A Meeting of Two Titans | Lucian Freud’s Portrait of David Hockney
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 сен 2024
- In 2002, two titans of British art came together in a private exchange between artist and sitter. In this episode of Expert Voices, discover how David Hockney sat for over 100 hundred hours, allowing Lucian Freud to create one of the most masterful peer-to-peer portraits of all time. Painted at the height of Freud’s career, this tour-de-force of portraiture provides a fascinating window into the enduring relationship of these eminent masters. ‘David Hockney’ will appear at auction for the first time in our inaugural British Art Evening Sale: Modern/Contemporary (29 June | London).
SUBSCRIBE: www.youtube.co....
FOR MORE NEWS FROM SOTHEBY’S
Instagram: / sothebys
Facebook: / sothebys
Twitter: / sothebys
SUBSCRIBE: www.youtube.co....
FOR MORE NEWS FROM SOTHEBY’S
Instagram: / sothebys
Facebook: / sothebys
Twitter: / sothebys
Sotheby's adverts always try too hard.
3:08 The portrait looks it's best in this photo. Displayed here in the actual light in which it was painted, rather than the electric light painting shots ( In which I frankly think it looks dreadful.) Freud had two studios in the same house. One was for producing naturally lit paintings, and the other a night gallery under studio lights. It's probably best they're viewed in the same light in which they were created.
I'm trying to figure out if the portrait is finished or not at 3:08 ~ looking at (beginning) 3:19 and forward, it seems as though darker tones are yet to be applied, esp. around the eyebrows, under the eyes through the lenses ~ some of that could be from the daylight and the camera, but do you see what I mean? The shadow under Hockney's left eye seems to come to more of a point at it's bottom, for example . . . but yeah, I would have preferred to have a look at it on Freud's easel. Finished or not.
@@luiscuixara4622 I'm not sure. I've had a look at both with a higher rez photo of the studio picture. I think it's just light bleaching and a mental joining of indistinct similar shades.
An aside to this. Lucian was the reverse of a flatterer. All the features painted by him are there, but mostly more so. Hockney's jowls aren't that big. His scalp isn't that visible through his hair. The muscle lines above his eyebrows aren't just as apparent as the eyebrows themselves, and Hockney's chin/jaw is really squarer and more defined. I gain an image in my mind of Freud gazing carefully at his facial landscape, but losing parts of the dominant over all appearance.
@@Divertedflight Good description. Everything is just distorted enough; he constructs his portraits to the point where, if he pushed the line of resemblance/not resemblance any more than he has (when he determines it's a finished painting), it'd wind up either unrecognizable as the model, or caricature. The fact that he gets to that point with the volume of paint he applies is fairly astounding. I need to see if there's video of him working from start to finish, like the 400 or so Picasso videos there are of same.
His studio has the purposefully creepy feeling of a Kienholz installation; that wall of leaden detritus has its own weight that's pretty beautiful for a thing that's not intended to be art. Too bad he and Bacon didn't share a studio. That'd be a room.
Looks like he's just getting up in the morning and on his way to the kitchen to make tea wearing a robe and pajamas.
Yeah, well, look at his portrait of Lord Goodman. Because that is exactly what it is.
Looks like he painted his mugshot. 🤔
It is a very average portrait
At best.
I’m sorry I hate this! It must be my fault. The guy from the museum thinks he’s wonderful. I can’t help thinking there’s a bit of schadenfreude (no pun intended) here, and he’s thinking “Yeah, you’re younger than me but I’m going to show how you’re a decaying old phony, and you’re going to have to pretend you like it!
projecting your own feelings doesn’t change a great work of art. Start with a little critical appreciation of a work of art, and you might make a case for your dislike.
tactile but metaphysically flaccid.
like their careers
Who cares if he is dead? Right?
Many people on this thread say both of these artists were" overrated". Hmm. How about Basquait? ! Now he was a total fraude. Art critics ,curators , art dealersused his shitty paintings to make money.
