Living large.

May 14, 2008 6:35 AM

British artist Lucian Freud's painting of a rather... portly slumbering nude just set an art world record. Someone laid down a nice, fat 33.6 million dollars for it: the most money ever paid for any work by a living artist.

Lucian Freud, previously.

posted by flapjax at midnite (45 comments total)

33.6 million dollars? That's like twenty Euros.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 6:38 AM on May 14, 2008 [3 favorites]

from the 2nd link: The painting challenges modern notions of beauty and elicits a reaction from everyone who sees it. That may have been precisely the aim of Freud, who told London's Tate Gallery in 2002 that he wanted his paintings to "astonish, disturb, seduce, convince."

I like Lucian Freud's work, and this is typical of his style (see the Leigh Bowery studies), but one must admit that if not for the figure's hyper-Rubenesqueness, it would be a fairly conventional, even cliche, painting. Perhaps Nimoy bought it?
posted by ornate insect at 6:47 AM on May 14, 2008

The subject got 20 quid a day to pose... she was tv the other night, seemed very down to earth about it.
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 6:49 AM on May 14, 2008

There's a larger image of it here.

Enh. I sort of like it. The brush style is a bit crude for my tastes.
posted by xthlc at 6:49 AM on May 14, 2008

Not bad, but I wouldn't have gone over $20 million.

*lights cigar with $50 bill, on account of economic austerity*
posted by Mister_A at 6:51 AM on May 14, 2008

My god - I thought I recognised the model!

From the article: She had been introduced to the artist through a mutual friend, Australian performance artist Leigh Bowery, who also posed for Freud. It was Bowery's idea for Tilley to work with Freud, so he arranged a meeting.

I met her at a memorial event for Leigh Bowery in London in the nineties - and, truly, she looked fabulous with her clothes on!

(Opera singer fabulous, I mean - she had a devil-may-care confidence in a large, corseted, long red velvet frock and was incredibly bubbly and fun!).
posted by Jody Tresidder at 6:52 AM on May 14, 2008

she was tv the other night, seemed very down to earth about it.

Seems more like an avestite than a transvestite.
posted by Mister_A at 6:52 AM on May 14, 2008

xthic--I like it too. But Freud's work is, minus the usual girth of his subjects, fairly conventional. Which is not bad per se, but ironic given the art world's by now strained fetish for, and rather superficial conception of, "originality."
posted by ornate insect at 6:53 AM on May 14, 2008

Reminds me of South Face/Front Face/North Face by Jenny Saville (better known as the front cover of the Manic Street Preachers album The Holy Bible).

Not really something I'd like to hang on my living room wall, though.
posted by afx237vi at 6:56 AM on May 14, 2008

I'm just glad that somebody topped Jeff Koons record so I can stop throwing up.
posted by louche mustachio at 7:02 AM on May 14, 2008 [6 favorites]

And I would hang that on my living room wall.


But only because it matches my couch.
posted by louche mustachio at 7:06 AM on May 14, 2008 [3 favorites]

Hmm ...according to Jasper John's Wikipedia page (which cites a NY Times article as the source)
In 2006, private collectors Anne and Kenneth Griffin (founder of the Chicago-based hedge fund Citadel Investment Group) bought Johns' False Start for $80 million, making it the most expensive painting by a living artist.
So maybe they mean living British artist
posted by horsemuth at 7:29 AM on May 14, 2008 [1 favorite]

I've been looking at the picture at artdaily, and there looks like there's something odd going on with the couch. Like it's twisted, or painted from 2 different perspectives or something. Am I imagining that?
posted by garlic at 7:40 AM on May 14, 2008

It's interesting to see a piece done in a style often considered conventional wherein the super-realistic representation of the subject sets it apart. She's sleeping in a completely relaxed fashion, absolutely nude, being as human as can be. He captured this admirably.

Considering how few big people I know would even be willing to be seen nude briefly, I'm now officially a fan of Sue Tilley, for showing such trust and opening herself up to whatever abuse will be heaped upon her by those with luckier metabolisms, all for art (and a little dosh on the side).

Lucian Freud's work is more interesting than I thought I would find it. It seems logical that the subjects would be unusual specimens of humanity, and that he somehow avoids over-saturating the subjects gives me glee. They're just...there. Being human. Nifty stuff.

It's always great to stop by these threads and take note of which people to never, ever, ever hang out with ever.
posted by batmonkey at 7:43 AM on May 14, 2008 [2 favorites]

British artist Lucian Freud's painting of a rather... portly slumbering nude...

