I know some of you have tried to book tickets for the Freud online and have been disappointed to find that the pre-booked tickets are sold out.  I went yesterday, getting to the NPG at 10.30 and queuing for half an hour for a timed entry slot for 12 noon.  It was a bit of a wait, but was a well organised queuing system and lots of people behind the desk.  Unlike the Da Vinci, it seems that the majority of tickets are sold on the day and only some are being sold online.  A lady behind me was getting tickets for later in the day and then taking one of Boris's Bikes up to the Royal College of Art and someone else was getting tickets for the following day, so there are lots of options.

Well, what did I think of this exhibition.  First of all it is very big, which is not surprising because Freud's career spanned seven decades!  

His work is challenging.  When you see a room full of his nudes you understand he was not concerned with beauty, in fact, quite the opposite.  Neither does it appear to be an artist's insight into his sitter.  Freud's development from a quasi surrealist to serious portrait painter is documented in detail.  During his early years he worked with soft sable brushes and there is little or no texture to the paint.  His people have eyes that seem to lie on top of their faces rather than sitting within sockets forming an integral part of a skull.  This is particularly evident in his portraits of his then wife, Kitty Garman (daughter of the sculptor Jacob Epstein').  I thought the portraits of her were very hohum.  Perhaps she really did have a forehead which was incredibly shallow and very prominent eyes.  These protruded so much so I wondered whether she suffered from a thyroid problem.  There is no modelling of the face and the overall feeling of the picture is shallow.  She holds a rose and the little guidebook suggests that this is like some medieval attribute.  However, her hands are full of tension and she appears to be gripping the stem as though her life depended on it, rather than a medieval Marian symbol of sweetness, dedication and sorrow.

There is a later portrait of Kitty in the same room, but this time more full of life and she has a white bull terrier with her.  Freud said he saw humans as another aspect of the animal kingdom and in this portrait the dog is portrayed with affection and respect, whilst Kitty looks sad, or perhaps depressed.  Freud and she separated shortly after this was painted, which might explain her expression.

In the 1950s Freud's work underwent a marked change.  He decided to paint standing-up and started to use stiff hog's hair brushes.  Woman Smiling (a portrait of his one time student who became his lover and had children by him), marks this stylistic change.  It is quite dramatic and her eyes (which used to be thought of as mirrors of the soul) have life.  This is the only portrait where the sitter is smiling.  My overall feeling of this exhibition is that everyone who sat for him is apprehensive at best, or at worst, terrified.

Freud's inclusion of animals is interesting.  There is a large painting of two children holding white ducks.  I swear that when the exhibition closes for the night  those ducks will jump off the canvas and waddle around to relieve the stiffness in their joints from sitting still all day.  You can almost hear them quack!  Likewise the very last portraits of Dawson and the greyhound, painted when Freud was in his 80s show the dogs as affectionate beings.  

Did I enjoy the exhibition?  Enjoy would be a difficult description; challenged would be nearer the mark.  I loved the animals; they were painted with an affection which contrasted dramatically with his portraits.  Unlike most portrait artists where the sitter approaches the artist, Freud chose whom he wanted to paint, then it appears he proceeded to dominate them.  These are not an easy view, but the way he uses paint is almost sculptural and his technique is fascinating.

A short walk from the NPG up the Strand is the Courtauld Institute, which forms part of Somerset House.  This coming week London Fashion Week fills the quadrangle!  The entrance fee for the Courtauld is £6, but Art Fund members get in free.

This exhibition could not be more of a contrast to the Freud.  It was not crowded for a start, it is only over two rooms and the work is gentle on the eye.  Mondrian was the exponent of Neo Plasticism, which is a pure form of Abstraction.  For me, this is pure modern art.  There is an intellectual process behind the execution of each image and, like the religious paintings of the Renaissance, you need to think about them.  Nicholson visited Mondrian in his Paris studio in 1934 and experienced a 'road to Damascus' moment.  This exhibition documents the effect Mondrian had on Nicholson's work through their paintings and some of the letters they wrote from 1934 to Mondrian's death in 1944.

Square, rectangles, circles, blocks of pure red, blue and green on white surfaces, black lines, are the immediately recognisable Mondrian canvases.  Nicholson's work is softer, but you can see how he is influenced by Mondrian.  His pure white layered work is fascinating, but I could not tell you why.  I wanted to trace the outlines with my finger, and feel the different levels of board set one atop another.

If asked, could I live with either a Freud, Mondrian or Nicholson then probably no.  However, whatever you think about their art,  Mondrian & Nicholson thought about and produced intellectual pieces of work.  As for Freud, there is no doubt he was a man who lived and breathed his work and he could paint.