What do you think?
Rate this book
The Private Lives of the Impressionists
New York Times Bestseller
“Anyone who has ever lost themselves in Monet’s color-saturated gardens or swooned over Degas’s dancers will enjoy this revealing group portrait of the artists who founded the Impressionist movement. . . . For the armchair dilettante, as well as the art-history student, this is lively, required reading.” — People
The first book to offer an intimate and lively biography of the world’s most popular group of artists, including Manet, Monet, Pissarro, Cézanne, Renoir, Degas, Sisley, Berthe Morisot, and Mary Cassatt.
Though they were often ridiculed or ignored by their contemporaries, today astonishing sums are paid for their paintings. Their dazzling works are familiar to even the most casual art lovers—but how well does the world know the Impressionists as people?
Sue Roe's colorful, lively, poignant, and superbly researched biography, The Private Lives of the Impressionists, follows an extraordinary group of artists into their Paris studios, down the rural lanes of Montmartre, and into the rowdy riverside bars of a city undergoing monumental change. Vivid and unforgettable, it casts a brilliant, revealing light on this unparalleled society of genius colleagues who lived and worked together for twenty years and transformed the art world forever with their breathtaking depictions of ordinary life.
“Anyone who has ever lost themselves in Monet’s color-saturated gardens or swooned over Degas’s dancers will enjoy this revealing group portrait of the artists who founded the Impressionist movement. . . . For the armchair dilettante, as well as the art-history student, this is lively, required reading.” — People
The first book to offer an intimate and lively biography of the world’s most popular group of artists, including Manet, Monet, Pissarro, Cézanne, Renoir, Degas, Sisley, Berthe Morisot, and Mary Cassatt.
Though they were often ridiculed or ignored by their contemporaries, today astonishing sums are paid for their paintings. Their dazzling works are familiar to even the most casual art lovers—but how well does the world know the Impressionists as people?
Sue Roe's colorful, lively, poignant, and superbly researched biography, The Private Lives of the Impressionists, follows an extraordinary group of artists into their Paris studios, down the rural lanes of Montmartre, and into the rowdy riverside bars of a city undergoing monumental change. Vivid and unforgettable, it casts a brilliant, revealing light on this unparalleled society of genius colleagues who lived and worked together for twenty years and transformed the art world forever with their breathtaking depictions of ordinary life.
370 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2006
435 people are currently reading
4926 people want to read
About the author
Sue Roe
16 books64 followersSue Roe is an acclaimed biographer and poet with a strong interest in the visual arts. Her first biography, Gwen John : A Life (Chatto & Windus, 2001), reveals that the painter best known for her quiet, restrained portraits of women was surprisingly ardent and exuberant. The Private Lives of the Impressionists (Chatto & Windus, 2006) shows how daring the early Impressionsts seemed by the standards of their own times. In Montmartre (Penguin, 2014) illuminates Picasso’s early years in Paris, when suddenly all the arts (painting, writing, film, dance) seemed to be happening in parallel.
Sue Roe’s early scholarship was on Virginia Woolf, the subject of her PhD, and she has published a number of articles on Woolf. Her critical book, Writing and Gender: Virginia Woolf’s Writing Practice (Harvester/Wheatsheaf, 1990) explores Woolf’s processes of composition. She is co-editor of The Cambridge Companion to Virginia Woolf (Cambridge University Press, 2000) and editor of the Penguin Modern Classics edition of Jacob’s Room. Her teaching is inspired by her scholarship and her editorial experience. She has taught BA, MA and PhD students at various universities, and before that worked as a Commissioning Editor for two academic publishing houses.
These days she divides her time between research for her books, which includes exploring the galleries of Paris as well as copious reading, and writing. She likes to work with a good view of the colourful garden her partner Steve has created while she drafts – and re-drafts – her work.
Sue Roe’s early scholarship was on Virginia Woolf, the subject of her PhD, and she has published a number of articles on Woolf. Her critical book, Writing and Gender: Virginia Woolf’s Writing Practice (Harvester/Wheatsheaf, 1990) explores Woolf’s processes of composition. She is co-editor of The Cambridge Companion to Virginia Woolf (Cambridge University Press, 2000) and editor of the Penguin Modern Classics edition of Jacob’s Room. Her teaching is inspired by her scholarship and her editorial experience. She has taught BA, MA and PhD students at various universities, and before that worked as a Commissioning Editor for two academic publishing houses.
