Talk:Pierre-Auguste Renoir

Comments
This page was another example of a half-hearted effort. I spent a long time fixing it up plus numerous others that were similarly not worth crap. I note someone changed my caption format, which I did accordinging to the most efficent and professional manner. It is time the Gods of Wikipedia adopt a proper Encyclopedia format instead of a massive paragraph full of stuff (and no, it DOES NOT HELP with a google search -- people come to QUALITY without without the need for gimmicks):

Name - dates (years only), occupation

PERIOD, NO MORE, NO LESS.

In the body put full dates and close anything done on a person or any living creature with a death date and, because no other encyclopedia does it and a lot of people want to know, (that's called marketing), make an effort to put in their burial place....DW


 * make a suggestion on the manual of style page. -- Tarquin 20:22 Jan 14, 2003 (UTC)

oppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp. Ortolan88

Are there more pictures of his works??? And perhaps it would be a good idea to put the paintings he painted of nude people in a different section, because some young kids are using this as a research page!!!!! Smokeberry (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC) Smokeberrry


 * The article offers an ample representation of his work, as well as references to books and external links that display many more. As for the nudes, Wikipedia policy prohibits censorship. Along with Rubens and Titian, Kenneth Clark cited Renoir as one of the three painters in Western art who could best paint skin. So, even though R's popularity has waned in recent decades, one hopes that his figures will always be appreciated. JNW (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The article says that the Renoirs had 3 sons, but the article only lists two, Pierre Renoir and Jean Renoir. Who was the third? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.63.115.200 (talk) 01:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC) = I'm quite certain there was only two son. HawkSteven (talk) 12:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The third son, Claude (1901-1969), is mentioned in the 2nd paragraph. Ewulp (talk) 12:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Arrested as a spy?
The article formerly read, "During the Paris Commune in 1871, Pierre-Auguste Renoir was arrested as a government spy. His life was saved when he was recognized by one of the Commune leaders, whom Renoir had himself protected on another occasion."

I find only one reference on the web (in English) to anything like this.

http://www.2blowhards.com/archives/000637.html - discusses an incident when Renoir assisted agitator, Raoul Rigault, but doesn't discuss any subsequent event involving Rigault.

A google search for +Renoir +Rigault turns up some sites, mostly in French that I can't read.

One of them, http://www.coppoweb.com/merson/chroniques/fr.commune.php, translated by google reads, "Renoir , was painting on the edges of the Seine when communards took it for a spy of Of Versailles and undertook to throw it to water. It had its safety only to his friend Raoul Rigault, a young refugee whom it formerly had accomodated and hidden in the forest of Fontainebleau." Which sounds more like a vigilante type action than an arrest.

So, I've tweaked that sentence to read, "During the Paris Commune in 1871, while painting by the Seine River, a Commune group thought he was spying and they were about to throw him in the river when a Commune leader, Raoul Rigault, recognized Renoir as the man who protected him on an earlier occasion."

Please change it if you have a reference that tells the story differently. And, please, add the reference.But I am still wrong no matter how hard I try!!!

--sparkit 02:33, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Bold textYES

It is a true story. You can read about it in the book "Renoir, My Father" by Jean Renoir. --Killaferra 16:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My memory is that the incident is, indeed, included in Jean Renoir's book (which I read over 20 years ago!). I suspect some of the other stories (the affair with the teen-aged girl?) might also be from the same source. Cites are needed, and I will help if I can dig up a copy of this or other books which refer to these incidents. JNW 22:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Name of painting
I believe the name of the painting which is titled  On the Terrace, is actually called Two Sisters —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.13.90.80 (talk) 05:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Critical interpretation
I've moved the reference to Renoir's painting as 'chocolate box' art to the footnotes. For one, it seemed slightly out of context, almost a non-sequitur. Also, I've deleted the 'derision' by Degas and Picasso because it is equally out of context, and a misleading characterization of their esteem for Renoir: the literature is clear that Degas was a friend and supporter of Renoir (When criticizing landscape painters, Degas was reminded that his friend Renoir worked plein-air, and he replied 'Renoir is different; he can do anything he likes'), and that Picasso admired and was influenced by his monumental figures, even drawing a well-known portrait of the older artist that in mood is anything but dismissive. In other words, the article which is cited is inconclusive at best.

