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?

I like the image. As a painter of nudes myself it wouldn't make me feel uncomfortable. I paint my children nude. I paint everyone nude.

Laurie
No, it's not that one. In the painting the daughter has her legs wide open - it's disturbing considering it's his daughter.

@ NotSuchASmugMarriedNow1

this is in The Times today and you need to read the whole article OP to get a sense of it. Have you? Assume you have.

His daughter didn't have to sit for him, you know.

It's clearly outside the realms of most family behaviour but not everyone fits a certain profile or expectation.

His daughter has been very willing to have her photo now as a 60 yr old alongside that painting, and talk about it, and have millions of readers see it.

So who is the odd one here?

@sackrifice

I’m from a working class background. I’m of average intelligence, and although I work in the arts, and have commissioned work, portraiture isn’t my specialist area.

What I am able to do, is read the accounts of the sitter and the artist, and contextualise these accounts within the artists body of work and his biography. I’m not saying he wasn’t an unsavoury character. I’ve not even said how I feel about the work- but I have suggested that this complex portrait needs a bit of thought before it’s comdemned as offensive, immoral or even verging on representation of a criminal act.

To see multiple posters disregarding all of the evidence available, in favour of “gut feeling” re: whether this extremely subjective portrait is an example of child abuse, paedophilia and incest in action or not, makes me question whether trial by jury of peers - for any matter, from theft to murder- is a sensible way for this country to operate its justice system, at least from this sample of the population.

YABU although I think it depends on the circumstances - I'm not saying any and all nude pictures of daughters by their fathers are innocent. But she was being painted by someone who specialised in non-sexual nudes, chose to be nude, chose her own pose, and the way he's painted her is emphasising her strength and her womanhood, not her sexuality (at least in my view). I think it's a fascinating painting. She looks as if she's challenging the person looking at the painting, which give her a certain power, and she seems utterly unmoved by being naked. It feels more respectful of her as a newly adult woman than exploitative.

Well he wasn’t a paedophile. He was an awful father to some children and less so to others.
But above everyone else and to the sacrifice of everyone else. He was an artist.
As someone else said, it was her choice and as she knew her father and how he painted then she knew what it would entail.

She doesn’t at any point say she felt coerced.

Not everyone sees open legs as sexual. Some people might find it uncomfortable, but she’s not an 8 year old girl who’s been abused by her father.

And to think the two are the same is stupid.

There are a lot of people that have given me the willies because I thought they were too fond of little girls/boys artists included. But Freud isn’t one of them.

He might be an awful human being, but he’s still a great painter

To see multiple posters disregarding all of the evidence available, in favour of “gut feeling” re: whether this extremely subjective portrait is an example of child abuse, paedophilia and incest in action or not, makes me question whether trial by jury of peers - for any matter, from theft to murder- is a sensible way for this country to operate its justice system, at least from this sample of the population.

Ha! Yes. Very good point. I've just done jury service and, although it was quite an eye-opening experience, my opinion of the system hasn't really changed. I still think (to coin a phrase) it's the worst option apart from all the others.

Depressing future for art being voiced here

The comparison with Gill doesn’t stand up. Gill was a paedophile and rapist, as admitted in his own diary, never mind anyone’s testimony. Freud was a weird and unpleasant man but I can’t find anything to suggest he was sexual abusive to his children. Nudity and nude portraits are not inherently sexual and the response may say more about the biases and feelings of the beholder than the creator. But to be honest without you linking or giving the name it’s hard to judge. He painted a lot of nudes.

@VictoriaBun don’t suppose that the camera club’s name began with an E did it?

Lucian Freud was a great artist, no matter what you think of him personally.

His daughter was an adult when she sat for the painting so it wouldn't be considered wild abuse.

DrowsyDragon, which post(er) are you replying to? I can't see any other mention of Gill and don't know who it is. Thanks.

Sorry i think it’s weird too. My DDad was a talented painter and artist, but was an unknown born in the depression. So he became a wonderful tradesman painter and decorator. I once found pencil drawings of my mother naked by accident, bleugh, i was about 17 and that was bad enough, if he had asked me to pose naked i would have left home.

He didn’t, because he wasn’t a weirdo. His artist talents stayed between the two of them.

Apparently I imagined it! Can’t find it again. Eric Gill. Responsible for Gill fonts and a lot of art and a predator. I was sure someone had made the comparison. Which I thought was invalid. But apparently I am just drowsy indeed.

Darling Nikita puts it all into perspective in her posting. Whether one likes or dislikes Lucien Freud is immaterial. Nudity is central to human representation in Art. It takes intellectual detachment to appreciate it dispassionately as DN implies. Provided a person is old enough and not coerced in any way, they are free to exhibit their nakedness for an artist to paint. Explicit Sex and artistic eroticism are separate and distinct. Pornography blurs those parameters. Because many famous artists are known to have had sexual relations with their artistic models, there is danger of jumping to conclusions about naked subjects and painters. What is private and what is public work by an artist is controversial: not least the private life of the likes of LF, Pablo Picasso, Eric Gill. Every picture tells a story: the one on the front of the canvas the other is on its rear - metaphorically speaking

I don’t think it’s an image of child sex abuse, and I don’t think painting his child naked would be particularly awful if he’d kept those pictures private. Most normal people don’t see their children in a sexual light at any age. Nothing to suggest he had incestuous feelings.

But I do find it a bit exploitative to have put those pictures on public display. I think he knew it was shocking, and I think he enjoyed the notoriety it brought him.

Acting as a protective father was very far down on his list of priorities.

I don't think Eric Gill has been mentioned, @DarlingNikita I think @DrowsyDragon was musing (or reading my mind, because I was just thinking about Eric Gill!)

Eric Gill was a sculptor, painter and early graphic designer (he invented the font Gill Sans). After his death it was discovered via his diaries that he had sexual relations with his daughters and the family dog.

Gill's daughters were teenagers so technically, legally at least, he wasn't a paedophile, not that that excuses his behaviour.

I agree entirely that you can't put Freud in the same category as Gill. Or Graham Ovenden. Freud was a horrible person but there is no evidence that he abused his children.

Sending @DrowsyDragon a nice for her drowsiness

He painted his daughter naked when she was 14, he is a weird creepy fucker!

I don’t think I really care tbh. The pose was her choice, and it felt like she was trying to get his attention and prove she was an adult.

It’s nothing like Balthus which is truely disturbing.

Thanks, LondonHuffyPuffy and Drowsy.

truly ^^

No so wrong, it would be bad if the daughter was a grown adult, but a teenage girl, noway.

Oh God yes Eric Gill euch.

Surely great artists don’t paint what doesn’t inspire them

I would question what inspires him about his naked daughter with her legs spread.
As a father surely the image of his daughter would override that of artist. You couldn’t look at your daughters vulva objectively surely whilst trying to capture what her nakedness says.