There is a mixed reaction to a new portrait of the Queen of England which is by Lucian Freud who is thought by some to be one of Britain's best artists.

My personal opinion is that although the painting might be technically superb (I am no expert in such matters) the overall effect is appalling! I wouldn't be very happy to have such a portrait painted if I were her.

View the controversial portrate here

My first reaction when I saw this was to laugh! It's absolutely horrible, and makes poor old Liz look like Swamp Thing in a crown! She's even got a green chin! What's it all about, eh? Best to stick to a more traditional style when painting Royals, I feel!

I just saw it! Good Lord, why not have Francis Bacon blow up her portrait while they're at it!
Doesn't this remind you of the Emporer's new clothes? Just to have someone fashionable do the portrait and then no one dares say it's garbage?
She's melting!

Hehe, that's a shocker isn't it? It almost gives her a masculine look, I think.

Some people have likened it to a portrait of the late Les Dawson in drag!

Good grief, that's awful. It's a travesty. I'm sure it's not the image that the majority of Brits have of their sovereign. Granted she no longer looks like the portraiture of her 20's, so prevalent on various currencies, but Her Majesty doesn't look like the old battleaxe depicted by this artist, either. She's 50 years older than her coronation photos, but still a pleasant-featured woman. Is this how the gallery intends for her visage to go down the ages? Elizabeth I and Victoria are shown as stern women, but not harridans.

I presume there is a British version of our 1st Amendment, ensuring freedom of speech and expression, but it seems that the National Gallery should not be constrained against rejecting an artist's rendering which is so deplorable, offensive and just plain wrong. They might have to pay the comedian, but they can also commission another portrait, can't they? And specify a truer depiction?

I am no Royalist , but that is horrible... even the crown looks awful!!

Freud paints with a butter knife and should be relegated to rendering landscapes, not the queen. How dare he paint her with a five o'clock shadow around her chin and with the most expressionless eyes.
The queen deserves better.

I believe this painting will go down as another of Freud's masterpieces. Freud is truly deserving of his reputation as England's greatest painter, having taken the title following the death of his friend Francis Bacon. I enjoy the fact that Freud, among many other expressionist artists, desires to bring out the nuances of the human flesh. You can see every fold, crevice and blemish on the Queen's face...a rather bold approach that of course departs drastically from the strict representation of the classical tradition. But that's what modern art does, it brings a psychological approach to painting in a way that perhaps was lacking in many classicist pieces. I think we can thank Freud's grandfather, old Sigmund himself, for allowing art to escape from the decrepit styles rendered by artists trying to recapture the classic traditions...such as the Pre-Raphaelites. To be sure, the Pre-Raphaelites were talented painters, and their subject material certainly brought a mystical and mythical allure to their works. Yet, with the advent of photography, simple and strict representational painting has lost its glamour to a degree. That's where the impressionists, the expressionists, et al come in...they've given us new ways of viewing that which we see before our eyes. This painting by Freud is not meant to make the Queen look beautiful, it's meant to be a thing of beauty in and of itself. In that sense, it can be appreciated.

I must agree with thejazzkickazz. Lucian Freud is not just the best painter in the U.K., but he is the greatest living painter in the world. Technically, he cannot paint at all, but technically he is the best painter around; as for the image - it is not to be taken so literally anyway- if it were so- why did she not just hire some boring photographer...say someone like a H. Newton...

I am sure it is the sheer and gruesome sexuality he exudes and reflects, that many find so appalling still...I suppose we are a bit Victorian still?

p.s. thanks sue for bringing up this interesting topic..

p.s.s. look at the blue color of her dress; he neutralizes the background with the blue-ish greys. The blues dominate the painting, it is neutralized with the complementary cad-oranges ( I think )....therein lies the beauty of technique. As for the lame and mal/adroit appearance of the paint-strokes, I find the honesty of his strokes refreshing...but I never knew she sported a 5 o'clock shadow.

[ 01-06-2002: Message edited by: profchallenger1 ]

I'd have rather seen a Hockney quite frankly, now that would have been neat!
But I imagine that since she should have been in a position to know his style, or her staff, that she might have guessed that he was not going to do a "classic" style portrait. Just imagine if Bacon had done it, I mean, he exploded a few icons, didn't he?
Charles should have known too, he's the artist in the family.
Some of my artist colleagues do portraiture, and it's never easy under any circumstances.
As they own a great deal of art, they might have guessed.

Just like the movie Lord of the Rings, this portrait, and I use that word quite loosely, sucks!
The age-old question 'But is it art?' has a very wide line. However, when it comes to portraits, I believe the line is very fine, and this crossed way over it, in the wrong direction!!
All that, is just this one person's opinion!!!

[ 01-19-2002: Message edited by: Brainy Blonde ]

Good Lord! What a horror! I can't decide whether it looks like Don Rickles or Red Skelton in drag!

While i'm no art expert, I follow the basic premise that a portrait should look like the subject painted. This looks like something created by a toddler after a bad day in pre-school.

I don't think that future generations will approach the portrait with an appreciation of the artist's psychology, nuances, perspective. They'll probably just chuckle, comment, "What a dog!" and move on.

Can't help but wonder what reaction Henry VIII would have had to a portrait of himself by this artist.

Something to do with the artist's head, no doubt.

For those of you who have seen the tv programme "Spitting Image", I need say no more.

I think that is an insult to Spitting Image.
It would have been more believable if they had said that it was painted by a ten year old or one of those chimps that Brooke Bond got rid off. The majority of modern day art has turned into a joke(don't get me started on the Turner Prize) & if any painting has to be explained, especially by those airheads that call themselves art critics,then the artist has failed.
We should be able to see for ourselves what a picture is about, not be told by somebody who has not got a proper job. I seem to gone off at a tangent here.

That's just the nature of the beast!

No Maam, of course I didn't mean you.

Bows ... scrapes ... grovels ... tugs forlock furiously

Oh well, bang goes my place on the honours list!!

The beast in this instance being Art. If we all shared the same taste how boring life would be.