Sacred Monster

February 1, 2010 12:16 PM

Those who knew the artist—some of them his friends—described him variously as “devil,” “whore,” “one of the world’s leading alcoholics,” “bilious ogre,” “sacred monster,” and “a drunken, faded sodomite swaying nocturnally through the lowest dives and gambling dens of Soho.” Was Francis Bacon really the greatest painter of the twentieth century, or just a fascinating mess?
posted by seliopou (65 comments total)

Greatest painter, to my untutored eye.
posted by Turtles all the way down at 12:26 PM on February 1, 2010

He probably was all of the above and more, but for me, just a few minutes of standing in front of his paintings at the Art Institute of Chicago and marveling at them converted me to an acolyte in an instant.
posted by blucevalo at 12:27 PM on February 1, 2010

Those who knew the artist—some of them his friends—described him variously as “devil,” “whore,” “one of the world’s leading alcoholics,” “bilious ogre,” “sacred monster,” and “a drunken, faded sodomite swaying nocturnally through the lowest dives and gambling dens of Soho.”

I can only aspire to this.
posted by Turtles all the way down at 12:27 PM on February 1, 2010 [8 favorites]

> Was Francis Bacon really the greatest painter of the twentieth century, or just a fascinating mess?

Can I tick "All of the above"?

For that matter, is ranking necessary? Can't we call him a very good painter who was also an asshole?
posted by ardgedee at 12:28 PM on February 1, 2010 [3 favorites]

Previously on MetaFilter: Long discussion about Francis Bacon, touched off by Jed Perl's New Republic hit piece. I'll just say again what I said there: "Bacon's paintings are much smarter and deeper than was Bacon himself."
posted by escabeche at 12:31 PM on February 1, 2010

For that matter, is ranking necessary? Can't we call him a very good painter who was also an asshole?

This never happened to Pablo Picasso.
posted by Burhanistan at 12:33 PM on February 1, 2010 [18 favorites]

Having just read the bios of both John Cheever and Richard Yates, I wonder how you get to be in that highly elite group of "leading alcoholics."
posted by Postroad at 12:33 PM on February 1, 2010

Can't we call him a very good painter who was also an asshole?

Exactly. I'm just now coming to terms with what an unpleasant and disagreeable person Jerome David Salinger turns out to have been. I don't fucking care! The art moves and stimulates me. And I don't give half a shit how it fits into the canon of art history. My place on this planet is to enjoy the pieces I do, and to ignore those I don't. I win here.
posted by Turtles all the way down at 12:35 PM on February 1, 2010

Francis Bacon once publicly booed Princess Margaret when she insisted on singing showtunes for her captive dinner guests. By all accounts, she was horribly off-key.

How can we not love this man?
posted by grounded at 12:36 PM on February 1, 2010 [12 favorites]

Robert Hughes wrote, “This painter of buggery, sadism, dread, and death-vomit..."

The buggery, sadism, and dread I get, but "death-vomit"? It sounds like a Finnish metal band.
posted by HP LaserJet P10006 at 12:37 PM on February 1, 2010 [2 favorites]

I have had the (dis)pleasure to meet quite a number of famous artists. I can assure you that the number that are decent, humble, human beings is shockingly low. I would be far more surprised if he was a kind-hearted, generous man. That said, a lot of them create works of art that make me weak in the knees, so I just enjoy the actual art and ignore the artists. It pays to be able to compartmentalize one's passions this way.
posted by 1f2frfbf at 12:39 PM on February 1, 2010 [3 favorites]

Ah, yet another episode of that ancient Internet argument "Is it possible to be a brilliant artist even when you're an awful, contemptible human being?"
posted by jason's_planet at 12:40 PM on February 1, 2010

HP LaserJet P10006: "The buggery, sadism, and dread I get, but "death-vomit"?"

His lover overdosed.
posted by Joe Beese at 12:40 PM on February 1, 2010

My parents took me to the Hirshhorn Museum in when I was a little kid, and they had a bunch of his stuff on display. Scared the shit out of me.

Took me a decade or so before I was willing to give modern art another chance.
posted by Afroblanco at 12:46 PM on February 1, 2010

Among the greatest, definitely. I don't see how anyone could deny that. The guy had a direct line to the source, and it shows - in his room in the Tate Modern, you're in a zoo with no bars. Power.

The greatest? It was quite a century. His competition is no joke - Picasso, for instance.

