The Most Polarizing Kind of Art

A view of gallery 915

«This is my first post for the Teen Blog, so I felt that I should write about something iconic, like maybe a Van Gogh, Rembrandt, or Picasso painting. Something that people would read about and think, "Wow! Not only do I want to go to the Met now, but I also want to read more by this Peter W." While I was wandering around looking for an artwork that would inspire debate and comments, I ended up in gallery 915, where I heard a couple arguing about a painting.»

They were both in their twenties, and seemed to be quite knowledgeable about art. The man was saying that this particular painting was a fantastic work of art, while the woman kept saying that it was gross and they should move on. In that moment I understood that I had found the perfect artwork: it was creative, polarizing, and definitely memorable.

The work in question was Lucian Freud's Naked Man, Back View. As the name implies, it is a view of a man sitting on a cushion with his body exposed from behind. Freud typically painted very detailed faces, but in this painting the face is barely visible.

Lucian Freud (British [born Germany], 1922–2011). Naked Man, Back View, 1991–92. Oil on canvas; 72 x 54 in. (182.9 x 137.2 cm). The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Purchase, Lila Acheson Wallace Gift, 1993 (1993.71)

I think that the woman wasn't disgusted because she saw a painting of a naked man; she was disgusted because she really saw the naked man. Freud would likely be thrilled about that, as he once said:

I want paint to work as flesh. . . I know my idea of portraiture came from dissatisfaction with portraits that resembled people. I would wish my portraits to be of the people, not like them. Not having a look of the sitter, being them. . . As far as I am concerned, the paint is the person. I want it to work for me just as the flesh does. (Martin Gayford, Man with a Blue Scarf: On Sitting for a Portrait by Lucian Freud)

Freud created this lifelike painting of a man in a nontraditional pose, and it really captures the movement of flesh on his large back, even if it is not something everyone wants to spend time examining.

I later thought back to when my sister and I were younger, and we would come across this painting. We would laugh at it for what seemed like hours while my mother looked on in disgust. Even though I didn't realize it at the time, we understood one aspect of contemporary art: it can generate contrasting opinions on its style, intention, and subject matter. Four people can look at this artwork and have four completely different emotional reactions and ideas about what is going on.

I used to view this artwork as just a silly painting of a naked man. Now that I understand the meticulous effort that Freud put into it, I view it as an intriguing piece that requires you to think about the hand holding the brush as much as the painting itself. Contemporary art can be odd or innovative, but it can also invoke intelligent discussions and differing opinions. For me, the most polarizing kind of art is contemporary art because no one but the artist can ever be sure of the work's meaning or intention, leaving the rest up for debate.