These days she divides her time between research for her books, which includes exploring the galleries of Paris as well as copious reading, and writing. She likes to work with a good view of the colourful garden her partner Steve has created while she drafts – and re-drafts – her work.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 222 reviews
August 19, 2010
I had to remove two stars from the book based on the writing style and lack of structure. This is a shame because the book couldn't deal with a more interesting subject in my mind and it feels well researched - even if somewhat rushed. The book also lacks sufficient illustrations. When the text mentions so many paintings, one would expect to be able to refer to them instead of having to search for them in Google. So what is missing? Well, there is really nothing too private about the impressionists lives in here. No intimations of Cailebotte's mysterious personality or the reason's behind Degas' cantankerous misoginy or Manet's yearning for status and respect. Some personalities do come through thanks to well documented works of biography. Renoir is one of them and this owes a lot to the fact that his son wrote a nice book about him...which, when you think about it, might be a very partial account. Cezanne also gets some breathing room due to his abundant correspondence. Berthe Morrisot and Mary Cassatt were rarities in the male-dominated world of nineteenth century art but it would have been interesting to see how they juggled their family life and their commitment to their art.
There is an abundance of data on sales and changes of address (always motivated by changing economic fortunes). As an artist myself I found this data incredibly interesting and I learned quite a bit. For example regarding the essential role of Durand-Ruel: the dealer that practically saved the impressionists from starvation and made them famous in America by taking enormous personal chances.I was astounded by the perseverance of these masters in the face of crushing poverty, the elusive sense they had of being a group either out of loyalty, spite or politics. One cannot but admire Monet's stubborn pursuit of his art sometimes at the expense of pleasing family or friends . I didn't know Manet never really exhibited with them preferring instead the well trodden path of the official Salon. Or that he died such a horrible death. I was floored by the amount of artworks these people produced at any given time and dismayed at the loss of Pisarros' all early production during the Commune. I had no clue that Sisley died poor, Bazille died so soon and Monet outlived them all to enjoy fame,fortune and Giverny in his last years.
One thing that comes to mind reading this book is how frail life is and how short. It is a miracle that we can enjoy these works of art today considering what these artists had to go through. Sure, they had each other and some very generous and loyal friends and admirers indeed but they didn't know what the final outcome of their careers would be. All of them persevered but only some of them became famous and rich. I really never enjoyed Renoir for example finding him soft and fumbling as a painter. However, reading about him gives me a new perspective, a more personal connection that adds value to his efforts. I have to say nothing will make me change my mind regarding Cezanne's lack of talent but I might linger in front of his artwork a bit longer and recognize a struggle.
There is an abundance of data on sales and changes of address (always motivated by changing economic fortunes). As an artist myself I found this data incredibly interesting and I learned quite a bit. For example regarding the essential role of Durand-Ruel: the dealer that practically saved the impressionists from starvation and made them famous in America by taking enormous personal chances.I was astounded by the perseverance of these masters in the face of crushing poverty, the elusive sense they had of being a group either out of loyalty, spite or politics. One cannot but admire Monet's stubborn pursuit of his art sometimes at the expense of pleasing family or friends . I didn't know Manet never really exhibited with them preferring instead the well trodden path of the official Salon. Or that he died such a horrible death. I was floored by the amount of artworks these people produced at any given time and dismayed at the loss of Pisarros' all early production during the Commune. I had no clue that Sisley died poor, Bazille died so soon and Monet outlived them all to enjoy fame,fortune and Giverny in his last years.
One thing that comes to mind reading this book is how frail life is and how short. It is a miracle that we can enjoy these works of art today considering what these artists had to go through. Sure, they had each other and some very generous and loyal friends and admirers indeed but they didn't know what the final outcome of their careers would be. All of them persevered but only some of them became famous and rich. I really never enjoyed Renoir for example finding him soft and fumbling as a painter. However, reading about him gives me a new perspective, a more personal connection that adds value to his efforts. I have to say nothing will make me change my mind regarding Cezanne's lack of talent but I might linger in front of his artwork a bit longer and recognize a struggle.
