Lucian Freud Benefits Supervisor Sleeping is Rubbish !
Lucian Freud’s Painting, Benefits Supervisor Sleeping, Looks Set to Break Auction Records - Surely Not !
It cannot be worth the estimates - if just in the interests of taste alone !
Tell me honestly - would you want this hanging on your wall
Lucian Freud’s Painting Benefits Supervisor Sleeping
This picture is due to be auctioned with estimates between $25 million and $35 million being talked about. It is expected to claim the record for the most amount of money paid for a work by a living artist.
We’ve discussed before on this site whether works of art really should command such sums, are prices paid for art obscene , and I think that’s a reasonable argument to apply to this painting.
We all have different tastes of course, I am drawn to Banksy for example or the less contemporary art deco style of AM Cassandre or Bip Pares.
I do also like ‘real art’ , French Impressionists particularly but this thing I find, frankly, visually obscene.
Apart from being simply unpleasant to look at it holds little in the way of artistic merit for me.
I could not imagine spending $35 million and having to look at that all day !
If I was rich enough I might consider spending that kind of money to never see it again !
Surely great art, primarily at least, should be a pleasure to behold - even marvel at ?
Mirabile Visu !
There is obviously plenty to discuss in terms of artistic merit and my opinions on such matters carry little or no weight (un like the model) - but tell me this …
Does that simply look disgusting ?
If find it simply unpleasant to look at or is it me ?
Would you buy it ?
Regards
Rod - The Philistine
Lindi Lou said,
April 14, 2008 @ 9:49 am
Hi RC
Good God! What is that?
The thing is though, people do just buy ‘art’ to say they have it. Very few of them understand it and don’t really know what the artist was thinking when the work was completed; in other word, some people have too much dosh and just want to show off. The worst offenders are those who pretend to know in some sort of pretentious way.
I’m not sure I’d want to know what the artist was thinking when this monstrosity was created. Must have had something against someone that is for sure.
In response to your question, ‘is it just me?’ I’m afraid not. I think I’d move out if that was hanging on my wall!!!
Cheers
LL
Rod said,
April 14, 2008 @ 10:02 am
LL
you make a good point about those that buy art nowadays. Prices are beyond most individuals - certainly beyond those likely to understand and appreciate it.
Investment and pension funds along with the best funded galleries seem to be the main players today.
Either way I still wouldn’t want the above on my wall !
All the best works of art are to be seen on biscuit tin lids
RC
Jordan said,
April 14, 2008 @ 11:22 am
RC
It is vile!
There is no skill in this painting at all! Where is his eye-line?
No no no no!
LL i too would move out if that was hanging on my wall!
Jordan
Rod said,
April 14, 2008 @ 11:41 am
Jordan
I’m pleased to hear it’s not just me !
Also in fairness to the model, I mean no disrespect to her - he seems to have done her no favours at all in portraying her.
RC
Now here is a piece or art !
Claude Monet - Venice
Witches of Eastwick said,
April 14, 2008 @ 6:48 pm
Rod,
We feel you may have missed two major points…. one, art does not have to be beautiful to have impact and even if it did, tis in the eye of the beholder…. two, perhaps the artist wanted to deter further benefit seekers in which case it could well be worth a fortune
For the record we don’t like it either.
WoE
Rod said,
April 14, 2008 @ 6:59 pm
WoE
I accept that art does not have to be beautiful but when you really get down to it a picture only serves 2 uses (ignoring finance and investment)
Something to look at and enjoy
Something to cover up a mark on the wall
I’m all for making an impact etc but this does not to me. It is not technically a hugely proficient painting nor is it nice to look at !
I don’t know much about art but I know what I like
Little Brother said,
April 14, 2008 @ 7:13 pm
Rod,
I’d have a crack at it after a couple of stellas
LB
Rod said,
April 14, 2008 @ 7:20 pm
LB
Stella must be a lot stronger that I remember !
the dinosaur said,
April 14, 2008 @ 7:22 pm
Rod, with regard to the Freud painting, being an artist myself and having done at least a couple of hundred life drawings, I feel I should explain the basic purpose of life drawing or painting isn’t to necessarily create something beautiful! The human figure is the ultimate challenge to any artist, there are no straight lines, no magic formulas, no ways to cheat, if you don’t get the proportions exactly right it is obvious. By daring to take on that challenge you push yourself and your ability to its limits, in doing so you improve, it doesn’t matter in theory who the model is old or young, fat or thin, male or female. The fact that most artists choose to draw or paint young and attractive models is more to do with commercial considerations than anything else, in the case of Freud that obviously wasn’t the aim, I wouldn’t choose that painting to decorate my home but that doesn’t make it a bad art. If anyone wants to get a better understanding of the history and purpose of life drawing I recommend a book by Kenneth Clark simply entitled “The Nude” first published in 1956 and reprinted many times, available at a reasonable price in any good bookshop.
