Renoir: the philosophical eye and it's parallaxes

When I was in my twenties I had a friend that was studying philosophy and knew a lot about Nietzsche, maybe the most admired, quoted, and half-understood of the philosopher, and was very familiar with Deleuze and Foucault's work.

Following his mentor's steps, whose some extra-curricular classes I attended but was not attracted by the way he spoke, my friend started giving classes for a group of people who were interested in the three philosophers.

I was very interested in Foucault after reading, skipping and not understanding everything, "Les mots et les choses", 1966, "The Order of Things" in English.

It was nice meeting friends and after the explanations we had a lot of fun playing pictionary, guessing movies or doing acting exercises proposed by Augusto Boal, the Brazilian theater director.

One day I witnessed a discussion about Renoir. A girl that had recently joined the group said she liked Renoir's painting but my friend said terrible things about Renoir and the girl got not only angry but she couldn't understand the reasoning my friend was giving.

I know that if someone like these three thinkers and can only see with "philosophical eyes" Renoir is not "correct" but Francis Bacon is correct.

I refused to close my eyes to paintings based on philosophical or any other doctrine. One big mistake is done by those who do not understand that their admired philosopher did chose a certain artist or work of art as a way to illustrate or make a point clear and in doing so there is not a condemnation of artists that do another kind of work.
It was a great choice because when I was in Paris I went to a Renoir exhibition and was amazed by his paintings especially by the way he paints the color white. Ironically I attended some of Deleuze's classes at Paris VIII, a course about movie he did and he talked about Jean Renoir, the filmmaker, August Renoir's son.

Recently I was taking a look at the book "The Necessity of Art" by Ernest Fisher.

A literature teacher used the first chapter of this book, without saying it was a Marxist approach because we were under dictatorship, and I didn't notice at that time

I was amazed by the way the impressionism and some artists are put in the same bag especially in the session about "dehumanization" where it is said that

"In the impressionism the human being is solved in light and color, treated like a natural phenomenon (...) and disappear of landscapes, streets of the cities that become a desert."

This is not what I see in impressionists and have many examples but let's stay with Renoir who painted the people united celebrating a Sunday.

I understand and even agree with some of the Marxists concerns such as "alienation" and dehumanization but I believe that it is very difficult to apply these concepts to art and once again I have problems with the philosophical eye, that one that prescribe one art and condemn another.

James Joyce's "Finnegan's Wake" is proscribed because... "when creating a new language that was no more the human language but something that evoques water and wind it is the human being treated like an object."

It is very hard for me to see these analyses as true. I rather enjoy art using other tools and I even find it funny that some of the contemporary art is so attached to the need of philosophy and critics to make clear what the artist wanted to convey or achieve.

The post below has connection with this one and note that Foucault talks about how the Borges's taxonomy made him realize something and how the analysis of Las Meninas makes us see what he wants to explain. This is another way of using art in the philosophical context and is harmless.

Image: Barnes Foundation.

Auguste Renoir: "your favorite painting is at a private collection"

Right: Self-portrait, 1910 Left: Woman with a necklace, 1910

I was searching for Renoir's paintings that I do not know and I noticed that many of his paintings are at private collections including the two above and some that I have published.

At this site there is a list of Renoir's paintings with the indication of their whereabouts and 47 are at private collections at the hands of people who might not even admire the artist and have them as a way to show how wealthy and powerful they are. The real number of Renoir's paintings at private collection I did not find yet and what these 47 have in common is that they were all done in 1910.

This is really sad thinking that these paintings are in the possession of people who seldom look at them and are maybe storing them in an ambient that might not be appropriate for conservation.

But this is the market of art and there is nothing to be done about it but it is amazing that the name of those who possess what is world's heritage is not known facilitating the black marketing of famous works of arts that are stolen.

Ambroise Vollard portrayed by Cezanne and Renoir

Not only an art dealer but an art lover who looked for new talents of his time Ambroise Vollard was portrayed by some of his friends here Renoir, right, and Cezanne at the left. Comparing the two paintings is a good exercise to understand each artist style under the name Impressionism.

Look at each one and you will take your own conclusions.

Vollard acquired many paintings and in June 2010 his collection, after having a long story, was finally sold in Paris and London.

In case you're asking which one I like the best... Cezanne is amazing but Renoir too.

Ok... Cezanne.

August Renoir - Le Moulin de la Galette and Philosophy

I found this site with the text below and I felt like sharing because it talks about the painting without any kind of theory. I remember one discussion I witnessed between a woman and a philosophy student that made me think a lot. He was very fond of a philosopher and kept repeating that Renoir was not good and gave many reasons. The woman was trying to make him see that he was not "seeing" Renoir because he was blinded by the philosophy he liked and was only fond of artist that could be used as an illustration for this thinker.

