...

Fellas, I appreciate your opinions, but Renoir will remain one of the Impressionists I like. The very few I have seen in person are very full of life. I like that. I am not saying he is the end all of the Impressionists. Tim, I agree Mary Cassatt is very underated. I also like Van Gogh, because he was Van Gogh and had wonderful color, but I don't like late Picasso, unless of course Marvin has drawn it for him.

Regarding drawing, it is interesting to study the Impressionists. Sometimes it seems they drew badly on purpose, like it was "hip". Toulouse-Lautrec's drawing wavered all over the place.

Now compared to our own Sharon K. ...
Maybe I have this all wrong. Here is a Degas (who wouldn't like a lovely dancer?) example that I hope makes my point. If you squint at this the foreward leg should go back. So with the chroma increase in the sample the leg is even 4 times longer:

Van Gogh
 

I like the work of Van Gogh (and Renoir ;) ). My father was born in Zundert, on the same village square as Vincent.

It's the Van Gogh year over here, and as an homage to Van Gogh I painted him twice from photographs of his youth.

First I will post two photographs, then the paintings I made.

Greetings,
Peter

Van Gogh as a young boy
 

.

Van Gogh at age 19
 

.

Jim, you are a generous soul. Such open-mindedness is rare in either camp of visual arts.

Drawn out
 

Did Impressionists draw anything other than the ire of knowledgeble draftsmen? (The above statement was made in the hopes that those with a good sense of humour would appreciate the ironic use of "draw" in a dual context, commonly refered to as a pun.

Any one who took offense at the remarks should understand that this was intended for humorous purposes only and not intended as a putdown of any person real or fictional. There is however, an inferred criticism of the lack of fundamental skills as preached by the French Impressionist painters (not to be confused with the American Impressionists some of whom could actually draw.)

How about my boy Tim Mensching? Is he great or what? How lucky was I to have a student like him, at least after he threw away the alizarin crimson?

Mary Cassatt had trouble determining the proper length of arms.

Tim M. and that Bougie
 

Hi Tim M.

Wow, you made me feel sad that I haven't been able to pass by that Bouguereau painting anymore either! (and, of course, I don't even live in NYC and didn't know I'd missed it in the first place). Wish I could find her for you - but then, wish I could find just one more (we have one that is passed around frequently) in my state that was accessible!

What a beautiful description - and yes, all his "feet" are totally amazing. The draughtmanship! The pouts of the mouths, the deepness of the eyes, and of course, THOSE SKINTONES! Did Bougie actually use talcum powder in his upper layers of paint?

As for Renoir - anyone see Amelie (the French movie)? The Luncheon of the Boating Party is a subject within this movie. For the life of me I cannot figure out why they chose that painting (which is probably his best though) and Renoir as the much adored artist of this wonderful sickly old painter who was totally obsessed with painting copy after copy after copy of it.

I personally love the Impressionists as well as the Neo-Classicists (love that ECU art history class the most!) but firmly keep them separate in my opinions of stylization. They really, to me, should not be compared. As Beth said, Renoir was not per se, a portrait artist - but IMHO, (in my humble opinion) a figurative painter. I'm not saying he didn't paint portraits (Little Girl with the Watering Can, etc. etc.) but for the most part there were many buxom women taking baths, stepping into the bath or rolling around getting ready for a bath.

I have so many more artists I love to talk about and have lively discussions with other artists about. I surely hope we don't have to be all nice and sweet all the time and forgo real personal opinions about art, music, food, etc. etc. I'm off on another tangent!

Good night, Good night! Parting is such sweet sorrow.....

Isn't this beautiful? Renoir's painting of that other great, great painter Monet? The master of light...

And here is another, much better scan of the boating-party... The atmosphere is so alive!

I really like the colours and the atmosphere of this one...

And for all you portrait-painters, Renoir's portrait of Claude Monet!

[COLOR=#BC6852]Moderator's Note: Some people have expressed confusion as to exactly what the guidelines are regarding discussion of other artists' work and whether or not it is prohibited overall.

