Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
Painting Whiskers
Welcome to the forum.
Here you can discuss all things art with like-minded artists, join regular painting challenges, ask questions, buy and sell art materials and much more.
Make sure you sign in or register to join the discussions.
Hang on Studio Wall
This is a Studio member-only feature!
Join our Studio membership and save your favourite Painters Online content, from gallery artwork to step-by-step guides, to your own online mood boards. Create your go-to place for inspiration and learning. Plus, members can also enjoy a range of exciting features including monthly art videos and a digital magazine library.
If you are already a Studio member, simply login to your account.
Not a Studio member? Why not try our free 30-day trial - no commitment, no credit card required
Message
Posted
I have just done a pastel of my daughter's poor departed cat, Eric. Beautiful animal but he went out to play - with the traffic. A good likeness and a reasonable painting but how do I do his white whiskers? I have had this problem before, They really do need to be very white and very bold. They are just about the last thing to paint in. I have tried a white pastel pencil but this is not bright enough and a soft pastel will not retain a sharp enough point for even the length of one whisker. Advice will be much appreciated.
Posted
It is beautifully executed indeed.Feeling of pornography or not is all in the mind of the viewer.An artist will look at the painting, another person will look at the subject with the sexual twist, it is all to do with education received about the perception of art.I would not call it porn. I would think that in the circumstances the rat is better dead than alive particularly if it is hungry.I am more concerned about what killed it ! fright may be ....By the way I would not like this kind of painting on my wall.
Posted
You are right about perception and the eye of the beholder... I hadnt realised the rat was dead. Like you would not like it on my living room wall. Maybe that is my perception... though I do not think that men are as beautiful naked as women... though saying that, Freud was equally explicit in his portrayal of women. I think "artistic" poses are better received. Its just the stark reality of this one.
Posted
I would like artists on the forum give a suggestion about the dead rat. What was it for ?I see that we have had 10 views and only Blue and I are commenting about it. Is it too chocking to talk about ?I do think that there are beautiful women and equally beautiful men.Have a look at this photo : David by Michelangelo. I would not mind this in my front room (well... it is not big enough!)Just as much nudity showing here and it is not porn either.
Edited
by Aqua2
Posted
Maybe it was his pet? Maybe his house is infested? He looks like an `outsider`, and the setting is very poverty-struck (is that a word?) - with the torn wallpaper and the damaged and dingy sofa. He looks vulnerable / defenceless. Maybe the way he is lying shows shows his genitals are either on offer or maybe that he doesn`t care any more.
Not pornographic at all - this picture has nothing sexual about it IMO.
The David is an idealisation of the male form, made in an era when male nudity was common. Again - not pornographic.
Posted
I have a book I purchased in 2002 when visiting a Lucien Freud exhibition at Tate Britain. It says of the painting -
'Katy' (another of Freud's models - 'Head of a Girl') kept Japanese laboratory rats; hence 'Naked Man with Rat 1977-8, a painting in which the clutched rat, its warm tail draped over the man's thigh, plays phallic symbol.
(I think if I was a man laying down with all displayed, I'd keep tight hold of the rat too, they have sharp teeth!! :-S )
Seriously, I am a big fan of Frued's later works; his use of colour and brush strokes on his nudes and portraits are amazing. He paints what he sees, no holds barred, though I wasn't that keen on his portrait of the Queen he painted a few years ago!
The cover of my book shows a close up of the portrait of 'Frances Costello - 2002' and one can see the impasto-style method of painting Freud utilises - brilliant.
I have always thought the naked female body is far more attractive to look at than the male, but I do think that saying a work of art is pornographic just because the human form is naked is due to the viewers perception.
Posted
Speaking as an authority on rats - charming creatures, gentle, friendly, intelligent - I believe a) that this is a pet rat, given its colour; b) that it is not dead - merely puzzled; c) that the model is holding it since were he to release it, and allow it to wander over his body, its claws would prove distinctly uncomfortable - they're very sharp. In short, say whatever you wish about Lucian Freud and his colour scheme, but please - respect at all times for the rat, which is a noble beast.
As for the aesthetic issues, which I find entirely secondary, no of course nudity isn't pornography; if for no other reason than porn is supposed to stimulate one's baser urges. Doubtless, this chap has his circle of friends, those who would speak highly of him but.... provocative of horrid desires he isn't.
More seriously, Freud seems a cold man to me and his observation of the human body is merciless (indeed, I suspect the subject of this painting may be Freud himself). I've no doubt he is a great artist, and there is - I daresay - much symbolism in this picture which at present eludes me. I'd like it on my wall, but only for long enough to enable me to show and sell it, since I should then be set up for life. But the price of paintings, the value assigned to famous names, is another subject altogether. It's a damn' good painting, but not one I'd want to live with. Rats, on the other hand, are affordable, have charms which may, I grant, not be obvious to all, and I look forward to hearing that you've all purchased one as a direct result of this exchange. No, honest, they're lovely. Really.