Blogs

$33 Million for a Naked, Fat Woman: Thoughts on Freud’s Famous, Record-Breaking Painting

by Jennifer Sichel
September 30 2009

Benefits Supervisor Sleeping, Lucian Freud, 1995, Private Collection

33 Million Dollars

I’ve been contemplating whether or not to do a post on Lucian Freud.  I feel very strongly about maintaining a strong focus on fat-affirming images, but I also think it’s important to have candid conversation about images that are circulating out in the world.  Freud is, perhaps, the best known and “most important” contemporary painter of the nude figure - and most of the nude figures he paints are fat nudes.

This painting, Benefits Supervisor Sleeping (1995, oil on canvas), fetched a staggering $33,641,000 (yup, that’s 33 MILLION dollars) at auction at Christie’s in May 2008—breaking the record for price paid for a work by a living artist, a record previously held by Jeff Koons.

Freud’s Passion for Flesh

I’m feeling ambivalent about this post for a number of reasons.  What is Freud up to here?  What’s going on? 

On the one hand, we have an extremely talented artist who delights and revels in painting flesh—an artist who loves transforming the soft sensuousness of flesh into the soft sensuousness of paint.  The painting is gorgeous; there’s no denying it.  But, on the other hand, we have an artist who (clearly) knows how to make a buck or two (...or 33 million of them) and, perhaps, does so at the expense of his model.  There is something disquietingly exploitative about this painting and the way it has circulated.

Who Is This Benefits Supervisor?

Let’s start with the title: Benefits Supervisor Sleeping.  No name here.  And, in fact, Freud even strips his model (who, incidentally, is named Sue Tilley) of her most personal markings: her tattoos.  According to the UK Guardian, “For most of the works depicting her, Freud covered Ms. Tilley’s tattoos with fresh-coloured paint, because, the sitter has said: ‘He adores flesh so much, and to have sort of green flesh and pink flesh isn’t really normal.’”  Rather than her name, Sue Tilley is identified by her mundane working profession, “benefits supervisor.”  And now, this nameless “benefits supervisor” is hanging in the house of an art-collector - and one who has at least $33 million in disposable income, at that.  Something feels awry here.

Of course, we live in a world with a long history of people making money by putting other people on display.  Is this our modern equivalent? 

“And What’s With the Fat Chick”

The issue is far from black and white.  Sue Tilley, who has willingly given many interviews, is perhaps a completely active collaborator in the creation of this image—proudly displaying her body for one of the most famous modern artists in order to subvert conventions.  This painting - of a very fat woman - garnered much press as it broke world-records at Christie’s a year ago. 

I want to end this post by quoting just a few of the newspapers that covered the sale.  As you’ll see, we have euphemism after euphemism to describe Ms. Tilley’s body, revealing, I believe, a deep discomfort with the taboo subject of fat bodies.  I firmly believe that to counter discrimination we need to address, head on, the language of discrimination. Let’s start here:

“The 1995 Freud painting depicts rotund London benefits supervisor Sue Tilley, now 51, sleeping on a dilapidated sofa.” (The Independent, 14 May 2008)

“A fleshy, life-sized nude portrait by U.K. artist Lucien Freud fetched more than $30 million US at a Christie’s auction…” (CBCnews.ca, 14 May 2008)

“ABUNDANTLY, gloriously fleshy, the paint gathered in great gobs and whorls, the detail of the skin tone picked out in loving, virtuosic detail, Lucian Freud’s Benefits Supervisor Sleeping is a mighty thing, in every possible sense.” [note, here, “a mighty thing” to refer both to the painting and the subject herself] (The Age, 13 April 2008)

“Benefits Supervisor Sleeping, a life-sized painting of a naked, fairly large, sleeping Jobcentre supervisor sold at Christie’s in New York for $33.6 million (£17.2 million).” (news.scotsman.com, 15 May 2008)

“The life-size portrait of a large naked woman…” (SFGate, 11 April 2008)

“The art world may be about to welcome a new heavyweight champion… The naked portrait of a very substantial public servant…” (Bloomberg.com, 11 May 2008)

“Her Pounds Could Make Millions” (New York Times, 14 April 2008, Headline)

Just imagine if we made such a to-do about the fact that she also happens to be Caucasian.  Can any of us imagine replacing the words “White” or “Extremely Fair Skinned” or “Pale” or “Light pigmented” into these headlines?  Can any of us imagine reading a New York Times headline that declares “Her Very Light-Colored Skin Could Make Millions”?  Somehow I doubt it.