And the rest is just bollocks. So he was mess, an bastard, a man of disgusting habits - he got the best out of his genius and everything else can be forgotten. He wasn't giving lessons in how to live.
posted by WPW at 12:49 PM on February 1, 2010 [5 favorites]

My parents took me to the Hirshhorn Museum in when I was a little kid, and they had a bunch of his stuff on display. Scared the shit out of me.

I've spent a lot of time, looking at a lot of art. One of the few times that I have left an exhibit deeply, deeply shaken, was at a large retrospective of Bacon's work, years ago, in London. Room after room after room...

(Interestingly, I have heard stories of collectors removing the glass from some of his pieces. I have always suspected the real reason for the glass was to function as a partial mirror.)
posted by R. Mutt at 1:07 PM on February 1, 2010 [2 favorites]

Was Francis Bacon really the greatest painter of the twentieth century, or just a fascinating mess?

I hate this sort of stunted, childish construction of the question. Why not "the greatest painter of the twentieth century* AND a fascinating mess"? Why should they not coexist? Isn't that actually more interesting -- or, at the very least, closer to the truth?

*I personally don't think he's the greatest painter of the twentieth century, anyway, but that's a different question.
posted by scody at 1:08 PM on February 1, 2010

I love Bacon's work. I have never met the man and never will, so his only effect on me will be his paintings. At doing exactly what he did, he was undoubtedly the best, beyond that any comparison is fairly shallow and meaningless. Who is the most important artist can be restated as which critic can yell the loudest with no change in outcome.
posted by doctor_negative at 1:12 PM on February 1, 2010

I wonder if other societies trouble themselves with this ad hominem criticism.

"Picasso was a Stalinist. And an all-around jerk. Does that make him a lousy painter too?"

"Sartre had shockingly poor hygiene. And he treated women like shit. Does that make him a lousy philosopher?"
posted by jason's_planet at 1:15 PM on February 1, 2010

"Sartre had shockingly poor hygiene. And he treated women like shit. Does that make him a lousy philosopher?"

Well, in that case. Yes. Yes it would. A person's comportment is a reflection of their outlook and character. Their creative work can reflect that in obvious or oblique ways as well.
posted by Burhanistan at 1:20 PM on February 1, 2010

I wonder if other societies trouble themselves with this ad hominem criticism.

Maybe thinking about the impact of an artist's assholishness on his art is unsophisticated, or even pointless, but I still feel a little tension between my gender and my love for Mailer's The Executioner's Song, you know? Ad hominem criticism isn't always a waste of time.

That said, alcoholism is very different from violent misogyny.
posted by sallybrown at 1:25 PM on February 1, 2010

The article is better than that stupid, stupid subheadline, wherever the hell it came from.

But here I go thinking about it for a whole two minutes: I think I would rate Francis Bacon somewhere between Guston and Lichtenstein, which isn't a slam, I like Lichtenstein quite a lot.
posted by furiousthought at 1:25 PM on February 1, 2010

Saltz isn't saying Bacon was bad, he's just saying much of Bacon's later work is bad, especially compared to his earlier work. Rebutting with "artists can be both great and total jerks" is missing the point; critics are trying to get a fix on how Bacon's work changed over time, trying to understand both what is good and bad about it. People love the gory stuff, and Bacon knew that and exploited it, and part of this reevaluation is figuring out exactly which works are I guess authentically expressive and which are kitsch.
posted by avianism at 1:28 PM on February 1, 2010 [1 favorite]

How about 'Not even a particularly good painter, and a fucking asshat?'
posted by sfts2 at 1:31 PM on February 1, 2010

Jerry Saltz doesn't do much for me as a critic, but, as avianism points out, the article—beyond the attention-grab of the title—is not about any distinction between private life and public output. He provides biographical detail for context, but it's really just an outline of how he perceives Bacon's work as becoming rigid and formulaic from the 1960s on, which one can agree with or not.
posted by wreckingball at 1:34 PM on February 1, 2010

It's not so silly to examine the correlation between an artist's work and her character, when their work is obviously driven by their character in some way, or at least informed by it. It doesn't follow that the work is worthless if the person is, but there's a valid question to be asked if our fascination with the work is a cousin to the lurid fascination we have with witnessing a slow self-destruction.

