Lucian Freud portrait of Queen Elizabeth causes a stir

[Peter Garrett]

Jim!

Thanks so much for posting the drawings. There is another one of Stravinsky (in Betty Edwards' "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain")which I think is a miracle of economical line drawing. Unfortunately I have no scanner or I'd put it up. Certainly not "realist" in the literal sense- but what confidence and superlative seeing!

Perhaps, in the end, it's a mistake to compare "realism" with "modernism". The artists in each case are aiming at such different things!

I enjoy both and can be critical of both. But it is certainly instructive when we try to replicate what we admire. I find Cezanne just as complex and fascinating as David, Gericault or Turner- (another painter who worked across the divide....)

[Karin Wells]

Thanks Jim, I had never seen these drawings before. Picasso certainly isn't a "realist" but I do rather like these drawings. The second one kind of reminds me of the old "New Yorker" illustration style.

I wonder what Lucien's early work was like? As a person, does anyone know if Lucien is a happy and well-adjusted man? ...Unless, of course, you define "laughing all the way to the bank" as being "happy."

[Jim Riley]

Well maybe the ability to draw doesn't justify Picasso's later success but draughtsman or not he and his work became icons of modern art. And though many seem to have a conspiracy theories regarding the popularity of modern art, the young middle class couples down the street from me enjoy these art forms free from the influence of anyone else's judgement or "overrating" by the Art community.

I have heard the comment many times that the artist had good drawing skills before his turn to "Modern Art" but would argue that this is done mostly in response to those that assume artists depart from classic realism because they have no skill, discipline, or ability. Usually followed with thoughtful, intelligent and insightful comments like "it's ugly", "it's not art", "I just don't like it", etc. I recently commented on my annoyance to hear Tom Wolfe say in front of the American Portrait Society that "Picasso could not draw". You can't have it both ways.

In the meantime I will watch the forum closely for the many drawings and paintings that exceed his run-of-the-mill 19th century academic training.

[Karin Wells]

Peter Garrett found the following two early works by Picasso (below). I did not expect to be impressed, but frankly I am.

Picasso was around 15 or 16 at the time he did these?

Thank you Peter.

[Karin Wells]

"Portrait of the Artist's Mother," 1896.
Pastel on Paper

[Peter Jochems]

My feeling is that most classical modern painters (first half of the 20th century) were well trained and very skilled painters. And they would have been good or even great painters in others eras of painting.

The problem begins, in my view, when in the fifties and sixties under the influence of modern art, the academies start to get rid of a lot of the things that one needs to make a good painting. Anatomic drawing, the 'classical' approach to painting, modelling forms etcetera. After I finished my education in art I had the feeling I had to start all over again to learn the techniques the old masters used to make portraits. Making paintings like Mondriaan did (victory boogie woogie for example) requires an advanced insight in painting. Composition, use of colour etcetera. Making a cubist painting is actually a very difficult thing to do. That's why only very skilled painters succeed in making quality modernist paintings. And because much of the classical knowledge is lost, not only realist painting is technically at a low level at the moment, also paintings in a modernist style are technically far below the quality-level of what people like Braque and Mondriaan did.

I have seen technically very good realist paintings by Picasso, Ensor, Mondriaan. They reached a technical skill I don't see in the best realist paintings of today. One could say that they gave an energetic impulse to the art of painting of their time. The art of painting was becoming boring, although I like some of the 19th-century academic french salon-paintings (some of the paintings of Alma-Tadema, Bouguereau, Gerome are actually pleasant to watch).

The response to modern art on the academies was a disaster for the art of painting, is my feeling. One goes to school to be educated, but what does one learn at an academy. I liked my school, but I didn't learn there what I needed, to do what I wanted to do in painting. It took another 7 or 8 years to learn what I had to learn for that (and the learning-process will never be finished, but that's something which every artist will experience, I think).

Greetings,
Peter

Picasso painted this piece when he was fourteen years old... The Old Fisherman (Salmer

[Patrick Taylor]

It appears, 69 sittings were for the crown...the last sitting was for the rest of the painting.

[Karin Wells]

Queens come and Queens go, but crowns hang around for centuries. I am surprised at how important it must have been to Lucien to get a likeness of that darned crown! Wow.

[Sharlene Laughton]

After looking at some of Lucien Freud's previous works it's clear that he has become imprisioned by his own "style".

I was impressed with the strength of his heavy impastos, harsh colors and exaggerated edges in his earlier portraits of male subjects. These elements also had a place in linear compositional studies. But, the style has little flexibility. It seems to have become a formula that has entrapped him.

Maybe there's a lesson in this?