Talk:Lucian Freud

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

40 children?[edit]

40 kids seems a large estimate to me (I can count only 2 legitimate and 11 not) but hey, the Sunday Telegraph must know what it's talking about. -- Someone else 02:24 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)

I didn't realise he was so prolific. Out of interest - do you happen to know if this Kathleen Garman (aka Kathleen Epstein) is any relation to the sculptor Jacob Epstein? --Camembert
Yups, she's his daughter (born before her parents married, which is why she had the name Garman). -- Someone else 02:38 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)
I think that this is a definite exaggeration, if not an outright fabrication. If you google it, or search the website of the Telegraph, there doesn't seem to be an article on Freud from the date given, the closest I can find is this: [1], which cites the more typical number of 9 children altogether. My guess is that someone added a 0 to it, but I haven't checked the page history- yet. (talk) 13:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a genuine citation from The Sunday Telegraph (London), p.30, 1 September 2002, "Paterfamilias" by Adam Helliker:

The Libidinous artist Lucien Freud, who is rumoured to have up to 40 illegitimate children

You can find the rest of the story in this revision.

Ty 05:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Can we clarify how many children he has with Suzy Boyt? Miblo (talk) 08:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I dont know how many children Mr Lucien Frued had but I believe that my mother dated him when she was a young woman living in London within the Bohemian movement, although I must remember to mention this to my eldest sister who was born very soon after my parents married and after they met in London, perhaps a few years after she knew Mr Frued but still you never know!!!!!!Karen Sarah —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karen Sarah (talkcontribs) 12:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


His name is spelt Lucien, not Lucian. I have edited the entry but couldn't find out how to change the main title, the wrong spelling is very persistent -- appearing in the first 4 entries on Google. - (unsigned)

  • It's Lucian, not Lucien, according to the Larousse Biographical Dictionary. (It also gets 39,100 hits on Google compared to 5,140). What makes you think it's Lucien? - Nunh-huh 01:22, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, I wish I knew........ It is Lucian. I shall just slink away. Ven

  • No need to slink, we like being corrected! We just like it better when we're wrong!<G> - Nunh-huh 01:53, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Kate Moss?[edit]

Nothing about the portrait he did of Kate Moss? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Lorna Cecilia Wishart[edit]

I have written a biography on Laurie Lee and he had an affair with LCW - after meeting her in Spain - which came to an end when she met Lucian Freud. Lorna was the aunt of Kitty Garman who became Freud's first wife.

From the Kathleen Garman page:

Kathleen Garman's first daughter, also named Kathleen Garman, called "Kitty", became the first wife of the painter Lucian Freud, their marriage was short-lived but produced two daughters, Annie and Annabel. Incestuously, Freud had had a previous affair with Lorna Garman, Kitty's aunt. Ivankinsman (talk) 16:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Personal interviews and voice recordings as valid references[edit]

Hi everyone, I've began my own quest to talk to artists, and attend live discussions about art and artists. I was wondering if Wikipedia accepts citations from recorded interviews? If so, how does one present it as a reference? Thanks for your advice -- Marcuslim (talk) 12:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

please get them published online somewhere. that would be a good start. it needs logical verification to be included in the wikipedia. (talk) 15:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Lucy McAdam-Freud[edit]

Revisit the last entry which included the names of our Father Lucian and our Mother Katherine's children. Could you please re-enter as was in the previous entry our names: Paul, Lucy and David as well as Jane.

Yours sincerely Lucy McAdam-Freud

Two nations?[edit]

Father Jewish, Mother German - two nations? Or what? --13Peewit (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The Painter’s Room (1944)[edit]

