Lucian Freud portrait of Queen Elizabeth causes a stir

[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

[Brenda Ellis]

Thank you, Jim. You're very kind.

We artists can be passionate people and we may have strong opinions, one way or the other. regarding various schools or styles. I appreciate your defense of modern art. And it is nice to know that you can also accept a plain little daub such as mine!

[John de la Vega]

Jim and distinguished Forum friends,

Tonight I reread all the posts concerning Freud's portrait of the queen (a hoot as well as a failure, in my view). i find this whole exercise fascinating and - very - meaningful. The discussion is lively, probing and challenging to no end (perish the thought! Actually, on second thought -). It does touch upon some of the biggies: beauty, art history and historicity, most certainly on human nature and the nature of our understanding. Can we expect less of an exchange about art?

Jim, I strongly applaud the way you (and certainly others) have found your way around these topics, anchoring some occasionally clouded thinking by us down to a sane and safe harbor (this thought on this sad sad hour of tragedy for so many).

We mostly believe, rightly so, that we react to art with our likes and dislikes, with our biases and prejudices. It's inescapable, right? Some of us try to understand and overcome our biases (I say this at the peril of sounding 'holier than thou'), yet some of us don't seem to be able to do it, at least for a time, so deeply invested we appear to be in our hard - earned beliefs and practices which keep us sane and proud in the often titanic effort of our craft and profession (A point already made by one of our group). Some of us - and I find plenty of instances in this discussion - have modified, or seem to be willing to go a long way, towards modifying and expanding our cherished views, as in

expanding our experience

Bravo!

There's nothing wrong in reacting from our gut to the work of Freud, Picasso, and others. It is, however, perilous, to say the least, to step into the art criticism and opinion arena with just likes and dislikes. Sure, this is a free country and we are blessed to be able to say whatever we like as one of the group has aptly stated, but to be able to speak with some articulation it might help, say, to know an artist's life and work, to be aquainted not only with the historical context but also - and most importantly - to really 'see' how the physical, formal and aesthetic 'reality' of the work operates and fits in that historical context besides in our own perceptual field. What actually 'happens' there on the surface alone make take a long time and effort to really see and digest. Is it worth our while, even with art we dislike? I think so. Unfortunately such effort is rarely undertaken as part of our duty to ourselves as artists to go deeply (as in the case of Picasso's 'mature' language of creation of form, a language as foreign to many artists who should know better as Southern Swahili). Result: among other deucies, the 'whether Picasso drew - or not - drew well - when -he - was - young malarkey. Where is it written that groudbreaking creation and communication of emotion require the ability to draw well in the academic sense? How many correct draw - by - numbers academicians did it take to produce one Cezanne, Picasso, Matisse? Don't get me wrong, I am totally in favor of academic training, particularly for us portrait painters. But to put
'correct' drawing as a precondition to create 'realistic' art is just plain nonsense, even when we can say that drawing certainly may help many, if not all, artists. Let's never forget that, as a whole, the history of art (particularly of our beloved 'Western' Art ) is decidedly

not the history of the ability to draw and paint 'realistically'.

Some years ago I visited Brian Yoder's gallery on the web to find a section called "Bad Art", which included artists such as Kandinsky, Picasso, Rothko, and others. I emailed Mr Yoder with the idea proposed before, that it's fine to have our personal taste dictate likes and dislikes, but it's not fine to rashly place these and other recognized masters as examples of 'bad art', especially in a gallery pretending to perform a cultural and educational service. He emailed back assuring me that his bad art people were not selected on any subjective, personal - taste basis, but on 'objective' art history criteria, which by the way he never produced when I asked him to. Sounds familiar? Check Art Renewal Center's piece on David Hockney's work (which I don't particularly care for). On and on, narrow-mindedness and yes, provincialism constantly comparing apples and oranges, taking offense at the financial success and recognition enjoyed by many of the moderns, making judgements based on ignorant high - and - low, true - and - deviant definitions of artistic periods, and, especially, incurring in a total failure to understand the nature and role of BEAUTY, RELEVANCY, and EXPRESSIVE MEANING in our human artistic and creative drive.

Practically every day of my life I read and meditate on John Dewey's "Art as Experience", a most unusual book, the compilation of his lectures on the philosophy of art at Harvard University in 1931. I consider Dewey (1859-1952) to be a breathtaking embodiment of the highest American - and universal - thought. Art as Experience acquaints us, in an analytical, 'intellectual', yet rich, poetic and down - to - earth language, with the deep meanings and existencial reality of art, with how all of this relates to living and experiencing, our understanding making art possible in an inevitable, transforming, ever - changing way.

