upvote
You can pick "bad" artworks from any artist, maybe even objectively bad. And I dislike many of his paintings (sickly sweet, "fluffy" style) but he also did some lovely paintings. In my opinion of course.
reply
I mean, I am perpetuating a running joke.

But also yes. When he was not doing paintings with lots of faces or naked ladies he was on slightly more solid ground.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paintings_by_Pierre-Au...

https://lastmuseum.com/artist/auguste-renoir

e.g. I like the Alfred Sisley painting and the more realist painting of his father, and Madame Clementine Valensi Stora which he apparently repudiated.

But I don't think he ever painted a truly good female nude, and some are just utterly reductive (as a photography nerd I find Torso Effect of Sunlight to be the most interesting but the face oh the face)

Loads of it is really rather Monkey Christ, on reflection, and after about 1905 nothing is great.

So I do sympathise with the joke.

reply
Round faces and opulent bodies were hot stuff in Renoir's times, not so much today. Older people simply had different concepts of feminine beauty than us.

Also those were artists deliberately breaking the rigid rules of realist classicism and finding inspiration on Asian art. Renoir was criticized by its figures "with skin and clothes obscenely stained with what seems dirty greasy oil spots" but the big point was to trigger controversy and to flip the bird to the classicism of the "real" professional artists.

reply
Ah, the classic "picture is worth a thousand words" move. Well played.
reply
I could have picked a considerably worse face, too.

But this is a painting of his own young son, Jean (who went on to be a legendary director, screenwriter, actor).

So one presumes there's a method in it, because nobody hates a kid that much.

reply
Is that a phone he is holding?
reply
No, it's a 13" tablet.
reply
i did not know they did yaoi hands in 1800s france. point taken.
reply