Record-Breaking Painting Features Fat Woman
Or “overweight nude” as CNN calls it. The artist is Lucien Freud, and the painting was just sold for $33.6 million, making it the most expensive painting ever sold by a living artist. The model for the painting is Sue Tilley. (A picture of her can be seen here; the link is to an interview by the Guardian.)
Christie’s calls it a “bold and imposing example of the stark power of Lucian Freud’s realism,” depicting “the forceful and undeniable physical presence of people and things.”… 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.”
Though some regard the painting as shocking — ugly, even — that is also the appeal for collectors, said Michael Hall, editor of Apollo Magazine in London. “There’s a reaction against art that’s regarded as too pretty,” he said.
The Times of London also covered this story and said:
At 20 stone she seemed an unlikely choice of muse for an artist, but Freud has spoken of his “predilection towards people of unusual or strange proportions”. Referring to the woman he affectionately calls “Big Sue”, he said that he was “very aware of all kinds of spectacular things to do with her size, like amazing craters and things one’s never seen before”…
“I think he probably picked me because he got value for money,” Ms Tilley once joked. “He got a lot of flesh.” She believes that he was inspired by her “ordinariness”.
So what do you think of Freud, of Tilley, and of the painting? Is it “shocking” or “ugly”? Is it “challenging” and “unlikely”? Do you wish it had been more sensual? What do you think the artist’s intention is here? Are you proud that this painting has found such success?
Thanks to Rhonwyn, La Wade, and Annie for the links!
Posted by mo pie
Filed under: Art, Cold Hard Cash, Fat Positive, Fatism, International
Email us
“Freud has spoken of his “predilection towards people of unusual or strange proportions”. Referring to the woman he affectionately calls “Big Sue”, he said that he was “very aware of all kinds of spectacular things to do with her size, like amazing craters and things one’s never seen before”…”
In looking at this picture, I didn’t need that above quote to tell he did not paint this with a loving hand. You can see it. His strokes are halting and awkward. He put more love into the couch. No, I really think he’s treated his muse like a freakshow attraction. Also, did you look at her picture? He did not do her justice.
You know what they say about porn – “I know it when I see it”? Well it’s the same thing. I know admiration and beauty when I see it and this is devoid. He meant for the viewer to gawk.
I don’t think the painting “should” be anything — it is the artist’s vision, not a commission. I like it. I like the way the subject’s flesh appears to be satiny and lush, like the folds of drapery you see in classical paintings.
I find it a very positive vision.
Maria_Elena, He painted this nude woman with the same hand that he has used to paint thin nudes. I don’t see this as a “freakshow attraction” type of painting. Not all artists are satisfied with painting pretty portraits.
I agree with Maria. Only she explained it in a much better way than I could. All I could point out was that he was extreme with the “rolliness” (you know, those strange craters no one’s seen before) and that the lighter coloring on the lighter parts of the skin are a sickly color. Now I’m off to see her picture, because I’d like to know that he didn’t do her justice.
I like it. Her face looks just like my mother’s when she is taking a nap. I always want to smooth it out and tell her “don’t worry, it will be all right.” It seems very real.
I saw an interview today with Tilley. In it, she said she “wasn’t for fat rights or anything” but that she felt we “ought to make the most out of what we’ve got” (this is a paraphrase).
And I second that he didn’t do her justice. I was struck by the differences in how she is portrayed in the picture and in person. She’s much more lovely in person, although this could be due to makeup for the interview (as Mo can tell ya’, they cake the stuff on you). Her face looks much older in the portrait and her skin appears mottled.
Interesting that she’s holding one of her boobs.
As an artist, I find his technique to be amazing. No, he didn’t make her out to be aesthetically pleasing, but I think that speaks more to the viewer. Because really, what does it matter what the artist thinks? What you come away with when you see the painting is what’s important.
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/freud/
Lucien Freud’s style is stark, muted, and harsh. He did not only paint Sue Tilley in this style, it’s his style for every painting. Personally, I like it.
I like the painting. I think it’s interesting to look at, which is what art is all about for me.
And I don’t wish he had made her more sensual or anything else. I think doing that, it would have almost turned the painting into a statement: “see, fat women can be sexy too!” But he’s not doing that here – he isn’t making any sort of point about the fat at all. It’s just a woman sleeping, and she happens to be fat. And brunette.
