During a painting class at London’s Mall Galleries three years ago, a 62-year-old artist came to understand that, like himself, some people cannot form mental images—a condition known as aphantasia. This realization followed a peer’s admission of having the condition, which made the artist recognize his own lifelong inability to visualize faces or scenes without direct reference.

Aphantasia affects an estimated 1 to 5 percent of the population. Those with the condition are unable to create mental images, sounds, smells, or tactile sensations in their minds. In this case, the artist described himself as a “total aphant,” falling into approximately the 0.8 percent of individuals most severely affected.

He recalled first noticing the condition as a child during an art competition suggested by his mother, where he was asked to draw a farmyard “from imagination.” Although he had inherited notable artistic talent—being the son of Lucian Freud, the renowned painter—he found himself limited to drawing basic shapes without a visual reference. He noted that games like Pictionary, often reliant on mental imagery, proved difficult despite his artistic background.

Reflecting on his father’s work and personality, he speculated that Freud may have experienced aphantasia as well. Freud was known for his intense and prolonged focus on his subjects, often spending months or even years with models to capture their likeness. The artist suggested that Freud’s possible inability to imagine beyond what was directly in front of him may have contributed to his intense presence during sittings. Freud’s focus, uninfluenced by mental images or distractions, allowed him to be “fully there” with his models.

The artist also shared personal family insights, explaining that his mother, Katherine McAdam, had separated from Freud when he was six years old and did not allow the children to sit for their father’s portraits. While some of his half-siblings reported Freud’s demanding nature, the artist now views these traits through the perspective of aphantasia, suggesting the painter’s unique focus was shaped by the condition.

Although the artist and Freud reconnected in adulthood, their relationship remained complex. He described Freud as a father who was never conventional in that role, implying that his dedication to painting came at the expense of paternal involvement. The artist himself expressed that painting is an emotional endeavor for him, a connection point they both shared despite different experiences.

Highlighting a potential benefit of aphantasia, he noted that when the family moved from central London to Roehampton following his mother’s departure, he adapted more easily than his sister. Without the ability to mentally revisit their old home, his focus remained on the present environment rather than dwelling on the past.

This personal account sheds light on how aphantasia shapes perception and creativity, influencing not only individual experience but also the work of one of Britain’s most celebrated painters.