I agree with the woman. I have some philosophers I like but I prefer to see the artist without too many theory unless the he or she uses philosophy in their work.

"Renoir delighted in `the people's Paris', of which the Moulin de la Galette near the top of Montmartre was a characteristic place of entertainment, and his picture of the Sunday afternoon dance in its acacia-shaded courtyard is one of his happiest compositions. In still-rural Montmartre, the Moulin, called `de la Galette' from the pancake which was its speciality, had a local clientèle, especially of working girls and their young men together with a sprinkling of artists who, as Renoir did, enjoyed the spectacle and also found unprofessional models. The dapple of light is an Impressionist feature but Renoir after his bout of plein-air landscape at Argenteuil seems especially to have welcomed the opportunity to make human beings, and especially women, the main components of picture. As Manet had done in La Musique aux Tuileries he introduced a number of portraits.

The girl in the striped dress in the middle foreground (as charming of any of Watteau's court ladies) was said to be Estelle, the sister of Renoir's model, Jeanne. Another of Renoir's models, Margot, is seen to the left dancing with the Cuban painter, Cardenas. At the foreground table at the right are the artist's friends, Frank Lamy, Norbert Goeneutte and Georges Rivière who in the short-lived publication L'Impressionniste extolled the Moulin de la Galette as a page of history, a precious monument of Parisian life depicted with rigorous exactness. Nobody before him had thought of capturing some aspect of daily life in a canvas of such large dimensions.

Renoir painted two other versions of the subject, a small sketch now in the Ordrupgard Museum, near Copenhagen and a painting smaller than the Louvre version in the John Hay Whitney collection. It is a matter of some doubt whether the latter or the Louvre version was painted on the spot. Rivière refers to a large canvas being transported to the scene though it would seem obvious that so complete a work as the picture in the Louvre would in any case have been finished in the studio."

Funny because sometimes it seems to me that painters that depict happiness are out according to some theories and even art-lovers and some critics. Is that a sin or a crime?

Renoir - "Place Pigalle" - Pierre Francastel's analysis of the painting

The book "Peinture et société" -"Painting and Society"- , publish in 1951, is one of the most known of the great French art historian and sociologist Pierre Francastel and is still studied by many scholars and art-lovers. Although his work is sociological and historical comparative he makes us see many aspects of the work of some of the paintings he did choose as a database for his theory. He wrote about this Renoir painting and I did a translation of some aspects he stresses:

"Here only the first plan is defined whereas all the others are present." "The renascent vision associates in an arbitrary way details that can only be seen with precision one at a time." "This picture puts simultaneously at the same level impressionism and the fifteen century in the immense domain of illusion."

I will try to translate more of his insights and the way he approaches the creation and destruction of the what he understands as "renaissance space" that according to him cubism changed. Unfortunately there is no English translation of any of Francastel's work but the Austrian Ernest Gombrich is very appreciated in English language because he worked in England. Gombrich's "Story of Art" is the at the top of the list of books for those who want to know art. There are many ways to appreciate art. Studying is just one in a million.

August Renoir's calmness and children

I saw an exhibition of Renoir in Paris and after seeing each of the paintings I looked around and focused on some pictures as a whole. I realized that his white is made of many colors and also that everything inspire calm joy and the atmosphere surrounding me seemed pretty good. I chose this two pictures for this Friday to inspire you with this calmness and remember the importance of childhood for our adult lives. Hope you had a nice childhood and if not you can cope with the memories. Right: Sewing, 1900 Left: Jean Renoir drawing, 1901

Renoir - The Bathers

I know, I know... the lasts posts are too boring. :) Behold Renoir!

Pierre Renoir - "Claude Renoir Painting" - "Monet Reading"

Two of Renoir's works showing people self-involved in their activities: Monet reading and his son Claude painting. This is one of the things that is part of the seize the day way of living. Have a great week!

Renoir - Little boy with quill and pen

A quiet and nice weekend for all of you.

Renoir's painting "Rowers' Lunch" and Amelie Poulain

This is from the movie "The Fabulous Destiny of Amelie Poulin" Right: Renoir "The Rower's Lunch, 1885 If you have seen the movie you must remember the crystal man who used to paint this Renoir's work once a year: -I never come out. I don't want to meet just anybody. And there's only rascals out there! But come in. There. Come in. You know, They call me the cristal man. But my name is Raymond Dufayel. Amélie Poulain: -I'm a waitress. - At the "Deux Moulins", I know. And you're coming back empty-handed from your hunt for Bretodeau. Because it's not "do", it's "to". Like "toto". - Thanks. I really like this painting. - It's "The rower's lunch" by Renoir. I paint one every year, for 20 years now. The hardest is the eyes. Sometimes, they change their moods on purpose, when I'm not looking. -They look happy here. -They better be! This year, they had hare with morel and waffles with jam for the children. Let's see, where did I put.