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?

From what I've read his brother has been suspected of strange behaviour, if that's true perhaps they are both cut from the same cloth?
Either way I think it's pretty appalling.

No, it's not child sex abuse, not least because she wasn't a child but because she wasn't forced to do it, chose her own pose and it's not depicted as sexual at all. I agree that he was not of the most upstanding character and that knowing it's his daughter makes it slightly uncomfortable, at least to me. But I recognise that there is a difference between that and something being "disgusting".

I would question what inspires him about his naked daughter with her legs spread.
The article goes a long way to addressing that. Her attitude etc.

You couldn’t look at your daughters vulva objectively surely whilst trying to capture what her nakedness says Well, that is precisely what an artist DOES do. They're concerned with observing and representing form, whether that form is a human body or a tree.

From what I've read his brother has been suspected of strange behaviour, if that's true perhaps they are both cut from the same cloth?

That is a slippery slope to stand at the top of.

I think it's awful.

Imagine if he'd asked on MN:

I'm a serious artist. AIBU to paint my 14-year-old daughter in the nude with her legs spread? She chose the pose so I think it's fine.

Well, he's Sigmund Freud's grandson.
Both nuttier than a fruitcake.

The Times interview with Rose Boyt about sitting for the painting is riveting. I would wholeheartedly recommend reading it for anyone interested in the painting.

Hopefully this share token works:
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-rose-boyt-felt-about-sitting-for-her-father-lucian-freud-angry-exhilarated-and-honoured-glrl8jftp?shareToken=496182267f7226ef3e4b4a552450356d

Does it have shock value? Of course it does. But there is far more to it than merely being shocking, and personally I think it's one of Freud's better paintings.

It is really creepy that people are trying to insinuate sexual abuse because of their reaction. His daughter’s account is pretty frank about the ways in which he was a crappy father, a lot of which ties to his ability to detach from people. But she mentions nothing sexual.

I have just seen "portrait of Rose" 😱 WTF! Op YANBU!

Clement is the paedophile. It’s a bit of a strange set up but that’s art for you.

Sounds like the whole family were/are fucked up. The article explains how unhappy his daughter was during the process. Art shouldn't be used to excuse abusive behaviour.

It's odd (to me) that she says that she didn't feel obedient and that she was alert and ready to spring up.

To me it looks submissive and vulnerable, especially partially covering the face as if trying to hide.

I thought she was 18 there, so not a child ?
I don’t find it abusive or creepy. Naked bodies aren’t inherently sexual, just humans, in their own skin.
And actually, although he was very promiscuous, he said he wasn’t interested in pornography, “ because it has nothing to do with love”.

*From what I've read his brother has been suspected of strange behaviour, if that's true perhaps they are both cut from the same cloth?

That is a slippery slope to stand at the top of*

If the cap fits.....

Yanbu. Of course it's entirely fucked up but they are a very strange family. I'm laughing at the amateur Brian Sewells on this thread.

DarlingNikita
A naked person, male, female, daughter, paid model, whoever, is the same to an artist's eye as Van Goh's wicker-seated chair, Cezanne's apples or Andy Warhol's cats.
Absolutely not true.

Renoir said he painted with his penis.

Duchamp used his semen in paintings, so did Warhol.
I don't know why people believe that male artists don't notice people are nude

She says herself 'I didn’t feel obedient… I was alert, prepared to spring up at any moment'. Also about covering her face: 'I lay on the sofa and shielded my eyes; the big ceiling lights in the studio were on full power.'

That's pretty compelling IMO. Unless you're happy to assume you know better than the model herself.

If the cap fits.....
And no smoke without fire too, no doubt. [heavy sarcasm]

I don't know why people believe that male artists don't notice people are nude No one has said artists don't notice that people are nude. What a strange comment.

Also, women paint and draw people (women and men) nude too.

From what I've just read she was 18 when she posed for it. I'd never heard of him before and know nothing about him.

I've googled the painting and I actually like it.

I don't think that being comfortable enough in your body to pose nude is an issue, and some families are more comfortable with nudity than others.

Nudity in itself shouldn't be seen as a sexual thing, and I think that it's sad that that's what people automatically assume it's about.

You couldn’t look at your daughters vulva objectively surely whilst trying to capture what her nakedness says Well, that is precisely what an artist DOES do. They're concerned with observing and representing form, whether that form is a human body or a tree.

I find this an odd opinion. I can look at my children’s genitals and think objectively about how they need a nappy change etc. Humans don’t think sexually about every body part they see.

I have been taught to paint nudes and it really is a very detached process. So much so that when I see body parts I instantly see colour, shape, tone, shadows etc I could easily paint anyone naked in this position (parents and children included) and not think any other way than as a painter. I’m not comparing myself to a great artist but I can easily see how the draughtsman takes over. You spend years looking at naked people, a few different people a day sometimes. You view them totally dispassionately.

Artists are cunts tho. After studying art history I can think of very few male artists who are not attention seeking exploitative bastards.

3 billion females on the planet and he had to choose his daughter to paint naked with her legs open

Lucian Freud was one of the greatest British artists of the 20th Century.

I would love to have been painted by him (I'd have kept my clothes on though!)

Rodin and Picasso - obsessed with sex.

Eric Gill - abused every one of his daughters and anyone else he could get his hands on, including even the family dog.

If any teenage girl posed like that for a painting by their father I'd think there was something very fucked-up going on. He could have said No, he should have said No.

Just glanced at the article linked above and this sentence leaped out at me..."I didn’t know how to make him stop, how to stick up for myself."

His daughter, Rose, said she chose the pose. The discussion in the article of the play between them over the pose is quite interesting. Artists often paint their families. It’s a completely fair reading that you find it weird, disturbing, pornographic but it’s an Interpretation, not categoric. Especially given the model has discussed her own feelings and agency.

@mrskoala, my specialty is literature, authors din’t Come away looking greAt in most cases either.

Dreadful man, appalling father, great artist, who certainly viewed his daughter's body as just another set of shapes that interested him enough to paint -- like Sue Tilley, of whose body he said "It's flesh without muscle and it has developed a different kind of texture through bearing such a weight-bearing thing":

This Guardian article, on an Eric Gill museum exhibition trying to figure out how to deal responsibly with his abuse of his daughters (though no mention of his lifelong incestuous relationship with his sister, and sex with the dog), might be of interest to people.
www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2017/apr/09/eric-gill-the-body-ditchling-exhibition-rachel-cooke