Lucian Freud portrait of Queen Elizabeth causes a stir - Page 8

Karin Wells · 05-28-2002, 10:35 PM

Quote:

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.

Interesting subject. Most people say that Picasso's early work proved that he was a great draughtsman...I've looked, but have not seen any of this "great work" on display anywhere.

Not surprisingly, my personal library is a bit thin in the Picasso section. Can you direct me to someplace (on the internet perhaps?) where I could see some of this legendary early work. When presented with new information, I do (oftentimes) change my mind.

And even though I think Lucien's work is not candy to the eye (eyesore is a more appropriate word), his self-portrait (earlier post) did blow me away with the technical virtuosity of his brush! Wow.

Alicia Kornick · 05-29-2002, 12:08 AM

Peter,

I'm not saying that every disturbing image is a "con" or that life should be viewed through rose colored glasses either. Shakespeare provoked us to think and feel, to love and to despair. Western civilization does indeed have much to be ashamed of and much to exalt over.

There are images of war and suffering everywhere we turn, we see them and mourn. Sargent painted the gassed soldiers of WWI and many other battlefield pictures. Although they were reality and a grim testament to the time, they were beautifully and most importantly of all, tenderly done. they were not executed for shock value.

Let me put it this way...there are movies and there are movies. This portrait reminds me of the "Texas Chain Saw Massacre". I'd much rather see "Shakespeare In Love."

I paint because I am (and it is an obsession to create).

Cheerfully,
Alicia

Peter Jochems · 05-29-2002, 05:05 AM

My feelings about the work of Lucien Freud...

First... I don't like the portrait of queen Elizabeth. It's terrible, not worthy for the man who could paint the earlier posted self-portrait. I have seen queen Elizabeth on television. She looks cold-hearted but not like she was covered in mud, like Freud painted her.

I don't like his work for the 'ability to provoke'. I like his self-portrait because it's a good painting. Nothing else. If I defend his work it is for the quality of that self-portrait mainly.

His provocative way of doing things, confronting us with uncomfortable poses and compositions are -in the end- annoying to me and show me that Freud believes in the myth of the great and critical artist, and it makes his work worse. It's a kind of mannerism. To me, Freud threw away much of his talent by having this attitude. It may work one or two times, but it becomes a cheap way of doing things in the hands of a too self-concious and very, very succesfull and rich artist. It ends up as a parody or image-building.

Freud is considered a great painter, in this day and age, but his best handling of the paint comes nowhere near the painterly qualities of Rembrandt in his later work. That Freud is considered as one of todays greatest painters shows that there are no really great painters like Velazquez, Vermeer or Rembrandt at this moment.

Greetings,
Peter

Peter Garrett · 05-29-2002, 07:54 AM

Peter:

Yes, I think you make a valid point about the confrontational aspect of Freud's work becoming a mannerism. As I said in a previous post, I'm not claiming that I LIKE everything he's done, in fact "likeable" is not a word that springs to mind about his work! Respect, though, I certainly have. And having looked pretty closely at his large etchings at a recent exhibition, I have to say if my drawings had half the power of his I'd be humbly grateful.

Karin:

I have seen some early Picasso drawings- admittedly in a book not "in the flesh". I'll have a look for them but I can't actually remember where I saw them, so a bit of library searching may be required. As a student, though, I'd have to say, from my experience at least, that teachers and experienced artists seem to differ about what constitutes good drawing! I was very impressed, for instance, by the power of some Picasso prints and drawings I saw here (last year?) which were from his "neo-classical" period (hardly "early" works)- but one of my teachers thought them so-so.

I'm not a Freud worshipper. Just feel that he is due the same respect any artist is due, to try to understand his work, and see critically both its strengths and weaknesses. Whether he is rich and successful is quite irrelevant.

Peter Jochems · 05-29-2002, 08:28 AM

What annoys me in the way Picasso is described is that virtuosity in his way of drawing is seen as a proof of talent (his early works) while other excellent artists from the 19th century era are ridiculed because of it. Just a thought. As a draughtsman he is just another artist who has the classic 19th century skill of academic drawing. Nothing more. A heavily overrated artist in my opinion.

Peter

Jim Riley · 05-29-2002, 08:40 AM

Peter G,

I have followed your comments and appreciate that there are others who appreciate art more provoking than cute children in the garden with colors coordinated with the new drapes and couch. One of the great rewards of participating in the arts community has been the oportunity to know so many people that are open and accepting and it always surprises me to see how narrow we can sometimes be.

Forgive the quality of these images taken from an old book on drawings that my mother bought for me when I was in high school more than 45 years ago, but here are several drawings by Picasso that demonstrate his ability to draw in the more conventional manner.

Jim Riley · 05-29-2002, 08:42 AM

And.

Peter Garrett · 05-29-2002, 08:45 AM

Peter!

That, again, is an excellent point about Picasso's draftsmanship. In that sense, as Karin implied (in her diplomatic way!), I've possibly been sucked in by the mythology. It's quite true that many "academic" Victorians have been derided for being "slick" because they were highly skilled. Both sides of the fence in this "realist versus modernist" storm in a teacup are guilty of inconsistency. Me too: mea culpa.

I think what impresses me is "power to move". For instance (shock, horror), a recent exhibition of Soutine paintings moved me deeply. Now I can just imagine what sort of reaction ANYTHING by Soutine would get on this forum!

Of course, he was kind of mad- but then so were a lot of the others. There's something deeply human in a lot of works that would get the thumbs down from most people....Fortunately we each can appreciate whatevever we wish!

Peter Garrett · 05-29-2002, 08:59 AM

Jim!

Thanks so much for posting the drawings. There is another one of Stravinsky (in Betty Edwards' "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain")which I think is a miracle of economical line drawing. Unfortunately I have no scanner or I'd put it up. Certainly not "realist" in the literal sense- but what confidence and superlative seeing!

Perhaps, in the end, it's a mistake to compare "realism" with "modernism". The artists in each case are aiming at such different things!

I enjoy both and can be critical of both. But it is certainly instructive when we try to replicate what we admire. I find Cezanne just as complex and fascinating as David, Gericault or Turner- (another painter who worked across the divide....)

Karin Wells · 05-29-2002, 12:10 PM

Thanks Jim, I had never seen these drawings before. Picasso certainly isn't a "realist" but I do rather like these drawings. The second one kind of reminds me of the old "New Yorker" illustration style.

I wonder what Lucien's early work was like? As a person, does anyone know if Lucien is a happy and well-adjusted man? ...Unless, of course, you define "laughing all the way to the bank" as being "happy."