Arts News
Nude Portrait of Kate Moss Goes Under the Hammer
By James Wray Feb 4, 2005, 22:41 GMT
|
The potrait was painted by Lucian Freud in 2002 |
The portrait of the supermodel, painted while she was pregnant, is by the artist Lucian Freud and is expected to sell for more than $6 million.
Christie’s in London unveiled the portrait publicly for the first in anticipation of the auction. The painting, titled "Naked Portrait 2002" is near life size measuring 152.7 x 122.2cm.
Freud's decision to paint the supermodel was indirectly prompted by Kate Moss herself. In an article reproduced in the style magazine Dazed and Confused Moss revealed that one of her remaining unfulfilled ambitions was to pose for Freud.
Unexpectedly, Freud seems to have seen the article and been prompted to arrange a sitting. Moss, who had explained in the article that she was aware of how slowly Freud worked, and was unconcerned how long such a 'modeling job’, would take.
Moss was pregnant when the sittings for the portrait began. Because of this Freud began the painting from her slightly pregnant stomach so as to fix it in paint before it grew further.
Having been bought almost immediately after it was complete by a private collector; the painting will be auctioned on February 9 at Christie’s Post War and Contemporary Art sale.
The model herself is seen as a potential bidder.
COMMENT
blog comments powered by DisqusLatest Headlines in Arts
- 1. Guma Mbaho Mwine responds to rampant homophobia gripping Uganda with new works
- 2. What the Butler Saw Play Photocall Pictures
- 3. 66th Annual Tony Awards Meet the Nominees Pictures
- 4. 'Dark Corners: The Appalachian Ballad'—by Julyan Davis exhibited at Greenville County Museum of Art
- 5. South Downs Play at the Harold Pinter Theatre Pictures
Older Talkback
page: 1
This picture is not so significant to me. No offense to the artist,(who did a particularily good job). But the asking price is outrageous! Perhaps if she wasn't pregnant at the time the portrait was painted it would have greater significance to me. I see the artistic qualities in the fact that she's pregnant, but this is not art to me. It is simply a portrait of a naked, pregnant woman and the only reason it has such value is because a famous person is the focal point, this is more likely a huge collectors item than actual art but all of you art critics out there, don't be shy to criticize such a bland piece of art and such an unexciting news topic.
I am a big fan of Lucian Freud's work and find it far from boring. He does not eroticise or flatter his subjects, he paints them expressionless and so you get a strong sense of that person's presence as an animal, as flesh and bone, rather than a portrayal of their present mood.
The way the flesh is so awkwardly hanging from the bones gives me a real sense of my own physicallity. Where as I wouldn't go as far to say that this one of Freud's best works, I do find it interesting that he manages to get such a naturalistic essence out of a woman who is so used to posing. It's far from boring.
Ask yourselves this: If Joe Pazatz of Brooklyn painted this, with his wife a model, what aesthetic value would it have.
Last year, at an art show in London, the artists sculpture was lost, and the marble mount and support were judged as his art by mistake. He won second prize. When confronted with the mistake, the judges said it had 'artistic value'
Modern art is a scam.
Which modern art is a scam? There is far too much artwork being produced at this time in earth's history to say that all 'modern art' is a scam. There are too many different styles to choose from and trying to use one example of a hoax and its judges doesn't discredit all of the other hard working artists out there who are trying to do something meaningful besides all of this existentialist wannabe, deconstructive, postmodern, downward-spiraling, mumbo jumbo that perfectly schizoid rich people flock to throw their not so hard earned money away for. Its their money, let them make idiots of themselves. But I disagree that Freud is one of those such artists. I think his work is wonderful, puts forth a powerful message, and Kate Moss has nothing to be ashamed of for posing nude while pregnant--especially for Freud. Perhaps if she did it for Hugh Heffner we would all applaud? At least then, she'd not be interested enough to showing us that there is such a thing as art well done . . .
Is modern art a scam?, or, Can art continue to exist without authority?
by C. Ikehara (ikeharac20044@yahoo.com)
- Good art weathers the ages because once in so often a man of intelligence commands the mass to adore it. (Ezra Pound)
That came to mind when I read, 'Welcome to Babel' (Washington Post, Jul.8) which said that, 'According to old ways of thinking, the market was supposed to follow where the top end of the art world led, investing in the few artists picked out as important by experts with no money at stake. Today, it's the market that leads.'
