Jim, I enjoyed reading your very thoughtful post on this topic. It certainly raises the questions of "What is Portraiture?", "Who is the arbiter of that definition?", and "How in the world did they get that job, anyway?"?

I have come to believe that what I do as a portrait painter is some odd hybrid between a product and a service, and not precisely either one.

Those of us on SOG, for the most part, are doing commission work. By definition, this requires pleasing the BUYER, who may or may not be the subject. There is simply no getting around it, this is not simply art for its own sake, or for that of the painter.

There is no question that there exists a "standard" ...going perhaps to Cynthia's provocative question about "good taste" in portraiture...the standard itself has been established by some combination of tradition, status, romance and egotism (often on behalf of painter and sitter alike)and has existed for hundreds of years.

Getting around (wow, that was circuitous) to the topic at hand, I rather like the self-portrait. I might not commission Freud to paint me, but that has nothing to do with his desire and right to express himself in a personal or powerful way, only to do with my personal taste. But I noted that Jeri Hall did commission Freud to do a nude of her, interesting because traditional beauty is her stock in trade, and she certainly has the resources to have any artist of her choosing do this work.

Regards, Chris

I think the whole thing is very comical. Especially the part about all the sittings. Anyone would have a hard time believing that. I agree with Karin. His was the painting that got all the attention!

Portrait of Queen Elizabeth
 

I found the portrait of the Queen quite a disappointment, particularly given the fact that the artist has quite a reputation in Britain. I suspect that the Queen permitted the portrait to be painted from life as a favor to the old man and also that he, being well on in years, had lost much of his ability. Given the amount of time that he spent with the Queen, doing the portrait from life, one would have thought that the final work would have given evidence of that fact. It doesn't. I agree with other comments that it looks like a very quick rendering ... either that, or one that has been worked over and worked over and worked over in a simplistic way and gotten muddy as a result.

It's sad to think of such an opportunity being so wasted ... but then, as I say, it was probably a favor to a very old man.

To be honest it frightened me when it popped on the screen. I'm sure the artist meant no disrespect. I'm not familiar with his work. Wonder what statement he's trying to make. It seems like there's a heart on her forehead?

This painting expresses an impression of queen Elizabeth that seems to be quite common. She appears not to be particularly intelligent or attractive, but loaded down with the crown of royalty. Isn't that a form of truth? The texture of paint is used to describe these qualities of the subject. Does anyone REALLY think this was meant to be flattering? I certainly do not think so. The artist's message is very different. One of my students put it best to me when she said,"Ms. Ellingwood, not everything about this world is beautiful or positive." Not every thing is positive in a monarchy! The big question may be, "What is realism?" Lucien Freud's portrait is about a different truth the the texture of her skin.

In the fine tradition of much "contemporary art"....when you can't convince an audience, at least confuse them. After all, artsy paintings deserve artsy comments....so....

Lucien Freud presents a work very formal in appearance, but as a single image he suggests a conflict of autonomy. The subject's gaze tells us of the longing but impossible struggle for closeness.

I am especially intrigued by the crown - its edges, gaps, the interior and exterior metaphorical depiction of a wound outside of oneself for interrogation and the interpretation of knowing.

Our attention is continually drawn to the facial contortion as it presents the paradox of the contained and the container all at once in a visual onomatopoeia of the exploration of balance.

Both directly and indirectly, this artist tells us that his Queen has been shaped and manipulated by the media and art world, creating a false sense of the mutable royal self.

The juxtaposition of the bejeweled crown determines the unapologetic, if discrete, color and form of this most disturbing work.

Hehehee
 

Karin,
You crack me up!

Very eloquent Karin! Would you like a job writing as an art critic? ;)

Huh? What is wrong with seeing something as uncomplicated and as profound as just an "ugly picture?"

Good Grief! Karin

"The Painted Word" revisited. You spent too much time reading Tom Wolfe's book in protest of the modern art theorists that he believed would be remembered more so than the artist they attempted to explain. Your parody aside, I'm still not sure that I understand the need to put down one school of painting over another.

The dismissal of realism/classical to justify modern art was no worse than any current attempts to belittle contemporary painters like Freud. If I had the funds I would not buy one of his paintings but I will continue to believe that his efforts are sincere and I was pleased to read Annette's post that suggests a more liberal acceptance of truth/realism. Otherwise we could easily become guilty of naval staring. Endlessly worrying about the fine points (?) of painting.

Like where the light must come from, the pigments we use, which way to face the subject etc. As Wiliam Merritt Chase said "I prefer a little deviltry" He might have suggested some provocation also to escape formalized blandness that creeps into our work as we find commercial success.