Question Description
Directions for Questions: Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow it.PASSAGESome artists go out in a blaze of glory. Pierre-Auguste Renoir went out in a blaze of kitsch. At least, thats the received opinion about the work of his final decades: all those pillowy nudes, sunning their abundant selves in dappled glades; all those peachy girls, strumming guitars and idling in bourgeois parlors; all that pink. In the long twilight of his career, the old man found his way to a kissable classicism that modern eyes can find awfully hard to take.All the same, the Renoir of this period-the three very productive decades before his death in 1919 at the age of 78 fascinated some of the chief figures of modernism. Picasso was on board; his thick-limbed neoclassical women from the 1920 are indebted to Renoir.So was Matisse, who had one eye on Renoirs Orientalist dress-up fantasies like the Concert, with its flattened space and overall patterning, when he produced his odalisques. Given that so much of late Renoir seems saccharine and semi comical to us, is it still possible to see what made it modern to them?Yes and no. To understand the Renoir in the 20th Century you have to remember that before he became a semi classicist, he was a consummate Impressionist. You need to picture him in 1874, 33 years old, painting side by side with Monet in Argenteuil, teasing out the new possibilities of sketchy brushwork to capture fleeting light as it fell across people and things in an indisputably modern world.But in the decade that followed, Renoir became one of the movements first apostates. Impressionism affected many people in the 19th century in much the way the internet does now. It both charmed and unnerved them. It brought to painting a novel immediacy, but it also gave back a world that felt weightless and unstable. What we now call post Impressionism was the inevitable by-product of that anxiety. Artists like Seurat and Gauguin searched for an art that owed nothing to the stale models of academicism but possessed the substance and authority that Impressionism had let fall away.For Renoir, a turning point came during his honeymoon to Rome and Naples in 1881. Face to face with the firm outlines of Raphael and the musculature of Michelangelo, he lost faith in his flickering sunbeams. He returned to France determined to find his way to lucid, distinct forms in an art that reached for the eternal, not the momentary. By the later years of that decade, Renoir had lost his taste for the modern world anyway. As for modern women, in 1888 he could write, "I consider that women who are authors, lawyers and politicians are monsters". ("The woman who is an artist," he added graciously, "is merely ridiculous.") Ah, but the woman who is a goddess-or at least harks back to one that is different matter. It would be Renoirs aim to reconfigure the female nude in a way that would convey the spirit of the classical world without classical trappings. Set in "timeless" outdoor settings, thesewomen by their weight and scale and serenity alone-along with their often recognizably classical poses would point back to antiquity.For a time, Renoir worked with figures so strongly outlined that they could have been put down by Ingres with a jackhammer. By 1892, he had drifted back toward a fluctuating impressionist brushstroke. Firmly contoured or flickering, his softly scalped women are as full-bodied as Doric columns. This was one of the qualities that caught Picassos eye, especially after his first trip to Italy, in 1917.He would assimilate Renoir along-side his own sources in Iberian sculpture and elsewhere to come up with a frankly more powerful, even haunting, amalgam of the antique and the modern in paintings like Woman in a White Hat.Renoir was most valuable as a stepping-stone for artists making more potent use of the ideas he was developing. The heart of the problem is the challenge. Renoir set for himself: to reconcile classical and Renaissance models with the 18th century French painters he loved. To synthesize the force and clarity of classicism with the intimacy and charm of the Rococo is a nearly impossible trick. How do you cross the power of Phidias with the delicacy of Fragonard? The answer: at your own risk-especially the risk of admitting into your work the weaknesses of the Rococo. Its fine line between charming and insipid, and 18th century French painters crossed it all the time. So did Renoir.(2016)Q.All of the following are true in light of the passage EXCEPT.a)Fragonard is an 18th century artistb)Picasso combined classicism and modernism in ‘Woman in a white Hat”c)Renoir was a semi – Classicist, who became an Impressionistd)Gauguin suffered from post – Impressionism anxietyCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CAT 2025 is part of CAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions for Questions: Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow it.PASSAGESome artists go out in a blaze of glory. Pierre-Auguste Renoir went out in a blaze of kitsch. At least, thats the received opinion about the work of his final decades: all those pillowy nudes, sunning their abundant selves in dappled glades; all those peachy girls, strumming guitars and idling in bourgeois parlors; all that pink. In the long twilight of his career, the old man found his way to a kissable classicism that