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 think it’s not so much a debate around whether he was a good painter, but whether this perpetuating myth that he was some kind of genius allowed him to abuse his position, and exploit people to his own ends.
Which is what I believe personally.

Hmm, I'm not sure about that one. Lots of people are exploited by parents who are not lauded as geniuses.

If my father had been a painter of nudes I might have differentname. Just like my father (in his 70s) would probably pose for me now. I don't think we can say what anyone else would have done based on how we feel. I feel very differently about my body and bodies in general than lots of other people. I don't think it's fair to say definitively the only way someone would do this would be if they were groomed. Perhaps the only way you would have done it is if you were groomed. But that's a different thing entirely.

Agree boarder. Twas ever thus. We excuse behaviour from artistic geniuses (who seem to be mostly male. How can that be? Chromosomes or something) that would never be tolerated in the mainstream.

I'm sorry, but no child/woman I know at 17/18 would pose for their father with their legs open.

But Rose Boyt has just written an essay about why she posed for LF and why she chose that pose -- it seems an odd decision not to respect her own view on what she did, rather than persuade ourselves she was groomed/coerced.

She's a highly articulate 60 year old writer and artist, who was an art student herself when she sat for that portrait. I can only read the first few lines of the Times piece as it's behind a paywall, but it's clear from that it's not a #MeToo.

No, she was not your typical 18 year old (if such exists) most of us aren't rumoured to have 30something siblings from our father's various relationships, most of us don't have famous artist fathers whose gay love letters to Stephen Spender sell for big money at auction, most of us don't have fathers who draw our grandmother the day after her death etc etc but I don't see why that invalidates her own sense of what went on, and whether the dynamic was exploitative or not.

This is his painting of Kate Moss, which I think is a total dud, compared to his Sue Tilley or Leigh Bowery paintings.

What's with the strike through? Can't you just make it legible or leave it out

“Truly,an abstract masterpiece,
you have just finished Picasso!”
“No, my friend, it’s a disaster:
everything in it is wrong….
…..so bad, I’m throwing
it away. I can’t stand it.”
“Don’t do that Pablo,
that face could be
improved: just paint over it?”
“Hmm. Amigo, I would
not know where to start…”
“Start at the nose Pablo,
if I were you…”
The artist studies the canvas:
"the nose? The nose? "
“Qué lástima! I would
if I could find it.”

@HotSauceCommittee

😂 😂 😂
I'm sure he'll be fine, it's just art after all

The Times article is a lot different or the Vanity Fair article, both quoting Rose. She was either 14 or 17. She either felt uncomfortable or empowered.

And for a pp who said she ‘could have said no’ - well yeah, so could lots of young teens who were groomed.

She was either 14 or 17

Or she sat more than once

Both paintings have been posted itt

Juells, sorry for the late response, and the thread has moved on a bit, but I wanted to respond to your reply to my comment of 'No one has said artists don't notice that people are nude. What a strange comment.'

You say 'So what are we supposed to take from your comment that "And the thing about painting is that an artist approaches EVERY subject in the same way –they scrutinise and observe and hope to represent as best they can whatever that subject is.'

I have NOT said an artist doesn't notice that people are nude –that's what I found strange about what you said. I have said an artist approaches, scrutinises and observes every subject in the same way.

I'm not sure that's entirely true.
Most artists have little obsessions they focus on... Shiny surfaces, reflections, velvet, silk etc. and then have things they really don't Like drawing (branches etc).

Some artists really really like painting women in full frontal positions , not because that is the best subject for progression of the skill (hell, a peach has great flesh tones) but because they really just love having naked women around.
What would you rather do if you were a man?
Invite big Barry from the corner shop to model, sit with him in your space for 12 hours, burping and farting and waving his knob around?
Or hire some beautiful young woman who will spread her legs and get her breasts out and talk to you sweetly for hours on end.
Of course not all subjects are approached with the same scrutiny.

Also I speak for myself
I'd spend ages on the beautiful woman. I'd really love painting her But like, Barry, I might just have to block his bits in with a wide brush and get him out of my space pronto.
Painting is just real life!

Painting is just real life!

Well, it isn't. Walking down the street naked isn't 'normal' in most cultures, but it's part of painting.

Some artists really really like painting women in full frontal positions… because they really just love having naked women around. That's quite a sweeping statement.

Of course not all subjects are approached with the same scrutiny. This doesn't follow on in any logical way from your assertion that artists would rather have big Barry from the corner shop round to model than a beautiful young woman.

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.

People seem to be having problems with my comment about artists scrutinising/observing, specifically in that they seem to be conflating those two things with the concepts of noticing or preferring.

As an aside, and obviously anecdotally, the teacher of the life classes I used to model for would often despair that most of the people on the life model circuit were young, slim women. He desperately wanted more variety and was massively cheered if he found someone of a different age/gender/body type and size.

I'm an artist ..male..and used to attend life drawing classes with a female life model who was very open in her poses .She was in her late forties and had children and was wonderful to draw ...she was all curves and lines and texture, planes and surfaces until coffee break time , when she would put on a silk short kimono and wander round looking at the paintings ...then she was erotic and sensual and drew a very different gaze , this after forty minutes of total nudity and similar poses to the LF painting .

No offence to Baz, but I did say I would rather share my space with the hypothetical beautiful woman

And we also had a very good and enthusiastic male model who we liked drawing too , the women in the class likened his uncovered penis to a cricket ball in a sock ..

@ginandbear it what did she do that was erotic and sensual?
The silk shirt kimono obvs made a big impression

DarlingNikita

This doesn't follow on in any logical way from your assertion that artists would rather have big Barry from the corner shop round to model than a beautiful young woman.

She said the opposite, that most artists (unless gay) would prefer to have a beautiful young woman. If gay, a beautiful young man.

"I didn’t know how to make him stop, how to stick up for myself"

I think this was more to do with the fact he painted endlessly through the night, she was in college, and was tired out, stressed and suffering from being in one position.

He talked to her more than most of his sitters - including Man with a Rat, mentioned in the article, painted naked. Stanley Spencer also painted revealing nude portraits (himself and Patricia Preese ie) which actually suggest less sexuality than the state of their minds.

Juelles, you're quite right; typing mistake. I meant it the other way round.

My point is that an artist might well have a preferred subject; but that that can and does exist alongside the idea of them approaching every subject with the same 'eye'.

Also. I have never had any models walking down the street naked.
They do get naked in intimate environments, in a cosy studio, during one on one sittings etc. Sometimes they are friends who are comfortable enough to expose themselves and pose naked. But as a painter , I have to read the room. I wouldn’t demand my nans labia make an appearance in her portrait or anything.

It’s a whole interesting subject darlingnikita.
There is a good painting by Wayne Thiebaud.
It’s a river surrounded by landscapes. At first it seems the river is all different colours, expertly painted with reflections. But after a while you realise, the river is really just space, and the eye almost fills in what we want to see. It’s clever.
Anyway. Massive tangent😬

This thread is why I can’t stand pontificating about art. Paint your daughter by all means but there’s no need to paint her fanny. The queen presumably didn’t get them out for the Freuds so it’s not like it’s non negotiable. If he was Lenny Frend from the butchers photographing his 17 year old daughter naked he’d have been up in court, or at least publically villified, regardless of whether she consented or not.