are based on my admitted bias toward representational art as found in the Western tradition. Also, they are based on my perceptions as a practitioner of this art among my peers rather than as someone saying simply what he likes or doesn't like. I am very much of the "live and let live" school of thought, and I don't challenge every single person every single time they say they like some picture that I don't like. But here, I am among artists.

There are a couple of things to get out of the way before expanding on the issue of Picasso and Modernism, though. When we speak of Western art and are deciding whether it is "good", "bad" or otherwise, it is irrelevant to compare it to, say, African, Native American, or Polynesian traditional arts. These are all completely different things. You might call them folk arts, or traditional, spiritual iconography, what have you. They have their own set of rules and systems without which they would not be what they are. They are also, for the most part, culture-dependant. On the other hand, Western (European) art has its set of systems and traditions, so it should be judged within those. But, unlike traditional systems, it is open to all because it no longer depends upon having grown up in any one specific culture or being a part of any specfic spiritual practice. So, anyone around the world can practice Western-style art without being questioned for it. And they do.

If Picasso, or anyone else, made pictures based in part on the folk traditions of other cultures, does that then mean these works should be compared to those traditions or to other work held within Western art galleries and museums, for instance? I think the artists themselves would choose the latter, wouldn't they? By-and-large, if you're not an aboriginal American and don't adhere to their spiritual practices, you have no business doing art that you expect people to call aboriginal American art. You may, however, do art that is inspired by, or based upon those traditions, as l'm sure a number of artists have done over the years. Similarly, if we today see the work of Chinese artists that is done in the Western representational vein, do we only compare these works to traditional Chinese paintings? No. We compare them to what they are. Anyway, the point is, I'm not saying Western art is better or worse than anything in particular, although it is what I prefer.

Now, that being said, what do I look for in art? (I'll refrain from using "Western" every time I use the word "art" from now on. I wish the adjective to be implied). As someone who is proud of my hard-won drawing and painting skills, as I'm sure the rest of you are and rightly should be, what I look for and admire in art is demonstrably good drawing and/or painting skills. If the work doesn't have much evidence of that, why should I admire it? To me, good drawing, at the least, is the fundament of good art. Once I say that, of course, there are those who will say (and have said), "Oh, you want everything to be the same." Or, "You just like "pretty" pictures." Or, worst of all, "You should be more open-minded." I see, so unless and until I like everything equally well, then I am closed-minded? More accurately, until I like what they like, I am closed-minded. Hmmm?

Here is a small sampling of some artists--much of whose work I do admire (in no particular order): Maxfield Parrish, Hokusai, Rosa Bonheur, Gustav Klimdt, Alphonse Mucha, Uderzo, Bruno Liljefors, Pietro Annigoni. I have left out hundreds, obviously, as well as the Old Masters, whom everyone seems to like. However, if you are familiar with the works of the artists I listed, you will note there is no sameness about them at all and they represent a huge range of styles, subjects, and expression--ranging from Naturalism to animals to comic art. I submit, though, that they could all draw pretty well. I also try not to like artists as such, but rather, I like (or dislike, as the case may be) pictures. I don't like every picture that Annigoni, Bouguereau, or Rembrandt ever did, but I like a lot of them.

All of which--believe it or not--brings us to Picasso. So here's a guy who, apparently, could draw well but chose not to. What am I to admire in that? According to Jim, Picasso (and others) gave us new ways to see and to express ourselves. I agree that a great change was brought about by them and it is, after all, history. Nothing we can do about that. But, does that mean that it is somehow "good"? Is a new and different way to keep someone conscious while they are being tortured, a "good" thing? Right, so newness and different-ness do not necessarily represent goodness or progress in the positive sense.

Once Picasso and others started drawing and painting crudely and being lauded for it, a lot changed. For one thing, people stopped knowing how to look at well-drawn and well-painted work (I can expand on this if anyone wishes it). It also made art more accessible, but not how the hype would have had it. Modernism was, in part, a backlash to "bourgeois" preferences and the result of a generally anti-establishmentarian rebelliousness of the turn-of-the-century. It was meant to be "the art of the people". But, the rank-and-file still couldn't afford to buy this artwork any more than they could the previous era's academic and other representational work. But, what the heck, since it obviously did not require especially adapted skills any longer, the "people" could now make their own art. Thanks to Picasso and his ilk, it was shown that art need not be made by skilled artisans who devote their lives to perfecting and advancing their discipline. Any idiot could do it so long as they were sincere and wanted to "express" themselves (Jackson Pollack instantly springs to mind). That continues to be all it takes--have a look inside any mainstream public art gallery.