modern eyes can find awfully hard to take.All the same, the Renoir of this period-the three very productive decades before his death in 1919 at the age of 78 fascinated some of the chief figures of modernism. Picasso was on board; his thick-limbed neoclassical women from the 1920 are indebted to Renoir.So was Matisse, who had one eye on Renoirs Orientalist dress-up fantasies like the Concert, with its flattened space and overall patterning, when he produced his odalisques. Given that so much of late Renoir seems saccharine and semi comical to us, is it still possible to see what made it modern to them?Yes and no. To understand the Renoir in the 20th Century you have to remember that before he became a semi classicist, he was a consummate Impressionist. You need to picture him in 1874, 33 years old, painting side by side with Monet in Argenteuil, teasing out the new possibilities of sketchy brushwork to capture fleeting light as it fell across people and things in an indisputably modern world.But in the decade that followed, Renoir became one of the movements first apostates. Impressionism affected many people in the 19th century in much the way the internet does now. It both charmed and unnerved them. It brought to painting a novel immediacy, but it also gave back a world that felt weightless and unstable. What we now call post Impressionism was the inevitable by-product of that anxiety. Artists like Seurat and Gauguin searched for an art that owed nothing to the stale models of academicism but possessed the substance and authority that Impressionism had let fall away.For Renoir, a turning point came during his honeymoon to Rome and Naples in 1881. Face to face with the firm outlines of Raphael and the musculature of Michelangelo, he lost faith in his flickering sunbeams. He returned to France determined to find his way to lucid, distinct forms in an art that reached for the eternal, not the momentary. By the later years of that decade, Renoir had lost his taste for the modern world anyway. As for modern women, in 1888 he could write, "I consider that women who are authors, lawyers and politicians are monsters". ("The woman who is an artist," he added graciously, "is merely ridiculous.") Ah, but the woman who is a goddess-or at least harks back to one that is different matter. It would be Renoirs aim to reconfigure the female nude in a way that would convey the spirit of the classical world without classical trappings. Set in "timeless" outdoor settings, thesewomen by their weight and scale and serenity alone-along with their often recognizably classical poses would point back to antiquity.For a time, Renoir worked with figures so strongly outlined that they could have been put down by Ingres with a jackhammer. By 1892, he had drifted back toward a fluctuating impressionist brushstroke. Firmly contoured or flickering, his softly scalped women are as full-bodied as Doric columns. This was one of the qualities that caught Picassos eye, especially after his first trip to Italy, in 1917.He would assimilate Renoir along-side his own sources in Iberian sculpture and elsewhere to come up with a frankly more powerful, even haunting, amalgam of the antique and the modern in paintings like Woman in a White Hat.Renoir was most valuable as a stepping-stone for artists making more potent use of the ideas he was developing. The heart of the problem is the challenge. Renoir set for himself: to reconcile classical and Renaissance models with the 18th century French painters he loved. To synthesize the force and clarity of classicism with the intimacy and charm of the Rococo is a nearly impossible trick. How do you cross the power of Phidias with the delicacy of Fragonard? The answer: at your own risk-especially the risk of admitting into your work the weaknesses of the Rococo. Its fine line between charming and insipid, and 18th century French painters crossed it all the time. So did Renoir.(2016)Q.All of the following are true in light of the passage EXCEPT.a)Fragonard is an 18th century artistb)Picasso combined classicism and modernism in ‘Woman in a white Hat”c)Renoir was a semi – Classicist, who became an Impressionistd)Gauguin suffered from post – Impressionism anxietyCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions for Questions: Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow it.PASSAGESome artists go out in a blaze of glory. Pierre-Auguste Renoir went out in a blaze of kitsch. At least, thats the received opinion about the work of his final decades: all those pillowy nudes, sunning their abundant selves in dappled glades; all those peachy girls, strumming guitars and idling in bourgeois parlors; all that pink. In the long twilight of his career, the old man found his way to a kissable classicism that modern eyes can find awfully hard to take.All the same, the Renoir of this period-the three very productive decades before his death in 1919 at the age of 78 fascinated some of the chief figures of modernism. Picasso was on board; his thick-limbed neoclassical women from the 1920 are indebted to Renoir.So was Matisse, who had one eye on Renoirs Orientalist dress-up fantasies like the Concert, with its flattened space and overall patterning, when he produced his odalisques. Given that so much of late Renoir seems saccharine and semi comical to us, is it still possible to see what made it modern to them?Yes and