I’m looking forward to reading your comments, concerns and thoughts.  It’s my hope to spark a conversation.

-Jenn

Check out more posts from the Rubenesque Gallery.

Jennifer is an art historian working in a major D.C. museum. She believes that art allows us to transcend and scrutinize our cultural perceptions and hopes to share this experience with you.

Comments

• Tina | posted October 01, 2009

  I agree entirely with your criticisms of the tone of the coverage of Freud’s work, but I disagree with your contention that most of the nudes that Freud paints are fat nudes.  Yes, he painted Leigh Bowery and Sue Tilley, but he has painted many other nudes who are not fat, including Kate Moss and his Naked Girl Asleep series.

  Freud is famously unsparing of all of his sitters, including himself and (most controversially) the Queen.  He likes flesh in many different forms.  I am personally delighted with the fact that he paints larger people as well as smaller ones, in his signature style.  It makes me feel less invisible as a fat person.

• Jennifer Sichel | posted October 01, 2009

  Thanks for your feedback, Tina.  I’m glad to hear an opposing view.

  In this blog post, I hadn’t really focused on the fact that Freud paints all different sort of bodies which, of course, is a game-changer in my analysis of his motivations.  But, his “fat” nudes do seem to garner more than their share of attention (and money), I wonder what’s behind that? 

  I’m glad to hear that art makes you feel less invisible, I certainly believe in the power of art to transform the world, and it’s so cool to get affirmation of that.

• elizabethpatch | posted October 06, 2009

  As a lifelong painter of the human form (I paint under a different name than I illustrate) I have to disagree with some of your interpretations of this painting, both the subject matter itself and the writings in the British papers.

  Headlines are meant to be attention grabbers, and the model IS both naked and fat. That is a headline-concise description of this painting, which is no more offensive than if they wrote “naked white woman”. “Nude” is the more correct term, but c’mon, the British press is not known for its subtlety. And in fact, this made headlines because it broke an auction record for a living artist, not because of the painting itself.

  And the critics writing about the painting? You must know as an art historian that one of a critics’ tasks to transform something visual, even spiritual, into words, which is no easy task. Euphemisms are simply alternative ways of describing something; I fail to see how this is “discrimination”. If one steps outside the FA community, most people are reluctant to use the word “fat”, out of sensitivity to the fact that the word “fat” is often used and experienced as an insult rather than a simple fact.
  As far as “making a buck or two”? Neither Freud himself, nor the model gets that $33million. The money itself flows between the current owner and the new owner, minus the commissions that the gallery and auction houses charge. Once an artist sells his/her work, that’s it! The owner of the work is the one who makes money when art increases in value, not the artist. And even if Freud did make that money, so what? Look at what sports stars make for playing with balls.

  Of course Sue Tilley is an active collaborator! She was hired and paid as a model. In art school, those of us who needed extra cash worked as both students and models, myself included. The purpose and experience of a model is to act as a subject for the artist,
  period. The point of being the artist is to interpret the subject matter according to your ideas, media, vision and talent. So what if Freud removed her tattoos? A great artist always shows us the world in a new way. Look at any work of art, and what you are really seeing is the artist’s hand, not the subject matter itself.

  The title is brilliant. Besides being an artistic convention (think Van Gogh’s Postmaster, no name,or Degas’ Little Ballerina, no name)  labeling such a “real” person by just her job is as much a commentary on 20th century life as anything else.There she is in all of her “gloriously fleshy” lifesize “abundance”,painted with veins and lumps and moles and all of the etc. that modern media Photoshops out (or never depicts at all). And yet, with all of our humanity, who ISN’T reduced to just a job description?

  Freud’s work is always an in-your-face reminder that ultimately we ARE our bodies, no matter what body we inhabit. It has absolutely nothing to do with fat bashing or discrimination. As Tina pointed out, his models range many sizes, ages, genders. Next time you are in NYC, take a look at his magnificent painting of a fat man, naked on a stool, with his back facing the viewer in the Metropolitan Museum. Every time I see it, it just knocks me over. Thank God someone as talented as Freud has the guts to show us the humanity of flesh.