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