no. To understand the Renoir in the 20th Century you have to remember that before he became a semi classicist, he was a consummate Impressionist. You need to picture him in 1874, 33 years old, painting side by side with Monet in Argenteuil, teasing out the new possibilities of sketchy brushwork to capture fleeting light as it fell across people and things in an indisputably modern world.But in the decade that followed, Renoir became one of the movements first apostates. Impressionism affected many people in the 19th century in much the way the internet does now. It both charmed and unnerved them. It brought to painting a novel immediacy, but it also gave back a world that felt weightless and unstable. What we now call post Impressionism was the inevitable by-product of that anxiety. Artists like Seurat and Gauguin searched for an art that owed nothing to the stale models of academicism but possessed the substance and authority that Impressionism had let fall away.For Renoir, a turning point came during his honeymoon to Rome and Naples in 1881. Face to face with the firm outlines of Raphael and the musculature of Michelangelo, he lost faith in his flickering sunbeams. He returned to France determined to find his way to lucid, distinct forms in an art that reached for the eternal, not the momentary. By the later years of that decade, Renoir had lost his taste for the modern world anyway. As for modern women, in 1888 he could write, "I consider that women who are authors, lawyers and politicians are monsters". ("The woman who is an artist," he added graciously, "is merely ridiculous.") Ah, but the woman who is a goddess-or at least harks back to one that is different matter. It would be Renoirs aim to reconfigure the female nude in a way that would convey the spirit of the classical world without classical trappings. Set in "timeless" outdoor settings, thesewomen by their weight and scale and serenity alone-along with their often recognizably classical poses would point back to antiquity.For a time, Renoir worked with figures so strongly outlined that they could have been put down by Ingres with a jackhammer. By 1892, he had drifted back toward a fluctuating impressionist brushstroke. Firmly contoured or flickering, his softly scalped women are as full-bodied as Doric columns. This was one of the qualities that caught Picassos eye, especially after his first trip to Italy, in 1917.He would assimilate Renoir along-side his own sources in Iberian sculpture and elsewhere to come up with a frankly more powerful, even haunting, amalgam of the antique and the modern in paintings like Woman in a White Hat.Renoir was most valuable as a stepping-stone for artists making more potent use of the ideas he was developing. The heart of the problem is the challenge. Renoir set for himself: to reconcile classical and Renaissance models with the 18th century French painters he loved. To synthesize the force and clarity of classicism with the intimacy and charm of the Rococo is a nearly impossible trick. How do you cross the power of Phidias with the delicacy of Fragonard? The answer: at your own risk-especially the risk of admitting into your work the weaknesses of the Rococo. Its fine line between charming and insipid, and 18th century French painters crossed it all the time. So did Renoir.(2016)Q.All of the following are true in light of the passage EXCEPT.a)Fragonard is an 18th century artistb)Picasso combined classicism and modernism in ‘Woman in a white Hat”c)Renoir was a semi – Classicist, who became an Impressionistd)Gauguin suffered from post – Impressionism anxietyCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions for Questions: Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow it.PASSAGESome artists go out in a blaze of glory. Pierre-Auguste Renoir went out in a blaze of kitsch. At least, thats the received opinion about the work of his final decades: all those pillowy nudes, sunning their abundant selves in dappled glades; all those peachy girls, strumming guitars and idling in bourgeois parlors; all that pink. In the long twilight of his career, the old man found his way to a kissable classicism that modern eyes can find awfully hard to take.All the same, the Renoir of this period-the three very productive decades before his death in 1919 at the age of 78 fascinated some of the chief figures of modernism. Picasso was on board; his thick-limbed neoclassical women from the 1920 are indebted to Renoir.So was Matisse, who had one eye on Renoirs Orientalist dress-up fantasies like the Concert, with its flattened space and overall patterning, when he produced his odalisques. Given that so much of late Renoir seems saccharine and semi comical to us, is it still possible to see what made it modern to them?Yes and no. To understand the Renoir in the 20th Century you have to remember that before he became a semi classicist, he was a consummate Impressionist. You need to picture him in 1874, 33 years old, painting side by side with Monet in Argenteuil, teasing out the new possibilities of sketchy brushwork to capture fleeting light as it fell across people and things in an indisputably modern world.But in the decade that followed, Renoir became one of the movements first apostates. Impressionism affected many people in the 19th century in much the way the internet does now. It both charmed and unnerved them. It brought