Main content
Modernisms 1900-1980
Course: Modernisms 1900-1980 > Unit 10
Lesson 4: Postwar art in Britain- Modernism and its legacy
- Barbara Hepworth: Pioneering modern sculpture
- Barbara Hepworth, Pelagos
- Room: Henry Moore
- Describing what you see: Sculpture (Henry Moore, Reclining Figure)
- Bacon, Triptych - August 1972
- Freud, Standing by the Rags
- Room: 1940s
- Room: 1950s
- Room: 1960s
- The Berlin Wall and industrial England: Don McCullin's conflict photography
© 2023 Khan AcademyTerms of usePrivacy PolicyCookie Notice
Freud, Standing by the Rags
Lucian Freud, Standing by the Rags, 1988-89, oil on canvas, 66.5 x 54.5 in. (168.9 x 138.4 cm), (Tate Britain, London) Speakers: Dr. Beth Harris, Dr. Steven Zucker. Created by Beth Harris and Steven Zucker.
Want to join the conversation?
- Did anyone notice that the rags made this wing like shape around her left shoulder, or that the golden color of her hair almost looks like a halo? Coincidence maybe? Or maybe a hidden meaning?(22 votes)
- that is true I do see a wing shape and there is a little curl in her hair that looks like a halo.(2 votes)
- What is Lucian Freud's nationality?(7 votes)
- German mother, Austrian father. British nationality.(10 votes)
- Do we have proof that this artist actually tried to paint big feet, an oversized arm and ugly face or is it possible that this is just a modern artist that has to paint this way because they're actually not a good artist?
I get wary of this possibility because I find modern art to have evolved into something that anyone can do, with much less talent than was needed in the last 2000 years.(6 votes)- I've noticed that as well with modern art - it doesn't matter if you're a good artist or not as long as you can make something that gets people talking in an "artsy" way about whatever you make.(5 votes)
- What about the 'small face' with the dark hair on the bottom left of the painting. (Inside the rags). Subliminal message? The womans face is facing left, the eyes on the 'subliminal' image looks toward the left as well. The left usually denotes 'past'. Hmmm..thoughts?(4 votes)
- I think in this case coincidence took over intention. In my opinion, given the subject and style, there is no room for a subliminal message of that type.(8 votes)
- Is the purpose of the distortion of perspective supposed to draw us into the meta reality of the human body or to throw us off?(5 votes)
- Maybe there is no real sense that a painter is painting for the viewer but rather the painter is painting from his own emotions and feeliings at the time. However we take the art afterwards is really ourselves and how we manifest our own emotions to a single piece of art; after all each and every one of us will view the painting differently.(7 votes)
- But why rags? Or are they rags? They seem more like sheets or pillow cases to me since the weave seems rather tight, ie the slight shine...(5 votes)
- No matter what the cloths are, they were meant to represent rags in this piece.(1 vote)
- Atinto the vid Prof Harris states that the orientation is "odd". Me thinks this not odd at all, only different from used to classical forms from antiquity up through the 19th century. Reclining nudes were conventions adhered to whilst painting a subject that engendered bits of discomfort. The upright posture of our model adds just a bit more to the topic as do our 21st century relaxed mores to our everyday tolerances. 0:45(3 votes)
- Awesome! I think you're right.. It does express some discomfort :3(4 votes)
- Did anyone get the feeling of the woman having a role of an ugly and (very) human angel? Taking into account that angels are always depicted to be something more then just human and beautiful. Taking into account that drawn nude women almost always are beautiful too?
Look closely to the rags... I can easily see faces (in the down right corner is the clearest) and a wing behind her left shoulder. Question is: For what purpose?(1 vote) - Is this artwork part of the AP curriculum?(1 vote)
- No. It is not. All the AP material can be found here: https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/ap-art-history/introduction-ap-arthistory/a/required-works-of-art-for-ap-art-history(1 vote)
- Why did Freud use so much paint on her face??(1 vote)
Video transcript
SPEAKER 1: We're
in Tate Britain, and we're looking at Lucian
Freud's "Standing by the Rags" from 1988, '89. It's a pretty big oil. And like so many
of his canvases, it's a very, very
forthright nude. SPEAKER 2: Yeah. She's life-size and
oddly positioned in that you expect
her to be lying down, almost viewed from above. And most nudes are horizontal. So the fact that
she's vertical is odd. And then we notice
that she's actually standing, and yet leaning. It's very odd. SPEAKER 1: It is. The space is really
difficult to read, in part because the rags give us
no indication of space and actually obstruct the angle
between the floor and the wall, which would give us some kind
of clue as to what's going on. And so she is standing. There's weight on her feet. But at the same time,
she's also leaning back. And then she's leaning on, as
she says in a taped interview, she's leaning on a heater, which
is actually warming the rags. Apparently this was
painted at night. And it must have been
exhausting for her. But here's the
thing about Freud. I don't think any of that
is important for him. I don't think that there's
a conscious interest in dismantling perspective or
any of those kinds of goals. I think that his
concern was to reveal the experience of the
body itself in the most direct and tangible
way, since we all share the experience
of inhabiting a body. His rendering, really in
the most unsparing way, of weight, of fat, of bone,
of temperature, of texture, all of those things,
that experience is something that
is so incredibly immediate and powerful. SPEAKER 2: You know, what
I see largely is paint. I see a body. But I'm also
simultaneously seeing paint-- I mean,
this really thick, almost stippling of it around
her face and neck and chest, especially a little bit on her
thighs and calves and knees. But really, the face is almost
broken apart by the paint. SPEAKER 1: Think about
the incredible tradition of painting the nude
throughout the history of art-- this idealization, this beauty. And that handling the paint
is not only actually conveying the body, but it's
also sort of forcing us to rethink all of those
assumptions in a pretty violent and aggressive way. SPEAKER 2: That's
absolutely true. We sort of feel like, I
don't want to look at this. SPEAKER 1: Right. SPEAKER 2: You have
a very immediate kind of visceral reaction to it. There's no question. In some ways, there's a kind
of actuality and realism to the body, and in
other ways, the body is really quite distorted here. Her feet are too large. Her right arm is way too
long, and that foreshortening of her forearm and wrist
is a little bit off. There's a kind of distortion. SPEAKER 1: When I see
those kinds of distortions in Lucian Freud's work,
I see, in some ways, an attempt to place the body
in the most direct way, almost in a more perceptually immediate
way, than the sort of more classically proportioned
figure might be. So that he's trying
to create the reality, in a sense, of that part that
may be even slightly dislocated from another. SPEAKER 2: So there's
a kind of confrontation of the viewer that's going on. SPEAKER 1: I think that's right. There's no question. SPEAKER 2: She's so
close to us, too. SPEAKER 1: And
she's a reflection of who we are, even
though we're clothed. We're upright. We may enter into the
view of the painting with the kind of properness
of a museum context. Nevertheless, this is
a kind of revelation of the reality of
our own bodies.