Lucian Freud portrait of Queen Elizabeth causes a stir - Page 7

Karin Wells · 04-24-2002, 01:49 PM

So far...if his work "says" anything to me, it is that he is a nasty, angry man who doesn't much like people.

Karin Wells · 04-24-2002, 01:51 PM

and...

Karin Wells · 04-24-2002, 01:56 PM

I wonder what would happen some of these appeared in the "Critique" section?

Peter Garrett · 05-07-2002, 10:55 AM

OK- I've just looked at the whole thread about Freud and offer this without comment of any kind:

I used to be a professional photographer and was fond of saying "If you love or hate my work, I've succeeded. If you are indifferent to it, I've failed."

Alicia Kornick · 05-27-2002, 11:02 PM

To each his own, but I think she looks like an old man in drag with a wig on.

Alicia

Peter Garrett · 05-28-2002, 05:57 AM

Hello Alicia,

I think it's interesting to see how much discussion this work has provoked. Powerful things have a way of doing that.

Art isn't always pretty, is it? Have you seen any of Goya's war work or his late murals? I bet his contemporaries weren't too impressed.

Pretty Freud ain't. Literal? No way. But if you think this guy is having us all on, try looking at his etchings or other paintings. Freud is no con-man. He's a master draftsman and technically a brilliant painter. So is it worth asking why he has painted the Queen like this, when he is perfectly capable of making a flattering likeness if he wants to?

The picture is uncomfortable and disturbing. Do you think it was meant to be? This guy isn't cozy- he's confronting. Is there a place for that?

I merely ask....

Karin Wells · 05-28-2002, 09:36 AM

Quote:

...when he is perfectly capable of making a flattering likeness if he wants to?

Are you sure about this? People say this a lot about Picasso, but I doubt that he could have made it as a decent realist either.

Quote:

The picture is uncomfortable and disturbing.

Yes, I agree, but I do not understand why anyone would choose to purchase something so unpleasant to look at. Perhaps this just boils down to one's personal philosophy.

Tom Martinez · 05-28-2002, 10:03 AM

I'm going to say that I like it. As an artist we are to depict the image and personality of the subject in the portrait. Therefore, I believe that he has captured a likeness. I understand that the queen is not a particularly pleasant person. Thus, I believe that he has portrayed that image. I like the looseness of the work, very impessionistic.

Alicia Kornick · 05-28-2002, 10:47 AM

Dear Peter,

In fifty or one hundred years, will people look back on this portrait as a masterpiece? There are many horrible images in this world to look upon, daily. Does that mean it should be replicated? Does Lucien paint this way to get noticed? Let's face it, we all now know who he is. His work definitely stands out from the ordinary, but it doesn't mean I have to like it.

His other works are also disturbing to me. I am no snob but I ask myself, what is he trying to say with his work. Maybe it is "let me show the world the other side of beauty." It is provoking work, but I don't like what it provokes in me when I look at it. There are some who may like to look upon such things, but I think they are in the minority. No doubt he is a good draftsman and painter, but he chooses to use his talent in a disturbing way. Some people like to cause controversity simply to get attention. Well, he got it.

Alicia

Peter Garrett · 05-28-2002, 10:14 PM

Well! I seem to have kicked up a minor storm! I guess I'LL be accused of trying to get attention, now.. That's not my intention- I'm glad to see responses to my slightly provocative comments, though, because it seems to me we're getting at what art can be about.

Alicia- of course you don't have to like it! Neither does anyone, and I'm not saying that I "like" it either. What people will think of it in the future is of course unanswerable from our perspective. It is worth considering that even artists we now consider "masters" often sank into obscurity for centuries. (Vermeer is one.)

I'm not being controversial merely for the sake of it. I struggle with these kinds of issues myself- both in trying to listen to your views and daily in my own work. I guess its a plea for open-mindedness.

No, I don't think Freud is an attention-seeker. There is nothing slick or manipulative in his work, at least that I can see. I agree with Karin about Picasso only to the extent that some of his later works betray a certain cynicism in regard to his "public"- but I sincerely disagree that he was incapable of "realism". The man could draw like an angel at age 10 and a glance at some of his early work should dispel any doubts as to his capabilities.

Yes- of course it's all a question of tastes on one level; and everyone is entitled to respond as they wish. But if every disturbing image is a con because it's uncomfortable, we can wipe out a pretty large segment of the western cultural heritage. Let's start with Shakespearean tragedy, for example.

Hope this isn't too much. I find the whole question fascinating- why do we paint? There are as many reasons as there are artists, I guess. Thanks for the stimulating responses.