to painting a novel immediacy, but it also gave back a world that felt weightless and unstable. What we now call post Impressionism was the inevitable by-product of that anxiety. Artists like Seurat and Gauguin searched for an art that owed nothing to the stale models of academicism but possessed the substance and authority that Impressionism had let fall away.For Renoir, a turning point came during his honeymoon to Rome and Naples in 1881. Face to face with the firm outlines of Raphael and the musculature of Michelangelo, he lost faith in his flickering sunbeams. He returned to France determined to find his way to lucid, distinct forms in an art that reached for the eternal, not the momentary. By the later years of that decade, Renoir had lost his taste for the modern world anyway. As for modern women, in 1888 he could write, "I consider that women who are authors, lawyers and politicians are monsters". ("The woman who is an artist," he added graciously, "is merely ridiculous.") Ah, but the woman who is a goddess-or at least harks back to one that is different matter. It would be Renoirs aim to reconfigure the female nude in a way that would convey the spirit of the classical world without classical trappings. Set in "timeless" outdoor settings, thesewomen by their weight and scale and serenity alone-along with their often recognizably classical poses would point back to antiquity.For a time, Renoir worked with figures so strongly outlined that they could have been put down by Ingres with a jackhammer. By 1892, he had drifted back toward a fluctuating impressionist brushstroke. Firmly contoured or flickering, his softly scalped women are as full-bodied as Doric columns. This was one of the qualities that caught Picassos eye, especially after his first trip to Italy, in 1917.He would assimilate Renoir along-side his own sources in Iberian sculpture and elsewhere to come up with a frankly more powerful, even haunting, amalgam of the antique and the modern in paintings like Woman in a White Hat.Renoir was most valuable as a stepping-stone for artists making more potent use of the ideas he was developing. The heart of the problem is the challenge. Renoir set for himself: to reconcile classical and Renaissance models with the 18th century French painters he loved. To synthesize the force and clarity of classicism with the intimacy and charm of the Rococo is a nearly impossible trick. How do you cross the power of Phidias with the delicacy of Fragonard? The answer: at your own risk-especially the risk of admitting into your work the weaknesses of the Rococo. Its fine line between charming and insipid, and 18th century French painters crossed it all the time. So did Renoir.(2016)Q.All of the following are true in light of the passage EXCEPT.a)Fragonard is an 18th century artistb)Picasso combined classicism and modernism in ‘Woman in a white Hat”c)Renoir was a semi – Classicist, who became an Impressionistd)Gauguin suffered from post – Impressionism anxietyCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Directions for Questions: Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow it.PASSAGESome artists go out in a blaze of glory. Pierre-Auguste Renoir went out in a blaze of kitsch. At least, thats the received opinion about the work of his final decades: all those pillowy nudes, sunning their abundant selves in dappled glades; all those peachy girls, strumming guitars and idling in bourgeois parlors; all that pink. In the long twilight of his career, the old man found his way to a kissable classicism that modern eyes can find awfully hard to take.All the same, the Renoir of this period-the three very productive decades before his death in 1919 at the age of 78 fascinated some of the chief figures of modernism. Picasso was on board; his thick-limbed neoclassical women from the 1920 are indebted to Renoir.So was Matisse, who had one eye on Renoirs Orientalist dress-up fantasies like the Concert, with its flattened space and overall patterning, when he produced his odalisques. Given that so much of late Renoir seems saccharine and semi comical to us, is it still possible to see what made it modern to them?Yes and no. To understand the Renoir in the 20th Century you have to remember that before he became a semi classicist, he was a consummate Impressionist. You need to picture him in 1874, 33 years old, painting side by side with Monet in Argenteuil, teasing out the new possibilities of sketchy brushwork to capture fleeting light as it fell across people and things in an indisputably modern world.But in the decade that followed, Renoir became one of the movements first apostates. Impressionism affected many people in the 19th century in much the way the internet does now. It both charmed and unnerved them. It brought to painting a novel immediacy, but it also gave back a world that felt weightless and unstable. What we now call post Impressionism was the inevitable by-product of that anxiety. Artists like Seurat and Gauguin searched for an art that owed nothing to the stale models of academicism but possessed the substance and authority that Impressionism had let fall away.For Renoir, a turning point came during his honeymoon to Rome and Naples in 1881. Face to face with the firm outlines of Raphael and the musculature of Michelangelo, he lost faith in his flickering sunbeams. He returned to France determined