I wanted to clarify what is and is not deemed appropriate, based on guidelines from the Forum owner, Cynthia.

There are basically two categories involved. The first category includes artists who are represented on SOG or who post on the SOG Forum. No negative comments about the work of those artists is permitted unless that person has asked for comments or a specific critique.

The second category includes any other artists (living or dead). The basic rule here is that polite commentary about their work, either positive or negative, is permitted. Comments should be expressed as opinion rather than as absolutes. When someone chooses absolute negatives and volatile words to criticize the art, it runs the risk of stimulating someone else's ire. Preferred would be to say specifics such as "his skin tones are too brown" for example, rather than generalities.

"I don't care for Renoir's style" is better than "Renoir doesn't know how to paint." One is an opinion, the other is an emphatic decree that is sure to get someone upset.

Criticizing someone who does like another artist

The living brush-stroke
 

What I personally really like in the work of Renoir is what I would call the 'living brush-stroke'. Everything is alive and vibrant. His use of colour is a dynamic rollercoaster-ride of reds, yellows, blues, browns, greens, whites and so much more.

When one looks at paintings like the ones by him posted in this thread one can become one with the rythm of his hands putting the paint on the canvas. As a heartbeat or the blood-circulation in the human body there is a pulse in the painting. Like the bass-line in an uplifting piece of music we as human beings can 'feel' the dynamics of that living brush-stroke. We don't see forms, we see impressions of forms, we don't see faces, we see impressions of faces, everything becomes something to experience rather than something to describe in paint. What appeals to me very much is the sympathy one can feel that Renoir put into his paintings. A painting like 'The Ball at the Moulin de la Galette', attached to this post feels to me like a symphony of light, colour, movement and most of all, a lot of fun.

Here are some links to sites which feature the work of this -in my view- great painter:
http://mirror.oir.ucf.edu/wm/paint/auth/renoir/
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/R/renoir.html#images
http://www.artcyclopedia.com/artists...e-auguste.html

If you look at some of his early work on the webmuseum, one can see that there was nothing wrong with his drawing skills. In fact, to paint like he did demands a thorough training in drawing and painting, just like Mondrian must have been a great craftsman in painting to make his later compositions actually work. A lot of people can learn to draw and describe the forms in a dull or uninspired way. To let the viewer experience something which happened on a sunny afternoon, which we feel still feel sympathy with some 150 years later, one has to be a great artist, which I think Renoir was.

I need to go to Paris again...

Peter

Peter, what a lovely post. I'm not sure I'll ever feel differently than I do about what I see as the somewhat "mushy" quality of Renoir's paint, but I do see his work in a new light, now. Thanks.

I especially agreed with your last line:

Tim,

The Bouguereau is likely still at the Met, but probably in storage, (I suppose it could be loaned out). I once inquired after the "Heart of the Andes" painting at a time it was not hung, and was told that they occasionally rotate things. Those they have in storage coming out, others that were out, going back in for various reasons. The painting I inquired after has been displayed on my subsequent visits. So, take heart, they likely will display it again. Of course this is just a guess on my part given my one time experience, and the information I received on their practices at the Museum.

For me Renoir is a hit or miss affair. Some of his work I can definitely appreciate in the way Peter so eloquently described. Others just ask me to throw away to much of what I like to see in a painting, without giving me enough of something else to take it's place, and so I fail to appreciate the particular work. The Clark had a good size temporary display of his work when I was there, and many pieces I had not seen before. It was often a solid hit, or a very real strike out to my eye.

Disagreement over the ability of the Impressionists: Disagreement seems to have a valuable place in discourse to me. When I follow a disagreement, I find that I pick up a good deal of information from 2 sides of an issue. I appreciate the effort towards refining a point, that is made on both sides. That extra effort, inspired by argument, often brings interesting points to light. That

Carl, good point. Sargent found the Impressionists interesting for the right reasons. While many of those artists were struggling Sargent spoke highly of their work and bought it himself when others wouldn't. (He owned at least two Monets.)Indeed Sargent was snubbed by most of the Impressionists even when his outdoor sketches looked just like their work (maybe only with better drawing of figures).

