August Annotations

Lucian Freud:
Great or Grotesque?

In American Wasteland: A Commentary, D. Marty Lasley tries to justify the mangled portrait of HM The Queen by Lucian Freud. The controversy of said painting, which arose during the Christmas holidays nearly one year ago, created a stir and much debate over whether it is ‘good’ or ‘bad’.

The Queen, as we all know, has been through quiet a few storms. She has deftly handled the pressure of having to be composed in public at all times, even when it must evidently be difficult for her. You never see the Queen out of sorts, and to be so strong throughout these 50 years doesn’t happen without a spine of steel. In this horrendous painting, Freud tried to portray the Queen’s famous strength, but he came up short. It looks more vindictive than anything.

Lasley, author of the article on the painting debate, quotes the art critic Adrian Searle (from the Guardian), who said ‘It’s probably the best royal portrait for at least 150 years…Portraiture is meant to get beneath the skin…’. Searle went on to tactlessly describe the Queen’s expression as the ‘before half of a before-and-after testimonial for constipation tablets.’ Note that this art critic is from The Guardian, a newspaper known to jump right on the bandwagon with anything that pokes fun at the monarchy or wants to tear it down all together. So how much faith do we put in a sarcastic opinion from someone like that? If ‘art critic’ Searle thinks this travesty is the best royal portrait in 150 years, then I think he needs to either get out and view more art, or give up his current job and go back to working the garbage barge on the Thames.

Why are we led to believe that Mr. Freud, grandson of Sigmund, is trying to get ‘beneath the skin’ in order to understand the inner workings of the Queen? Instead of a monarch with dignity and grace, Freud painted her tough, looking as if she is saying, as Lasley put it, ‘Don’t **** with me!’ That’s not the Queen’s style. She’s not crude; her style is subtle and graceful, yet no less resolute.

Freud obviously wanted to make a statement. He seemed to paint as though he resented her age. Twenty-five to age seventy-five is a long time, and naturally there will be changes in one’s appearance. However, the Queen is still lovely, and as you can see, Freud’s artwork did not do her justice. Another theory is that perhaps he is a bit chauvinistic. If you notice, the ‘Queen’ looks as though it may be Mr. Freud in a wig and a crown. He is not getting beneath her skin, he is getting beneath his own skin to demonstrate how he feels about the monarchy. It seems the view is that he thinks the monarch should not be a queen, but a king. This is insulting to Her Majesty’s 50 years of hard work and dedication to paint her as a man.

I would like to conclude this piece by responding to the closing of Mr. Lasley’s article. Many can say that ‘accident’ of birth and hereditary monachy are undemocratic, but she is a fine and wonderful Queen. She has done a better job at being a head of state than any politician. Her parents were good monarchs, and they raised her to be a good monarch as well. When Edward the Eighth partied too much and left his responsibilities of state for the arms of a mistress, he was sacked. The popular romantic myth is that he abdicated for love, but the government and his Royal Family were not going to accept a boozy Nazi sympathizer as king. He was duly banished and replaced by his brother George VI, who was honest and hard working throughout the war years. The monarchy knows how to take care of business, and will do so for the good of the people. Can you say that about Blair, Clinton, or Bush?

©2002 Mandy’s British Royalty”