4 ms·

I greatly enjoy the pastime of understanding the various takes on the personal lives of artists. Many are quite pleasant humans. I read novels on the subject. "

I greatly enjoy the pastime of understanding the various takes on the personal lives of artists. Many are quite pleasant humans. I read novels on the subject. "the private lives of the impressionists" by Sue Roe is a fantastic read. I came out of it with a passion for Renoir. To answer your direct question, I find abandoning a fatally-ill child to be the straw that broke the camel's back. Take a look at the quote from the article in the top comment. He admits himself that the journalism is only the surface of his awful character.

jimnotgym 2mo ago
But you don't know the circumstances? Just a statement, and one that may not be true. I've seen good people have a complete breakdown over a sick child. Maybe his wife asked him to go? Who knows. >He admits himself that the journalism is only the surface of his awful character. And we are to take it literally? That sounds like English self-deprecation to me. >I read novels on the subject If I write a novel that shows Patrick O'brien as a tortured genius whose family didn't understand him, and drove him away, presumably you would change your mind on him too? Did the novel talk about Renoir's antisemitism? His misogyny towards female painters? His stubborness? His nostalgia for Bourbon France? His treatment of models? See it's pretty easy to do a character assassination.
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
- ComputerPerson 2mo ago
  He's quoted as saying the truth is worse than the journalism, and you're brushing off the worst part as "may not be true". It's relevant to the discussion that I care a lot about their romantic relationships ending amicably. It's not the least bit unusual for this to not be the case, and very much open to interpretation regarding their character, but I do care about it personally. The flaws of Renoir bother me less. I think you or your source are off about his misogyny toward female painters. In fact, I enjoy his story for the very reason of his treatment of the women he was involved with romantically. Perhaps you're confusing him with Manet or Monet, both of whom were bad on that front (Manet guilty of being a womanizer as well). Regardless, even if he was, he was the least misogynistic of the original bunch (Manet, Monet, Pizarro, Degas, etc.), which is good enough for me. [edit] congrats by the way, you've convinced me that my general outlook on the subject was flawed

jimnotgym 2mo ago

But you don't know the circumstances? Just a statement, and one that may not be true. I've seen good people have a complete breakdown over a sick child. Maybe his wife asked him to go? Who knows. >He admits himself that the journalism is only the surface of his awful character. And we are to take it literally? That sounds like English self-deprecation to me. >I read novels on the subject If I write a novel that shows Patrick O'brien as a tortured genius whose family didn't understand him, and drove him away, presumably you would change your mind on him too? Did the novel talk about Renoir's antisemitism? His misogyny towards female painters? His stubborness? His nostalgia for Bourbon France? His treatment of models? See it's pretty easy to do a character assassination.

deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
ComputerPerson 2mo ago
He's quoted as saying the truth is worse than the journalism, and you're brushing off the worst part as "may not be true". It's relevant to the discussion that I care a lot about their romantic relationships ending amicably. It's not the least bit unusual for this to not be the case, and very much open to interpretation regarding their character, but I do care about it personally. The flaws of Renoir bother me less. I think you or your source are off about his misogyny toward female painters. In fact, I enjoy his story for the very reason of his treatment of the women he was involved with romantically. Perhaps you're confusing him with Manet or Monet, both of whom were bad on that front (Manet guilty of being a womanizer as well). Regardless, even if he was, he was the least misogynistic of the original bunch (Manet, Monet, Pizarro, Degas, etc.), which is good enough for me. [edit] congrats by the way, you've convinced me that my general outlook on the subject was flawed