Lucian Freud portrait of Queen Elizabeth causes a stir

[Mike McCarty]

I thought it lacked surface tension.

[Peter Garrett]

Marvin:

We just need to inhale more toxic solvents. I'm starting now.

The great masters added a steady diet of lead white.

Peter G

[Peter Garrett]

Mike

Clement Greenberg would have said it lacks ineluctable flatness.

Peter G

[Gene Snyder]

Hey Everyone!

Reading the news articles posted, the critics sound strikingly familar to the critics who bashed the Impressionist group over a hundred years ago. Haven't we gotten anywhere since then - especially after all the "isms" and the modern/post-modern era?

Actually, with the great pull toward abstraction, I'm glad to see that Freud is sticking to realism, especially with the vast amount of abstract work created out there. Plus, he's letting paint be paint and creating an interesting surface and has a recognizable style. Yes, the painting may be a little unflattering, but it's his interpretation and he's entitled to it. Next thing you know, we'll be back to government regulated art.

A great book to read that is related, if you're interested, is James Lord's "A Giacommetti Portrait". A great first-hand account of an artist's creative process.

My vote:

[Jim Riley]

After reading about Picasso's death bed confession, Mark Rothko's suicide, and Pollock's raging alcoholism I almost gave up my defense of modern artists and their contested contributions to fine art. Who knows what other sins they and their "ilk" may be guilty of. Maybe higher divorce rates and increased teen pregnancy might be traced or linked to the "damage" the Modern Art hoax has maintained for more than 50 years. GOOD GRIEF!!!

And maybe the Harvard Business school should do a study and find out how the likes of Picasso ("who could not draw", "If he could it was nothing more than typical academy level", and "if he can he doesn't show it") "started drawing and painting crudely" and somehow people lauded the work and for more than a half century the art world has been brainwashed into believing and buying the products of the Modern Art movement.

And we should believe that Galleries, Museums and Schools have conspired to systematically undermined representational art? I have little contact with and admittedly am not familiar with the curriculum and spirit of contemporary art schools but it has historically been true that art students have been among the least likely to buy into something that their artistic heart and soul does not believe. It's not a place to easily sell snake oil.

To believe that nonrepresentational art is a hoax and has damaged our ability to "know how to look at well-drawn and well-painted work" is an insult to any of the many millions of people that regularly make an effort to see and appreciate the visual arts. For those who have stood before a Rothko, Picasso, Jackson Pollock or any of major contributors to contemporary art for the last half century and been moved by the experience would find it hard to understand the notion that "any idiot could do it".

To the extent that one would believe denigration and invalidation were used to discredit classic realism it is surprising that that so many posts on this thread are determined to revive realism by this same shallow tactic. And why? To the extent that realism did not go away neither will the effects of "modern art". For a number of years Portrait painting was a part time business for me as I made my principal living in the employ of domestic and international compani]es whose success depended largely on providing good pattern, color and design in commercial and residential products. This activity gave me a chance to appreciate the broad effect that contemporary art has had on our everyday life. It carries over to textiles and architecture as well.

I do not understand all the self pity. Without any evidence to test my thoughts it seems that across the country a great amount representational art is produced, shown, published, taught, and sold. The national Gallery got more than a few visitors to the Sargent exhibition and I almost couldn't get a seat for the Robert Bateman presentation at the same gallery. And it's not likely that several more lifetimes would be enough to allow me buy an Andrew Wyeth.

And who are the masterful realistic painters that are not "successful"? Perhaps we should consider establishment of a Masters Relief Fund?

No less a painter than Nelson Shanks has suggested that the reason realism does not get a large share of notoriety is that it will take someone with a distinctive skill as artist like Vermeer was able to do in his day. It was realism but not as anyone had done before or since and had a profound/lasting effect on the art world.

Once again. The gap between greatness and the rest of us is not reduced by undermining or denigration. I doubt that any conspiracies, if they exist, could thwart, for long, the impact of a modern day Vermeer or Picasso.

[Karin Wells]

We've gotten off our track here, so I've begun a new topic called "Picasso & Modern Art."

Please let's continue to enjoy the controversy at: http://forum.portraitartist.com/show...=&threadid=950

[Katherine Annon]

I think that it's very consistent with Freud's other portraiture. Like it or not, it seems honestly communicated in his "voice". Which is all that any of us can do, yes? Just an observation from someone who greatly enjoys his portraiture, as well as that of Stanley Spencer, Egon Schiele, Romaine Brooks, Klimt, Beckmann, and so on and so forth...

[Katherine Annon]

Oops...sorry. New poster who got a little bit carried away when I saw Lucien Freud mentioned.

[Celeste McCall]

I should think that the queen might find it humorous. I would also think that she would love a portrait like that of herself to add to all the regal flattering portraits. It adds a touch of honesty to the collection.

[Katherine Annon]

I agree with you, Celeste.

And it's not as if Lucien Freud is an obscure painter. They knew his work when he was commissioned to do this painting. I think that they had a fair idea of what he would turn out.

Say the following folks were to do the same portrait of the Queen (if they were still alive): Bouguereau, Rembrandt, van Gogh, Sargent.

Wouldn't we have a very good general impression of how each artist would interpret it? I think we could certainly look at each one and take an accurate stab at who painted what...

I think that Freud turned out exactly what one would expect of Freud.