My, my...I had no idea when I posted that this would be such a popular topic.
Since some interest is now stirred in seeing other works by Freud, I thought I'd make it easier and provide some links:
http://www.godardgallery.com/freud.htm
http://www.af-moma.no/english/kunstnere/freud.html
A little excursion...here is a quote from the site above:
During the 1960s and 1970s and right up until the present, Lucian Freud has painted both male and female nudes which have a disquieting and shocking effect on the viewer. Many of his images make one feel almost like a voyeur, an intruder into the intimate lives of others. They are experienced as a massive attack on our traditional sense of decorum and seemliness and on conventional expectations of the nude image in its idealized form. Freud himself says that precisely this feeling of embarrassment and discomfort is his ally, because a picture should disturb and shock, and thereby involve the viewer.
My personal comment on "a picture should disturb and shock":
If a painting is to "disturb and shock" me, then I am willing to accept that if the purpose is to make me more aware of some human condition that needs some action, some correction. However, the shock of Freud's work seems to me to be nothing more than shock for the sake of shock, which I find annoying. I'd prefer to be "deeply moved" by finding a connection with the subject in a way other than pure visual shock...and I have found this in paintings that didn't use shock for the sake of shock.
And, perhaps one might think that I only want to see portraits of beautiful people and things. However, I've seen awesome portraits that I loved of some very unattractive people and unattractive situations.
Continuing with the links:
http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/AWork?id=4549
http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/WorkImage?id=4548
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/ftptoc/freud_ext.html
As for myself, I am personally very capable of enjoying a very painterly style, even something non-traditional and have done so. But, I still don't like Freud's work. Nor do I like Picasso and haven't since I was very young and first saw his work.
For me, a painting can show great talent, and/or can be technically correct in every way, but if it doesn't touch me emotionally in a certain way, I don't care that everyone in the world thinks it's wonderful and that the artist is a great talent. Below is a portrait by Michele Mitchell along the same theme that I find deeply moving:
Folloiwng Michelle's portrait and on another end of my taste, here is a portrait that I would consider non-traditional in style, but that I really like. Though, of course, it doesn't evoke the emotions of Michele's work since it's a totally different type of painting. It's by Jonathan Linton who will soon be on Stroke of Genius.]
There are some contemporary portrait artists that are deemed wonderful by many. But, I find their work does not move me...yes, it's technically correct and there's great talent...I can acknowledge those things. But, I will take a painting that is less technically correct that moves me any day.
However, if Freud were to read this forum, he'd probably be very happy that he's created such a stir (not that I know him personally
, but he seems from his art to like to create a stir).