to find his way to lucid, distinct forms in an art that reached for the eternal, not the momentary. By the later years of that decade, Renoir had lost his taste for the modern world anyway. As for modern women, in 1888 he could write, "I consider that women who are authors, lawyers and politicians are monsters". ("The woman who is an artist," he added graciously, "is merely ridiculous.") Ah, but the woman who is a goddess-or at least harks back to one that is different matter. It would be Renoirs aim to reconfigure the female nude in a way that would convey the spirit of the classical world without classical trappings. Set in "timeless" outdoor settings, thesewomen by their weight and scale and serenity alone-along with their often recognizably classical poses would point back to antiquity.For a time, Renoir worked with figures so strongly outlined that they could have been put down by Ingres with a jackhammer. By 1892, he had drifted back toward a fluctuating impressionist brushstroke. Firmly contoured or flickering, his softly scalped women are as full-bodied as Doric columns. This was one of the qualities that caught Picassos eye, especially after his first trip to Italy, in 1917.He would assimilate Renoir along-side his own sources in Iberian sculpture and elsewhere to come up with a frankly more powerful, even haunting, amalgam of the antique and the modern in paintings like Woman in a White Hat.Renoir was most valuable as a stepping-stone for artists making more potent use of the ideas he was developing. The heart of the problem is the challenge. Renoir set for himself: to reconcile classical and Renaissance models with the 18th century French painters he loved. To synthesize the force and clarity of classicism with the intimacy and charm of the Rococo is a nearly impossible trick. How do you cross the power of Phidias with the delicacy of Fragonard? The answer: at your own risk-especially the risk of admitting into your work the weaknesses of the Rococo. Its fine line between charming and insipid, and 18th century French painters crossed it all the time. So did Renoir.(2016)Q.All of the following are true in light of the passage EXCEPT.a)Fragonard is an 18th century artistb)Picasso combined classicism and modernism in ‘Woman in a white Hat”c)Renoir was a semi – Classicist, who became an Impressionistd)Gauguin suffered from post – Impressionism anxietyCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions for Questions: Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow it.PASSAGESome artists go out in a blaze of glory. Pierre-Auguste Renoir went out in a blaze of kitsch. At least, thats the received opinion about the work of his final decades: all those pillowy nudes, sunning their abundant selves in dappled glades; all those peachy girls, strumming guitars and idling in bourgeois parlors; all that pink. In the long twilight of his career, the old man found his way to a kissable classicism that modern eyes can find awfully hard to take.All the same, the Renoir of this period-the three very productive decades before his death in 1919 at the age of 78 fascinated some of the chief figures of modernism. Picasso was on board; his thick-limbed neoclassical women from the 1920 are indebted to Renoir.So was Matisse, who had one eye on Renoirs Orientalist dress-up fantasies like the Concert, with its flattened space and overall patterning, when he produced his odalisques. Given that so much of late Renoir seems saccharine and semi comical to us, is it still possible to see what made it modern to them?Yes and no. To understand the Renoir in the 20th Century you have to remember that before he became a semi classicist, he was a consummate Impressionist. You need to picture him in 1874, 33 years old, painting side by side with Monet in Argenteuil, teasing out the new possibilities of sketchy brushwork to capture fleeting light as it fell across people and things in an indisputably modern world.But in the decade that followed, Renoir became one of the movements first apostates. Impressionism affected many people in the 19th century in much the way the internet does now. It both charmed and unnerved them. It brought to painting a novel immediacy, but it also gave back a world that felt weightless and unstable. What we now call post Impressionism was the inevitable by-product of that anxiety. Artists like Seurat and Gauguin searched for an art that owed nothing to the stale models of academicism but possessed the substance and authority that Impressionism had let fall away.For Renoir, a turning point came during his honeymoon to Rome and Naples in 1881. Face to face with the firm outlines of Raphael and the musculature of Michelangelo, he lost faith in his flickering sunbeams. He returned to France determined to find his way to lucid, distinct forms in an art that reached for the eternal, not the momentary. By the later years of that decade, Renoir had lost his taste for the modern world anyway. As for modern women, in 1888 he could write, "I consider that women who are authors, lawyers and politicians are monsters". ("The woman who is an artist," he added graciously, "is merely ridiculous.") Ah, but the woman who is a goddess-or at least harks back to one that is different matter. It would be Renoirs aim to reconfigure the female nude in a way that would convey the spirit of the classical world without classical