April 7, 2025
The lives of the Impressionist painters were very intermingled, so this intimate book that details all of this complexity is really the way to understand both their style and their lives. They were rebels that were ridiculed by their French countrymen, as the old ways of painting seen at the Salon des Beaux-Arts ruled what art was 'acceptable'.
The book appropriately begins in 1860, when the 20 year old Claude Monet chose the Suisse studio. He had been in Paris a year and a half, but it seems all artists that dream of being accepted to show their work at The Salon learned there are many obstacles. The thousands of visitors to the Salon expect to see the microscopically accurate, properly 'finished' and formally framed, with proper perspective and all the familiar artistic conventions.
At Suisse's, Monet met Camille Pissaro. Then Paul Cezanne showed up at Suisse's (but Monet was in a brief Army stint). Moving over to Gleyre's studio in 1862, Monet met 20 year old Pierre-Auguste Renoir, and 23 year old Alfred Sisley. Bazille knew Manet, and soon this circle of artists were crossing paths at lunch, or social events. Manet was 31 in 1862 and was elegant and fashionable. Manet met the 28 year old Edgar Degas studying in the Louvre one day.
All the small details of their personalities are reviewed here. I recently re-watched the movie Gosford Park, where somehow 33 characters come/go on-screen with a myriad of life-problems. This story of the Impressionists does an incredible job bouncing from artists to family to dealers and making the reader feel like they have real-time knowledge of all that is transpiring.
The book marches through Part 1, taking us to 1869. Part 2 "The War" details the Siege in Paris in 1870/71. Recovery begins in 1872, but none of these artists are being accepted to show their work at The Salon. They form their own group charter. Claude Monet creates his "Impression: Sunrise" painting in 1872 which become the signature piece defining these artists. They want to paint real life, out in the open air. Even a portrait by these artists will have different clothes, and framing, and positions of the subjects. They are extremely non-traditional.
The painters had discovered a new way of painting light, and of depicting everyday human life. In their work, ordinary man was being celebrated in all his quirkiness and individuality.
By 1874, they begin having their own showing of their paintings, since the Salon would not let them in. In all, there were eight Impressionist Exhibitions:
1) 1874
2) 1876
3) 1877
4) 1879
5) 1880
6) 1881
7) 1882
8) 1886
They never received good reviews from the French media in any of these exhibitions, until a couple marginal ones in 1886. This was the part that I suppose I knew, but was astounded to read about.
Renoir was trading paintings for lunch. (The local establishment had many of these 'payments' hanging on their walls). The artists moved constantly into new studios and houses with their families as their debts mounted and little or no sales of their work happening.
Thank goodness the dealer Paul Durand-Ruel had vision and money. He would buy their paintings. Then try to show them to potential buyers. He also loaned many of these Impressionists money to help them survive.
Meanwhile, these artists lived a roller-coaster lifestyle. Happy while painting crowds at a boisterous party, having babies (some not with who they should), getting into squabbles about who should be in charge of the next exhibition, moving to the country-side for the scenery and health benefits, but always returning to their buying market in Paris.
In 1886, Durand-Ruel took his collection over to Madison Square in America. He had 300+ prints from:
- Sisley
- Manet
- Degas
- Renoir
- Pissaro
- Monet
But unlike Parisian audiences twenty years earlier, the New York viewers were not here to laugh or sneer. They looks with discernment and with open minds at works of art that were unusual, perhaps rebellious. They saw pictures painted with talent and passion. The New York Tribune praised works of beauty surpassing anything y Rousseau or Corot. There was none of the ferocious uproar the impressionists had initially aroused in their own country.
Durand-Ruel finally climbed out of debt and made his fortune at the age of 61. In his memoirs, he remarked:
If I had died at sixty, I'd have died with crippling debts amidst a pile of unsung treasures.
A short epilogue quickly tells us of how long these artists remained painting. Another short chapter on the Impressionist Market tells us that it wasn't until the 1970's that these paintings started REALLY commanding prices unimaginable. And the prices have only increased since then!
Nice, thorough bibliography.
The index is fantastic: since the entire book is chronological from 1860-1886, the index nicely has the Impressionist Artist entries with two 'sections':
First are the the chronological few words about each life detail.
Second are each of the paintings mentioned, in alphabetic order.
