Lucian Freud portrait of Queen Elizabeth causes a stir

[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

[Brenda Ellis]

John, you mentioned Spencer and Khorzev regarding Freud's influences. I assume you mean Stanley Spencer? (I like). But I could not find a Khorzev. Do you happen to know his first name?

[John de la Vega]

Brenda re influences on Lucian Freud:

Yes, Stanley Spencer, a terrific English painter (1891-1959). Korzhev's (I had the last name wrongly spelled in my post) first name is (was, rest his Russian soul if he's gone) Geli M, a fairly late social realist (actually more of an 'expressionist') of the fifties and sixties (see "Socialist Realist Painting", Matthew Cullerne Bown, Yale University Press, 1998). His powerful in-your-face paintings make extensive use of anatomical distorsion (as in wide-angle), with heavy emphasis on ' blue-veined' skin. I never read anywhere that Korzhev is considered to have influenced Freud, but to me the similarities are undeniable, whether directly related or not.

[Brenda Ellis]

Contrast Laszlo's QE II at 7 years old. Not a great portrait either. Charming, though. However, it is clear to most that Laszlo is a great portraitist. Just thought this was an interesting 'other end of the spectrum'. Both in years and in style. The colors are similar, though, aren't they? Hmmm.

[Jim Riley]

I agree with the recent comments by John and Brenda and continue to be amazed by the need for others to denigrate the efforts of artist who do not follow exclusively the style and formula of past masters. So much has happened in the art world that has permanently changed how people respond to art in the modern era. Freud and others have had considerable influence on artists and the art community and those that hold their work up for ridicule have little weight anymore. Their nastiness has little impact.

Brenda, I liked your painting on the little girl . Well done