trappings. Set in "timeless" outdoor settings, thesewomen by their weight and scale and serenity alone-along with their often recognizably classical poses would point back to antiquity.For a time, Renoir worked with figures so strongly outlined that they could have been put down by Ingres with a jackhammer. By 1892, he had drifted back toward a fluctuating impressionist brushstroke. Firmly contoured or flickering, his softly scalped women are as full-bodied as Doric columns. This was one of the qualities that caught Picassos eye, especially after his first trip to Italy, in 1917.He would assimilate Renoir along-side his own sources in Iberian sculpture and elsewhere to come up with a frankly more powerful, even haunting, amalgam of the antique and the modern in paintings like Woman in a White Hat.Renoir was most valuable as a stepping-stone for artists making more potent use of the ideas he was developing. The heart of the problem is the challenge. Renoir set for himself: to reconcile classical and Renaissance models with the 18th century French painters he loved. To synthesize the force and clarity of classicism with the intimacy and charm of the Rococo is a nearly impossible trick. How do you cross the power of Phidias with the delicacy of Fragonard? The answer: at your own risk-especially the risk of admitting into your work the weaknesses of the Rococo. Its fine line between charming and insipid, and 18th century French painters crossed it all the time. So did Renoir.(2016)Q.All of the following are true in light of the passage EXCEPT.a)Fragonard is an 18th century artistb)Picasso combined classicism and modernism in ‘Woman in a white Hat”c)Renoir was a semi – Classicist, who became an Impressionistd)Gauguin suffered from post – Impressionism anxietyCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions for Questions: Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow it.PASSAGESome artists go out in a blaze of glory. Pierre-Auguste Renoir went out in a blaze of kitsch. At least, thats the received opinion about the work of his final decades: all those pillowy nudes, sunning their abundant selves in dappled glades; all those peachy girls, strumming guitars and idling in bourgeois parlors; all that pink. In the long twilight of his career, the old man found his way to a kissable classicism that modern eyes can find awfully hard to take.All the same, the Renoir of this period-the three very productive decades before his death in 1919 at the age of 78 fascinated some of the chief figures of modernism. Picasso was on board; his thick-limbed neoclassical women from the 1920 are indebted to Renoir.So was Matisse, who had one eye on Renoirs Orientalist dress-up fantasies like the Concert, with its flattened space and overall patterning, when he produced his odalisques. Given that so much of late Renoir seems saccharine and semi comical to us, is it still possible to see what made it modern to them?Yes and no. To understand the Renoir in the 20th Century you have to remember that before he became a semi classicist, he was a consummate Impressionist. You need to picture him in 1874, 33 years old, painting side by side with Monet in Argenteuil, teasing out the new possibilities of sketchy brushwork to capture fleeting light as it fell across people and things in an indisputably modern world.But in the decade that followed, Renoir became one of the movements first apostates. Impressionism affected many people in the 19th century in much the way the internet does now. It both charmed and unnerved them. It brought to painting a novel immediacy, but it also gave back a world that felt weightless and unstable. What we now call post Impressionism was the inevitable by-product of that anxiety. Artists like Seurat and Gauguin searched for an art that owed nothing to the stale models of academicism but possessed the substance and authority that Impressionism had let fall away.For Renoir, a turning point came during his honeymoon to Rome and Naples in 1881. Face to face with the firm outlines of Raphael and the musculature of Michelangelo, he lost faith in his flickering sunbeams. He returned to France determined to find his way to lucid, distinct forms in an art that reached for the eternal, not the momentary. By the later years of that decade, Renoir had lost his taste for the modern world anyway. As for modern women, in 1888 he could write, "I consider that women who are authors, lawyers and politicians are monsters". ("The woman who is an artist," he added graciously, "is merely ridiculous.") Ah, but the woman who is a goddess-or at least harks back to one that is different matter. It would be Renoirs aim to reconfigure the female nude in a way that would convey the spirit of the classical world without classical trappings. Set in "timeless" outdoor settings, thesewomen by their weight and scale and serenity alone-along with their often recognizably classical poses would point back to antiquity.For a time, Renoir worked with figures so strongly outlined that they could have been put down by Ingres with a jackhammer. By 1892, he had drifted back toward a fluctuating impressionist brushstroke. Firmly contoured or flickering, his softly scalped women are as full-bodied as Doric columns. This was one of the qualities that caught Picassos eye, especially after his first trip to Italy, in 1917.He would assimilate Renoir