Perhaps eventually an 'assessment' heading will be added, one that may include the popular but largely superficial interpretation of Renoir as merely 'pretty' (just as Degas is ignorantly viewed as the painter of ballerinas), as well as the profusely documented understanding that he was a whole lot more than a purveyor of candy, and transcended his beginnings as a decorative painter...though what we may take as a patronizing description would probably not have troubled him in the least. JNW 13:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's been added. JNW 17:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I am entirely happy for the note to be linked from the Assessment section which is a great idea. The Guardian is a notable source on artistic matters. I have reworded the contribution but if you are still not happy then the solution is to add counter sourced views, to reach an NPOV position. HTH. TerriersFan 18:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing
WP:CITE refers. This is a really nicely written article that in many ways is a credit to Wikipedia. The problem, though, is that there is not a single reference for the 'Biography' and 'Artworks' sections that form the bulk of the article. These sections contain many opinions and each need to be closely sourced. I am not suggesting immediate, drastic action rather that, progressively, we need to work through the sections sourcing or editing as appropriate. TerriersFan 18:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed re: the sourcing--I have provided cites for most of my contributions, (some involve biographical facts so well documented that they don't need cites) but many more are in order. JNW 21:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Fingers or penis?
I have a source (not one that I would vouch for), which claims that Jean Renoirs biography maintains that due to rheumatism, his father painted with his penis. It is of course possible that he used both strapped to fingers and strapped to penis in diferent stages. I would however inquire politely if the following is a bowdlerisation, whether it is merely incomplete in that it does not mention painting with his penis, or whether the source I have got it wrong somehow, possibly a bad translation of the biography or something like that?

Quote: "He developed progressive deformities in his hands and ankylosis of his right shoulder, requiring him to adapt his painting technique. In the advanced stages of his arthritis, he painted by having a brush strapped to his paralyzed fingers." -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 09:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * A colorful image, but no. Supposedly Renoir was irritated by a visitor's unsubtle query as to how he could paint with such crippling arthritis, and responded that he painted with his prick. JNW 13:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The quote came is originally sourced from his son's (Jean Renoir) biography of Renoir Snr. (Renoir, My Father, p 185) as responding "With my prick" to a question by a journalist about how he painted with arthritic hands. Rambo's Revenge (talk)  19:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

In "Lady Chatterley's Lover, by D.H. Lawrence, the gameskeeper, Mellors, mentioned that Renoir painted with his penis.65.185.168.236 (talk) 05:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a very silly discussion. There’s several sources that discuss the lengths Renoir went to paint due to his arthritis, and at least one source documented the technology he used to do it later in life. Viriditas (talk) 01:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Changing Picture "On the terrace"?
I suggest to choose a different file version of "On the terrace". Now, the File's name is "DosHermanas.jpg". It's obviously this one in Commons: The Second version is here:. (Both in the Category Art Institute of Chicago) I would prefer the second version. The colors are much brighter, i.e. the blue gown of the big girl and the blue eyes of the little girl. This matches reality better. (I've seen this painting a few days ago in an exhibition in Wuppertal). Perhaps we should delete the first version in Commons, too. Though I'm a newbie I'm not experienced with picture licenses and the technical handling of such a procedure, hence can't do it myself.--217.87.9.62 (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've switched to the other image. Let's see if the community responds with jeers or hurrahs. JNW (talk) 22:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hurrah! Krazy19Karl (talk) 05:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hurrah for me as well!--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 05:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Augusto Renoir
I was curios if Augusto Renoir is aka Pierre Augusto Renoir. And I have The Woman Sewing, but it is not on his list. Is this one of his earlier pieces? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.235.227.125 (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Lead image
Hi. Please explain this change. Tomer T (talk) 01:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Tomer T. Yes, sorry, I should have explained as I made the change (EDIT: though I notice you did not give a reason for your edit either). I happened upon the Renoir article a few days ago and was pleasantly surprised to see a photo of the artist snapped during his first artistic peak, at a time around which he was painting Le Moulin de la Galette, during the Impressionist period, before the turn of the century, at a time when he was considered as a ground-breaking artist.


