AIBU to be shocked at Lucian Freud painting his teenage daughter naked with her legs open?

[NotSuchASmugMarriedNow1]

Well, am I? Am I horribly surburban to have felt utter disgust with one look at that painting?

So if i was painting a model in a chair for example.
I could get away with painting the chair in a very basic style, because you’re used to seeing chairs, your eyes are on the model, your brain just kind of accepts the bare bones of chair shaped thing as complete. I couldn’t really just do two big black eyes on the face though.
I have to think about how your gaze affects where my focus goes.

@goldenwonderwall succinct.
What with Lenny from the butchers and big baz from the corner shop...
We practically have a whole hypothetical village.
I volunteer myself as gallery owner, since I’m the self appointed art police 😂

I don't like it.
If his 'art' had been photography, and he had taken photographs of children in the same poses, responses would not have been as positive!

Maybe he did ask the queen, but she refused , and that’s why she ended up with such a bad portrait 🤔

This thread makes me wonder why Gustave's L'origine du Monde is closed off from minors at Musee d'Orsay. It's just a body part, why can't it be on display like other artworks. I don't see it as sexual and certainly wouldn't have as a highschooler

Might an artist prefer the woman? Sure, I can accept that. Would they, though, if their only option was big Barry, approach their painting of him with the same scrutiny as if they were painting a beautiful young woman? I'd strongly suspect that yes they would. Because that's what painting is about.

Only there's no evidence whatsoever that Lucian Freud had a preference for painting beautiful young women, or painted them in a way that suggests he subjected them to a different scrutiny. His painting of Kate Moss is poor compared to other work. Some of his best nudes are of men for the last 20 years of his life he painted his studio assistant David Dawson more often than anyone else and of the bodies of people of both sexes who weren't conventionally beautiful, like Sue Tilley and Leigh Bowery, both obese.

boardercontroller er yes the kimono burnt itself into my soul ..she was twenty years older than me and very secure in her body and i was very respectful and mature when drawing her... But the little black kimono ..man ...sigh

I was ready to say YABU but GoldenWonderwall makes a good point.

If an amateur (or just less well known) painter did a picture of his teenage daughter in this pose he would probably be arrested!

@parthenope I was just trying to counter the idea that artists approach all subjects with the same eye/ attitude whatever you'd like to call it. Not Freud in particular .
Im just trying to give a voice to painting, that It really isn't some elitist thing that goes In behold closed does and has its own laws and rules. Sordid behaviour is no more acceptable for painters than it is for your neighbourhood weirdo.

Maybe he did ask the queen, but she refused , and that’s why she ended up with such a bad portrait

Art is all, its for the art...

Go into any high school and ask a 14 year to pose, vulva on full display, in front of her father. No -right-thinking 14 y o would do this. It's not ok just because it's art.

Maybe at 17, but your father? It is exploitative, and the power dynamic means it should never be asked or even accepted if offered (what motivation?).

Having said that families are all different and there are some fathers that do see their dd's naked bodies as teens, but I think it would be contra most teens usual innate feeling to expose themselves for their fathers or brothers.

Didn't see legs open though, Kate Moss slightly.

Boarder your posts are hilarious, I'm actually embarrassed for you!

@pinkyredrose are you?
Why?

Because you're spouting crap.

Can you elaborate pinky?

Paint your daughter by all means but there’s no need to paint her fanny

😂 Couldn't agree more!

It’s an incredibly strong portrait. It reminds me of those anatomical drawings with the muscles exposed. Having been trained to work from primary sources, i’ll take what Boyt says about the painting and the sittings she did for it. She’s looking back at it so it’s the perspective of an 18 year old and a woman in her sixties.

Although her legs are open, the only thing really on display is a thick growth of pubic hair. I guess it would be different today when apparently pubic hair is widely regarded as ‘gross’. It’s pretty sad that an upbringing with a relaxed attitude towards nudity is seen as grooming. Society appears to be going backwards in some ways.

If Melvyn Bragg is on the thread, can you explain to me why this painting and pose is more powerful than if it was exactly the same painting but the sheet was over the fannicular area? I, a mere pleb, don’t understand the artistic nature of the teenage vulva, particularly when painted by the father of the teenager. Also, if it’s her expression that makes it, why is her face in the background and her bits right in your face?

Personally, looking at the paintings on here, plus the other ones I’ve seen, I see someone who’s eye gives others no dignity and an artist sees themselves as superior to their subjects. At the end of the day, it could be anyone’s fanny (Kate Moss’ face looks like I did it), but you know who painted it.

Weird and creepy.

Why is it weird and craeepy? It's just a portrait.

Alsohuman - do you paint pics of your teenage kids naked too?

Because to get to the ‘portrait’ his daughter got her kit off and spread her legs. That’s why it’s weird and creepy.

Yeuch.

For fucks sake. Every day another fucking man shows how fucking vile they are.

^^
This