along-side his own sources in Iberian sculpture and elsewhere to come up with a frankly more powerful, even haunting, amalgam of the antique and the modern in paintings like Woman in a White Hat.Renoir was most valuable as a stepping-stone for artists making more potent use of the ideas he was developing. The heart of the problem is the challenge. Renoir set for himself: to reconcile classical and Renaissance models with the 18th century French painters he loved. To synthesize the force and clarity of classicism with the intimacy and charm of the Rococo is a nearly impossible trick. How do you cross the power of Phidias with the delicacy of Fragonard? The answer: at your own risk-especially the risk of admitting into your work the weaknesses of the Rococo. Its fine line between charming and insipid, and 18th century French painters crossed it all the time. So did Renoir.(2016)Q.All of the following are true in light of the passage EXCEPT.a)Fragonard is an 18th century artistb)Picasso combined classicism and modernism in ‘Woman in a white Hat”c)Renoir was a semi – Classicist, who became an Impressionistd)Gauguin suffered from post – Impressionism anxietyCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions for Questions: Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow it.PASSAGESome artists go out in a blaze of glory. Pierre-Auguste Renoir went out in a blaze of kitsch. At least, thats the received opinion about the work of his final decades: all those pillowy nudes, sunning their abundant selves in dappled glades; all those peachy girls, strumming guitars and idling in bourgeois parlors; all that pink. In the long twilight of his career, the old man found his way to a kissable classicism that modern eyes can find awfully hard to take.All the same, the Renoir of this period-the three very productive decades before his death in 1919 at the age of 78 fascinated some of the chief figures of modernism. Picasso was on board; his thick-limbed neoclassical women from the 1920 are indebted to Renoir.So was Matisse, who had one eye on Renoirs Orientalist dress-up fantasies like the Concert, with its flattened space and overall patterning, when he produced his odalisques. Given that so much of late Renoir seems saccharine and semi comical to us, is it still possible to see what made it modern to them?Yes and no. To understand the Renoir in the 20th Century you have to remember that before he became a semi classicist, he was a consummate Impressionist. You need to picture him in 1874, 33 years old, painting side by side with Monet in Argenteuil, teasing out the new possibilities of sketchy brushwork to capture fleeting light as it fell across people and things in an indisputably modern world.But in the decade that followed, Renoir became one of the movements first apostates. Impressionism affected many people in the 19th century in much the way the internet does now. It both charmed and unnerved them. It brought to painting a novel immediacy, but it also gave back a world that felt weightless and unstable. What we now call post Impressionism was the inevitable by-product of that anxiety. Artists like Seurat and Gauguin searched for an art that owed nothing to the stale models of academicism but possessed the substance and authority that Impressionism had let fall away.For Renoir, a turning point came during his honeymoon to Rome and Naples in 1881. Face to face with the firm outlines of Raphael and the musculature of Michelangelo, he lost faith in his flickering sunbeams. He returned to France determined to find his way to lucid, distinct forms in an art that reached for the eternal, not the momentary. By the later years of that decade, Renoir had lost his taste for the modern world anyway. As for modern women, in 1888 he could write, "I consider that women who are authors, lawyers and politicians are monsters". ("The woman who is an artist," he added graciously, "is merely ridiculous.") Ah, but the woman who is a goddess-or at least harks back to one that is different matter. It would be Renoirs aim to reconfigure the female nude in a way that would convey the spirit of the classical world without classical trappings. Set in "timeless" outdoor settings, thesewomen by their weight and scale and serenity alone-along with their often recognizably classical poses would point back to antiquity.For a time, Renoir worked with figures so strongly outlined that they could have been put down by Ingres with a jackhammer. By 1892, he had drifted back toward a fluctuating impressionist brushstroke. Firmly contoured or flickering, his softly scalped women are as full-bodied as Doric columns. This was one of the qualities that caught Picassos eye, especially after his first trip to Italy, in 1917.He would assimilate Renoir along-side his own sources in Iberian sculpture and elsewhere to come up with a frankly more powerful, even haunting, amalgam of the antique and the modern in paintings like Woman in a White Hat.Renoir was most valuable as a stepping-stone for artists making more potent use of the ideas he was developing. The heart of the problem is the challenge. Renoir set for himself: to reconcile classical and Renaissance models with the 18th century French painters he loved. To synthesize the force and clarity of classicism with the intimacy and charm of the Rococo is a nearly impossible trick. How do you cross the power of Phidias with the delicacy of Fragonard? The answer: at your own risk-especially the risk of admitting into your work the weaknesses of the Rococo. Its fine line between charming and insipid, and 18th century French painters crossed it all the time. So did Renoir.