These major entries (that show each life highlight and alphabetic art) include:
1. Jean-Frederic Bazille
2. Gustave Caillebotte
3. Mary Stevenson Cassatt
4. Paul Cezanne
5. Edgar Degas
6. Paul Durand-Ruel (dealer)
7. Edouard Manet
8. Claude Monet
9. Berthe Morisot
10. Camille Pissarro
11. Pierre Auguste Renoir
12. Alfred Sisley
Minor qualms about the book:
- There are only 2 groups of 4-pages with color prints. I found myself CONSTANTLY using my phone to look up all the prints mentioned.
- There were a couple of very rough maps in the beginning of the book. With all the constant moving of the artists, I wanted to pinpoint where their new location was, since it had a great deal of bearing on what they would now paint, and how far from other key studios they now placed themselves.
- The book was chronological, so I wished I could see/know the year easier. It would be mentioned when the new year arrived, but then all dates following where just month/day. So opening up the book randomly will make it hard for you to figure out the year. (I found myself writing the year in pencil at the bottom of all the odd page numbers - library copy, oops - but I think the next reader will appreciate it - I hope - easily erased).
Solid 5*. I'll need to keep an eye out for a used-copy of this to buy. I have a fair number of large "Impressionists" art books, and this master-tale that includes all of their lives together is very necessary!
The book appropriately begins in 1860, when the 20 year old Claude Monet chose the Suisse studio. He had been in Paris a year and a half, but it seems all artists that dream of being accepted to show their work at The Salon learned there are many obstacles. The thousands of visitors to the Salon expect to see the microscopically accurate, properly 'finished' and formally framed, with proper perspective and all the familiar artistic conventions.
At Suisse's, Monet met Camille Pissaro. Then Paul Cezanne showed up at Suisse's (but Monet was in a brief Army stint). Moving over to Gleyre's studio in 1862, Monet met 20 year old Pierre-Auguste Renoir, and 23 year old Alfred Sisley. Bazille knew Manet, and soon this circle of artists were crossing paths at lunch, or social events. Manet was 31 in 1862 and was elegant and fashionable. Manet met the 28 year old Edgar Degas studying in the Louvre one day.
All the small details of their personalities are reviewed here. I recently re-watched the movie Gosford Park, where somehow 33 characters come/go on-screen with a myriad of life-problems. This story of the Impressionists does an incredible job bouncing from artists to family to dealers and making the reader feel like they have real-time knowledge of all that is transpiring.
The book marches through Part 1, taking us to 1869. Part 2 "The War" details the Siege in Paris in 1870/71. Recovery begins in 1872, but none of these artists are being accepted to show their work at The Salon. They form their own group charter. Claude Monet creates his "Impression: Sunrise" painting in 1872 which become the signature piece defining these artists. They want to paint real life, out in the open air. Even a portrait by these artists will have different clothes, and framing, and positions of the subjects. They are extremely non-traditional.
The painters had discovered a new way of painting light, and of depicting everyday human life. In their work, ordinary man was being celebrated in all his quirkiness and individuality.
By 1874, they begin having their own showing of their paintings, since the Salon would not let them in. In all, there were eight Impressionist Exhibitions:
1) 1874
2) 1876
3) 1877
4) 1879
5) 1880
6) 1881
7) 1882
8) 1886
They never received good reviews from the French media in any of these exhibitions, until a couple marginal ones in 1886. This was the part that I suppose I knew, but was astounded to read about.
Renoir was trading paintings for lunch. (The local establishment had many of these 'payments' hanging on their walls). The artists moved constantly into new studios and houses with their families as their debts mounted and little or no sales of their work happening.
Thank goodness the dealer Paul Durand-Ruel had vision and money. He would buy their paintings. Then try to show them to potential buyers. He also loaned many of these Impressionists money to help them survive.
Meanwhile, these artists lived a roller-coaster lifestyle. Happy while painting crowds at a boisterous party, having babies (some not with who they should), getting into squabbles about who should be in charge of the next exhibition, moving to the country-side for the scenery and health benefits, but always returning to their buying market in Paris.