 * The image of Renoir you included (in place of the former) is similar to the ones found throughout the Internet, of a Renoir towards the end of his career, well beyond his prime as an artist, at a time when Impressionism had already been replaced as an avant-garde phenomenon first by Symbolism, then Neo-Impressionism, Divisionism, Fauvism, and even Proto-Cubism (c. 1910). If you would like to discuss the matter further, to reach some form of general consensus, feel free to post in the Talk section of the Renoir article. Coldcreation (talk) 07:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * -End of transfer
 * OK, I got your rationale, thanks for the answer. But I think the other image (File:Renoir, Pierre-Auguste, by Dornac, BNF Gallica.jpg) is better, because it has much better resolution, composition and quality. The inferior quality in File:PARenoir.jpg is quite disturbing for me. Maybe they can be both placed in the article, where the image from 1910 will be placed in the section "Later years". By the way, what do you think about File:Pierre-Auguste Renoir by Mélandri.png as a potential lead image? Tomer T (talk) 17:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I've just uploaded an uncropped version of the photo in question. (I am currently searching for a higher resolution version). I also found and uploaded this photograph of Renoir: File:Auguste Renoir-photo-1900.jpg, not yet in the article. Coldcreation (talk) 07:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Jeanne Samary?
No mention of ? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 03:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

What about the daughters?
Nice to know Renoir had three sons. But the paintings of the family also show at least two daughters: so what did they do in later life? And even if they did nothing particularly of note in the wider world, surely they deserve a mention? Seems like a fairly limited accounting of the descendants. Do we really need to perpetuate this sort of sexist view? Jest askin'.... Theonemacduff (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Lucienne Bisson
I reverted the unsourced line describing Lucienne Bisson as Renoir's illegitimate daughter. The same information is in the Lucienne Bisson article, sourced only to a review in the NYT that mentions Bisson in passing: "There is also an oil painting, perhaps from the 1920's, of a Paris street by Lucienne Bisson, Renoir's illegitimate daughter, that nicely captures the heavy atmosphere of an overcast day in the city." If there's anything about Bisson in Renoir's biographies, I can't find it. I notice that the French article fr:Lucienne Bisson, which is better sourced, has a different genealogy and different birth and death dates. Ewulp (talk) 08:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't know how much this helps but when I wrote the article about his wife, his only wife, Aline Charigot I didn't come across a daughter. Had she been from before their marriage, as was their eldest son, I think I would have found mention. Had she been from a liaison, maybe not. Thincat (talk) 09:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Criticism section
Within the last two decades, there’s been a lot of sources published that provide a more critical look into Renoir’s life, particularly into his relationships with his models, his secret relationship with his child born out of wedlock, his sexist views about female artists, his fiery anti-Semitism in the 1880s and position on the Dreyfus affair, and the more recent modern feminist objections to Renoir. Some of this is covered by Jean-Claude Gélineau, Elizabeth Melanson, Catherine Southwick, Sarah Tas, and Barbara Ehrlich White, but there’s so much material it would be nice to have some helpful hands. Viriditas (talk) 01:23, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I’m thinking that the section could be titled "modern critical appraisal" or something similar, indicating that most of the critical literature is recent due to archival research and study. In other words, the older literature (before 2000, let’s say) just doesn’t have this information available. The intent of this section isn’t to cut Renoir down or diminish his legacy or contribution, but rather to make it clear that modern research has uncovered a great deal about Renoir that wasn’t known before. Viriditas (talk) 08:17, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


 * On women


 * "I think of women who are writers, lawyers and politicians as monsters, mere freaks...the woman artist is just ridiculous." As cited by Rose, June (1998). Mistress of Montmartre: A Life of Suzanne Valadon. London: Richard Cohen Books. p. 60.  From a letter from Auguste Renoir to Philippe Burty, Paris, 8 May 1888.
 * "Sexism, too, was a cultural phenomenon throughout Renoir's lifetime. Most French men and women were patriarchal and treated women as second-class citizens." Barbara Erlich White, Renoir: An Intimate Biography. pp. 26-27.  White has been criticized by others for attempting to whitewash Renoir's record and defend allegations of sexism etc. against Renoir.


 * On education, religion, women, and Jews
 * "Renoir and Degas, on the other hand, were out-and-out reactionaries.  'Education', Renoir once remarked to Julie Manet…'is the downfall of the working classes’. Both artists believed in the panacea-like benefits of religion, although neither of them were actually practicing Christians; they also regarded the inferiority of women as axiomatic; and were blatantly anti-Semitic." (Denvir 1993, p. 11)