The word you're searching for is fat.
posted by ottereroticist at 8:03 AM on May 14, 2008 [1 favorite]

There's something kind of pleasant about it. If you squint, she looks like a small bunch of pale grapes. Or a rotisserie chicken. It's cozy.
posted by hjo3 at 8:06 AM on May 14, 2008 [1 favorite]

I can't look it up right now, but it could be a record price for a living artist's painting sold at auction. The Johns painting could have been a private sale?
posted by R. Mutt at 8:08 AM on May 14, 2008

i didn't realise Leigh Bowery was Australian.
posted by asok at 8:09 AM on May 14, 2008

The painting challenges modern notions of beauty

Oh lord. Art critics live on a weird planet. I can barely parse that sentence. How can a painting "challenge modern notions"? What does that mean? Why doesn't that sentence have a direct object that I can point to? What's a "modern notion."

Modern people HAVE notions. They have all kinds of notions. Some modern people are attracted to fat women. Some aren't.

Even for someone who isn't, how is the painting a challenge? Fred doesn't find fat women beautiful, so I show him a painting of a fat woman. He's challenged? In what way?

I'm not totally naive. I get that there's a history of nudes in paintings, and I get that (in contemporary images), nudes tend to be slim and model-ish. I also get that critics see each painting as a comment on what went before it or what's current. So if a painting shows a non-standard body, the painter MUST necessarily be commenting on (or "challenging") images of the past or present. It's not wrong to view art as a dialogue between works. But it's not the only way to view art. It's not the right way (or the wrong way). It's certainly not how I view art.

I like the painting. When I look at it, it doesn't make me think of "contemporary images of women." It just draws me towards its unique subject and style. It makes me feel voyeuristic.
posted by grumblebee at 8:49 AM on May 14, 2008 [3 favorites]

Here it is ... it was the highest paid for a Freud, at auction... NOT the most money ever paid for any work by a living artist... as it says in the FPP.

just two telephone bidders whom Christie’s would not identify went for the painting, which brought $33.6 million. The price, a record for the artist at auction, was well beyond the $19.3 million paid last November at Christie’s for Mr. Freud’s “Ib and Her Husband,”.... (nyt)
posted by R. Mutt at 9:03 AM on May 14, 2008 [1 favorite]

Freud would have a field day with this painting...oh never mind...

(yes I know Lucian and Sigmund are related).
posted by ornate insect at 9:19 AM on May 14, 2008

Anyway, it is a pretty good painting. The subject is very comfortable in her own skin, despite having rather more skin than is fashionable these days. The painter did a nice job in capturing the beauty of this woman's form.
posted by Mister_A at 9:39 AM on May 14, 2008

Good for him!
I have always been fascinated by his work; interesting how he tills the same fields as, say, Pearlstein, but is so much kinder to his subjects.
I'd like to have lunch with the man.
posted by Dizzy at 9:45 AM on May 14, 2008

I'm just glad that somebody topped Jeff Koons record so I can stop throwing up.

I'm trying to figure out if I'm missing some super-refined art-appreciation gene, or if there are a lot of lame art collectors.

I'd be interested to hear from someone who knows something about art collecting why this piece was valued at $20 million. Is it totally arbitrary what people are willing to pay for something like this, or is there some merit to it I don't see?
posted by SpacemanStix at 10:01 AM on May 14, 2008

Total layperson here, but I think a work becomes important when it can be used as a measure for other works. In this case, width?
posted by snsranch at 10:13 AM on May 14, 2008

Here it is ... it was the highest paid for a Freud, at auction... NOT the most money ever paid for any work by a living artist... as it says in the FPP.

That makes sense. As far as I know, the most money ever paid for any work by a living artist is One Hundred Million Dollars for Damien Hirst's 'For The Love of God.'
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 10:21 AM on May 14, 2008

This Daily Mail story has a nice pic of the model. Also, via the "enlarge" link under the picture of the painting on that page, you get a much better blow-up than the pixellated one at Art Daily linked above.
posted by beagle at 10:23 AM on May 14, 2008

Except that the Hirst "sale" seems a bit .... well, here is the headline on Artnet about it...

HIRST BUYS HIS OWN SKULL. . .

.... it was announced that Hirst himself was part of the investment group that is purchasing For the Love of God, his $100-million platinum-and-diamond skull, recently on view at the White Cube gallery in London.

Hirst’s involvement in the purchase (as well as the sale) raised immediate questions about the deal, with Bloomberg reporter Linda Sandler suggesting that perhaps “Hirst hasn't yet found a final buyer for his most expensive artwork, at a time when hedge fund managers and other art collectors have lost money in the credit markets.”....

posted by R. Mutt at 10:30 AM on May 14, 2008

Fuzzy Monster, that Hirst sale has to be prefaced by "reportedly". The investors are anonymous. It was also reported at the time that he himself may have been part of the "investment syndicate." If that was the case, it's not a true arms-length transaction, and it's even possible he just sold it to himself, cutting in his cleaning lady and gardener for a few bucks each in order to be able to call it a "syndicate."
posted by beagle at 10:32 AM on May 14, 2008

I've been looking at the picture at artdaily, and there looks like there's something odd going on with the couch. Like it's twisted, or painted from 2 different perspectives or something. Am I imagining that?