(2016)Q.All of the following are true in light of the passage EXCEPT.a)Fragonard is an 18th century artistb)Picasso combined classicism and modernism in ‘Woman in a white Hat”c)Renoir was a semi – Classicist, who became an Impressionistd)Gauguin suffered from post – Impressionism anxietyCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions for Questions: Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow it.PASSAGESome artists go out in a blaze of glory. Pierre-Auguste Renoir went out in a blaze of kitsch. At least, thats the received opinion about the work of his final decades: all those pillowy nudes, sunning their abundant selves in dappled glades; all those peachy girls, strumming guitars and idling in bourgeois parlors; all that pink. In the long twilight of his career, the old man found his way to a kissable classicism that modern eyes can find awfully hard to take.All the same, the Renoir of this period-the three very productive decades before his death in 1919 at the age of 78 fascinated some of the chief figures of modernism. Picasso was on board; his thick-limbed neoclassical women from the 1920 are indebted to Renoir.So was Matisse, who had one eye on Renoirs Orientalist dress-up fantasies like the Concert, with its flattened space and overall patterning, when he produced his odalisques. Given that so much of late Renoir seems saccharine and semi comical to us, is it still possible to see what made it modern to them?Yes and no. To understand the Renoir in the 20th Century you have to remember that before he became a semi classicist, he was a consummate Impressionist. You need to picture him in 1874, 33 years old, painting side by side with Monet in Argenteuil, teasing out the new possibilities of sketchy brushwork to capture fleeting light as it fell across people and things in an indisputably modern world.But in the decade that followed, Renoir became one of the movements first apostates. Impressionism affected many people in the 19th century in much the way the internet does now. It both charmed and unnerved them. It brought to painting a novel immediacy, but it also gave back a world that felt weightless and unstable. What we now call post Impressionism was the inevitable by-product of that anxiety. Artists like Seurat and Gauguin searched for an art that owed nothing to the stale models of academicism but possessed the substance and authority that Impressionism had let fall away.For Renoir, a turning point came during his honeymoon to Rome and Naples in 1881. Face to face with the firm outlines of Raphael and the musculature of Michelangelo, he lost faith in his flickering sunbeams. He returned to France determined to find his way to lucid, distinct forms in an art that reached for the eternal, not the momentary. By the later years of that decade, Renoir had lost his taste for the modern world anyway. As for modern women, in 1888 he could write, "I consider that women who are authors, lawyers and politicians are monsters". ("The woman who is an artist," he added graciously, "is merely ridiculous.") Ah, but the woman who is a goddess-or at least harks back to one that is different matter. It would be Renoirs aim to reconfigure the female nude in a way that would convey the spirit of the classical world without classical trappings. Set in "timeless" outdoor settings, thesewomen by their weight and scale and serenity alone-along with their often recognizably classical poses would point back to antiquity.For a time, Renoir worked with figures so strongly outlined that they could have been put down by Ingres with a jackhammer. By 1892, he had drifted back toward a fluctuating impressionist brushstroke. Firmly contoured or flickering, his softly scalped women are as full-bodied as Doric columns. This was one of the qualities that caught Picassos eye, especially after his first trip to Italy, in 1917.He would assimilate Renoir along-side his own sources in Iberian sculpture and elsewhere to come up with a frankly more powerful, even haunting, amalgam of the antique and the modern in paintings like Woman in a White Hat.Renoir was most valuable as a stepping-stone for artists making more potent use of the ideas he was developing. The heart of the problem is the challenge. Renoir set for himself: to reconcile classical and Renaissance models with the 18th century French painters he loved. To synthesize the force and clarity of classicism with the intimacy and charm of the Rococo is a nearly impossible trick. How do you cross the power of Phidias with the delicacy of Fragonard? The answer: at your own risk-especially the risk of admitting into your work the weaknesses of the Rococo. Its fine line between charming and insipid, and 18th century French painters crossed it all the time. So did Renoir.(2016)Q.All of the following are true in light of the passage EXCEPT.a)Fragonard is an 18th century artistb)Picasso combined classicism and modernism in ‘Woman in a white Hat”c)Renoir was a semi – Classicist, who became an Impressionistd)Gauguin suffered from post – Impressionism anxietyCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.