[Andrea Kantrowitz]

Personally I don't see good taste in either of these pieces.

I thought Anthony made such an interesting comment to think about. What is good taste? Is it about what is beautiful?
Certainly an naked lady in her 80's would not generally be considered beautiful. For me, this brings up the relationship of truth to beauty. Like I said, I can personally attest to the fact that there is a great deal of truth in Neel's work. To me, personally, this makes it beautiful. But reasonable people can certainly disagree on whether or not that is so.

I am one of the legion of admirers of Lucian Freud's work, but I find a diffferent, more life-afirming truth in Neel's paintings

It's hard to put into words what I love about her work. First of all, the people just jump out at you. There's an emotional engagement with not only their faces but their whole body posture and shape. The characterization is so memorable I think I would recognize them if I saw them in person. So this must be realism, right?

I thought Alex put so well what more traditional portrait painters might have to learn from Neel's work. Its not about the style, that was Neel's. But the level of emotional engagement she had with her subjects, that could be something to strive for. As far as I know, she only painted from life, and it could be quite the experience for her sitters (especially the ones who were ordered to strip! She was a force of nature not to be argued with.)

I'm in favor of as many styles of realism as there are artists out there with a creative vision

I think Linda's saying something really important here. And there's a lot to learn from artists who are not necessarily to our personal taste. At another extreme of taste might be Bougereau, an artist I might not have learned about without this forum.

So what is the relationship between truth and beauty? (I've found this to be a hot issue when painting commissioned portraits) And how does this affect your response to Neel's work?