A comment on the NYT article "Lucian Freud, Stripped of Fame and Scandal/A major London exhibition asks viewers to put aside the details of the artist’s tumultuous life and concentrate on his paintings."
The article quotes the feminist art historian Linda Nochlin, who called a painting "truly horrible." She said Freud tells us "in no uncertain terms what he thinks of women who are no longer 'girls' and have the temerity to take their clothes off in front of him," and in his "simple-minded taxonomy, an old woman, or a fat woman, can only be grotesque."
You'd think an art historian would be more aware of her own reaction and the danger of attributing it to the artist. If the feminist wants idealized images of women and rejects a raw confrontation with real, naked flesh, she should offer insight into why she feels that way.
It's absurd to say the raw images "can only be grotesque" because a viewer has the power to find beauty in an image that seems, at first, grotesque. The "only" limitation is in the eye of the beholder.
Posts
29 comments:
Evolution and gender aesthetics in carbon-based bags of mostly water.
You go Nochlin. I feel the same way about Les Demoiselles d'Avignon. It's disgusting that some men secretly reveal they think all women are Legos.
Preech sister.
Can't be any less welcome than this nude woman.
To be fair, we're not so fond of old masculine aesthetics either. That said, respect is a soliloquy told in silence.
"That doesn’t seem very feminist, does it?"
I think pretty much anything can be "feminist", provided a woman says it. Feminists are not big on consistency or logic. Feminism is a big tent.
Were I a painter, I would only use young, hot women with perfect faces and bodies as my models.
But that's just me...
Asking viewers to concentrate on the works?
Fascist!
That really sums up the modern approach, doesn't it?
A real challenge for a painter is to make a realistic painting of a woman who is no longer young and no longer svelte, yet show her beauty. Did Lucien Freud fail or is Linda Nochlin so close minded that she cannot see and appreciate? Perhaps I need the word “and.”
@Wince
Have we just been Mick-rolled?
"If the feminist wants idealized images of women and rejects a raw confrontation with real, naked flesh, she should offer insight into why she feels that way."
She should be better! She is a feminist! She should offer insight!
Anyway, she sounds like a real feminist who uses her observations on art to advance the cause of actual feminism, in which anything that makes women look bad, especially at the hands of men, is bad.
I've spent hundreds of hours in life drawing classes, and I prefer fatter models. They are more interesting to draw. Thin models are used in fashion shows and photography, for good reason. They make the clothes look better. But without clothes, thin models are rather lacking in features.
'I've spent hundreds of hours in life drawing classes...'
Same.
And we never had hot models : (
This critic reveals herself to be ignorant, ideological, and incompetent. If she were aware of Freuds's oeuvre, she would know he is no more flattering to younger female models, or to any men he has painted either. I think his paintings are terrific, and I do not think Freud is trying to depict his models as ugly or debased. He is depicting them as he sees them. He depicts himself in the same manner. His vision is not necessarily innately "ugly," but, rather, a frank view of the human body without any "beautifying" filters in place, either in how Freud sees or in how he paints what he sees. (If he painted the heavy model otherwise, Freud would be faking what he sees, and this critic would probably criticize him for unduly romanticizing the model.)
I drew from live models for nearly 30 years at the Art Students League in NYC. The heavier female models were lovely in their own ways, and certainly more easy and fun to draw than the (few) traditionally slim, "sexy" female models. One draws form, and the forms of men and heavy (or heavier) women are more evident to the eye and act as "handholds," so to speak, to grasp onto when trying to comprehend and portray the model. Young, slimmer women, without obvious muscle or noticeable fat deposits have much more subtle forms, and they are a greater challenge to draw, (not that I am complaining!).
Yes, women can't escape the tyranny of the intrusive female gaze.
Nochlin seems unaware of the possible contradiction between not wanting women to be sex objects and wanting them to be physically attractive.
That said, Freud portrays his models - male as well as female -- in a very unattractive way. Rembrandt would have treated that model differently.
Freud's life, though, was so completely messed up that it's hard to keep it out of discussions of his art.
as a painter - opinion
As a painter, I am continuously boggled by the near mystic view some people have of the process. I am also in continuous contempt of the bullshit descriptions from artists themselves pertaining to the "flow" of their "emotions", the "feel of the paint" as it's applied and such. It's all PR.
Painting is a talent which needs whetting. It can express emotion and intent but mostly is only a visual expression of the artist's attempt. This is axiomatic as, if it did express the emotion and intent, there wouldn't be so many conflicting descriptions of same for any given painting. For proof, consider "New York City 1" and read the historic descriptions from art commentors and realize they may have been commenting on an upside down painting.
As for realism - once your talent is honed, it is no more of a challenge for a painter to deliver an infant, boy, girl, woman, man, aged individual or plant. It's just artistic representation.
For making a "realistic painting of a woman who is no longer young and no longer svelte, yet show her beauty." - you simply need the appropriate subject.
Same to show the loveliness of an aged woman.
Wait. Feminism taught me that art is based on the male gaze. And it’s well known that Ruben-type models are the most searched for porn on the interwebs leading me to the reasonable assumption that the art is fine; the writer is full of shit.
Freud sold this one for 33 million.
There's a little mini lecture in Stranger In A Strange Land in which one character is describing a Rodin sculpture of an old woman ("She Who Used To Be the Beautiful Heaulmière"). The guy says - recreating his lecture from memory here - "Anyone can create a sculpture of an old woman. An artist can look at an old woman and sculpt the young girl she once was. A great artist can sculpt the old woman, exactly as she is, and make you see the young girl she was. He can make you see that no woman ever grew older than 17 in her heart."
What complete lack of imagination, to say that because an artist doesn't glamorize a subject, he therefore feels contempt for the subject.
