Lucian Freud portrait of Queen Elizabeth causes a stir

[Steven Sweeney]

I'm always a little surprised to get lassoed back into this topic, because I can barely recall posting a response, perhaps because it was more of a late night drive-by shooting than a considered observation, the very sort of vocalized gut reaction that I've said elsewhere that I don't favor. Mea maxima culpa.

I think that my initial impulse went not to the technical aspects, really, but to the impression I had of the seeming disrespect for the portrait subject (Queen or not). To me, it's an honor to be allowed to paint someone's portrait, and I feel obliged to at the very least "do no harm".

That being said, there probably isn't a person in the world with any familiarity with the Queen who wouldn't see this portrait and say, yep, that's the Queen. We should all be so successful in universal recognition of a likeness we've worked to capture, much less in an unorthodox rendering. The artist clearly pinned down something most essential about the subject -- not the "something" that we're accustomed to seeing in the typical publicity releases, but something we nonetheless can't deny recognizing. Not bad.

And if it took 6 years of negotiations, the arbiters of royal taste must have had a pretty good idea of what they were getting into, and they agreed, so perhaps no offense was taken. But 70 sittings? For a 6x9 painting? Methinks Lucky and Her Maj must have had more than a mutual appreciation for tea and crumpets. Something's just not on, Mum. Better have the maid inventory the flatware.

Here's what I suspect Freud thinks of all of this: nothing. Couldn't care less, if he's even aware of it, which I doubt. Wouldn't it be great to have that kind of freedom as an artist, whatever one's style and approach? I can't imagine Sigmund's grandson lying on a couch somewhere, wringing his hands and tearfully trying to choke out a response to a therapist's prompt, "And how does all that criticism make you feel? Angry? Sad?"

Off the wall and out of the ordinary is a nice whack on the side of the head sometimes. I just took my alto sax-playing son to a performance by a saxophone quartet that, among other things, played one piece entirely a 1/16 off the beat (each player choosing one side or the other), and another selection was rendered with saxophones tipped back so that the players' saliva remained in the mouthpiece, resulting in gurgling bubble notes. It was brilliant (though I wouldn't want the CD). And I'll tell you what, you have to be incredibly good to be that "bad". I'm sure there wasn't a single person in the audience who wasn't completely caught up in it -- some caught more reluctantly than others -- all the way through standing ovations and the third encore.

On a similar note, if you ever wanted to develop an appreciation for bassoon, it's hard to go wrong with a recording from the Bubonic Bassoon Quartet. I have a hunch that Freud played that tape a few times while he painted this gurgling royal bubble.

Room for all,
Steven

[Rochelle Brown]

Oh Karin...

[Mike McCarty]

When I view this piece without the politics, that is without knowing who it is or who painted it, I give it a more favorable judgement. To see it randomly on a wall I think it would make me stop and hold my interest. Would I have the nerve to present it to the Queen? I think not.

[Timothy C. Tyler]

I've always wondered where Freuds' career would be were he born Louie Fred.

Remember at one point the Beatles became aware of the fame of their name moving their music onward? So, they wrote some songs which were released by other artists. These songs were hits too.

I'll bet ole Lucian really wonders about this too. He could enter lots of competitions under pen names and show us all, or could he?

[Margaret Elvin]

I find the contrast between the way Freud painted the her face and the crown both interesting and disconcerting. The face has an awkward paint by number quality to it while the crown has an almost photo-realism to it. It's as if he's saying the the crown is real, but she's not. (Karin, et al, if I'm indulging in artspeak, please excuse, but I couldn't resist!)

While I concede that Freud's self-portrait is a little scary looking, I actually like it. He captured what I presume to be his own intense energy and made me pause to acknowledge it. I admire that capacity.

One more thing about the Queen's portrait...what's up with the 5:00 shadow?

-Margaret

[Karin Wells]

Egad, what was Lucian really saying here! A 5 O'clock shadow on the Queen? Perhaps this "Freudian slip" reveals some deeply held royal secret...

[Nathaniel Miller]

Hello all,

My admittedly uneducated opinion:

If it takes 5 pages of discussion to devine the "meaning" of a painting (esepecially such a simple one) then the artist has failed to communicate, not to mention uglifying the sitter(sure....it's a word).

I noticed that nearly everyone had a negative reaction to it at first (i.e. it is aesthetically unappealing). After we saw his self-portrait (which I thought was interesting, but not that great) then we started guessing at what he could be "saying" by creating such work, and the amateurish, ugly nature of the painting seemed less important.

In my view, if you're painting a portrait as a gift, aesthetic pleasantness should be a minimal requirement, even if you're not trying to beautify the sitter.

I'm sure you're right that Freud couldn't care any less. As with a lot of paintings, it's the hype that gets the praise and notoriety, not the work itself (may not be true of all his work, but I think it applies to this one).

Hope I don't seem too judgemental,
Nathan

[Jim Riley]

Nathan,

The five pages may not be the result of "failure to communicate" by the artist as much as the wish by many to beat the messenger when you don't like the message. Which has been one constant in art history. I understand quite a stir took place when artist first dared to mix colors with oil, use dramatic light and darks (Rembrandt), and were rejected by the official art communities when they dabbled in nonsence called "Impressionism".

The only difference between me and a madman is that I'm not mad. -Salvador
Dali, painter (1904-1989)

[Jesse C. Draper]

Cynthia,
I really think it's time for you to make a new purple envelope icon for over 50 replies and 1500 views.

I think if Freud saw how much hubbub we were making about his work he would be as happy as a clam.

[Nathaniel Miller]

Hello all,

Jim:

Yes, I agree with you. There will always be those who fight change in art as in anything else. Some people think that smearing actual feces on the canvas is art....I personally do not. Everyone has to draw the line somewhere. I draw the line at intentional creation of ugliness and/or inciting controversy to sell your work (not necessarily meaning Freud here). None of the changes you you mentioned imply either of those. I think a majority of people who saw this painting for the first time would (and have so far it seems) recognize this painting as ugly...i.e. not aesthetically pleasing. I don't think professional fine art should be created unless it is aesthetically pleasing and/or makes a discernable statement (not a statement you have to research the artist or take other measures to devine). Vision is a sensory experience, why give it something displeasing intentionally?

It's not a 'modern' vs. 'classical' thing.

Sure, it's a subjective opinion, but that's what I don't like about the portrait.

In plain language....it's ugly.

Nathan