Lucian Freud portrait of Queen Elizabeth causes a stir - Page 6

Jesse C. Draper · 02-21-2002, 12:26 PM

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 · 02-21-2002, 03:44 PM

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

David Dowbyhuz · 02-21-2002, 04:17 PM

Quote:

I don't think professional fine art should be created unless it is aesthetically pleasing ...

While agreeing with the majority opinion (which in younger days would have been reason enough to DISAGREE

) I don't think the words "should be" have a valid place in art critque. (Does one absolute fighting another negate them both?)

I know what you meant Nathaniel, and I suspect your "should be" did NOT in fact mean "must be" (did it?), but that is what is too often meant when people trot out those two iron-plated words ...

Nathaniel Miller · 02-22-2002, 01:31 AM

David,

You're right. I certainly didn't mean "must be". We're talking about whether or not we like the portrait of Elizabeth and why, so I'm just giving my personal preferences. It's difficult to state these things clearly. I read somewhere that "talking about art is like dancing about mathematics".

Also, I don't consider myself qualified to give an "art critique". You won't see me post anything in the critique forum, but I thought I'd say something here, since we're just being asked what we think of the painting.

Nathan

Karin Wells · 04-20-2002, 10:30 AM

I feel a little guilty about this but I can't resist knocking Lucian Freud's work...

Here is a drawing by him...and I think the title should be:

"DON'T DRINK AND DRAW!"

Jim Riley · 04-20-2002, 11:24 AM

OR!

"Don't drink and write humor"

Peter Jochems · 04-22-2002, 05:45 PM

I consider Lucian Freud a good, perhaps one of the best painters of today. Perhaps it's good to think about how intolerant many people are towards realistic art, let's not make the same mistake towards Lucien Freud. The portrait of the queen is not one of his best. I think it's not a good painting by Freud's standards. But he made some impressive works of art.

Thanks Karin, for showing us that beautiful drawing by Freud.

Peter

Karin Wells · 04-23-2002, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

An old saying, but a true one, isn't it?

Thanks for another definition of "beautiful."

Nathaniel Miller · 04-24-2002, 09:56 AM

Wow, I just re-read this thread..........

I work the graveyard shift (11pm-7am) while in school, so I sometimes have to go 24 hours without sleep. It shows in some of my more regrettable posts!

Nathan

Karin Wells · 04-24-2002, 01:39 PM

I think it is unfair to judge an artist by only one or two works....it is helpful to see a whole body of work. So here is some more of Lucien's work...