Put another way: if James Frey had really lived A Million Little Pieces, would we have torn him apart the way we did? The work is never totally disconnected from the creator.
posted by fatbird at 1:36 PM on February 1, 2010 [1 favorite]

Like a lot of the 20th "brand names" in painting, he roped off a narrow stylistic patch and strip-mined it mercilessly. He was a great painter, but only barely competent in all other areas of his discipline. He couldn't draw a puppy or even doodle a decent Mickey Mouse. My example of a fine all-round artist would be Milton Glaser: an excellent painter, designer, draftsman and illustrator. He's the real thing.
posted by Faze at 1:43 PM on February 1, 2010

Usually great artists are great artists because they are fascinating messes, as opposed to those people who are just messes but not quite so fascinating.
posted by molecicco at 1:48 PM on February 1, 2010

NO! Not another ad hominem criticism of an artist, for God's sake!

I love his work. It is sui generis (all right, I'll stop with the Latinisms all ready). A statistical study of niceness vs. artistic genius might be interesting, in truth, and it is truly wonderful when an artist you like turns out to be a good guy, but we don't really give a shit.

I don't care for this critic's assessment, because Bacon's art touches me in the same way Kafka does. They both violate key canonical elements of their craft to say something unique about man's place in the universe, and there is something radically true about their positions.
posted by kozad at 2:02 PM on February 1, 2010

There were a lot of great artists who were not really messes at all, and of this "he was a beautiful mess" talk contributes in a pretty unpleasant way to the romanticization of alcoholism and depression.
posted by avianism at 2:03 PM on February 1, 2010

Right up to the link I thought this was about Rip Torn.
posted by Splunge at 2:18 PM on February 1, 2010

Another view from the NYRB a few weeks ago by a writer who met Bacon in the late 1940s.

Never having attended an art school was a source of pride to Bacon. With the help of a meretricious Australian painter, Roy de Maistre, he taught himself to paint, for which he turned out to have a great flair; tragically, he failed to teach himself to draw. Painting after painting would be marred by his inability to articulate a figure or its space.

posted by shothotbot at 2:19 PM on February 1, 2010

Ah, yet another episode of that ancient Internet argument "Is it possible to be a brilliant artist even when you're an awful, contemptible human being?"

I'm certainly more interested in the reverse question. I can't remember who it was now, but some writer opined that every good artist should be little more than a shambling apology compared to their work. Everything good and decent and human should be poured into it.

I don't think that's necessarily true, but I think it's often true.
posted by lumpenprole at 2:28 PM on February 1, 2010

Put another way: if James Frey had really lived A Million Little Pieces, would we have torn him apart the way we did?

Speaking only for myself, yes. His writing is atrocious -- it wasn't the revelation that it was a work of fiction that convinced me of this.

jason's_planet: Sartre had shockingly poor hygiene. And he treated women like shit. Does that make him a lousy philosopher?

Burhanistan: Well, in that case. Yes. Yes it would. A person's comportment is a reflection of their outlook and character.

Are you actually arguing that artistic and intellectual work cannot be evaluated on its own merits and that its value depends upon (your judgment of) the "character" of its creator? Seriously?
posted by inoculatedcities at 2:34 PM on February 1, 2010

Burhanistan: Well, in that case. Yes. Yes it would. A person's comportment is a reflection of their outlook and character.

Are you actually arguing that artistic and intellectual work cannot be evaluated on its own merits and that its value depends upon (your judgment of) the "character" of its creator? Seriously?
posted by inoculatedcities

I didn't say that specifically, so let's can the hyperbole. If you're talking about philosophy, then yes you can. If a person is a real jerk to everyone and his affairs are a mess, then I'm certainly going to take any grandiose ideas he has about ontology or ethics with a grain of salt.
posted by Burhanistan at 2:38 PM on February 1, 2010

From the story: For me, Bacon—who may be the only artist sharing a name with one of his main subjects, meat—


Is this true? I feel sure that this isn't true, but I can't think of any other examples.
posted by purpleclover at 3:06 PM on February 1, 2010

Hey Faze:

Like a lot of the 20th "brand names" in painting, he roped off a narrow stylistic patch and strip-mined it mercilessly. He was a great painter, but only barely competent in all other areas of his discipline. He couldn't draw a puppy or even doodle a decent Mickey Mouse. My example of a fine all-round artist would be Milton Glaser: an excellent painter, designer, draftsman and illustrator. He's the real thing.

If Francis Bacon's discipline was painting the paintings of Francis Bacon, then doodling a decent Mickey Mouse was not a part of his discipline. He was the "real thing", if the thing you're talking about is Francis Bacon.

