Eye opener
 

Several years ago I attended a show of Victorian paintings at the National Gallery in DC. As I browsed through the exhibit with a friend, we began looking at each painting non-judgementally, to appreciate each artist's statement on its own terms. We carefully studied each painting and we began to experience its unique validity. We came to the conclusion that to say one painting is better than the next is missing the point. Who is anyone to say what

Freud Baby
 

Even as I consider myself a great admirer of Freud's work, I think he missed on this one. Down to the nose, it's the queen. From the nose down, why, it's Alistair Woogensby!

I will go out on a limb and disagree with most of you or maybe I

Wonderful, the man's a genius. What courage and passion. I love it. I can't mimic it however. Not many here have that kind of gall. Some of the best work I've seen here. The timid artist never creates a masterpiece and there are too many timid artists, too many rules, too many critiques. Throw out the rules and trust your instincts, your mind's eye, not just your eye. That kind of courage deserves to be rewarded. A+

I'm glad this poll got bumped back up.
I like this painting, liked it when I first saw it. Liked it more when I found out how small it was.

I was surprised by the reactions of folks on this forum. I am a big fan of Egon Schiele, but don't like Picasso. I love Manet but don't care for Monet. I guess I don't think beauty is a requirement of art. And by logical extension, if portraiture is art, beauty is not a requirement of portraiture.

I don't think this is a beautiful portrait. I do think it is a powerful portrait. I do think it shows signs of being done by someone who put a great deal of thought and talent and intuition into it.

Even if this were a commission, I'd like it.
I think art is an exercise in telling truth through visual means. And we know from studies of religion, politics and economics, truth is not an absolute. (If truth is beauty, and beauty truth, and if that other saying about beauty is accurate, then truth is in the eye of the beholder.)

And I would hope that the portraiture I am trying to practice is more about telling some sort of truth than simply being empty flattery. My ultimate goal is to be able to tell the truth in portraiture and still get paid for it! Is this a good likeness of the queen? I recognized her. Is this what I see when I look at the queen? No! That's what makes Freud's art unique and if art isn't unique expression, then it's not art.

I don't care to sit and watch a male lion maul and kill a female lion's cubs, but I have to admit that it is a fact of life. Should we pretend it doesn't happen? Should we not photograph or film it? Not paint it? If someone didn't record it and tell the story, we might not know that this is a fact of life for lions. Our knowledge of the world would be that much poorer and smaller.

I grew up with provincialism, and I rebelled against it. Guess I'm still rebelling.
Also, my opinion is probably being colored by the play I saw last night about Janis Joplin (many folks hated her voice, but she is one of the great blues singers of the 20th century.)

I say, to artists of talent, bring it on!

Hi Brenda, I

John

The 5 o'clock shadow is rather un-called for. (I think Alistair Woogensby is more fastidious about being clean-shaven.)

I don't know Spencer or Khorzev so I will look them up and familiarize myself.

I have endless respect for Sargent. I reverently admire his portrait of Edouard and Marie-Louise Pailleron. Apparently he had a hard time with that one due to uncooperative sitters and it being his first double portrait. Whatever it may suffer in more educated eyes, it is my favorite of his. He told a story about these children. The iron will of the little girl, the aloof reserve of the boy. The brilliant composition speaking volumes about their relationship to each other as well as the artist. And the painting gives so much away about Sargent himself, his ambition and his determination and the talent that served them. For me this portrait exemplifies what a great portrait should do.

I don't believe in phrenology (the idea that personality can be deduced by physical characteristics.) So, the portrait artist has many other tools at her disposal than just "physical likeness". (Size, colors, pose, relationship to surroundings, characteristics of surroundings, attire, gaze of the subject, etc.) I've seen beautiful portraits of ugly people and vice versa. We all have. And I agree with you that technical skill is necessary to employ these tools effectively. But vision of course is necessary too. I wonder if you believe in the naive savant? Someone who is brilliant without intellectually knowing why or how they are brilliant? Is this possible in art? It is in math and science.

I have very little technical skill and a smidgen of talent, but I have a great love for what I'm doing. Does this translate at some point onto the canvas and influence, even to a small degree, the quality of the work? I'd like to think so.