Whatever happened to those experts? Don't more and more arguments these days on the subject of quality in art (as well as on a lot of other subjects, for that matter) occur only because people now know less and less--about anything?:
- No sane person should believe that something is ‘subjective’ merely because it cannot be settled beyond controversy. (Hilary Putnam)
Once upon a time, didn't critics serve as experts using their knowledge, experience and sensitivity to resolve the disputes of dilletantes?:
- Do not condemn the judgment of another because it differs from your own. You may both be wrong. (Dandemis)
And when it comes to learning about an artform, can there ever be a substitute for the guidance of a critic who can serve as a teacher explaining the complexities, subtleties and ambiguities of a masterpiece?:
- Without the True Guru, God is not found; all have grown weary of performing religious rituals. (Sri Guru Granth Sahib)
Just as a fashion critic is needed to pronounce a judgment before we can truly know if a show was a retro success or just a misguided attempt at trying to make old clothes trendy, we need critics in all the arts to determine for us if something is indeed a worthy effort or a failed experiment, genuine or fake, creative or just confused self-indulgence. And concerning what we have been taking for granted:
- A good critic is the sorcerer that makes some hidden spring gush forth unexpectedly under our feet. (François Mauriac)
- A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees. (William Blake)
We need critics to remind us that not all quality or beauty can be expressed in just so many words, much less be analyzed by purely rational means. Above a foundation of objective values lies a realm which can only be described as subjective yet is no less real, vital and crucial for a comprehensive, fair and meaningful assessment of a work of art:
- Objectivity requires taking subjectivity into account. (Lorraine Code)
That high level of discernment can only be reached after a special sensitivity that was innate to begin with undergoes years of training and experience:
- A relish for the higher excellencies of art is an acquired taste, which no man ever possessed without long cultivation, and great labour... (Sir Joshua Reynolds)
It is only then that an individual is finally qualified to point out to the public that what has been neglected, overlooked and underrated is thoroughly worthwhile or that something has been hyped to the limit only in the hopes of disguising its shortcomings or to compensate for its intrinsic worthlessness:
- ...The race which does not value trained intelligence is doomed. (Whitehead)
- To ground the recompense of virtuous actions upon the approbation of others is too uncertain and unsafe a foundation, especially in so corrupt and ignorant an age as this, wherein the good opinion of the vulgar is injurious: upon whom do you rely to show you what is recommendable? (Montaigne)
Without critics, who would remind us that there is something more to judging art (or anything else) than just by its commercial success?:
- Nowadays people know the price of everything and the value of nothing. (Oscar Wilde)
- The greatest of all gifts is the power to estimate things at their true worth. (La Rochefoucauld)
And a critic doesn't make pronouncements that have to do only with the latest in originality, imagination and creativity:
- It is part of the business of the critic to preserve tradition--where a good tradition exists. It is part of his business to see...the best work of our time and the best work of twenty-five hundred years ago with the same eyes. (T.S. Eliot)
What we have lost sight of critics can recall for us:
- Men more frequently require to be reminded than informed. (Samuel Johnson)
When 'Welcome to Babel' pointed out that, '...$2.7 million [was paid] for an installation of big spheres made of stuffed toys alongside wall-size versions of a stick-on room deodorizer...', I was reminded of the motto of Massachusetts' Museum of Bad Art:
- Art too bad to be ignored.
Once upon a time, 'masterpieces' were not always greeted with the shrugging of shoulders, the throwing up of the hands in the air, much less total confusion on the part of audiences. As the influence of critics wanes, works of art now seem to have become like Rorshach ink blots with shades of greyer than grey meanings only because the intent of modern 'artists' seems to have become murkier than murky:
- Invention is the talent of youth, as judgment is of age. (Jonathan Swift)
Aren't critics needed more than ever if even artists have lost sight of the glories of the past?:
- It is the calling of great men, not so much to preach new truths, as to rescue from oblivion those old truths which it is our wisdom to remember and our weakness to forget. (Sydney Smith)
Don't critics remind us that once upon a time, art served as an expression of 'ideals' to aspire toward? If I could write a book about the current art scene, the title of it would be:
- We've come a long way from Camelot, or, Where are the simple joys of sanity?
(C. Ikehara is a freelance writer: 'It might be well said of me that here I have merely made up a bunch of other men's flowers, and provided nothing of my own but the string to tie them together.' [Montaigne])
page: 1
AdelleFeb 15th, 2005 - 04:10:44
It is nice to see a woman, particulary a pregnant woman, such as Ms Mose pose for such a renouned artist. In a world full of negative female body image I find this to be a possitive and beautiful thins. I hope this will give confidence to many women, young and not so young, to follow in her foot steps.
Report this comment