Undertoad Saturday Apr 19 12:57 PM
4/19/2003: "New" Renoir
xoxoxoBruce Saturday Apr 19 01:44 PM
Brilliant post, UT.
Undertoad Saturday Apr 19 01:59 PM
The rejected painting was last displayed at the Met in 1937, and then it was taken away and held a private collection all this time.
xoxoxoBruce Saturday Apr 19 02:10 PM
Thanks for the link. It says the husband was an art collector Probably wanted a traditional Renoir painting more than a portriat of his wife. Well, he got both, but I still think he picked the wrong one.
Torrere Saturday Apr 19 02:10 PM
That is an absolutely awesome painting! I'm going to have to go check out Renoir again.
tw Saturday Apr 19 08:42 PM
Back then they used corsets. Today we use implants and LA Weight Loss. Same result.
juju Sunday Apr 20 03:12 AM
What's so great about this painting? It's blurry, and the colors all bleed together. It's nowhere close to photorealistic!
xoxoxoBruce Sunday Apr 20 07:22 AM
The mood, texture, ambiance, warmth and 120 years for the paint to dry, juju.
richlevy Sunday Apr 20 11:32 AM
Wow! Imagine what Renoir could have done with a Pentium 4 and a copy of Photoshop!
Degrees Sunday Apr 20 11:33 AM
No offense, but I side with the husband
Although the rose painting *is* beautiful, if I were the husband, I would be disappointed it in. I think my wife's face is beautiful. If I were to go to the trouble to get a painter to come in and do a portrait, I would not be all that happy with the rose painting. Why? Because that painting is *not* about my wife. Its about a rose garden with a semblance of my wife sitting in it.
Whit Sunday Apr 20 12:21 PM
Also the plunging neckline of those outfits is more obvious in the sec... oh wait... when talking about art I'm supposed to be above that sort of thing, aren't I?
warch Monday Apr 21 11:17 AM
Cool Iod Toad. The first painting is very modern for 1882, not only the loose brushstrokes and wild color, (it would be seen as aggressive) but also the choice to show her in modern daily wear, independently sitting (if doing the upperclass thing of attending to her writing of letters),She's living her life, and she's in a garden setting- very unusual for a portrait and probably deemed inappropriate because of the garden's association with original sin. Sounds silly now, but its chockful of the kind of uppity modern female imagery that was a threat to the "cult of true womanhood", espoused in the day. The formal portrait, still loose, but the composition is very conservative. There she is a well kept woman. At least he didnt paint her as an alegory of music or anything that goofy.
Undertoad Thursday May 8 04:00 PM
Update: the "new" Renoir was bought at auction by Vegas entrepreneur and art-lover Steve Wynn, for $23.5 million. It will probably be on permanent exhibit in his Wynn Collection in Vegas. (There is a distinctly highbrow trend in Vegas for the last decade or so, believe it or not.)
Whit Thursday May 8 04:18 PM
23.5 million??? Damn dude, you could buy a real woman for much less than that. For that matter, if you wanted to keep it legal, you could pay a whole pack of real women to sit in a real garden all day for many, many years for less than that.
OnyxCougar Thursday May 8 06:45 PM
I live in Vegas, and yes, they are trying to "culture-fy" us. Steve Wynn's collection is quite extensive, and in addition to the travelling exhibition collections that appear at the Guggenheim (at the Venetian), Bellagio, Mirage, Caesar's and other "highbrow" casinos, the Wynn Collection (housed in the ex-Desert Inn) is doing a passable job at returning a "wee bit o' class" to the city.
Undertoad Thursday May 8 07:16 PM
We went to that Guggenheim when we were there last November, and it was excellent.