I can see why some folks don't like or connect with or believe in "modern art". I do think a lot of it is schlock. But then a lot of figurative realism is schlock. I think it takes seeing something that knocks your socks off before you are willing to open up to a "school". I just saw a Morisot exhibit and finally I could really appreciate Impressionism. And as I was looking at her work, I could see where she triumphed and where she struggled and was working things out. I think it took that for me to see what she was trying to do and see the brilliance of it.

As far as modern art, Christian Boltanski is one who helped me get over the resistance to it. I wonder, for those who resist or eschew modern art, if they don't see the larger idea behind it? Maybe, often times, modern art is a question instead of a statement. To me, traditional art is a statement and doesn't try to ask a question. Looking at the above-mentioned portrait by Sargent, I don't see a question in it. I do see a statement, an insightful true statement. If modern art is a question, and some modern art is bad, then maybe there is such a thing as a stupid question. ;)

For example, if I had an education in art, many of the questions I bring up here probably would have been answered for me!

By the way, John, the workshops listed on your site are a couple of years old. Are you still teaching workshops?

Brenda:

Delightful and fast reply! (Alistair is a street person, so I

Paging Mr. Khorzev
 

John, you mentioned Spencer and Khorzev regarding Freud's influences. I assume you mean Stanley Spencer? (I like). But I could not find a Khorzev. Do you happen to know his first name?

Brenda re influences on Lucian Freud:

Yes, Stanley Spencer, a terrific English painter (1891-1959). Korzhev's (I had the last name wrongly spelled in my post) first name is (was, rest his Russian soul if he's gone) Geli M, a fairly late social realist (actually more of an 'expressionist') of the fifties and sixties (see "Socialist Realist Painting", Matthew Cullerne Bown, Yale University Press, 1998). His powerful in-your-face paintings make extensive use of anatomical distorsion (as in wide-angle), with heavy emphasis on ' blue-veined' skin. I never read anywhere that Korzhev is considered to have influenced Freud, but to me the similarities are undeniable, whether directly related or not.

And now for something completely different...
 

Contrast Laszlo's QE II at 7 years old. Not a great portrait either. Charming, though. However, it is clear to most that Laszlo is a great portraitist. Just thought this was an interesting 'other end of the spectrum'. Both in years and in style. The colors are similar, though, aren't they? Hmmm.

I agree with the recent comments by John and Brenda and continue to be amazed by the need for others to denigrate the efforts of artist who do not follow exclusively the style and formula of past masters. So much has happened in the art world that has permanently changed how people respond to art in the modern era. Freud and others have had considerable influence on artists and the art community and those that hold their work up for ridicule have little weight anymore. Their nastiness has little impact.

Brenda, I liked your painting on the little girl . Well done

Thank you, Jim. You're very kind.

We artists can be passionate people and we may have strong opinions, one way or the other. regarding various schools or styles. I appreciate your defense of modern art. And it is nice to know that you can also accept a plain little daub such as mine!

Jim and distinguished Forum friends,

Tonight I reread all the posts concerning Freud's portrait of the queen (a hoot as well as a failure, in my view). i find this whole exercise fascinating and - very - meaningful. The discussion is lively, probing and challenging to no end (perish the thought! Actually, on second thought -). It does touch upon some of the biggies: beauty, art history and historicity, most certainly on human nature and the nature of our understanding. Can we expect less of an exchange about art?

Jim, I strongly applaud the way you (and certainly others) have found your way around these topics, anchoring some occasionally clouded thinking by us down to a sane and safe harbor (this thought on this sad sad hour of tragedy for so many).

We mostly believe, rightly so, that we react to art with our likes and dislikes, with our biases and prejudices. It's inescapable, right? Some of us try to understand and overcome our biases (I say this at the peril of sounding 'holier than thou'), yet some of us don't seem to be able to do it, at least for a time, so deeply invested we appear to be in our hard - earned beliefs and practices which keep us sane and proud in the often titanic effort of our craft and profession (A point already made by one of our group). Some of us - and I find plenty of instances in this discussion - have modified, or seem to be willing to go a long way, towards modifying and expanding our cherished views, as in

expanding our experience

Bravo!

