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?

And all these people saying it's fine and nothing wrong with it - would you be happy for your husbands/ partners to paint your teenage daughter naked with her legs spread wide open?? Doubt it.

With the violent pornography thing: I always seem to note more boys watch, more girls read. It's as if it doesn't count if there are no pictures.

Social mores were different 40 years ago

True, but I don't think it would have been widely accepted then either. The article someone posted a share token to (thank you, BTW) says that the artist originally wanted to entitle the painting 'The artist's daughter' suggesting that he was going for the shock factor caused by going against societal norms. All publicity is good publicity and all that. It clearly worked, given that roughly half a century later we're still discussing it, despite the fact that (to my eye at least) it's not actually particularly good.

I think that the issue with her pose is that if you're coming from a position of being uncomfortable with the idea of seeing your parents, family, friends, whoever nude, then that pose is an extra step too far beyond the norm. If you grow up in an atmosphere where people are regularly nude, maybe observing life drawing from an early age then that pose is only one step from being there naked anyway. It's not an unusual pose for a life model. If you are naked anyway it's only a matter of time before your vulva is exposed somehow.

I am uncomfortable with the sexualisation of nudity and also of the pose. She's not necessarily being sexual just because her legs are open, I think that's slightly dodgy ground to be on. I mean, are people saying that women with open legs are somehow inviting sex?

Yes I see what you mean @DarlingNitika, I wasn’t clear. Aesthetically my body was quite nice in those days. I should have said when I liked the look of my body. I don’t dislike it now - it’s healthy, has borne children and from a heath point of view is in good nick. I, personally, don’t particularly like looking at my wrinkled, sagging flesh.

I mean, are people saying that women with open legs are somehow inviting sex?

An interesting point. Someone made a similar one upthread, about women being taught not to sit with their legs open etc due to impoliteness, while men don't seem to have the same restrictions.

Not RTFT or seen the pic

Has he a son

And painted him bent over with his arsehole on display?

Why is it invariably women taking their clothes off FFS

And saying sitting with their legs spread is powerful and empowering

If a man who wasn't a famous artist did this or took a photo people would think he was a giant perv, also.

Fame and talent go a long way in protecting men.

" I mean, are people saying that women with open legs are somehow inviting sex?"

In our culture and in popular media and in porn the answer is that a portrayal for others to look at of a naked woman with her legs spread is sexual.

I would say that is wrong, but it is where we are, and is the culture in which the painting was made.

Still not read the thread as its so long

"With the violent pornography thing: I always seem to note more boys watch, more girls read. It's as if it doesn't count if there are no pictures."

The point is that with words no real people are actually having these things really done to them, and there is no question that the people involved may be coerced etc or just really need the money or have past abuse etc etc we all know the probs with porn.

I, personally, don’t particularly like looking at my wrinkled, sagging flesh.

I get that (believe me!). I'd just say that an artist in a life drawing class, or painting a portrait, would look at it differently. They don't make the same judgements as we do in 'everyday' situations; every body they draw or paint just has its own line, form, shapes, textures etc that they must observe and represent.

On the title of the painting, that's probably the one thing in Rose Boyt's article I don't agree with ('His title would make anybody think about incest.') It only makes me think, 'OK, so that's who the model is.' Incest
wouldn't cross my mind.

Raspberry88 and whoever made the similar observation about sitting with legs open somehow suggesting 'inviting sex', that is a very good point.

Freud painted many male nudes. There’s a long line of male nudes - Michaelangelo’s David? Germaine Greer was photographed with her anus on display because she chose to.

"With the violent pornography thing: I always seem to note more boys watch, more girls read. It's as if it doesn't count if there are no pictures."

I mean what a ridiculous comment

*Has he a son

And painted him bent over with his arsehole on display?*

I think I remember reading that he did paint one of his sons nude, but I don't know what position he was in.

I've had a quick Google and he does have a few men in pretty much the same position as the woman in the he portrait we're discussing.

Of course there are male nudes

But are there male nudes with the man bending over and displaying his arsehole which are painted by their dad
Specifically this artist

I'm going to go with no
I'm going to go with > an artist who painted his 17/18yo son bent over displaying his arsehole would not get a good response from the public

Also, Germaine Greer is a woman [confused

Talk about deliberately missing the point

Yes Michaelangelo's David is exactly the same as a man painting his teenage son bent over showing his arsehole

There are literally squillions of female nudes, there's a reason there's a thread about this one!

On that topic, the fact that when you go around art galleries the artists are vastly predominantly men and the subjects vastly predominantly women often naked and lounging around "sexiliy" is hardly a new observation.

Yes I am bored to fuck of it being women who take all their clothes off and then say it's empowering and men get to be empowered with all tehri clothes on

Germaine Greer was photographed with her anus on display because she chose to.

She said afterwards that she was manipulated into it, thought everyone was doing it, then it was a case of "ha ha no we didn't do it" but the photo of her was on the front of the magazine. She did feel violated IIRC.

There was that other guy who did a picture of his daughter with no clothes on
He was sexually abusing her
But he was a good artist to it's on display

How does the gang feel about that

Probably anyone who feels uncomfy is just a terrible philistine

Bored to tears of women/men dynamics and all this crap tbh

That’s an invalid comparison, the subject of Rose isn’t exposing her anus, nor for that matter is David.

I don't know that the anus thing is a fair comparison. The painting in question is hardly gynaecological in nature. All that can be seen is some hair-covered labia. I'd liken it to seeing the buttocks/penis rather than the anus.

I like the Brian Sewell quote
"Lucian Freud: “He allows his paintbrush to crawl into a woman’s crotch with the insistence of a caterpillar into a cabbage heart”.

Yes I am bored to fuck of it being women who take all their clothes off and then say it's empowering and men get to be empowered with all tehri clothes on

So empowering

Alsohuman why is it invalid?

For a male viewer with a sexualised gaze, of course it's equivalent.

The reason it's more "shocking" for a woman to have her legs spread than closed is because you can see where a man can penetrate her.
A man doesn't have a vagina.

I explained why it was invalid.

I like the Brian Sewell quote
"Lucian Freud: “He allows his paintbrush to crawl into a woman’s crotch with the insistence of a caterpillar into a cabbage heart”

Ha ha what a brilliant quote!

The poses/paintings put the genitals in your face, whether the male or female and the that that's his daughter.

The photo of him looking directly at her vulva, its clear his focus.

He has used his daughter in the worst possible way, she was 14! Only in this arena of supposed highbrow art does it get called anything other than what it is!

No, I don't agree you can make a leap from a woman displaying vulva open-legged is an invitation to sex! No way, not in that pose,and not just in sitting wide legged.

Maybe wearing skirts would have more to do with that. That was my first awareness of keeping legs shut was when young and sat on the floor cross legged, all girls were displaying their knickers and its still done and does make girls feel awkward

She was 18 - sigh.