Guess Who Renoir Was In Love With In 'Luncheon Of The Boating Party'

I had no idea. What a cool story behind this painting.

I thought the answer was going to be "Your (generic, not your mom, Meta) Mom".

Exit: It IS interesting though.

Here's the one I chose:

The_Metatron wrote:Here's the one I chose:

[Reveal] Spoiler: my guess

I thought it was the girl leaning on the rail. It appears that she is looking at the fellow in the foreground on the right from afar with great interest. I don't think Renoir painted himself into this painting. It could be the girl on the rail is speaking to the fellow in the dark brown bowler, though.

I thought her too!

I guessed the dude on the right wearing the sweater.

you wouldn't ever be in any doubt which figure he was in love with

Really? Maybe an avid art student would see something the rest of us can't, but I think that statement is a bit of a stretch, a kind of hindsight 20/20 comment.

Never understood why, but paintings never worked on me. Especially abstract ones. This one is pretty impressive technically, very detailed, and yet makes me feel nothing.

Paintings, and especially charcoal or pencil drawings, can stir up feelings in me. It is very context sensitive though. I can see something remarkable in a painting one day, then go back to see it again and wonder what it was that impressed me.

I own one piece of art, a print of a colour chalk drawing of a runner. I have always looked at it and been able to connect with the feeling I get on a really good run, when I am fit and feel like I can go on forever.

I had the bottom trimmed to get rid of the text, something like this should not be captioned.

Very cool story.

zulumoose wrote:

you wouldn't ever be in any doubt which figure he was in love with

Really? Maybe an avid art student would see something the rest of us can't, but I think that statement is a bit of a stretch, a kind of hindsight 20/20 comment.

I though that, also.

I tend to take the idea a bit further, internally. I have long thought that if I need to take a class, or in any way have to try to figure out what the artist meant when he wrote/sculpted/painted/.../composed/.../ , that artist failed.


Sent from my completely solar powered iPad using Tapatalk

I have long thought that if I need to take a class, or in any way have to try to figure out what the artist meant when he wrote/sculpted/painted/.../composed/.../ , that artist failed.

I disagree there. You are assuming the artist wanted to reach the general public. Art is often commissioned for a specific audience, or intended to be sold to a niche group. After all, you only have one original painting/sculpture etc to sell.

Ideally all art should reach everyone, but there is a reason novels that are bestsellers are not set works in school. To cater to the widest audience you have to drop to a lowest common denominator level, and sacrifice your abilities, if you are on a higher level. If something is "deep" it means Joe Soap can't see it, otherwise nothing would be.

That said, I do think much of art is false and overrated. A really well written novel is appreciated by the educated and there is usually agreement, not so much with paintings, and I suspect that if you sneak a glass of cheap wine into a blind taste test, some experts will rate it as among the best. Some things just lend themselves to over-interpretation.