Tim,

I didn

Peter--

Not to put too fine a point on the argument, but attached is "Three Cheers," by PS Kroyer.

No less the living brushstroke, but far better draftmanship than the Renoir, to my mind.

But to each his own. I find your comments and appreciation illuminating just the same, and wish both of us the best in our journey.

By the way, I never did commit to the Met discussion. I hate to be so mainstream, but for me it's "Juan De Pareja," by Velasquez. I spent a good three hours before it a couple of years ago. Sorry to hear it's now under glass.

It has a soul.

Best--Tom

Tom - That's not a bad painting either.:thumbsup:

I especially like the colours in the table-cloth and the dress of the woman. Also the highlighted area of her shoulder. There is a study for the Kroyer that was made in 1888, Renoir's 'Le Moulin de la Galette ' was made in in 1876.

The colours of the Kroyer are very bright. Do you think he could have made it this way without the work the Impressionists like Renoir and Monet made before that?

Thanks for showing the painting, didn't know it.

Greetings,
Peter

Don't know about the color, as this post is slightly darker than my reproduction here, and I don't know how accurate my copy here is either. Haven't ever seen the painting and don't know where it is. Anyone?

I really respond to the conviviality of spirit in the piece.

Best--T

http://www.konstmuseum.goteborg.se/e...ten/kroyer.htm

It's in the art museum on Goteborg, I think.

Beautiful piece.

Peter

Carl, he had a Degas too I think. He was tight with Claude (Monet was only slightly older). He collected good works and told others like E.S. Gardner which works to buy from certain folks and she gladly listened to him. By age 33 Sargent was more financially successful than most of his fellows (working outside). They took his money and snubbed him and resented his success (almost as much as Frye and Whistler) to whom Sargent also worked very hard to get work.

I look at those watercolors and think why would anyone ever try? I know of no other collection of watercolors, by one artist, better than the complete works of Sargent.

His compositons alone would secure his place in history.

Peter and Tom, those guys in the North could really paint huh?

I found a study for the Kroyer on the internet.

It's interesting to see these along with the "finished work". Note how he lost the vibrant greens and the contrasts and the wonderful transparencies when he made the "finished" work. Compare the greens in the upper right corner. His darks become flatter.

I know he did it for "a reason". I just think the sketch is often more lively than the finished piece. Nature rules, dude.

One more thing, Look at the lady's dress edge near the bottom left. In the sketch it's awesome. In the finished work it's boring. The sketch looks like Zorn and Sargent's work. The finished work is much less of a personal artistic statement. This is the common and often heard criticism of ateliers, that the work has no personality to it.

http://www.konstmuseum.goteborg.se/e...ten/kroyer.htm

It's interesting to know that he painted the finished painting from photographs, over several years.

This quote is from the artmuseum in Goteborg.
[QUOTE]Kr

Peter, I did not know that (about the photos and the long time it took) but the results do not endorse slavish copying from photos, especially at the expense of "liveliness".

The color and value sketch he made was made, one assumes, for a purpose. Unless that original study has worth and the artist reveres that color sketch the finished version may well be disappointing. Sargent, Sorolla and Zorn worked from photos sometimes but, thankfully, it's hard to tell when. (Some of Zorn's lake paintings show hints of the photo useage.)

Deja Vu?
 

I was reading this thread, which got me into investigating the Met online, which led to my discovery of this painting:

http://www.metmuseum.org/collections...1971%2E115%2E6

This is certainly not the best painting in the Met, although it might, arguably, be the worst. Nevertheless, I found it to have a certain idiosyncratic charm. Of course that has nothing to do with the name of the artist. :o

But seriously, this name is so statistically infrequent that there must be some connection with a certain Forum member. Is it a case of "biology is destiny"? Or are matters much more serious than that? Do you think I should call in Shirley MacLaine for a consultation? :bewildere