There's nothing wrong in reacting from our gut to the work of Freud, Picasso, and others. It is, however, perilous, to say the least, to step into the art criticism and opinion arena with just likes and dislikes. Sure, this is a free country and we are blessed to be able to say whatever we like as one of the group has aptly stated, but to be able to speak with some articulation it might help, say, to know an artist's life and work, to be aquainted not only with the historical context but also - and most importantly - to really 'see' how the physical, formal and aesthetic 'reality' of the work operates and fits in that historical context besides in our own perceptual field. What actually 'happens' there on the surface alone make take a long time and effort to really see and digest. Is it worth our while, even with art we dislike? I think so. Unfortunately such effort is rarely undertaken as part of our duty to ourselves as artists to go deeply (as in the case of Picasso's 'mature' language of creation of form, a language as foreign to many artists who should know better as Southern Swahili). Result: among other deucies, the 'whether Picasso drew - or not - drew well - when -he - was - young malarkey. Where is it written that groudbreaking creation and communication of emotion require the ability to draw well in the academic sense? How many correct draw - by - numbers academicians did it take to produce one Cezanne, Picasso, Matisse? Don't get me wrong, I am totally in favor of academic training, particularly for us portrait painters. But to put
'correct' drawing as a precondition to create 'realistic' art is just plain nonsense, even when we can say that drawing certainly may help many, if not all, artists. Let's never forget that, as a whole, the history of art (particularly of our beloved 'Western' Art ) is decidedly

not the history of the ability to draw and paint 'realistically'.

Some years ago I visited Brian Yoder's gallery on the web to find a section called "Bad Art", which included artists such as Kandinsky, Picasso, Rothko, and others. I emailed Mr Yoder with the idea proposed before, that it's fine to have our personal taste dictate likes and dislikes, but it's not fine to rashly place these and other recognized masters as examples of 'bad art', especially in a gallery pretending to perform a cultural and educational service. He emailed back assuring me that his bad art people were not selected on any subjective, personal - taste basis, but on 'objective' art history criteria, which by the way he never produced when I asked him to. Sounds familiar? Check Art Renewal Center's piece on David Hockney's work (which I don't particularly care for). On and on, narrow-mindedness and yes, provincialism constantly comparing apples and oranges, taking offense at the financial success and recognition enjoyed by many of the moderns, making judgements based on ignorant high - and - low, true - and - deviant definitions of artistic periods, and, especially, incurring in a total failure to understand the nature and role of BEAUTY, RELEVANCY, and EXPRESSIVE MEANING in our human artistic and creative drive.

Practically every day of my life I read and meditate on John Dewey's "Art as Experience", a most unusual book, the compilation of his lectures on the philosophy of art at Harvard University in 1931. I consider Dewey (1859-1952) to be a breathtaking embodiment of the highest American - and universal - thought. Art as Experience acquaints us, in an analytical, 'intellectual', yet rich, poetic and down - to - earth language, with the deep meanings and existencial reality of art, with how all of this relates to living and experiencing, our understanding making art possible in an inevitable, transforming, ever - changing way.

Thank all of you, and you Cynthia, and moderator M Rushworth, for making this section of the Forum possible!

"Art As Experience". I ordered the book.

I voted first and then looked at the thread. I see that I'm with the small group of members who like this portrait and wonder why this is so. I know this is a portrait forum that is mainly orientated on 'classical portraits'. In my view classical portraits are portraits witch do not much more than depicting the object in a 'realistic' way. I associate classical portraits mainly with 'skill' On the other hand I like also -and in fact much more- paintings who convoke 'another world'. This is the case in the Lucian Freud portrait of Elisabeth. Here are a lot of connotations to make (see the reply's :) ) For me Lucian Freud says a lot more than merely depicting Elisabeth. That's why I like it.
Jan

This is a very interesting discussion. I also really appreciate the latest additions to this thread. I have admired Freud for a long time. There was an amazing retrospective at the Metropolitan Museum in NYC about 7-10 years ago that I bet would have impressed most of the painters on this forum for the sheer virtuosity and muscularity and of his prolific body of work. Check out his drawings and etchings as well. I think there's a tremenous about to learn from his work about the translation of flesh and blood into paint. This sketch doesn't measure up to a lot of his other work.

Freud is very much about the mortality of the flesh, the tug of gravity and of age. It is not so much about the sprit.