No, you're right. It seems like the floor and the seat of the couch have been tilted forward, and the right side more so than the left. It makes the model look like she's balanced precariously, holding onto the back of the couch for dear life.

It's an interesting effect. I hope it was intentional.
posted by Sys Rq at 10:33 AM on May 14, 2008

Thanks, R. Mutt and beagle. I didn't know that Hirst himself was part of that syndicate. I just figured it was a group of hedge fund yahoos trying to outdo the other hedge fund yahoos. "Hey, check out my awesome cut-in-half shark!" "You think that's something? Dig my diamond skull!"
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 10:39 AM on May 14, 2008

So... what is the most expensive work by a living artist?
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 10:41 AM on May 14, 2008

("The String Cheese Incident" by Axl Rose? Heh.)
posted by Dizzy at 10:44 AM on May 14, 2008

So... what is the most expensive work by a living artist?

As noted above, it was the $80 million private sale of Jasper Johns' False Start, in 2006.
posted by beagle at 10:52 AM on May 14, 2008

Thanks, beagle. Interesting to note those buyers were also hedge fund yahoos. "My art can beat your art!" Not that the hedge fund guys are competitive or anything...
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 11:21 AM on May 14, 2008

Heh, we have a post by the famous R. Mutt on Damien Hirst visibly taking the piss out of the art world. How obscurely eponysterical.
posted by Skeptic at 12:10 PM on May 14, 2008

SpacemanStix wrote: I'd be interested to hear from someone who knows something about art collecting why this piece was valued at $20 million. Is it totally arbitrary what people are willing to pay for something like this, or is there some merit to it I don't see?

Because it'll be worth 20% more when the buyer sells it. Not that Freud isn't a staggeringly good painter (which you can't really tell without standing in front of one of his paintings) and one whose stock - monetary and critical - has remained weirdly impervious to fashion since the '50s, but at this price level of collecting the collector/consortium of buyers is very likely making an investment. See R. Mutt's quote above, where an art site is quoting a Bloomberg reporter talking about hedge fund managers (whatever they are!).

The vagaries of the art market are fascinating, and, not being an economist I don't understand how it all works. For example, the value of an artist's work can skyrocket if bought by a particular collector, then plummet if that same notable collector sells just one or two pieces by that artist, which goes beyond simple supply and demand type stuff (Charles Saatchi has ruined careers this way). At the highest level, price-wise, there's always a justification for the big bucks - artists like Bacon, Picasso, old masters, etc. are undeniably really fucking amazing - but why their works are worth £30 million instead of, say, £3m is a complete mystery to me. (To the extent that I've passed up the chance to buy work for a couple of hundred quid that's now worth the deposit on a nice flat, on several occasions...)
posted by jack_mo at 12:10 PM on May 14, 2008

The vagaries of the art market are fascinating, and, not being an economist...

but Olav Velthuis is ! And his book Talking Prices: Symbolic Meanings of Prices on the Market for Contemporary Art is pretty interesting, if slightly dated.
posted by R. Mutt at 12:17 PM on May 14, 2008

Total layperson here, but I think a work becomes important when it can be used as a measure for other works. In this case, width?

Girth.
posted by rokusan at 2:16 PM on May 14, 2008

Wait, Lucian Freud is still alive? I loved his work when I was in high school, and I thought he was dead. Huh.
posted by OverlappingElvis at 2:18 PM on May 14, 2008

OverlappingElvis--looks like he's 85 years old.
posted by ornate insect at 2:22 PM on May 14, 2008

The word you're searching for is fat.

No, the 33.6 million was fat. The lady was... portly.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 3:58 PM on May 14, 2008

Not that Freud isn't a staggeringly good painter (which you can't really tell without standing in front of one of his paintings)

That's true. Photos of his work don't do them justice.

I used to think he was nothing special before I went to Damascus.
posted by ersatz at 4:34 PM on May 14, 2008

Against all odds, Larry Salander's day just got even worse...
posted by Ian A.T. at 7:55 PM on May 14, 2008

Ian A. T.
That is a brilliant link.

Talk about a link that expands, dissects, illustrates, energizes and completes the main post in an unexpectedly perfect way!

(Though I'm not sure I know what to make of the 'bad T.S. Eliot' style Liam Neeson quote: “He doesn’t see art as a used Tampax moving across a bare wall.” Er...right).

Fantastic. Thanks.
posted by Jody Tresidder at 5:01 AM on May 15, 2008