He haunted the National Gallery in London at night, hawk-like and surprisingly slight, with his heavy, unlaced boots and knotted scarves. A warden used to say that Lucian Freud was coming to be with his people, the family of old masters. But I remember him at London’s Tate Modern as well, darting back and forth between Matisse and Picasso in that famous standoff show in 2002, the rest of us wondering which way he would jump. It turns out he thought Picasso emotionally dishonest and Matisse infinitely greater because he painted the life of forms, which, he told the writer Martin Gayford, “is what art is all about.”
Freud was frequently described as a contemporary old master, a Rembrandt for our times. But his work was in fact a radical breach of tradition. He painted people, but not quite (or not often) portraits. He painted from life, but his life paintings were clearly not moments in the lives of those he painted — models, magnates, office workers, whippets, his many lovers, his many daughters — so much as scenes of their physical presence in his studio.
That bleak room in west London, with its bare floor, discolored walls and heaps of paint-smutched rags was the constant theater of his art. It became as familiar as his figures and their poses: huddled, sprawling, crouched or splayed, genitals dangling or parted, head thrown back or lolling, sometimes in pairs, but most often alone, bodies removed from their clothes, and perhaps even separated from their selves, their souls.
Photo: Bloomberg News
And that has always been the dividing issue of Freud’s art: emotional honesty versus living form. Was he painting these people with loving scrutiny, his eye registering their individual mortality with as much attentiveness as their calluses, pocks and veins; or was he mastering their bodies as objects (or more precisely as animals, as he once declared)?
In his paintings the head would become another limb, rather than the sphere of thought; the surface of the body would be mottled, varicose, bulked up, roughed over. Even when painting the young or slender (himself included), bodies would acquire more ballast, matter and blood, until you couldn’t separate the person from the paint. Freud’s colors — bruise blue, livid orange, morbid green, the irradiated red of chafed thighs, the silver of stretchmarks — gave substance to the body, but also to the life of the painting.
In the late works it became hard to tell whether the magnificent brushmarks — increasingly gritty, nubbled and thick — were describing the sitter so much as Freud’s ever-changing vision of what could be done with pigment.
The naked animal, unidealized and depicted with extreme concentration on physical essence: That long ago came to look like Freud’s grand contribution to 20th-century painting. But he was a supreme draftsman and printmaker with a brilliantly tensile line. And his scenes of the 1950s and 1960s, particularly from his first two marriages, to Kitty Garman and Caroline Blackwood, were narratives of guilt and schism played out with devastating graphic power.
Freud has left many other masterpieces. “Big Sue” from the benefits office, her proud mountain of flesh a source of wonder and amazement. The performance artist Leigh Bowery, monumental and defiantly naked — no hiding: no surrender. I especially admire his portraits of “The Big Man,” where the paint rises at every level to the intimidating scale of this scarred Ulsterman, a colossal force temporarily willed into stillness in the studio chair, his face a scrum of ruck, thrust and knuckle.
Some of Freud’s sitters have given a sense of his character: anarchic, a superb storyteller and intensely vigorous, working on three to four subjects a day, seven days a week. These sittings were always news. You wanted to know who or what he was painting, partly because it might surprise — Andrew Parker Bowles, red-faced and raddled, Lord Goodman in pajamas — but mainly because it was another chance to see what Freud would make.
His greatest achievement, for me, is what he made of himself. Freud is the finest self-portraitist Britain has seen this past century. That terrific engagement, of physical presence essentialized: Everything he gives his sitters is most potently turned upon himself.
Freud used the mirror like a combatant, laying it at his feet and bearing down upon it like a towering inquisitor. Or he would arrange three mirrors at different angles, as if trying to catch himself unawares, to see how he might look when glimpsed by someone else.
Most trenchant, and monumental, is Painter Working, Reflection, made when Freud was 71. Naked, palette in hand, those workmen’s boots unlaced and flapping like the fetlocks of some hooved animal, he brandishes his knife like a maestro with a baton: wary, antagonistic, self-mocking, the King Lear of the studio. Identity emerges without clothes. This painting, above all, summons the full force of man’s mortal presence.
Last week Joseph Nye, the well-known China scholar, wrote on the Australian Strategic Policy Institute’s website about how war over Taiwan might be averted. He noted that years ago he was on a team that met with then-president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), “whose previous ‘unofficial’ visit to the US had caused a crisis in which China fired missiles into the sea and the US deployed carriers off the coast of Taiwan.” Yes, that’s right, mighty Chen caused that crisis all by himself. Neither the US nor the People’s Republic of China (PRC) exercised any agency. Nye then nostalgically invoked the comical specter
April 15 to April 21 Yang Kui (楊逵) was horrified as he drove past trucks, oxcarts and trolleys loaded with coffins on his way to Tuntzechiao (屯子腳), which he heard had been completely destroyed. The friend he came to check on was safe, but most residents were suffering in the town hit the hardest by the 7.1-magnitude Hsinchu-Taichung Earthquake on April 21, 1935. It remains the deadliest in Taiwan’s recorded history, claiming around 3,300 lives and injuring nearly 12,000. The disaster completely flattened roughly 18,000 houses and damaged countless more. The social activist and
Over the course of former President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) 11-day trip to China that included a meeting with Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leader Xi Jinping (習近平) a surprising number of people commented that the former president was now “irrelevant.” Upon reflection, it became apparent that these comments were coming from pro-Taiwan, pan-green supporters and they were expressing what they hoped was the case, rather than the reality. Ma’s ideology is so pro-China (read: deep blue) and controversial that many in his own Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) hope he retires quickly, or at least refrains from speaking on some subjects. Regardless
Approaching her mid-30s, Xiong Yidan reckons that most of her friends are on to their second or even third babies. But Xiong has more than a dozen. There is Lucky, the street dog from Bangkok who jumped into a taxi with her and never left. There is Sophie and Ben, sibling geese, who honk from morning to night. Boop and Pan, both goats, are romantically involved. Dumpling the hedgehog enjoys a belly rub from time to time. The list goes on. Xiong nurtures her brood from her 8,000 square meter farm in Chiang Dao, a mountainous district in northern Thailand’s