I guess I like it also because this is is the sort of thing that would be commonplace, I think, in a world where weight really doesn’t matter, and where things like “fat people can be sexy/beautiful/whatever” don’t need to be pointed out (and aren’t) because that would be obvious to everyone already.
I don’t really discuss art much, so I’m sorry if the above doesn’t make a lot of sense!
When I first saw the painting (well, not in person, obviously!), I thought it was pretty cool how Freud painted the woman in her natural state. Like, instead of arranging her in this totally sexy, seductive pose, he captured her in the most unglamorous of positions: sleep. Her features are slack and squashed by the way she rests her head. Her arm is under her breast because there’s really nowhere else to put it.
I like this painting because it allows a fat woman to just BE, to be herself, not try to be anyone else or try to appear like something she’s not. I wish more people took that attitude.
After seeing a few of his pictures, *everyone* he paints looks ugly; so if he didn’t do her justice it wasn’t just her lol. Definitely, for sure, not my kind of art or cup of tea, and I think he sucks. Ick.
Just my opinion, and others of course may love it. I do appreciate that someone is painting fat models. And that it made so much money. I hope she gets a cut :)
Why does he have to “do her justice” or make her look “beautiful”? And in who’s eyes? I agree with Rhonwyyn–it is essentially what I want for fat people as a fat activist–I want them to just be.
I LOVE this painting and it’s probably the first painting of a fat woman that I looked at and really identified with. She’s just sleeping on the couch. I don’t think she’s “holding her boob” I think that’s how it was comfortable for her to lay–that’s how I tend to lay on the couch (aside from the arm across the top). I particularly like how her face is smooshed.
For me, this is the anti-thesis of what we are accustomed to seeing in art and media–people posed and filtered and beautified and selected into “perfection”. As a consequence, we come to expect that we should be that way…we don’t like to think that our bodies might look awkward or weird or imperfect…but really, that’s what life is…that’s how we are–and being able to accept your every day self and in this case promote that insight…that’s body acceptance to me.
The interviews I take a little issue with, but the painting I love.
She looks fine. The couch looks kinda funky.
I think the point being missed here is that this is NOT intended to be a realistic portrait of Sue Tilley; this is a work of art which is in part inspired by her physique. Everyone sees something different when they look at art (which is, among other things, intended to provoke strong emotion and thought— if it doesn’t, it’s not doing its job), but I see nothing negative here. I find her pose graceful and realistic, and I think the artist has done a wonderful job of exploring and showing her body.
I really like his work. And using her as a model is unusual and unlikely; the 90’s aren’t exactly known as a time of rebirth for the Rubenesque model.
I really don’t like the idea of having to assign art a pretty value because it’s art. Art as someone above said doesn’t have to be anything.
My first thought was, “Wow, so that’s what I look like when I sleep!” Except my legs are longer and wouldn’t fit on the couch. Overall I found it quite nice and rather comforting.
My arm sometimes goes under my boobs like that when I sleep. That could be me when I sleep, except I have darker skin and my legs also would hang off the side of the couch. I don’t sleep in the nude though LOL.
I’m glad the painter didn’t try to sexualize Sue. To me, it’s a relaxed fat woman napping.
That’s an amazing painting. The colors Freud used in her skin are really nuanced and interesting. I could look at the textures of the different materials in the image for a long time. It’s lovely because it’s a kind of idealized reality in one sense and utterly typical in another.
I don’t know if I like the picture or not, but that woman must have some crick in her neck if she had to keep going back to pose like that every weekend for 9 months.
Something that should be noted about the pose is that it is a slight take of THE CLASSIC nude portrait.
There’s a slight skew to the perspective that is distinctive to the artist’s style.
I’m a fat girl, who like to cover her fat up with clothing! I find the rolls of fat as the woman is lying there to be repulsive……just as I find my own rolls of fat to be repulsive when I’m naked.
However, it is not my place to condone or (opposite of condone???? Brain fart!!!) the artist’s choice of subject matter.
And, before I get the “if you hate being fat, why don’t you lose weight tubb-o” comments…..I’ve been on WW for a few months and am now down 40lbs! YAY ME! Only 40 more to go!!!