Also, this is not particularly relevant, but if you go see the retrospective and look at his paintings real close - at the textures, the lines, the way the paint is laid down - you'll see that Francis Bacon had attained an extremely high level of development in the tools he deployed in his particular discipline.
posted by voronoi at 3:29 PM on February 1, 2010 [2 favorites]

I am constantly reminded that many of my favourite artsits (from many different mediums) were also terrible assholes whom I really would never want to be around and would probably end up slapping.
posted by Theta States at 3:29 PM on February 1, 2010

Ah, yet another episode of that ancient Internet argument "Is it possible to be a brilliant artist even when you're an awful, contemptible human being?"
I didn't realize that this started on the internet.
posted by Red Loop at 3:39 PM on February 1, 2010

If a person is a real jerk to everyone and his affairs are a mess, then I'm certainly going to take any grandiose ideas he has about ontology or ethics with a grain of salt.

I think you have a good point about ethics. Not sure about the other branches of that discipline but that's not really my field.
posted by jason's_planet at 3:43 PM on February 1, 2010

I hated, hated, hated Bacon's work until one day, I loved it. I have no confidence that my opinion may not swing back tomorrow.

I still hate Picasso, however.
posted by Morrigan at 3:46 PM on February 1, 2010

Most -- no, I'll go as far as to say all -- great works of art shout "Fuck you!" to art in their own beautiful, sometimes subtle, but also very public ways. So it is never a surprise to me that the artist also has the ability to shout "Fuck you!" to life in their own way, as well.
posted by jabberjaw at 4:15 PM on February 1, 2010

I just enjoy the actual art and ignore the artists.

I do as well. The work stands on it's own (art and philosophy as far as I'm concerned) and has little if anything to do with the character or personality of the artist (ability is a factor of course). Masterworks did an episode on Bacon. Unfortunately for me it was more about the man then the work. The man seemed an intense asshole the likes of which I'd have nothing to do with.

There was a horrible documentary, if you want to call it that, on "revolutionary" poets around the time of the French Revolution. Their glamourized portrayal of the special poets made me sick, particularly Blake as some sort of miserable mystic because that's what his poems are supposedly about (but not) and so he must have been like that. Fuck.
posted by juiceCake at 4:41 PM on February 1, 2010

He was the "real thing", if the thing you're talking about is Francis Bacon.

Good point, voronoi. And by the way, I do admire Bacon's work tremendously.
posted by Faze at 5:01 PM on February 1, 2010

a meretricious Australian painter, Roy de Maistre
Harsh – I guess you're talking about his Colour Music.
posted by tellurian at 5:28 PM on February 1, 2010

He is the most melodramatic painter of the 20th century, and the least generous in his presentation of humanity. But when I think of his work I can't help thinking, "Fuck yeah."
posted by gorgor_balabala at 5:38 PM on February 1, 2010

I didn't even realized he painted--I've always loved him for the timeless characters he created: Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet and King Lear.
posted by DU at 5:39 PM on February 1, 2010 [1 favorite]

Most -- no, I'll go as far as to say all -- great works of art shout "Fuck you!" to art in their own beautiful, sometimes subtle, but also very public ways.

I know you're being hyperbolic, but you know what I want to say—no, shout— to that statement?
posted by Red Loop at 6:12 PM on February 1, 2010

From "The Estate of Francis Bacon" site: "Because people believe, simple people at least, that the distortions of them are an injury to them, no matter how much they feel for or how much they like you" (Bacon's comment on why some of the subjects of his portraits were offended).

It's interesting to me that those of us who wish we were great (I speak for myself here), often take similar "injury" at the apparent "distortions" that those we envy present to the world. As if we would somehow be able to universally define, or even unanimously recognize, "a good person" when we met one, much less a good artist.

I can't comment on Bacon's greatness, except to say that, having not spent much time looking at his work before today, and now looking at it more seriously via the useful website above, I like it (as well as Picasso, and Pollock, and de Kooning, and Kallo, and so on) and I think that it's easy to say that it ranks among the best of the 20th century. Why do we need to discuss what's best anyway? Isn't that level of discourse best left for the sandbox?
posted by kneecapped at 6:37 PM on February 1, 2010 [1 favorite]

I can't believe that no one's mentioned all of those wonderful plays that he wrote for Shakespeare.
posted by Halloween Jack at 7:51 PM on February 1, 2010

I can't believe that no one's mentioned all of those wonderful plays that he wrote for Shakespeare.

More carefully, you should read.
posted by shothotbot at 7:55 PM on February 1, 2010

This business related linked blog post in the Derek Sivers 'Weird or Different' thread made me think about my perception of art. Art is the (quality of the artistic expression or inspiration) x (technique or execution in the medium). Great ideas or great vision is of little value without the multiplier of execution. This is why an artist that cannot draw is barely an artist.

