Lucian Freud portrait of Queen Elizabeth causes a stir

[Cynthia Daniel]

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.

[Marta Prime]

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!"

[Stanka Kordic]

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.

[Cynthia Daniel]

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)

[Thomasin Dewhurst]

Originally Posted by Cynthia Daniel

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)

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?

[SB Wang]

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.

[ReNae Stueve]

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).

[Jim Riley]

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.

[Pam Phillips]

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

[Cynthia Daniel]

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.