Lucian Freud portrait of Queen Elizabeth causes a stir

[Henry Wienhold]

I think Freud accomplished exactly what he planned to do with the Queen's portrait. Look at the controversy his painting caused.

You can't figure it out. By this I mean his motive and intentions are undefined. The old saying comes into mind, "a picture is worth a thousand words." Freud's portrait goes beyond that cliche, the possibilities as to what was on his mind are endless, just like our universe.

Or perhaps it's just a Freudian slip?

[Tom Edgerton]

I've been following this controversy for a long time without weighing in, but I've got to side with Jim on this thread.

As a working painter, I realize that a lot of the decisions I make and the final result of my effort are driven by instinct, feel, guts (or lack of them) and a lot of other non-verbal, non-cerebral action. I'm working on whatever artistic issues interest me at the time. Most times that includes correct, academic copying of the shapes I see (draftsmanship). But sometimes not.

To dismiss the effort of an artist as being completely a product of devious, overt calculation aimed toward creating the most controversy and garnering the most attention is to miss the point--that art is primarily a dialogue with oneself, in private. Presuming that Freud painted the Queen that way because he didn't like her, or for some other ominous reason, assumes I have special insight his psyche. I've learned (the hard way) when I make that assumption, I'm almost always wrong.

And to Jim's insistence, criticizing an artist for not being interested in the same things I am, stylistically and formally, is artistic political correctness to the extreme. Criticizing a non-traditionalist for not being Bouguereau is the same crime--in reverse--that was perpetuated against traditional realists through most of the 20th Century by the "modern" art world. If it wasn't okay for them, it's not okay for us. Freud doesn't paint the way I do because he doesn't care to. And isn't that all right?

She didn't pay him, and agreed to the project, so what's the harm? Lord knows, she's got the time. And whether she's happy with the result or not is her decision--I don't have a dog in that fight.

If I can learn something about painting by looking at it, why not look? It's a lot more sensible than pretending that if I view anything but what reminds me of me, my eyes will dissolve in their sockets and my soul will be irreparably damaged.

Like the song says "different strokes for different folks."

Best--TE

[Marvin Mattelson]

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

[John de la Vega]

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!

[Armin Mersmann]

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

[Wayne McMichael]

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+

[Brenda Ellis]

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!

[John de la Vega]

Hi Brenda, I

[Brenda Ellis]

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?

[John de la Vega]

Brenda:

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