Which brings me to the end of my polemic. Jim suggested that it was only the realist painters who make a big deal out of this and that it is really not an issue that is shared by the Modernist realm. I disagree. Although representational painting has survived in the 20th century, it has been despite a systematic attempt to undermine it. I'm not talking about some conscious conspiracy here, just something that has happened over time. Think about the following points: how many living representational artists were displayed in major public art galleries throughout the twentieth century? Not many. (Pennsylvania may be an anomoly because of its history with the Brandywine School and the Wyeths. I don't know). If they were, though, they did either grotesqueries (Lucien Freud) or cartoon-y work (David Hockney). Anyone who did or does representational work that has elegance or beauty or atmospheric illusion in it is dismissed, ridiculed, or called a "mere craftsman" or a "mere illustrator". Sadly, the people who say this do not have a clue how to make a picture. Further, have a look at any art history book or art encyclopedia written in the mid- to late-20th century and look up the names of representational painters. If they are even in there, read the kinds of adjectives used in the text. It will use words such as "conservative", "safe", "officially-sanctioned", "illustrative", "bougeois", etc. as modifiers. It will never be positive wording. (Recently, I had a look at a 700-page encylopedia of 20th century Italian artists; Pietro Annigoni does not even have a listing in it. And you wonder what I have to be upset about?). Representational artists are left out of modern art history books--except to be dismissed--out of art school curricula, and out of public galleries. Is this not systematic, or at least, systemic?

So, as representational artists who are steeped in a grand tradition and proud of our skills and accomplishments, just what is wrong with our using those enviable talents as a basis for exercising discernment and discretion? It is this very discernment why so often an artist (or Tom Wolfe) will say about Picasso, or whomever else, "Yeah, but he couldn't draw." Whether he could or couldn't draw, if it's not in the picture it's not in the picture. Do I then have to like it or else be labelled as some kind of narrow-minded reactionary? So it seems. Frankly, I'm surprised that there aren't more representational artists who are resentful of the damage wrought to our craft by the vagaries of the 20th century's art movements. I know that there is nothing we can do about history and that we are the sum total of it, which is why in my earlier post I said I wouldn't change it for a minute. But, do I then have to like and admire art that takes little skill, lore, and artistical intelligence to do? I admire a child-like drawing when a child makes it, not when an adult does. Do we admire adults who talk baby-talk, or who pound their fists on a piano or on a computer's keyboard? Do we then call them orators, musicians, or writers? No. But in art, it's exactly what we do and I, for one, don't like it.

Best to all and thanks especially to those who stayed with me and, after their nap and a light meal at base camp, finished reading.

Juan

Juan!

Wow! What can anyone say?

I haven't had time to consider this, and anything I might write at this point runs the risk of sounding glib.....

I salute the passionate honesty and integrity of your remarkable post.Thank you.

Peter G. :thumbsup:

Watch Ruby paint!!! - Maybe it's time to smile :-)
 

Here's my two cents worth
 

Picasso was the greatest artist of the twentieth century. This fact is undeniable. He revolutionized the art world by changing the artist's emphasis from creating art to promoting oneself. I think the evolution of this shift is twofold.

First, in my observation, it is a function of human nature to denigrate and invalidate that which intimidates. I believe the early modern artists were so intimidated by the perfection of the great nineteenth century masters, all they could do was invalidate it. Rather than undergo the vigorous training and effort necessary to surpass these masters, they took the easy way out and promoted their meager efforts as being more valid. After first brainwashing themselves, they set out to convince all others of the validity of their axioms and, as a result, elevated the zen of hype to an art form.

Secondly, the art establishment at the time realized they could sell far more bad paintings (good ones are much rarer) and enthusiastically jumped on the bandwagon. After all, it is money and not aesthetics that runs the art world.

As a result of this modus operandi, the majority of contemporary artists first look for a hook and then convince themselves that their justification has validity. The result is a coining of jargon, such as

Peter J!

Actually, I kind of like Ruby's work. Fresh and unpretentious. Does she have a web site?

;) Peter G

I thought it lacked surface tension.:bewildere

Marvin:

We just need to inhale more toxic solvents. I'm starting now.

The great masters added a steady diet of lead white.