Not that long ago an image of this painting (The Painter’s Room) was present in this article. Now it has disappeared, and I cannot find it in WikiSource. Now, that's a shame, not only is it a personal favourite (that bears no importance, naturally,) but also a wonderful work, and important in showing Freud's development as a painter. How can we add this image back? And how has it disappeared, or, how was it there to begin with? Was it ever "legally" there? (Remember it being there for several years) --Torsrthidesen (talk) 12:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Torsrthidesen, I removed the image a few months ago because its an early work, not really representative, and to be be perfectly honest, I dont like it ;). Whatever, I don't have any problem if you reinstate, or I can put it back if you wish. Ceoil 20:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
If you could reinstate it, that would make me very happy. It beautifully captures his early Surrealist-influence. --Torsrthidesen (talk) 04:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. Now to go and find it...Ceoil 15:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Its been deleted, bear with me. Ceoil 15:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Can't you re-upload it? I can never figure out the rules for uploading images to wikiepda... --Torsrthidesen (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
In fact... I've only just noticed that the painting is indeed mentioned by name in the article, and its relation to a commsioned work, and the reuse of elements already then. An element he later, in my own personal view, went overbord with... Enough with the Leigh Bowerys already, oy vey! --Torsrthidesen (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


Should there not be links to some of his paintings? Eg Also, I'm a bit surprised that there don't seem to be articles on his individual works? Grj23 (talk) 04:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Dodgy citation[edit]

I deleted a reference which doesn't seem to have any relevance to the actual statement it is linked with, but Ewulp keeps reinstating it, with all due respect, has the latter actually read the article from that world-famous newspaper 'The New York Observer'? It doesn't refer to Freud's 'impastoed paintings' not even to his pre-eminence. It's all about a biography that never happened, for various reasons, on top of that, the article is from 1997 - surely one can find a better, more recent source for the statement contained in the sentence, if needed? This citation might be better linked to another statement, but not in the first para. What are other people's thoughts on this? Thanks.--Stelmaris (talk) 10:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining this, as your edit summaries were a bit puzzling. I still don't understand why a reference from 1997 should be considered too old to support the claim that Freud "was widely considered the pre-eminent British artist of his time"; it seems that a piece of arts journalism published 14 years before Freud's death, that says Freud "is widely thought to be Britain’s greatest living artist", is satisfactory. This is how the New York Observer article begins: "The personal life of Lucian Freud has fascinated journalists and biographers for a long time. An earthy realist painter who is widely thought to be Britain’s greatest living artist, he’s also the grandson of Sigmund Freud..." We could cite a separate source for the impastoed paintings if that phrase is deemed controversial enough to require a citation.
There is no requirement that a reliable source be world-famous; The New York Observer is a mainstream news source and the author of the piece, Jeffrey Hogrefe, writes regularly on the arts. If another source is wanted, these may serve: Artforum, January 2012: "With the recent death of Lucían Freud, some might argue that Hirst is now the greatest living British artist"; The Financial Times, July 21, 2011: Freud is "arguably the greatest British painter of his era"; The Globe and Mail, January 2012: David Hockney has "recently laid claim to the title of “greatest living British painter” since the death of Lucian Freud"; The Guardian, December 21, 2001: Freud is "the artist regarded as the greatest living British painter"; Freud is "now widely recognised as the greatest living British artist"; The Independent, November 28, 1999: "Freud becomes the greatest living British artist after his Whitechapel show" of 1993. Ewulp (talk) 02:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. My main objection was that the citation did not bring anything to the sentence, let alone the whole piece, as a citation for the statement that Freud was widely considered the pre-eminent artist of his time, it's not at all apt because the main subject of the article is the biography story. If there had a been a paragraph about the story of the biography that never was published, then yes, it would have its place as a source. Any of the reviews you quote above would work better. However, I don't intend to spend much more time on this so will leave my argument here. Cheers.--Stelmaris (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Accolade in the lead[edit]

I changed the wording to "widely considered thea pre-eminent British artist of his time", as there has always been that Bacon, unfairly or not, out-shadowed him. No doubt this is a large part why they stopped hanging out or even talking in the early 60s, the accolade seems to understate his importance now. I would appreciate input and thoughts on this. Ceoil (talk) 07:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


No where in the Roberta Smith review for the New York Times (ref #2) does it say that Freud "was known for asking for extended and punishing sittings from his models." I challenge that it should be replaced with a "citation needed" tag - or the word punishing itself be removed entirely. I have yet to find in any source related to Freud where a subject complained of their sitting with the painter to the point of "punishment"; and the article section Mature style does not reflect the lede as such; only the remarkable length of time it took to complete a single painting and the "rapport" between painter and model. Maineartists (talk) 03:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)