Interestingly, when the story was covered on radio (BBC Radio 4, The Today Programme), the emphasis was not on her size, but on her “ordinariness” – she was, at the time of painting, a Job Centre employee (essentially an unemployment benefits and job-search counsellor – sorry for oversimplifying), and therefore not someone who usually moves in the rarified world of London art circles. I was impressed by her intelligence and groundedness – she just radiated life force. When I saw the painting, I was somewhat disappointed because I didn’t think it captured her wonderful character. Isn’t it interesting that only in a non-visual medium like radio did factors other than her size predominate. I’m sure it was mentioned, but I honestly can’t remember it, so it clearly wasn’t the focus of the interview.
I am happy that such a person is immortalised in art, even if it doesn’t give you the full picture of her personality.
Ah, I’m really tired of seeing this picture on the fatosphere rounds. It’s painted like a Freud, and as several other people have mentioned, you do not get painted by Freud if you want a picture that will make you feel pretty. Anyway, I expect the “grotesquerie” of her fatness DID play some part in Freud’s desire to paint her. He appears to have a certain fascination for that kind of thing, as one can see looking at his work (his paintings of transvestite Leigh Bowery, from earlier in his career, are worth looking at). As a painter, he’s fairly heartless to everyone.
If you are interested in an artist who DOES, I think, have some political stake in the fat women she paints, look up Jenny Saville.
I took a life drawing class a few years ago, and found that the models who were more fleshy were far more interesting and enjoyable to draw. And after looking at someone in the nude to make art, you find the quirks and imperfections to be the really beautiful part about them.
Also – Lucien Freud makes everyone look sort of strange. He painted Queen Elizabeth II, and it’s pretty wild!
When I first saw the painting here – I thought..hmm.. that could be me. And then I thought..wow.. do I really look like that?
I then began to see the beauty of it. It is what it is according to the mind and heart of the viewer. Who decides what is ugly and what is pretty? Is there a guidebook somewhere? I don’t think so. She is beautiful to me.
I like the painting. I agree it looks nothing like the model but I doubt the artist was going for a mirror image. Every time I look at I see something different that interests me.
Someone mentioned the hand holding the breast and I wondered about that too and another person mentioned their mother sleeping and I laughed because I also saw the same thing.
I think the body is very realistic. It could be mine lying there.
I think the painting and the woman are beautiful.
(The couch, however…lol!)
I know this won’t be a politically correct comment, but that’s one hideous painting! I’m sorry but I just found it to be disgusting. That said, I’m a fat girl and I’m disgusted by the sight of my naked body as well, so I’m not just picking on Sue Tilley’s. I am happy to see many people on this board find it to be empowering or inspirational, but the only inspiration I’m getting from it is to spend the next five hours in the gym!
I think I probably don’t have that much of a reaction, because I’ve seen other paintings of her before.
It’s absolutely true that Freud paints thin women with exactly the same technique. I think he looks with a fairly dispassionate eye.
Personally, I wouldn’t want to be painted asleep (even if clothed), but I don’t think anyone looks terribly fetching asleep unless you happen to love them already.
I don’t find it at all aesthetically pleasing- especially as I think he tried to make the couch and the woman look alike.
I think her body is interesting. One of the reasons it was so easy for me to embrace fat acceptance is that I have always found fat bodies more interesting than thin ones. No offense to anyone who is thin, it is just a personal preference. Red is not “better” than blue, brunettes are not “better” than red heads, it is all subjective. That being said, I would be more than happy to let my 47 year old 220 lbs body be used as a model for $33 millions dollars. Heck, I would settle for 1 million!
I love Lucian Freud’s style, but he does tend to depict women in a degrading way. They are almost always shown from above, so the viewer is literally looking down on them. They are also often on the floor or among rags (painting rags from his studio I’m assuming). I don’t think this one is much different. On the other hand, to the general public, the depiction of a fat woman exalted as a $33 million dollar piece of art, they may take the time to find beauty. And kudos to the model for being comfortable/confident enough to do this.
I was going to blog about this but it seems you have beaten me to it! Well I only just started my blog last night (about 1.00 am) so I am new to this blogging lark. But when I saw the story in one of our UK papers I thought that would make for an interesting subject as well.
Guess I will have to just keep blogging about myself, then, and hope (pray?) that someone out in cyberspace might notice me.
I know there is only one blog entry on my brand new blog so far, but I have LOTS more planned — just watch this space!
This woman could be me lying on that couch and I love that so many of you said the same thing… nice to think about all of us looking similar since it is so rare to see this body type in media.
Honestly, if the subject had been “more sensual” it would be just one more picture of a woman posing for the male gaze, and that’s just not interesting at all anymore, even if the subject’s a naked fat woman.