Jenny Saville and Lucien Freud

Jenny Saville and Lucien Freud sh ar the resembling subject matter i. e. the human sort however both dumbfound in truth different approaches to recording their observations and ideas and its an approach that Ive arrive accustomed to because I want it as it allows absolute freedom in artistic expression. Saville produces large-scale tack ons of work and uses impasto in a similar steering to Freud however notably less midst and blockier. She chooses to work in much(prenominal) a modal value as she wanted people to know what it is theyre sounding at. But at the same time, the closer they get to the painting its corresponding going back into childhood.And its similar an arise turn it be coiffes the landscape of the sponge marks rather than just sort of an intellectual landscape this way of running(a) is self-aggrandising in the painting Rosetta 2. The formidable scales of the paintings are awe-inspiring and very capture the eyes of the viewer. Using oils, she makes high ly pigmented work, employing a gorgeous palette that conveys the effect of creamy, liquid skin poured directly onto the sessvas. The brushwork is genuinely dynamic and aesthetically pleasing the skin has a rich find out to it. The subdued colour range of blues, greys and muted pink create a bleaker natural form.The best of Jenny Savilles work in my opinion would be her series of photographs with Glen Luchford the fashion photographer. Produced in 1995, the collaboration produces some exciting and bizarrely beautiful work. Commenting on the work and her intentions she says the boundary of our bodies, which we presume is so fixed and kitty only exist in that certain area, foot be panoptic so far. This movement, malleability of flesh, I started to think about that quite a lot. Closed Contact no. 4, fig (vi) Photographed from an elevated run through a glass plate, shows Saville contorting her lugg get on with compartment whilst pressed up against Plexiglas.The piece definitely i s appropriate to her intentions as she manages to distort her body enough so that we have no clear visual point of reference there are no boundaries. I appreciate this image because she has abstracted herself and pushed her body to extremes also its very different from her paintings there are no unequivocal lines instead folds of flesh frame the image that is what I exchangeable most. angiotensin-converting enzyme aspect that differentiates both artists similar styles is Savilles expression of anger her work from the yield of the millennium onwards explores more unpeaceful themes and showcases brilliant reds and blues cut down through her figures.Her work is overtly violent were Freuds is more muted. Evidence of her violent expression is in the painting Witness fig (vii), it is a very bleak portrayal of the human form that commands a reaction. I the likes of the harsh and unforgiving light created by the varying toes of purple and red. Freud said, The long-dated you look at an object, the more abstract it becomes, and, ironically, the more real. This principle is prominent throughout his work and his 1985 self-portrait best embodies his saying.In the portrait the face appears distorted, nevertheless the intensity of what the artist is trying to convey remains in either thick stroke and restores the reality of it. His work is unquestionably more abstract as he plays with the true tone of the subject and the strokes appear wilder, blockier save ultimately freer. There is a level of realism achieved in this piece that surpasses his earlier work. The self- portrait captures a powerful aura one that can only be achieved through careful observation and not working from photographs and fretting over accuracy. I like how the segments of slightly different colours come to form an exciting image.A piece of work I really like of Freuds is his portrait of the queen some hated it for its brutal characterisation of Queen Elizabeth II but I like it for the level of emotion he manages to capture in this one painting. For me what makes the portrait is the inner get by to supress a smile. For the Queen to have her portrait forever show the containment of own(prenominal) laughter is an historic way for her to mark the new millennium. I like it also because it shows his integrity as an artist, he favours no one and he painted the ageing Queen as ruthlessly as he had painted his ageing self.Freuds application remains very thick like in most of his work, which I like as it adds age and wisdom to the face. Freuds best-known work Benefits Supervisor Sleeping it is a piece which truly fascinates. When compared to photographs of what the model looks like in reality we can see hes obviously played with it. He did so since the painting is going to be there on its own, it is of no pursual whether it is an accurate copy of the model he ages the model and somehow make her more obese and splotchy.Both Freud and Saville fail to omit bruises and calluses and visible veins, they fathert idealise the body but show it for what it is complete with overtly sexual overtones Ive chosen to look at the work of Freud and Saville because I enjoy their work as well as I like the way in which they use paint. They look at the human form objectively, removing the humanity. This is an approach to painting and drawing from life that Id like to develop in my own work.