What an intriguing story. I first saw his work featured by Art Every Day, but I really like the background information you’ve provided about his life and the two women he lived with. Thanks for writing this!
Right? I know! I think he (and, I guess, scholars too) called himself an amateur because he didn’t need to make a living at it, and it was just one of his serious lifetime pursuits, like stamp collecting and gardening.
Sarah, as a longtime admirer of Caillebotte, who can usually spot his style from across a gallery, I love this post, full of new information and new images. His creative signature is strong diagonals, which aren’t present in the portrait of a woman. I never would have guessed this one was his. You probably know the fine Caillebottes at MFA Boston.
Thank you, Rona, and yes, he was a versatile artist! I do know his Man at his Bath, but must confess I always run to see the Sargents and Cassatts at the MFA, and pay less attention to the other Impressionists. Maybe now that will change!
I visited this Caillebotte exhibition yesterday and was thoroughly impressed. I lived in Chicago till December 2024, so in my frequent visits to the Art Institute of Chicago I would see the Paris Street hanging there, and I've admired it a lot. It was good to re-visit an old friend from Chicago. I loved the quiet rowing scenes, especially the ones with water in green hues. Thank you.
Thanks for reading! It’s a wonderful show, showcasing Caillebotte’s range. The monumental Paris street, the quieter rowers and river views, the more Impressionistic, loose-brushwork pieces, and the more finished ones—lovely to see them all together.
Thank you for this delightful art history lesson! I've always loved the geometry of Caillebotte's work but never looked beyond the paintings to his life.
Caillebotte's painting of that rainy Paris street, displayed at the top of the Grand Staircase in the Art Institute of Chicago, was like an old friend I looked forward to seeing each visit to the museum. And, as it turns out, an old friend I didn't really know at all. I didn't know any of these other masterworks, or about the role Caillebotte played in the Musée d'Orsay.
What an interesting insight into an artist I’ve loved since I first saw his painting Les raboteurs de parquet at the Musee d’Orsay decades ago. Here’s a link for anyone who’s unfamiliar with it
I greatly enjoyed this, and you showed me some Caillebotte I had never seen before, which is most appreciated.
That *Paris Street* image sticks in my head for some reason--and evidently in a lot of people's heads given how often you see it--and I wonder if it has something to do with the magic of the how the light is hitting the water on the paving stones, which seems so characteristically impressionist, combined with the depth of the painting as your eyes sink into the building in the distance and then to the V of the diverging streets. The depth aspect isn't something you typically get to admire in Monet or Renoir. You see it again, though less strikingly, in the painting of the young man at the window.
You did a wonderful job of showing Caillebotte’s range--and also his apparent inability to settle down on what he was trying to do as an artist. I like every single one of the Caillebotte paintings you used more than I like the Renoir, which like many Renoirs strikes me as being too gauzy and too smooth at the same time and also makes me feel as if I've just eaten too much ice cream, but the Renoir leaps off the screen as !RENOIR! while several of the Caillebotte paintings seem like inspired studies of other painters. It makes me understand why I still have to look up Caillebotte’s name sometimes even though I really like his work.
The Getty's "Painting Men" framing of the exhibition strikes me as a very trendy provocation from, I dunno, 1987? Your article, however, transcends the Getty's silliness.
Thank you! And agree about Paris Street, for the way it sends your eye back to that building in the distance, and all that you note. At the time, commentators complained about all the umbrellas—too pedestrian for a painting, I guess? And putting that couple close to the picture frame makes it almost cinematic, like they’re in the process of passing the viewer.
And yes, so true re Renoir—those late paintings especially are like eating too much ice cream! And to your point re a Renoir being so clearly Renoir, and Caillebotte, not so much, I get the sense that he enjoyed experimenting and trying out styles, but maybe he had less interest in doing the one thing, a la Monet. John Singer Sargent was like that—he could work in a range of modes, from very Impressionist to almost Velazquez-like. Both artists must have had a ton of facility with paint and brush to be able to do that.
Fantastic post! Never heard of this painter before, I love his perspective work. For those who missed it (or do not have a subscription to the Times), here's my gift:
Thank you! Yes, he's one of the Impressionists that a lot of us have never (or maybe barely) heard of. I'm glad he's getting more notice these days, with some great themed exhibits like the Getty's.
And I love those NYT interactive art pieces, and I LOVE Caravaggio! Thanks for the gift link--I hope others will see the link and read the piece!
I came across this artist in the Musee D'Orsay last September for the first time, and have been reading more about him. I think he has been overshadowed by the more well known Impressionists like Monet, Manet etc. But his work can stand on its own, it's beautiful.
What an intriguing story. I first saw his work featured by Art Every Day, but I really like the background information you’ve provided about his life and the two women he lived with. Thanks for writing this!
I thought it was intriguing too! Also the fact that he called himself an amateur, but was clearly a dedicated, talented painter.
An amateur?!
Right? I know! I think he (and, I guess, scholars too) called himself an amateur because he didn’t need to make a living at it, and it was just one of his serious lifetime pursuits, like stamp collecting and gardening.
Sarah, as a longtime admirer of Caillebotte, who can usually spot his style from across a gallery, I love this post, full of new information and new images. His creative signature is strong diagonals, which aren’t present in the portrait of a woman. I never would have guessed this one was his. You probably know the fine Caillebottes at MFA Boston.
