The Cost of Art

Every now and then, I come across an article on Art News Blog that is fairly interesting. This is truly a news site for Art, and often does not feed my need for criticism and history, but every now and then, I am surprised.

Sunday’s blog was titled: Most Expensive Living Artist - Lucien Freud. Seeing that most artists have no or little money during their lifetime and the same fate in fame, for an artist that is living to make a significant amount is interesting, shocking, and nice to hear. Of course, the consensus is that when Artist’s make the money that is suggested here in this article “normal” people balk at the price the piece may have sold for, and see it as truly inane.

The criticism is very mild in this article and is mainly just a reference to the painterly quality of the piece. The history again is mild and just enough to peak interest from me. 

Here is a more involved opinion or criticism, with a small touch of history:

Yes, Freud is a painterly painter, but the first thought that comes to mind for me is: “Hmmm, is he a Rubénist or a Poussinist?” Of course, he is obviously more of a Rubénist, yes, he is not attached to this group, nor did he create during the time of the Rubénist, but all artists are influenced by other artists. I love the feel of a Rubénistic painting. Just like shown in Freud’s “Benefits Supervisor Sleeping”. The exact realism is what I like, the true representation of what Sue Tilley looks like. It is a very complete painting but it lacks that polished feel of a Poussinistic painting, that perfect perspective, placement… A Rubenistic painting is more concerned with the effects that colors provoke when the piece is looked at, what draws them to it when hanging on a wall, don’t get me wrong Poussinistic painters used wonderful color, but that was not there goal, their goal was to draw people to art and stimulate their minds simply from placement, structure, perspective.  

What I love about this piece of Freud’s is the heaviness it carries, my eye is drawn down to the tilting leg in the right corner yet brought back to admire the soft lines in the sofa that mimic her body. She looks comfortable, at peace, and most important for me  — she looks real.  

What I thought was just crazy was that Sue Tilley sat for Freud over a four-year period, but this is his style. It is known that the length of time that a person will sit for a painting for Freud seems unreal and almost ridiculous, but art can be in moments or art can be over a lifetime. Another confounding bit of info is that he has done nudes of all his children. Now as an infant…maybe a young child… I can see that…within taste, but one article I read said that he had done a nude of his 20-year-old daughter?! That just seems weird for me, but here is an interesting quote in reference to the painitng from another entry on Art News Blog:

“The pose may be relaxed, but the face is not: the woman seems about to speak, to protest perhaps that she would rather be the daughter of an astronaut or a binman than of an artist noted both for pitilessly frank nude portraits, and for taking unfeasibly long to complete them.” — The Guardian

I would have to say that in general this quote sums up the style of Lucien Freud. Do I respect his work? Yes. Am I weirded out a bit by his painting nudes of his own children? Yes. However, I will say that I do agree and love his Rubénistic style — his unsparing honesty in depicting the nude.