<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Lucian Freud Remembered	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://artcritical.com/2011/07/22/lucian-freud-remembered/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://artcritical.com/2011/07/22/lucian-freud-remembered/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 23 Jul 2011 03:17:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=5.5.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Donald Lindeman		</title>
		<link>https://artcritical.com/2011/07/22/lucian-freud-remembered/#comment-8928</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Donald Lindeman]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Jul 2011 03:17:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://artcritical.com/?p=17595#comment-8928</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Lucian Freud was born into a distinguished family, and had a name anyone would know, but he was born with the passion to make art as well.  His accomplishment comes off as some kind of unexpected miracle.  It is possible, I think, to find sources for his work in the art of Courbet, Constable (in his rare cityscape views), and Stanley Spencer; but Freud genuinely came into his own, actualizing a style that could only be his.  He is known for his portraits of course, however I think it is in the nude that he truly excelled.  His is an accomplishment that I believe could only have been carried out in Europe, and it is not surprising that it occured in Great Britain, where being &quot;typically British&quot;, for him, was not a handicap.  His attitude toward the nude figure was a paradoxical result of a clinical detachment which did not exclude empathy on his part, nor the emanation of the model&#039;s persona.  His figures were both representative of the human genus per se, and individuals in their own right.  When the art history of our era is written, I believe that Freud will be regarded as the artist who did the most to establish a viable continuum connecting the art of the past to our present, and, to whatever the art of the future is that we shall acquire.  His was not a reactionary art, but rather an original art wherein observation, empathy and technique made the eternal new.
--Donald Lindeman]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lucian Freud was born into a distinguished family, and had a name anyone would know, but he was born with the passion to make art as well.  His accomplishment comes off as some kind of unexpected miracle.  It is possible, I think, to find sources for his work in the art of Courbet, Constable (in his rare cityscape views), and Stanley Spencer; but Freud genuinely came into his own, actualizing a style that could only be his.  He is known for his portraits of course, however I think it is in the nude that he truly excelled.  His is an accomplishment that I believe could only have been carried out in Europe, and it is not surprising that it occured in Great Britain, where being &#8220;typically British&#8221;, for him, was not a handicap.  His attitude toward the nude figure was a paradoxical result of a clinical detachment which did not exclude empathy on his part, nor the emanation of the model&#8217;s persona.  His figures were both representative of the human genus per se, and individuals in their own right.  When the art history of our era is written, I believe that Freud will be regarded as the artist who did the most to establish a viable continuum connecting the art of the past to our present, and, to whatever the art of the future is that we shall acquire.  His was not a reactionary art, but rather an original art wherein observation, empathy and technique made the eternal new.<br />
&#8211;Donald Lindeman</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