I have the artistic vision that rivals Dali, especially when I'm really high, unfortunately I cannot draw or paint for shit.
posted by sfts2 at 8:27 PM on February 1, 2010

Probably in the mid 60s in the list of Greatest Painters of the 20th Century; probably well into the mid hundred millions for biggest mess of the 20th century.
posted by klangklangston at 8:58 PM on February 1, 2010

I enjoyed the apt comparison to Fuseli at the end of the article.
posted by Wolof at 10:09 PM on February 1, 2010

“a drunken, faded sodomite swaying nocturnally through the lowest dives and gambling dens of Soho.”

You say that like it's a bad thing.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 12:48 AM on February 2, 2010 [1 favorite]

Burhanistan: I didn't say that specifically, so let's can the hyperbole. If you're talking about philosophy, then yes you can. If a person is a real jerk to everyone and his affairs are a mess, then I'm certainly going to take any grandiose ideas he has about ontology or ethics with a grain of salt.

You're apparently not familiar with the ad hominem tu quoque fallacy.
posted by inoculatedcities at 6:07 AM on February 2, 2010

Isn't the point of the headline the word "just"? To paraphrase:

It is clearly established that Bacon was a fascinating mess, but was he also a great painter?

There is no dichotomy between being a great painter, and being a mess implied. The point is not to explore whether Bacon's great artistry has blinded us to his catastrophic personality, but whether his catastrophic personality leads us to believe that he is a great artist.
posted by jonnyseveral at 6:41 AM on February 2, 2010

You're apparently not familiar with the ad hominem tu quoque fallacy.

You are apparently prone to histrionics and oversimplifying. All I said was that if someone's life was a mess I'm going to be suspect of anything they have to say about philosophy, as it relates to definitively stating such things.
posted by Burhanistan at 6:46 AM on February 2, 2010

Mmmm bacon.

Sorry, wrong bacon.

This guy is a hot mess.
posted by stormpooper at 7:20 AM on February 2, 2010

Let's review, Burhanistan:

jason's_planet asked you if Sartre's poor hygiene and mistreatment of women make him a lousy philosopher. You said yes. I asked if you thought the value of intellectual or creative work depended on the character of it's creator. You said yes. I said this was an error in reasoning, specifically an example of ad hominem tu quoque.

Therefore, I'm histrionic and oversimplifying?
posted by inoculatedcities at 10:41 AM on February 2, 2010

Now you're also disingenuous. I was only talking about a specific case in point about a philospher, not a blanket statement about all artists or content creators. Your histrionics clear in that "seriously?" question, and then responding with a smarmy posting of a link to a fallacy definition on Wikipedia.
posted by Burhanistan at 10:47 AM on February 2, 2010

But if you value the ethical pronouncements of a person whose life is a mess, then rock on. It was kind of a straw man to begin with, and of all the things in this thread it was kind of bizarre for you to latch into. You came across as bombastic and pompous.
posted by Burhanistan at 10:49 AM on February 2, 2010

How did I mischaracterize your argument? Even if you are only and specifically referring to Sartre, how is that not an ad hominem tu quoque argument?

Can you please explain your reasoning or are you just interested in making ad hominem attacks against me ("disingenuous", "bombastic and pompous", "histrionic", and "bizarre", etc.)?
posted by inoculatedcities at 11:20 AM on February 2, 2010

How did I mischaracterize your argument?

One, by calling it an "argument" in the first place. I wasn't arguing anything, I was stating my own values. Others can have their own. The fact that my statement doesn't conform to your vision of pure logic is not important to me. When you respond like this, it immediately sets a hostile and smarmy tone.

Besides, we're talking about Satre. He freely admitted that his works lacked coherence and that much of it was banged out while under the influence. Sometimes, statements of fact and value in the real world don't always stand up so well to ruthless fallacy analysis but nonetheless are sound positions anyway.
posted by Burhanistan at 12:03 PM on February 2, 2010

All I did was point out that you were making an illogical conclusion from stated or implied premises. One is certainly entitled to think whatever one likes of Sartre but I think its reasonable that you should have logical reasons to support your beliefs. You responded by calling names and declaring your reasons for support to be "values" not an argument.

I'm not pursuing this because I think you misinterpret Sartre or that I don't like you, I just want you to acknowledge that your conclusion is not supported by the specific statements you made here.
posted by inoculatedcities at 8:48 PM on February 2, 2010