Thank you, Rona, and yes, he was a versatile artist! I do know his Man at his Bath, but must confess I always run to see the Sargents and Cassatts at the MFA, and pay less attention to the other Impressionists. Maybe now that will change!
I visited this Caillebotte exhibition yesterday and was thoroughly impressed. I lived in Chicago till December 2024, so in my frequent visits to the Art Institute of Chicago I would see the Paris Street hanging there, and I've admired it a lot. It was good to re-visit an old friend from Chicago. I loved the quiet rowing scenes, especially the ones with water in green hues. Thank you.
Thanks for reading! It’s a wonderful show, showcasing Caillebotte’s range. The monumental Paris street, the quieter rowers and river views, the more Impressionistic, loose-brushwork pieces, and the more finished ones—lovely to see them all together.
Thank you for this delightful art history lesson! I've always loved the geometry of Caillebotte's work but never looked beyond the paintings to his life.
Thank you, Aimee! I never looked beyond his paintings either, until recently.
Caillebotte's painting of that rainy Paris street, displayed at the top of the Grand Staircase in the Art Institute of Chicago, was like an old friend I looked forward to seeing each visit to the museum. And, as it turns out, an old friend I didn't really know at all. I didn't know any of these other masterworks, or about the role Caillebotte played in the Musée d'Orsay.
I love that—“an old friend I didn’t really know at all.” I imagine that’s true for a lot of the Impressionists, even the more well-known ones!
What an interesting insight into an artist I’ve loved since I first saw his painting Les raboteurs de parquet at the Musee d’Orsay decades ago. Here’s a link for anyone who’s unfamiliar with it
https://www.musee-orsay.fr/fr/oeuvres/raboteurs-de-parquet-105
Thank you, Alison! Les Raboteurs de Parquet/The Floor Scrapers is part of the Getty show—I had never seen it before. Thanks for the link!
The Renoir painting with the little black dog is so lovely.
Yes, it is, and so very Renoir!
Yes! Beautiful. I want it!! 😂
I love the perspective in the paintings of trees and buildings from above. I’d never heard of him before. Thank you for this. 🙏
I do too! It feels very modern, somehow.
The one without any people in it, just a tree from high up and a tiny person walking on the street below is almost photographic, I feel.
I think you’re right! Maybe that’s what the modern feeling is about.
I greatly enjoyed this, and you showed me some Caillebotte I had never seen before, which is most appreciated.
That *Paris Street* image sticks in my head for some reason--and evidently in a lot of people's heads given how often you see it--and I wonder if it has something to do with the magic of the how the light is hitting the water on the paving stones, which seems so characteristically impressionist, combined with the depth of the painting as your eyes sink into the building in the distance and then to the V of the diverging streets. The depth aspect isn't something you typically get to admire in Monet or Renoir. You see it again, though less strikingly, in the painting of the young man at the window.
You did a wonderful job of showing Caillebotte’s range--and also his apparent inability to settle down on what he was trying to do as an artist. I like every single one of the Caillebotte paintings you used more than I like the Renoir, which like many Renoirs strikes me as being too gauzy and too smooth at the same time and also makes me feel as if I've just eaten too much ice cream, but the Renoir leaps off the screen as !RENOIR! while several of the Caillebotte paintings seem like inspired studies of other painters. It makes me understand why I still have to look up Caillebotte’s name sometimes even though I really like his work.
The Getty's "Painting Men" framing of the exhibition strikes me as a very trendy provocation from, I dunno, 1987? Your article, however, transcends the Getty's silliness.
Thank you! And agree about Paris Street, for the way it sends your eye back to that building in the distance, and all that you note. At the time, commentators complained about all the umbrellas—too pedestrian for a painting, I guess? And putting that couple close to the picture frame makes it almost cinematic, like they’re in the process of passing the viewer.
And yes, so true re Renoir—those late paintings especially are like eating too much ice cream! And to your point re a Renoir being so clearly Renoir, and Caillebotte, not so much, I get the sense that he enjoyed experimenting and trying out styles, but maybe he had less interest in doing the one thing, a la Monet. John Singer Sargent was like that—he could work in a range of modes, from very Impressionist to almost Velazquez-like. Both artists must have had a ton of facility with paint and brush to be able to do that.
Fantastic post! Never heard of this painter before, I love his perspective work. For those who missed it (or do not have a subscription to the Times), here's my gift:
Piercing the Shadows of the Pope’s Favorite Painting https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/04/24/arts/pope-francis-caravaggio.html?unlocked_article_code=1.C08.Hltm.Al8OSjrlAWdj&smid=nytcore-android-share
Reading this article about Caravaggio on the phone was like being led by a docent. ♥️
Thank you! Yes, he's one of the Impressionists that a lot of us have never (or maybe barely) heard of. I'm glad he's getting more notice these days, with some great themed exhibits like the Getty's.
And I love those NYT interactive art pieces, and I LOVE Caravaggio! Thanks for the gift link--I hope others will see the link and read the piece!
I came across this artist in the Musee D'Orsay last September for the first time, and have been reading more about him. I think he has been overshadowed by the more well known Impressionists like Monet, Manet etc. But his work can stand on its own, it's beautiful.