At least Freud was dressed for a friggin' switch. Must not have wanted to bang DH. Freud was a monumental portraitist, but he was way, waaaaaay skeevy.
Great poctire
Exquisite. ☺☺☺😇😇😇
Thank you. Please have a sunshine day. ☺☺☺😇😇😇🖒
This is a hideous portrait of one academic painter of another.
Lucian Freud was a good, not a Hockney. artist
What's the irritating music got to do with it?
I fing love you sothebys!
Money laundering of your auction
Freud,s painting portraits as good as the past greats without a doubt,
You cannot have a better day than a visit to two great DH collections at Salts Mill and Cartwright Hall, both in Bradford. Mastering the iPad in his 70's is proper class.
Two crimenals...
Who you kidding ?
Schadenfreude. Perhaps the most famous of the Freud's
Now this portrait has been sold for 15 million
You answered my question I was wondering just how valuable this painting is. Thank you
Magda from Ab Fab said all the Freuds were a bunch of 'no talents' with an ancestor (episode 'Magazine'). Perhaps a just resizing for such a terrible painter, one who tried his hardest to humble his subjects and scar their memory.
I would love to meet her and visit her apartment. Remarkable woman!
In "North by Northwest" by Hitchcock, Cary Grant is sitting in an art auction house (think it may even be Sothebys in New York) and he offers five dollars for the painting. Much to the stupifaction of those assembled there. Say no more.
You know that kind of "anyone could do that" shit can be just as annoying and smug as the most pretentious critic.
@@alexandriac6641 I just posted a speech from Shakespeare and I thought this comment when it came thru was referring to that. Thought it was knocking my acting abilities. 😂
@@alexandriac6641 The great painter Antony anyone recently exhibited at the tate Britain in London but nobody went. Perhaps someday someone may see anyone's work.
@@hermesnoelthefourthway What’s your point caller?
@@alexandriac6641 to answer that question please see my film "The illusion of words and ideas, The Reality of being by Jeanne de salzmann. Noel
"...drawings by Ingres..." not Andre.
top
I brained him and no state funeral ensued
un grande ..un vero genio
Two opium users. In rags.
Oh to be rich enough... great review. Thanks.
Ppppppf
Freud did nice backgrounds
I brain you?
Ale ano, može byť.
Even worse than his portrait of the Queen. What a talent.
Don't mention Rolf Harris.......
Tell me
RMS TITANIC.
No bigge
Master piece!
멋찝니다~~
Perfect
Great fluency in brush strokes but it doesn't look like Hokney
Yeah because it’s a portrait of Hockney
Adorei!!
Frued is hyperrealism.
Anyone can paint a masterpiece
anyone can there are some just more glorified and exploited
neither one of those guys paint that well, but they give the talk /not paint people something to do while waiting for the next genius.
their stuff will end up in the basements of museums who will eventually write them off as a loss to the taxman.
I agree with you 100%.
they actually paint amazingly just because you don’t like the particular style does not mean they don’t paint well, u inept jerk off
This painting verifies what I always knew to be true: that BOTH of these artists are vastly overrated and just not that talented. This took 100 hours???? Come on. Seriously, one would think that after a lifetime of assiduous painting, Freud would be a better painter. And to those who pay tens of millions for such works, well go ahead and spend your money any way you like. Better hope that "the greater fool theory" bails you out. All it took was one quick glance to see that this painting is crude, boring, and lackluster.
@@luna.blanco To make my comment more "explicable", without intending to toot my own horn, let me add that I have a very long history as an artist (painter), and have studied with many prominent artists and some very top art historians, and have works in major collections and museums. So I do not bring "nothing" to the table when I make my judgments on art and artists. I am extremely familiar with the works of the recognized old and modern masters (if any!), as well as with the works of these two artists in question. I stand by my comments.
@@KpxUrz5745 Yes, by all means, stand by them. Thank you for a lucid, well-articulated comment. I'm a admirer of Freud's work, but also thrilled to see a good example of critical thinking...
Also, "A meeting of two titans" kind of title should be avoided...