In 1886, Durand-Ruel took his collection over to Madison Square in America. He had 300+ prints from:
- Sisley
- Manet
- Degas
- Renoir
- Pissaro
- Monet
But unlike Parisian audiences twenty years earlier, the New York viewers were not here to laugh or sneer. They looks with discernment and with open minds at works of art that were unusual, perhaps rebellious. They saw pictures painted with talent and passion. The New York Tribune praised works of beauty surpassing anything y Rousseau or Corot. There was none of the ferocious uproar the impressionists had initially aroused in their own country.
Durand-Ruel finally climbed out of debt and made his fortune at the age of 61. In his memoirs, he remarked:
If I had died at sixty, I'd have died with crippling debts amidst a pile of unsung treasures.
A short epilogue quickly tells us of how long these artists remained painting. Another short chapter on the Impressionist Market tells us that it wasn't until the 1970's that these paintings started REALLY commanding prices unimaginable. And the prices have only increased since then!
Nice, thorough bibliography.
The index is fantastic: since the entire book is chronological from 1860-1886, the index nicely has the Impressionist Artist entries with two 'sections':
First are the the chronological few words about each life detail.
Second are each of the paintings mentioned, in alphabetic order.
These major entries (that show each life highlight and alphabetic art) include:
1. Jean-Frederic Bazille
2. Gustave Caillebotte
3. Mary Stevenson Cassatt
4. Paul Cezanne
5. Edgar Degas
6. Paul Durand-Ruel (dealer)
7. Edouard Manet
8. Claude Monet
9. Berthe Morisot
10. Camille Pissarro
11. Pierre Auguste Renoir
12. Alfred Sisley
Minor qualms about the book:
- There are only 2 groups of 4-pages with color prints. I found myself CONSTANTLY using my phone to look up all the prints mentioned.
- There were a couple of very rough maps in the beginning of the book. With all the constant moving of the artists, I wanted to pinpoint where their new location was, since it had a great deal of bearing on what they would now paint, and how far from other key studios they now placed themselves.
- The book was chronological, so I wished I could see/know the year easier. It would be mentioned when the new year arrived, but then all dates following where just month/day. So opening up the book randomly will make it hard for you to figure out the year. (I found myself writing the year in pencil at the bottom of all the odd page numbers - library copy, oops - but I think the next reader will appreciate it - I hope - easily erased).
Solid 5*. I'll need to keep an eye out for a used-copy of this to buy. I have a fair number of large "Impressionists" art books, and this master-tale that includes all of their lives together is very necessary!
June 30, 2021
A solid, detailed (even to the point of tedium) biography of the personal and financial woes of the Impressionist, up until 1886, shortly after the death of Manet. Many interesting anecdotes, however, including her discussion of the relationship between Manet and Berthe Morisot. Roe understands, and even foregrounds the fact that their struggles, along with those of Durand-Ruel, were not unconnected with the long depression of 1873 through the 1896. This was not a waterfall collapse like 1929, but a slow grinding deflationary valley like that which has grabbed the West since the Tech collapse in 2000, and Japan since the popping of their bubble in 1989.
July 6, 2018
It is hard to imagine that there was a time when the works of the impressionist painters were considered shocking and incomprehensible. It is even harder to imagine a time when their paintings were considered grotesque and ugly. What art could possibly be lovelier or more simple than a landscape by Monet? What could be more conventional? Today these paintings are so widely loved that they are at risk of being commercialized into cliches, and it makes me a bit sick to think that the artists who created them suffered in penury while today their canvasses sell for absurdly massive piles of money.
But in the 1870s the mainstream critics and most of the public absolutely hated what the impressionists were doing. Critics mocked their work mercilessly. To us these critics sound like philistines, but in the 1870s they made it awful hard for Renoir and the crew to actually make any money from their chosen vocation.
Reading this book helped me appreciate the self confidence, toughness, and courage that it takes to make great art (of course, those attributes are also necessary to go on making bad art for years despite a lack of ability). These guys could have abandoned it all and sought middle class success as businessmen or lawyers or whatever, or they could have just painted in the traditional style and done what was expected of artists of the academy, but they stuck it out and pushed through years of poverty and critical attacks to eventually receive the recognition they deserved. This book is actually a very inspiring piece of history.
Part of what made the impressionist’s perseverance possible was their group dynamic. These guys were friends, they painted together, they modeled for one another, they supported each other. Renoir was remarkably easygoing and Bazille and Caillebotte were extraordinarily generous. They had their fights but for years they struggled together as a family.