I mean, I'm not the biggest fan of Freud, but I don't think he's contemptuous of all his subjects (including himself - his self-portrait is hardly self-aggrandizing).
Lucian Freud and young women - eeehhhhhh
Linda Nochlin: said Freud tells us "in no uncertain terms what he thinks of women who are no longer 'girls' and have the temerity to take their clothes off in front of him," and in his "simple-minded taxonomy, an old woman, or a fat woman, can only be grotesque."
Apparently the "feminist art historian" never took the time to examine how Lucian treated young women.
"Hello, my name is Marge Simpson and I painted this. Maybe you'd like to know what possessed me to do it. Well, I guess I wanted to show that beneath Mr. Burns' fearsome head, with its cruel lips, spiteful tongue and evil brain, there was a frail, withered body, perhaps not long for this world... as vulnerable and beautiful as any of God's creatures." --Marge Simpson, explaining why she decided to paint her husband's boss, the ancient oligarch Mr. Burns, naked.
(Mr. Burns: "I'm no art critic, but I know what I hate. And I don't hate this. Your painting is bold, but beautiful. And, incidentally, thanks for not making fun of my genitalia."
Marge: "I thought I did.")
I have a few Lucien Freud books and I bought them and sometimes even peruse them because I enjoy the beauty of the images and the colors, ie. I find his art strong and compelling.
But I have absolutely no knowledge of his personal life or his political opinions and I could not possibly care less.
Is this ok? I assume I could use a solid denouncement and re-education by our NYT commissars.
I have a few Lucien Freud books and I bought them and sometimes even peruse them because I enjoy the beauty of the images and the colors, ie. I find his art strong and compelling.
But I have absolutely no knowledge of his personal life or his political opinions and I could not possibly care less.
Is this ok? I assume I could use a solid denouncement and re-education by our NYT commissars.
Leigh Bowery would like a word. (I thinkt this painting is beautiful, but I have a hard time explaining why.)
You'd also think an art historian would know something about the other work of the artist she was writing about. Lucian Freud is perfectly capable of making adorable babies and stunning women look grotesque: https://www.google.com/search?q=google+images+lucian+freud+baby+chatsworth&client=firefox-b-1-d&ei=uSpoY7ffJYLV5NoPm9aLgAk&ved=0ahUKEwj3n7uvw5r7AhWCKlkFHRvrApAQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=google+images+lucian+freud+baby+chatsworth&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnC4AQP4AQEyBRAhGKABwgIIEAAYogQYsAPCAgUQIRirApAGA0jgIFCBB1jnHnABeADIAQCQAQCYAWegAewJqgEEMTUuMeIDBCBBGAHiAwQgRhgAiAYB&sclient=gws-wiz-serp#imgrc=BjWaWPqE4NWHPM
You'd also think an art historian would have come to grips with other works by the artist she's writing about. Lucian Freud is perfectly capable of making stunning women and adorable babies look grotesque. E.g.,
https://www.google.com/search?q=google+images+lucian+freud+baby+chatsworth&client=firefox-b-1-d&ei=uSpoY7ffJYLV5NoPm9aLgAk&ved=0ahUKEwj3n7uvw5r7AhWCKlkFHRvrApAQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=google+images+lucian+freud+baby+chatsworth&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnC4AQP4AQEyBRAhGKABwgIIEAAYogQYsAPCAgUQIRirApAGA0jgIFCBB1jnHnABeADIAQCQAQCYAWegAewJqgEEMTUuMeIDBCBBGAHiAwQgRhgAiAYB&sclient=gws-wiz-serp#imgrc=BjWaWPqE4NWHPM
You'd also think an art historian would have come to grips with other works by the artist she's writing about. Lucian Freud is perfectly capable of making stunning women and adorable babies look grotesque. E.g.,
https://www.google.com/search?q=google+images+lucian+freud+baby+chatsworth&client=firefox-b-1-d&ei=uSpoY7ffJYLV5NoPm9aLgAk&ved=0ahUKEwj3n7uvw5r7AhWCKlkFHRvrApAQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=google+images+lucian+freud+baby+chatsworth&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnC4AQP4AQEyBRAhGKABwgIIEAAYogQYsAPCAgUQIRirApAGA0jgIFCBB1jnHnABeADIAQCQAQCYAWegAewJqgEEMTUuMeIDBCBBGAHiAwQgRhgAiAYB&sclient=gws-wiz-serp#imgrc=BjWaWPqE4NWHPM
You'd also think an art historian would have come to grips with other works by the artist she's writing about. Lucian Freud is perfectly capable of making stunning women and adorable babies look grotesque. E.g.,
https://www.google.com/search?q=google+images+lucian+freud+baby+chatsworth&client=firefox-b-1-d&ei=uSpoY7ffJYLV5NoPm9aLgAk&ved=0ahUKEwj3n7uvw5r7AhWCKlkFHRvrApAQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=google+images+lucian+freud+baby+chatsworth&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnC4AQP4AQEyBRAhGKABwgIIEAAYogQYsAPCAgUQIRirApAGA0jgIFCBB1jnHnABeADIAQCQAQCYAWegAewJqgEEMTUuMeIDBCBBGAHiAwQgRhgAiAYB&sclient=gws-wiz-serp#imgrc=BjWaWPqE4NWHPM
From Heinlen's Time Enough for Love, Fallen Caryatid and Old Courtesan.
https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/207511
https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/191805
The idea that women, or anyone, can hold up buildings is absurd.
The idea that old women are not beautiful in their own way is absurd.
This discussion will come to life if you check out Celeste Barber on Instagram. Love it when my day starts with a guffaw.
Post a Comment