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?

Especially by Picasso of all painters.

Picasso was so abusive to the women and children in his life that it's hard to stomach. When a son turned up as a young adult, asking to meet him, Picasso set his dogs on the boy. When one of his lovers, who was also a painter, finally broke free of him, he destroyed her career. No gallery would show her work and risk alienating the great Picasso. His life was full of people he ruined.

But I don't think anyone on the thread has suggested that either Picasso or Lucian Freud was (a) a nice human being, husband or partner (b) an adequate father by any normal standards, even to their 'acknowledged' children.

What are you suggesting this means for their work? That it should not be exhibited? That galleries who show it should be boycotted?

The behaviour isn’t the art. Should we refuse to look at paintings and sculpture, listen to music, read books because we disapprove of the morals and behaviour of their creator?

I think @oxytocindeficient has it in Freud’s case and he was so removed from his offspring that he viewed them like any other model.

And when I said Picasso of all painters I was referencing the art which has to be among the least erotic depiction of the human form imaginable.

*That galleries who show it should be boycotted?

I can’t speak for everyone, but firstly I think the discussion about them and their work and the circumstances of it should be encouraged. I think people should know. Then I guess it’s up to us as individuals whether we want to view it, just like with directors, actors, musicians... people will stay away from any they find crosses their own personal line. You support what you’re into, and reject anything you’re not. I don’t think the point of this thread is to start some kind of movement against a particular artist.

listen to music

So for me personally, I decided to stop listening to R Kelly some time ago, because he actually sings about it. I was puzzled what took everyone else so long to object to him. For me, with this painting, no I wouldn’t go and view it. It crosses my personal lines and I don’t want to pay money to see a painting that started when the subject was 17 & I think, after consideration, involved some form of coercion and a power dynamic that favoured the older adult male in the relationship.

Other people will still appreciate the art without thinking about the artist. I myself can’t do that. I wouldn’t make exceptions for artists that I wouldn’t make for teachers or priests, or shopkeepers etc

he was so removed from his offspring that he viewed them like any other model.

The key difference is that is not how his children saw the relationship, they were exposing themselves to their own father and not always comfortable with it. He may have not seen any difference between models, the crucial point is: they were. The fact he didn’t see that, is part of what is disturbing.

She clearly says the pose she had chosen ‘unwittingly’ exposed more than she realised

Yeah.....

Interpretation of the above quote could be done in many ways.
She could be in fact apologising for causing offence to the viewers of the painting (which is how I read the comment.)

I don't think anyone can interpret it to mean her father was gawping and she didn't have an inkling of what she was showing. she was 17 FGS!

I'm actually shocked that someone felt so enraged or whatever to start this thread.

I saw the painting and read the article.

I suppose my gut reaction was their lives seemed out of the realms of most people's experience and we'd all think it was slightly odd.

I didn't for a moment think this was an example of an incestuous relationship or that she was abused.

if it were, she would have said that and she didn't.

Maybe stop muck raking?

There really are some seriously repressed people in this world

Yes, pretend that boundaries are because the person is repressed.

This is exactly what sex abusers want people to think.

It is fucking text book.

I think artists and art-buyers ought not to profit from the exploitation of others. I totally get why people might want to boycott the paintings.

I don't buy music by Chris Brown because of what he did to Rihanna and the music isn't even anything to do with the abuse.

The fact he didn’t see that, is part of what is disturbing.

Yes, I think so. He wanted to title the painting 'the artist's daughter'. Possibly for added shock-factor, or possibly because he didn't see his children as individuals, only as daughters and sons that belonged to him, to do with as he has wished with no consideration of how his actions may impact upon them? Or am I reading too much into this?

if it were, she would have said that and she didn't

You don’t know much about abuse do you? Many victims, and I’m not just talking sexual abuse, will deny or excuse abuse, it’s part of their grooming. The fact none of the children said anything, does not make it ok.

I see i’m supposed to have said something I actually didn’t. What I said was that people who are uncomfortable with straightforward nudity are repressed. I wasn’t referencing sexuality or abuse. And I stand by that.

I wonder if Freud actually saw himself as a parent at all. He certainly didn’t engage as one. Quite honestly, given his ancestry, upbringing and lifestyle, I wouldn’t expect to understand the man, his life is so far removed from mine.

I wonder if Freud actually saw himself as a parent at all

I honestly don’t think he did. I feel sorry for his children.

If that painting was called The Artist's Daughter it's very telling. The title removes all agency from her. He could have used her name, but he didn't.

I don’t think it is muck racking. There was an article in the Times and the image. The image and the interview are being discussed here. People have different views. I don’t think it is unreasonable to query the boundaries which are blurr

@Juells he wanted to call it that, but his daughter asked him to call it Rose instead, so that's its title.

You don’t know much about abuse do you?

And neither do you based on your post.

One thing I do know, as I work with them, is newspapers.

The Times would not have included this feature lightly. They would have talked to her and made 100% sure she was happy for it to be in.
The daughter herself has given permission for this. she either asked to be featured or was asked.

I can see nowhere in that feature any suggestion of abuse or grooming and to imply a woman of 60 is now naive and doesn't recognise it with hindsight is insulting to her intelligence.

She's not the responsible one, he is, so saying she somehow revealed more than she was comfortable with is sad. FFA he was the one who put her vulva front and centre of the piece, and he completely manipulated the situation and made the 'art' he wanted, not all are so blatant; Roman Polanski was faced with consequences eventually, and its because its so normalised, excused and minimised is exactly why a bigger decision should be made, that girl of 17 has no control over that exposed image of her, and that's wrong, the world is viewing her posing vulva first for her father.

It doesn't matter what the arena, it crossed boundaries; when is there an excuse for abuse?

Maybe stop muck raking?

I agree.

I think some comments on this thread are much more prurient than any of Freud's work.

If that painting was called The Artist's Daughter it's very telling. The title removes all agency from her. He could have used her name, but he didn't.

Or it's a nod to all the thousands of paintings throughout art history that have been called 'The Artist's Daughter' or 'The Painter's Daughter'?

How many of them were of The Artist's Daughter's vulva?

So you know these people and were party to their conversations, then @Smotheroffive? And I think we’ve got the gist of “her vulva front and centre” without you parroting it in every post. Most of us have seen the image.

It clearly didn’t cross her boundaries which are apparently different to yours. She is allowed to have different ones. She was a young adult - some magical transformation does occur at midnight on your 18th birthday - and competent to make her own choices. I doubt she’d thank you for presenting her as some kind of victim.

Doesn’t. Bloody auto fill.

I doubt she’d thank you for presenting her as some kind of victim.

Yes, I find this uncomfortable.

This is another thread that shows how difficult it is for many people to see beyond their own experiences. There have been so many discussions here recently where posters insist that they cannot understand why people would make different decisions to them, do things differently to them. I can see why people find it concerning and think it's good to discuss it but we can't just decide that she must have been groomed or abused just because we can't understand her decision.