Roe does a fantastic job of sorting out all these personalities and telling their stories. This is a very good book.
But in the 1870s the mainstream critics and most of the public absolutely hated what the impressionists were doing. Critics mocked their work mercilessly. To us these critics sound like philistines, but in the 1870s they made it awful hard for Renoir and the crew to actually make any money from their chosen vocation.
Reading this book helped me appreciate the self confidence, toughness, and courage that it takes to make great art (of course, those attributes are also necessary to go on making bad art for years despite a lack of ability). These guys could have abandoned it all and sought middle class success as businessmen or lawyers or whatever, or they could have just painted in the traditional style and done what was expected of artists of the academy, but they stuck it out and pushed through years of poverty and critical attacks to eventually receive the recognition they deserved. This book is actually a very inspiring piece of history.
Part of what made the impressionist’s perseverance possible was their group dynamic. These guys were friends, they painted together, they modeled for one another, they supported each other. Renoir was remarkably easygoing and Bazille and Caillebotte were extraordinarily generous. They had their fights but for years they struggled together as a family.
Roe does a fantastic job of sorting out all these personalities and telling their stories. This is a very good book.
June 30, 2014
Roe provides interesting anecdotes about this famous group of painters and keeps the reader well engaged. However, she chose to move strictly in a chronological manner which necessitated the text jumping - often paragraph by paragraph - to a different artist. This made the text, at times, hard to follow. On a feminist note, Roe also disappointingly falls into a common habit assumed by art historians. When referring to male artists, it is customary to use the last name, but when female artists are discussed, the first name - or even nickname - is used. Mary Cassatt should have been "Cassatt," not "Mary." Berthe Morisot should have been "Morisot," not "Berthe."
June 23, 2025
the bromances were real
July 5, 2024
i bought my copy at the metropolitan museum of art in new york! i’m really excited to read this since i love impressionist art <3
September 9, 2009
One doesn't have to be especially knowledgeable about art history to thoroughly enjoy this delightful book. But anyone who has ever been enthralled by the shimmering beauty of the impressionist paintings will love it. Sue Roe not only takes us on a wondrous journey through the France of the second half of the XIXth century, she also manages to introduce us to some of the most famous painters of all times in a very intimate manner. She lights them in ways that help us understand their work better, and gives us fascinating portraits of men and women that lived sometimes difficult lives, and yet ended up being amazingly influential. Her book is extremely informative and wonderfully documented, but it's never overwhelming. As we wander through the lives of a bunch of temperamental yet endearing artists such as Monet, Degas, Renoir, Cézanne ou Cassat, we also wander through Paris - but Paris as it is undergoing extraordinary changes: quite an amazing visit! Roe's writing is lively and bright, and at the end her book is as much about specific individuals as it is about the evolution of painting, life in France from the Second Empire to the Republic, or Parisian society. There are a few minor mistakes, and one wishes she had spend more pages talking about the painter Sisley (who is definitely, and unjustly, in the shadows of his colleagues here) or the collector/dealer/mentor/financier Durand-Ruel, without whom the Impressionists would have not been able to subsist and work. But this being said, Roe's book is an illuminating (yet accessible) piece of work that makes you feel like you're sharing the times and lives of some great masters: it's quite enchanting.
June 14, 2018
Takový výsek z dějepisu světa. Výsek, kdy začal vystrkovat růžky styl zvaný impresionismus. Jestli si myslíte, že se o impresionismu něco zásadního dozvíte, tak jen maličko. Zato nahlédnete do rodin, do ložnic, prostě do života těch, kteří se na tomhle velmi úspěšném uměleckém směru podíleli. Příjemné čtení. Mám knížky z podobných komunit rád.
February 25, 2024
Whoa, that was a lot of information. I thought this was a good read to kind of get to know the lives of all the impressionist artists and their relations with each other. However, there was a bit too many trivial details mentioned that kind of got in the way of the story. Because of the number of people mentioned and all their life stories and wives and girlfriends and family, you kind of lose track of things. That being said, it was still an enjoyable read that really gave a realistic glimpse of the lives of the impressionist artists in France.
