Comments on: Naked Fat Woman Sets World Record

By: Cheddar

Cheddar — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 16:26:02 +0000

I think it’s insane for someone to pay that much for a painting. If I had those resources at my disposal, I’d start a no-kill animal shelter.

But this person Bought A Painting. Whee.

By: chutti pen

chutti pen — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 22:48:37 +0000

Had to chime in here. I saw a huge Freud exhibit with an old flame who was a very technical painter,even though he had an abstract bent. I could see what he respected about Freud, but also couldn’t imagine owning one and looking at it all day, either. Not coincidentally, this was the one person I’ve ever dated who seemed to have any issues with my size. ..not enough to kick me outta bed for eating crackers, though. And the link to the model seems to reinforce this view.

Years later, this discussion makes me think that part of what I didn’t find worthy of ‘owning’ these images was…. All technique and no joy. Not that they were ugly or depressing, but that they were more technical than emotional.
And now I am married to a painter who regularly depicts realistic fat nudes in appealing active contexts. Of course, no one wants to BUY these, as they seem to make the average public really squeamish. People near to us like them, but frankly, they aren’t really commercial.

So yeah-then I guess it IS good that a painting of a fat nudes is selling for big bucks. If we can get across that barrier with a big name based on awe of technique, maybe there is hope for a no-name with awe of the female figure. Huh. Maybe I do like it after all.

By: Mary

Mary — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 04:11:55 +0000

I don’t think he was trying to make her look pretty. Nor was he going for ugly either. He goes for a more grotesque look, which is not to say ugly but strange in certain ways. The way he works with the shadows and the aspects of the body he chooses to accentuate, even being a fat body, are not those considered most attractive by our culture. While he uses soft lines, he does not look to emphasize the softness and delicacy of the female body in a traditional femenine way. This interpretation of a thin woman also shows all the above elements http://www.artinthepicture.com/artists/Lucian_Freud/naked.jpg . The first reaction she triggers is not one of great beauty, nor one of proper disgust, but the bizarre mix of the too that grotesque art sometimes generates. I personally love that feeling, it starts down in your gut and somehow expands itself all through your body the more you look at the painting and the more details you notice. it’s a lot like what life feels like at times.

I hope I made some sense here, I often get tongue tied trying to get my point across. Just my two cents on this artist.

By: June

June — Wed, 27 May 2009 02:49:08 +0000

Re-emphasizing for people who don’t know this artist: ALMOST ALL of his paintings of human subjects are unflattering and make those subjects look blotchy and sort of corpse-ish. :) This one is a relatively flattering painting, for him…..

By: Rob C

Rob C — Mon, 11 May 2009 20:40:27 +0000

Yummy! Reminds me of my ex, except she had reddish brown hair. Thanks for the article – I hope more artists will do paintings like this.

By: KC Jones

KC Jones — Wed, 06 May 2009 04:24:10 +0000

I love this picture! For everybody who complained that his works aren’t flattering, that’s NOT the purpose of art in the first place!!!

That’s the purpose of commercial magazines, so that we’ll buy stuff we don’t need and think we should look a way that we cannot.

By: Boadicea

Boadicea — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:08:58 +0000

I have forgotten where I first saw this, but do you know the difference between art and pornography?

About 20 pounds.

I’ve been “art” for at least the last 25 years (currently at 325). So when I feel a little down over my looks, I go to the local art museum and look at all the other “art” women, most of whom look just like me! :)

By: matt

matt — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 19:27:32 +0000

I applaud the subject matter, however I can’t see this as being a 36 million dollar painting. No offense to the artist, it is well done, but is it THAT well done? I don’t think so. As far as his reference to “craters,” I think that this can be taken out of context fairly easily by non artists. I’ m sure that this was not meant to be a comment on the aesthetics of the model, but more about the complexity of light and shadow that excites an artist.

By: Lidon

Lidon — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 20:02:34 +0000

Buffy: “I think Freud has a tendency to enhance in areas we’re not used to. The Moss portrait is a perfect example of this. We’re used to enhanced images selling beauty. These are enhanced images selling contours or shadows to near deformity of the subject itself. ”

I agree. Of course the painting isn’t flattering, but it’s not completely realistic either, and I think that’s what gets people. I don’t feel too strongly about it either way. I don’t think it’s beautiful, nor do I find it repulsive. I think it’s interesting. I have to admit, I do appreciate artists that paint with an intensity of style, it seems to express something so much more than an artwork that has some sugar coated idealized female subject. *That* I’ve had enough of!

By: Kay Em

Kay Em — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 02:25:54 +0000

I like the way he rendered the couch, and that’s what made me realize why I hate the painting.

Behind the model’s head, the couch is lightest. But her hair is pitch-black – not a bit of light to it. Shiny, black hair like hers should have reflected something. What’s the significance of that? Why is her hair a scraggly, light-absorbing black mass on her head?

He may paint flesh well, but I hate the color that he used on her. She looks like a corpse to me – no color to her skin that would show the presence of blood. And that’s why I hate the painting – she doesn’t look asleep, she looks dead. Considering how very carefully he rendered the couch, I am making some cynical inferences as to why he chose to remove all the life-giving color from his model’s skin tone.