:D Peter G

Mike

Clement Greenberg would have said it lacks ineluctable flatness.

Peter G

The Queen's Portrait
 

Hey Everyone!

Reading the news articles posted, the critics sound strikingly familar to the critics who bashed the Impressionist group over a hundred years ago. Haven't we gotten anywhere since then - especially after all the "isms" and the modern/post-modern era?

Actually, with the great pull toward abstraction, I'm glad to see that Freud is sticking to realism, especially with the vast amount of abstract work created out there. Plus, he's letting paint be paint and creating an interesting surface and has a recognizable style. Yes, the painting may be a little unflattering, but it's his interpretation and he's entitled to it. Next thing you know, we'll be back to government regulated art.

A great book to read that is related, if you're interested, is James Lord's "A Giacommetti Portrait". A great first-hand account of an artist's creative process.

My vote:
:thumbsup:

After reading about Picasso's death bed confession, Mark Rothko's suicide, and Pollock's raging alcoholism I almost gave up my defense of modern artists and their contested contributions to fine art. Who knows what other sins they and their "ilk" may be guilty of. Maybe higher divorce rates and increased teen pregnancy might be traced or linked to the "damage" the Modern Art hoax has maintained for more than 50 years. GOOD GRIEF!!!

And maybe the Harvard Business school should do a study and find out how the likes of Picasso ("who could not draw", "If he could it was nothing more than typical academy level", and "if he can he doesn't show it") "started drawing and painting crudely" and somehow people lauded the work and for more than a half century the art world has been brainwashed into believing and buying the products of the Modern Art movement.

And we should believe that Galleries, Museums and Schools have conspired to systematically undermined representational art? I have little contact with and admittedly am not familiar with the curriculum and spirit of contemporary art schools but it has historically been true that art students have been among the least likely to buy into something that their artistic heart and soul does not believe. It's not a place to easily sell snake oil.

To believe that nonrepresentational art is a hoax and has damaged our ability to "know how to look at well-drawn and well-painted work" is an insult to any of the many millions of people that regularly make an effort to see and appreciate the visual arts. For those who have stood before a Rothko, Picasso, Jackson Pollock or any of major contributors to contemporary art for the last half century and been moved by the experience would find it hard to understand the notion that "any idiot could do it".

To the extent that one would believe denigration and invalidation were used to discredit classic realism it is surprising that that so many posts on this thread are determined to revive realism by this same shallow tactic. And why? To the extent that realism did not go away neither will the effects of "modern art". For a number of years Portrait painting was a part time business for me as I made my principal living in the employ of domestic and international compani]es whose success depended largely on providing good pattern, color and design in commercial and residential products. This activity gave me a chance to appreciate the broad effect that contemporary art has had on our everyday life. It carries over to textiles and architecture as well.

I do not understand all the self pity. Without any evidence to test my thoughts it seems that across the country a great amount representational art is produced, shown, published, taught, and sold. The national Gallery got more than a few visitors to the Sargent exhibition and I almost couldn't get a seat for the Robert Bateman presentation at the same gallery. And it's not likely that several more lifetimes would be enough to allow me buy an Andrew Wyeth.

And who are the masterful realistic painters that are not "successful"? Perhaps we should consider establishment of a Masters Relief Fund?

No less a painter than Nelson Shanks has suggested that the reason realism does not get a large share of notoriety is that it will take someone with a distinctive skill as artist like Vermeer was able to do in his day. It was realism but not as anyone had done before or since and had a profound/lasting effect on the art world.

Once again. The gap between greatness and the rest of us is not reduced by undermining or denigration. I doubt that any conspiracies, if they exist, could thwart, for long, the impact of a modern day Vermeer or Picasso.

This deserves its own topic...
 

We've gotten off our track here, so I've begun a new topic called "Picasso & Modern Art."

Please let's continue to enjoy the controversy at: http://forum.portraitartist.com/show...=&threadid=950

I think that it's very consistent with Freud's other portraiture. Like it or not, it seems honestly communicated in his "voice". Which is all that any of us can do, yes? Just an observation from someone who greatly enjoys his portraiture, as well as that of Stanley Spencer, Egon Schiele, Romaine Brooks, Klimt, Beckmann, and so on and so forth...

Oops...sorry. New poster who got a little bit carried away when I saw Lucien Freud mentioned.

I should think that the queen might find it humorous. I would also think that she would love a portrait like that of herself to add to all the regal flattering portraits. It adds a touch of honesty to the collection.