Thank all of you, and you Cynthia, and moderator M Rushworth, for making this section of the Forum possible!

[Brenda Ellis]

"Art As Experience". I ordered the book.

[Jan Verhulst]

I voted first and then looked at the thread. I see that I'm with the small group of members who like this portrait and wonder why this is so. I know this is a portrait forum that is mainly orientated on 'classical portraits'. In my view classical portraits are portraits witch do not much more than depicting the object in a 'realistic' way. I associate classical portraits mainly with 'skill' On the other hand I like also -and in fact much more- paintings who convoke 'another world'. This is the case in the Lucian Freud portrait of Elisabeth. Here are a lot of connotations to make (see the reply's ) For me Lucian Freud says a lot more than merely depicting Elisabeth. That's why I like it.
Jan

[Andrea Kantrowitz]

This is a very interesting discussion. I also really appreciate the latest additions to this thread. I have admired Freud for a long time. There was an amazing retrospective at the Metropolitan Museum in NYC about 7-10 years ago that I bet would have impressed most of the painters on this forum for the sheer virtuosity and muscularity and of his prolific body of work. Check out his drawings and etchings as well. I think there's a tremenous about to learn from his work about the translation of flesh and blood into paint. This sketch doesn't measure up to a lot of his other work.

Freud is very much about the mortality of the flesh, the tug of gravity and of age. It is not so much about the sprit.

I compare his work with Chuck Close, which to me is very much more about the spirit than the flesh. Which to me is very interesting when thinking about the physical challenges Close faces. Another artist for comparison is Phillip Pearlstein, who I personally dislike. There's a denial of the flesh in Pearstein's nudes, but they're devoid of spirit also--simply a clinical description of form.

What do people think about Alice Neel?

[Karin Lindhagen]

My first reaction when I saw the portrait of Elisabeth was a little smile, because I found it kind of humorous. She sort of looks as though she was having a bad day, or as if Freud and she really didn't get along. But then again they probably did, or she would have thrown him out before finishing 70 sittings.

I do admire Freud's work, though he has made many other paintings that I like better than this one. Reading through this thread I am amazed that so many people are so very appalled by his work.

I like the way Frfeud's portraits are exaggerated almost like caricatures. I could not paint like that if you hit me and I am not sure that I would want to, either. But I find his paintings very powerful. I truly admire his stubborn and daring way of setting his nudes up in poses no one ever would have thought of. Okay, the models do not look beautiful in his paintings. But wow, how skillfully he paints them! YES, I would like a painting of his! !

The portrait of the queen makes me think of the paintings of Frans Hals. He, too, painted people in unflattering ways. And that makes them very interesting. Looking at Frans Hals's paintings, or some of Velasques's that are also very unflattering, my thoughts go off about what mood that person might have been in or weather that person was normally a sour nag.

The incredible detail Freud used to paint the crown contrasts with the style of the face, and I am sure Freud didn't paint it like that by hazard. Maybe he wants to say something about her role (as a royalty) being so grandiose that it blinds us from seeing the person she really is, privately? She looks tired and maybe bored, yet strong-willed and disciplined, jaws tensed. The way that she holds her head quite high for such an old person, yet does not meet our eyes, gives me the impression of someone who wants to keep the distance; wants to keep herself to herself.

I think Lucian Freud's portrait ot queen Elisabeth is interesting, though not as great as many of Freud's other paintings. Then again, making something out of a painting that is restricted to the head only IS difficult.

[Carolyn Bannister]

I'm afraid that I can't word my response nearly so eloquently as others here have, but I have to vote with a very big yes to Lucian Freuds work.

I had the privilege to see his exhibition in Venice this summer covering 50 years of his work (including the portrait of Queen Elizabeth)

It was absolutely astounding, and to take the words from another post, it was art as an experience at its best in my view.

Traditional, realism in portraiture is all well and good, but i always have a nagging feeling that i am missing something when viewing work like this. You can see the person but never quite 'feel' them.

With Freuds work you definitely get a feel, for the person and the struggle that the artist has gone through to try and capture the essence of the sitter.

His work makes you want to try to understand what was going on deep down, rather than merely gazing on the surface beauty of a beautifully rendered portrait.

I spent hours looking from a distance or with my nose virtually on the canvas and resisting the urge to actually run my fingers over the painted surface.

Definitely an experience!

Carolyn

[Claudemir Bonfim]

I would like to see the complete work, this is just a close-up, I'm pretty sure it looks different at a certain distance.
Freud is among my favorite painters because of some of his work.