Lucian Freud portrait of Queen Elizabeth causes a stir
 

This new portrait of British Queen Elizabeth II is a gift from painter Lucian Freud. It will enter the Royal Collection and be displayed for her Golden Jubilee celebration.

Here are several newspaper reports on the portrait:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...portrait.story

http://www.boston.com/news/daily/21/queen_elizabeth.htm

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...eenliz220.html

Please vote in the poll above and enter any comments you'd like to make as a reply to this topic. I'm curious what you all think.

Well, it resembles her, but that's about all I have good to say about it. It actually takes a woman who is not known for her "beauty" and makes her uglier than a gargoyle!
It is within the Portrait Artist's realm to bring out the attractivness that all of us possess in one way or another. Of course, one may argue that that reflects personal taste more than artistic quality. But for my money, if I were being painted, I wouldn't want to be remembered like that! So, I guess I am saying this was not painted with good taste. Or as the British would say...."not my cup of tea!" :thumbsdow

Oh My
 

Although I'm a fan of texture in a painting, this is going too far. Marta's right, not very flattering.

However, I do like the crown.

Here's a quote from Lucian Freud that I found on the Internet. Looks like he changed his mind about only doing heads:

Normally I underplay facial expression when painting the figure, because I want expression to emerge through the body. I used to do only heads, but came to feel that I relied too much on the face. I want the head, as it were, to be more like another limb.
- Lucian Freud, quoted by Michael Kimmelman (found at Constable.net)

If I didn't know anything about painter or subject - I could draw the following conclusions.

1. The painter's opinion of the sitter's character is quite low (expression is one of holding one's breath almost in anger).

2. The artist did the piece quickly, and had no love for his own work, like my daughter rushing through homework. (eyes don't match up or anything).

3. Going out on a limb, considering I just read the thread about artist using photos. It looks very much like a cropped photo of an action group shot I've seen somewhere in the grocery store check out lane (was that tooooo harsh).

It's very difficult for a portrait painter to respond to a portrait painted by someone who principally is not a conventional portrait artist. If I were a prominate personage such as the Queen who already has a collection of conventional portraits, I might very well want a version by the likes of Freud, Warhol, Modigliani, etc. They are buying "Fine Art" (for historical or investment considerations) where the artist uses the sitter as a reference point from which to do the kind of thing that fits their style and form of expression which may or may not be concerned with revealing anything about the subject. For this reason I am at a loss to understand what the painting accomplishes that would require as much as 70 sittings. While I see some merit in the painting as a work of art, it is difficult to understand why he pursued this commission other than selfish gain/fame.

In any event with the stir that it has caused may gain the conventional portrait community more attention then would ever have been generated otherwise. I won't be surprised to see a lot of follow up press on portraiture.

Are we looking at the full painting? I would like to know the size of the painting as well.

He should have painted a queen, not a drag queen.

Jim,

According to the articles, it is a small painting, only 6 x 9 inches, so we are seeing the whole thing. Also, per the articles, it was a gift from Lucian and not a commission.

A travesty of Her Majesty
 

Heavens! The Queen actually agreed to sit for this unflattering and clownish portrait?

Good publicity stunt though...way to go Lucien!

What a wonderful painting - if it were inside the cover of Rolling Stone!!

I only hope he wasnt trying for a flattering look, like we portrait artists always try to do.

I'll give it its due on artistic merit, but none as a portrait.

Can you imagine giving someone a gift that essentially says, 'this is how ugly you are!' (not that I'm saying the Queen is ugly, just that this painting would make her appear so)

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

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.

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.