I agree with you, Celeste.

And it's not as if Lucien Freud is an obscure painter. They knew his work when he was commissioned to do this painting. I think that they had a fair idea of what he would turn out.

Say the following folks were to do the same portrait of the Queen (if they were still alive): Bouguereau, Rembrandt, van Gogh, Sargent.

Wouldn't we have a very good general impression of how each artist would interpret it? I think we could certainly look at each one and take an accurate stab at who painted what...

I think that Freud turned out exactly what one would expect of Freud.

Oops again! Celeste, we may need to move this as per Karin's suggestion. Thanks for your patience with this newbie poster...

This is one of my favorite Lucian Freud portraits. It's certainly not a traditional portrait, but I still love what it says about this man, and I love the way it's done. This is one of my favorite paintings ever.

To me it says he's got a big head.

This is so cute and comical and yet has a a real serious yet solid feel to it. I wouldn't want it in my house maybe but I can see why some would really like this.

It's speaking
 

It does say he can not draw worth a darn. But look at that right (our right) hand. Amazing

I think it says that this man loves his dog and his dog loves him. It's not about perfect beauty, it's about humanity. It shows the "worth" that this man and his dog posess. It says that his feelings are as real and as valid as those of beautiful people that are perfectly proportioned, well groomed,and fashionable.

After looking at this portrait again, I am struck by the amount of near parallel diagonal lines. The dog's back, the man's shoulders, the sofa back the lines on the wall the lines of the fabric, etc. This is what seems to be missing in many portraits that are otherwise very wonderful. Just basic art, yet many forget this when composing the portrait.

I'm going to start doing more and more of this as an "on purpose" process. However, being well aware that this could look very contrived if not done skillfully.

I agree. I think that the artist purposely emphasized the misshapen head, and exagerrated the mans imperfections to make sure that we got the point of what he was saying. Even with all the deformity it comes through loud and clear that this man "feels", and so does his dog. I love the dog's face. And I could look at those hands all day.

I have been thinking about Lucian Freud's work often these days, when I labor to get all the lines "exactly" like the photo. It might be better to let your subconscious distort the exact slant of the lines a bit to look better for the painting. If we produce a painting that is "exactly" like the photo , what good is it? We might better have just used the photo.

Of course people still want to buy portraits that look exactly like the photo. I guess it depends on whether one is painting for the client or for a museum.

I think Freud accomplished exactly what he planned to do with the Queen's portrait. Look at the controversy his painting caused.

You can't figure it out. By this I mean his motive and intentions are undefined. The old saying comes into mind, "a picture is worth a thousand words." Freud's portrait goes beyond that cliche, the possibilities as to what was on his mind are endless, just like our universe.

Or perhaps it's just a Freudian slip?

I've been following this controversy for a long time without weighing in, but I've got to side with Jim on this thread.

As a working painter, I realize that a lot of the decisions I make and the final result of my effort are driven by instinct, feel, guts (or lack of them) and a lot of other non-verbal, non-cerebral action. I'm working on whatever artistic issues interest me at the time. Most times that includes correct, academic copying of the shapes I see (draftsmanship). But sometimes not.

To dismiss the effort of an artist as being completely a product of devious, overt calculation aimed toward creating the most controversy and garnering the most attention is to miss the point--that art is primarily a dialogue with oneself, in private. Presuming that Freud painted the Queen that way because he didn't like her, or for some other ominous reason, assumes I have special insight his psyche. I've learned (the hard way) when I make that assumption, I'm almost always wrong.

And to Jim's insistence, criticizing an artist for not being interested in the same things I am, stylistically and formally, is artistic political correctness to the extreme. Criticizing a non-traditionalist for not being Bouguereau is the same crime--in reverse--that was perpetuated against traditional realists through most of the 20th Century by the "modern" art world. If it wasn't okay for them, it's not okay for us. Freud doesn't paint the way I do because he doesn't care to. And isn't that all right?

She didn't pay him, and agreed to the project, so what's the harm? Lord knows, she's got the time. And whether she's happy with the result or not is her decision--I don't have a dog in that fight.

If I can learn something about painting by looking at it, why not look? It's a lot more sensible than pretending that if I view anything but what reminds me of me, my eyes will dissolve in their sockets and my soul will be irreparably damaged.

Like the song says "different strokes for different folks."

Best--TE