Manet, Monet, Pissarro, Cezanne, Renoir, Degas, Sisley, Berthe Morisot, and Mary Cassatt were among the artists that this book focused on. They were all, except Manet, rejected most of their lives by the Salon des Beaux Arts, which is the most important exhibition of artists and their works. Because of this, these rejected artists (salon des rejets) worked together and decided to work together and put on their own exhibits, and became dubbed as the "impressionists" by the public. None of them except Manet got much fame or recognition for their works throughout most of their lives. However, these artists helped each other a lot, whether it be through providing some temporary money to help each other get out of debt, buying each other's works, helping each other model, keeping each other company, or helping with morale when one is feeling depressed. Of course, there were dissents among the group and people who disliked each other, but this group stayed pretty solid for over a decade. It wasn't until one of their patrons took their works to New York that the Impressionists started to gain more and more traction.
Manet, Monet, Pissarro, Cezanne, Renoir, Degas, Sisley, Berthe Morisot, and Mary Cassatt were among the artists that this book focused on. They were all, except Manet, rejected most of their lives by the Salon des Beaux Arts, which is the most important exhibition of artists and their works. Because of this, these rejected artists (salon des rejets) worked together and decided to work together and put on their own exhibits, and became dubbed as the "impressionists" by the public. None of them except Manet got much fame or recognition for their works throughout most of their lives. However, these artists helped each other a lot, whether it be through providing some temporary money to help each other get out of debt, buying each other's works, helping each other model, keeping each other company, or helping with morale when one is feeling depressed. Of course, there were dissents among the group and people who disliked each other, but this group stayed pretty solid for over a decade. It wasn't until one of their patrons took their works to New York that the Impressionists started to gain more and more traction.
May 19, 2018
Sporo ciekawostek, ale wszystko tonie w chaosie. Do tego słabe tłumaczenie (lub słabo napisane w oryginale, trudno ocenić).
July 19, 2022
The author lacks basic writing skills and displays no love of Impressionist art or artists. Why did she even write this book? It’s boring and useless!
October 26, 2015
I enjoyed reading about the interconnected lives of this group of artists. It is well researched with an extensive bibliography. I'm disappointed Roe ended the story before Monet painted his famous water lilies and we really didn't get much of Renoir's last years. I have mixed feelings about all of the extra- marital affairs, but it seems very much ingrained in the French culture.
I loved Susan Vreeland's novel, Luncheon of the Boating Party and after seeing the DeYoung exhibit Impressionists on the Water, I thought I would learn more about the regattas at Argenteuil, but I did not. I think I ended up liking Pissarro the most and I remember the Pissarro exhibit at The Legion of Honor in San Francisco a couple of years ago when I learned so much about his political beliefs.
Mostly the women are in the background as wives, models,or prostitutes. However, I enjoyed learning more about Berthe Morisot and Mary Cassatt.
Overall, an enjoyable read if you want to know more about these artists.
I loved Susan Vreeland's novel, Luncheon of the Boating Party and after seeing the DeYoung exhibit Impressionists on the Water, I thought I would learn more about the regattas at Argenteuil, but I did not. I think I ended up liking Pissarro the most and I remember the Pissarro exhibit at The Legion of Honor in San Francisco a couple of years ago when I learned so much about his political beliefs.
Mostly the women are in the background as wives, models,or prostitutes. However, I enjoyed learning more about Berthe Morisot and Mary Cassatt.
Overall, an enjoyable read if you want to know more about these artists.
January 14, 2016
It's dense, verbose, and dull. It skips around a lot, some of the French is unnecessary... (IMO: pretentious) I could go on, but I don't like being a whiner. I stuck through to the end, but I never managed to get into it. If you want easy reading, then this isn't for you. I'd only recommend this book for people who either have a great interest in the impressionist movement or already know a lot about the subject and the painters themselves. I will give Sue Roe props for one thing though: It is very informative.
August 1, 2022
Sjukt intressant ämne, var dock svårt för mig att komma igenom den här boken. För faktatung för att jag skulle vilja läsa vidare och får många tavlor som ”namedroppades” utan några bifogade bilder på dem. Det krävdes nästan att man hade telefonen bredvid sig under hela läsningen och sökte upp dem. Om någon har hittat en bra bok om impressionisterna får de gärna berätta vilken, för ett ämne jag med glädje fortsatt läst om.