Femme Fatale said,
April 15, 2008 @ 1:58 am
Rod,
The lady in question was very brave to pose for this painting, although I think it is not very pleasant to look at, it is worth a tremendous amount of money. Are any of you worth that amount of money? I think not!!!
FF
xx
Rod said,
April 15, 2008 @ 8:23 am
Dino
thanks for the professional insight, much appreciated.
I understand the points you make. I don’t suggest only ‘the beautiful people’ should be painted - a a life painting does not have to contain a beautiful person to be a joy to look at.
This one strikes me as unpleasant and unworthy of the gravitas being heaped upon it.
available at a reasonable price in any good bookshop
If I can find a good bookshop I’ll have a look
Rod
Rod said,
April 15, 2008 @ 8:29 am
FF
you scythe through this waffle like a hot knife through butter - as always !
I doubt anybody looking at this site has anything approaching that value or indeed has as much money as the artist himself.
The lady was brave and I make no clur or comment on her, rather the way she’s been depicted. I hope she also ‘did well’ out of this !
I believe I was once in a restaurant at the same time as Lucian Freud - is that a claim to fame?
Regards
Rod
Witches of Eastwick said,
April 15, 2008 @ 9:12 am
Dino,
We could not have put it better ourselves…. so before we tackle Rod as a subject, we must look at the most suitable materials. Jumbo wax crayons could be the answer…. no wait a minute… stained glass, he’ll like the holy reference
Might lean on you to capture the Bart PJs… all in all it’s going to have to be a community project, any input welcome…
WoE - capturing the yellowness of a lemon tart this morning… via the oven!
Martin said,
November 8, 2008 @ 11:30 am
As a painter myself, I’m not stunned that this one went for so much, even though I don’t like it. I think that the technical skills are fairly good but nothing special, and the subject matter I find unpleasant.
I don’t think all art should be pleasant-looking, nor do I think that everything has to be of extremely high technical quality to be art. I too admire Banksy, along with people like Duchamp, Basquiat or Pollock, because there work is about ideas. I admire people like Monet, van der Velden and Turner because their work is based on technical quality.
I personally don’t think this painting in all that good in either category, and I agree that the person buying it is probably doing so just so that they own some art without understanding it.
To each his own though - if anyone reading this likes the picture, I’m not going to try and convince you otherwise. Whether art is “good” or not is totally relative to the viewer.
Rod said,
November 8, 2008 @ 1:32 pm
Martin
thanks for the great comment and welcome to the site.
I would entirely agree that art is not about “biscuit tin lid” style of pretty painting.
Good art can be disturbing and need not be pretty to look at.
I just find this picture neither here nor there really. Technically, as you allude to, it’s not exciting nor do I find it thought provoking.
As to the value I don’t know whether it was bought to be enjoyed or for investment.
Thanks again for adding to the debate Martin
All the best
Rod
fran said,
March 17, 2009 @ 7:53 pm
Lucian Freud is a genius, and this painting clearly demonstrates this! Regardless of the fact that this is not ‘pretty’ to look at it is a stunning example of what modern art should be.
Harley Kirkland said,
March 25, 2009 @ 5:36 pm
What a horrendously hideous ghastly painting!
Worse yet-What a horrendously hideous ghastly waste of 33 plus million dollars!
Kal B said,
September 20, 2009 @ 12:42 am
All, thanks a lot for all the responses. I came across the blog while I’m searching for any information on why this painting is so valuable. Now, I know, I’m not the only one who don;t like this!
Amiguru said,
September 20, 2009 @ 12:54 pm
Rod & Co.
I’m with Dinosaur and Fran on this one. I realise that several issues are raised with the OP but I would like to go back to basics. Reality check: The artist is making a statement, just as we are here. Each of us has a different point of view and we are trying to express what we feel using the tools of language. Freud is saying how he feels about the subject in paint. This is what an overweight woman, (she may or may not be a lady), looks like when lolling on a rather small couch. No disrespect meant to her, neither by me, nor I suspect, Freud; it is just factual.
I don’t see the image as ugly at all despite the fact that, in a sensual sense, I much prefer women to be slender, nor is it, I think, pornographic. I haven’t done any research into the picture or the artist and indeed this is the first I have seen of it, so my viewpoint is totally unbiased.
The fact that Lucian Freud is a member of the art establishment and seemingly very rich, he knows that he can paint for himself rather than the art market. The fact that the painting is projected to sell for X millions is not really relevant to the judgement of the work.
I don’t have millions so I won’t be at the auction,but I would gladly give the picture wall space and appreciate it for its honesty.
There that’s another load of steam let off! Thanks for the opportunity Rod.
Neville
Rod said,
September 20, 2009 @ 7:27 pm
Neville,
please do feel free to rant or let off steam - this isn’t a bad place to do it.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, if you’ll forgive the dreadful cliche, you could say the Monet I put up is simply just daubs of paint and ‘not very clear’
Cheers
Rod
chris keyworth said,
September 20, 2009 @ 7:33 pm
i think its got atmospher…..
regards
chris