I compare his work with Chuck Close, which to me is very much more about the spirit than the flesh. Which to me is very interesting when thinking about the physical challenges Close faces. Another artist for comparison is Phillip Pearlstein, who I personally dislike. There's a denial of the flesh in Pearstein's nudes, but they're devoid of spirit also--simply a clinical description of form.

What do people think about Alice Neel?

My first reaction when I saw the portrait of Elisabeth was a little smile, because I found it kind of humorous. She sort of looks as though she was having a bad day, or as if Freud and she really didn't get along. But then again they probably did, or she would have thrown him out before finishing 70 sittings.

I do admire Freud's work, though he has made many other paintings that I like better than this one. Reading through this thread I am amazed that so many people are so very appalled by his work.

I like the way Frfeud's portraits are exaggerated almost like caricatures. I could not paint like that if you hit me and I am not sure that I would want to, either. But I find his paintings very powerful. I truly admire his stubborn and daring way of setting his nudes up in poses no one ever would have thought of. Okay, the models do not look beautiful in his paintings. But wow, how skillfully he paints them! YES, I would like a painting of his! !

The portrait of the queen makes me think of the paintings of Frans Hals. He, too, painted people in unflattering ways. And that makes them very interesting. Looking at Frans Hals's paintings, or some of Velasques's that are also very unflattering, my thoughts go off about what mood that person might have been in or weather that person was normally a sour nag.

The incredible detail Freud used to paint the crown contrasts with the style of the face, and I am sure Freud didn't paint it like that by hazard. Maybe he wants to say something about her role (as a royalty) being so grandiose that it blinds us from seeing the person she really is, privately? She looks tired and maybe bored, yet strong-willed and disciplined, jaws tensed. The way that she holds her head quite high for such an old person, yet does not meet our eyes, gives me the impression of someone who wants to keep the distance; wants to keep herself to herself.

I think Lucian Freud's portrait ot queen Elisabeth is interesting, though not as great as many of Freud's other paintings. Then again, making something out of a painting that is restricted to the head only IS difficult.

I'm afraid that I can't word my response nearly so eloquently as others here have, but I have to vote with a very big yes to Lucian Freuds work.

I had the privilege to see his exhibition in Venice this summer covering 50 years of his work (including the portrait of Queen Elizabeth)

It was absolutely astounding, and to take the words from another post, it was art as an experience at its best in my view.

Traditional, realism in portraiture is all well and good, but i always have a nagging feeling that i am missing something when viewing work like this. You can see the person but never quite 'feel' them.

With Freuds work you definitely get a feel, for the person and the struggle that the artist has gone through to try and capture the essence of the sitter.

His work makes you want to try to understand what was going on deep down, rather than merely gazing on the surface beauty of a beautifully rendered portrait.

I spent hours looking from a distance or with my nose virtually on the canvas and resisting the urge to actually run my fingers over the painted surface.

Definitely an experience!

Carolyn

I would like to see the complete work, this is just a close-up, I'm pretty sure it looks different at a certain distance.
Freud is among my favorite painters because of some of his work.

Well, Freud had his head screwed on right when it came to philosophy of art, but this painting is just not good!! His boredom seems to shine through more than the rather ham-fisted painting of the jewels on the crown. Drawing never seems to have come that easily to him, but persistence has helped him create many very powerful (although, perhaps, repetitive) pieces. I was very much impressed and influenced by his work as a student - a living realist painter, and a good one was hard to come by where I was then. In fact, he took up one half of my thesis topic (Francis Bacon the other). But with this painting of Queen Elizabeth he doesn't seem to have tried at all. Even if you're anti-royalty, there's something quite interesting, even surreal perhaps, about a royal lifestyle esp. in the contemporary world. And there should be something fascinating about the struggles, hopes - both personal and national - and suppression of instinctive drives of a human being, mother, wife and daughter in such a role.

It seems that you need the spark of youth, and, more importantly, the lack of recognition, to seize this opportunity.

The poor QE - is that truly all she deserves?

Queen, King & Chen
 

King (Joe King) painted the Queen. A print of the potrait is addressed to me by the artist. A fascinative autobiography "there are no rugs in Beverly Hill ," was given to me as I requested.

The Queen is also painted in sitting by reknowned Chinese-American artist Mr. Chen, one of which works I saw in Portrait Inc. A rare, enchanting experience.