I'm always a little surprised to get lassoed back into this topic, because I can barely recall posting a response, perhaps because it was more of a late night drive-by shooting than a considered observation, the very sort of vocalized gut reaction that I've said elsewhere that I don't favor. Mea maxima culpa.
I think that my initial impulse went not to the technical aspects, really, but to the impression I had of the seeming disrespect for the portrait subject (Queen or not). To me, it's an honor to be allowed to paint someone's portrait, and I feel obliged to at the very least "do no harm".
That being said, there probably isn't a person in the world with any familiarity with the Queen who wouldn't see this portrait and say, yep, that's the Queen. We should all be so successful in universal recognition of a likeness we've worked to capture, much less in an unorthodox rendering. The artist clearly pinned down something most essential about the subject -- not the "something" that we're accustomed to seeing in the typical publicity releases, but something we nonetheless can't deny recognizing. Not bad.
And if it took 6 years of negotiations, the arbiters of royal taste must have had a pretty good idea of what they were getting into, and they agreed, so perhaps no offense was taken. But 70 sittings? For a 6x9 painting? Methinks Lucky and Her Maj must have had more than a mutual appreciation for tea and crumpets. Something's just not on, Mum. Better have the maid inventory the flatware.
Here's what I suspect Freud thinks of all of this: nothing. Couldn't care less, if he's even aware of it, which I doubt. Wouldn't it be great to have that kind of freedom as an artist, whatever one's style and approach? I can't imagine Sigmund's grandson lying on a couch somewhere, wringing his hands and tearfully trying to choke out a response to a therapist's prompt, "And how does all that criticism make you feel? Angry? Sad?"
Off the wall and out of the ordinary is a nice whack on the side of the head sometimes. I just took my alto sax-playing son to a performance by a saxophone quartet that, among other things, played one piece entirely a 1/16 off the beat (each player choosing one side or the other), and another selection was rendered with saxophones tipped back so that the players' saliva remained in the mouthpiece, resulting in gurgling bubble notes. It was brilliant (though I wouldn't want the CD). And I'll tell you what, you have to be incredibly good to be that "bad". I'm sure there wasn't a single person in the audience who wasn't completely caught up in it -- some caught more reluctantly than others -- all the way through standing ovations and the third encore.
On a similar note, if you ever wanted to develop an appreciation for bassoon, it's hard to go wrong with a recording from the Bubonic Bassoon Quartet. I have a hunch that Freud played that tape a few times while he painted this gurgling royal bubble.
Room for all,
Steven
|
Threaded Mode