September 20, 2021
Pretty dull. Cézanne was a grumpy outsider since he was a boy. I did learn that Morisot exists, not sure how that got past me before.
February 18, 2025
This book was an utter chore.
March 27, 2025
Interesting information on my favorite group of artists but not as narratively driven as I'd hope. Often felt like reading an encyclopedia.
October 19, 2023
I read Sue Roe's The Private Lives of the Impressionists (2006) because I wanted to get a handle on how the core members of the Impressionist group of painters met and how their relationships evolved over time. In a general way, the reader will find this information in the book. However, it has to be said that the book is completely riddled with many annoying errors.
The first was sort of minor, but it comes in fast, on page 6, where Roe mentions one of the cafes where the artists often congregated, calling it "Tortini's." Now, everyone on Earth who cares knows the place was called Tortoni's, and we know it because of Manet's famed painting "Chez Tortoni," stolen from the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in 1990. If you Google "Tortini's Paris" there's never been any such establishment. It's a minor spelling error, but every time she mentions it, she calls it by the wrong/misspelled name. On page 9, she describes Gericault's "Raft of the Medusa" as a "story of fifteen shipwrecked sailors." That is actually not what that painting is about at all; it's about the Medusa disaster that befell a slave ship returning to France from Senegal. On page 28 she wrongly claims that the two men in Manet's "Luncheon on the Grass" were modeled by Manet's brothers, and then corrects the point in an endnote. She says on page 32 that Manet and Victorine Meurent met "in the corridors of the Law Courts," which is not an established fact (I learned that they met when Manet saw Victorine playing guitar in the street for coins; that's why one of his earliest paintings of her is her as a guitar player. He never depicted her at the Law Courts...hmmm.) And on page 36, she presses that Leon Leenhoff was definitely Manet's son, when that's never been established either (Leon could have easily been Manet's half brother, or his nephew). She claims that Manet and Degas met at the cafes (and gives no other specific information), but the Met's current Manet/Degas exhibition established that they met at the Louvre, both copying Velazquez. There are places where Puvis de Chavannes is spelled "Chavanne" (p. 106). The painting of Madame Charpentier is not a painting of her with her "daughters" (p. 160), because the Metropolitan Museum of Art that owns the painting identifies one of the children as Charpentier's son Paul (he's dressed like a girl, but it's apparently him). There is only one dog in the painting, not "dogs," and it's like the author didn't even bother to Google the painting to look at it on the Met's website to see what it looks like (it's reproduced in the book, and there's only one dog). She claims that Mary Cassatt studied at the "college of Philadelphia" (p. 183, nope: it was the Philadelphia Academy of Fine Arts). It doesn't get into the Dreyfus Affair (1894), which split a lot of members of the group, because Roe does not go much past the late 1880s. Also, Roe would have to admit that Renoir was an anti-semite, and that would be a pickle, since she goes to great lengths to paint him as a loving husband, father, and great friend to the Impressionists. These are just the few points that stuck out to me as glaringing false.
So: when you have a book with this many errors, can you trust anything in it? I lost faith in the author by page six. I am not sure why I continued with it. It was boring to boot. The reason why it took me seven weeks to slog through it was because much of it was about how much money (and really small change money) that the various Impressionist painters managed to squeeze out of friends and collectors (mostly Monet, who spent the first 40 years of his life completely broke). There is so much listing of who received a few measly hundred francs from whom and for what, it is like the text was an art history book assigned to be written by an accountant. Or a real estate agent, because every chapter details where people moved to, and what address, and what their rent was. This might be interesting to someone if they are trying to map out where a painter was in relation to what they painted in a particular time period, but it is done here ad nauseam. And knowing their rent did not enrich my knowledge of them at all.
So, I can't really recommend this book. If I have to say why I even gave it two stars (it deserves none, it's so sloppy), I would say only that it has a passible bibliography; there is a rough sketching out of the relationships of the core members of the group; it covers all eight of the Impressionist exhibitions; and it has a few nice color illustrations. But the fact that this book became a New York Times Bestseller disturbs me, because I shudder at all of the wrong information that all those readers had to needlessly put into their brains. Don't waste the money, frankly, on this book. Instead, grab it at your local library and use the bibliography in the back of this book to find better written books on the same subject.
The first was sort of minor, but it comes in fast, on page 6, where Roe mentions one of the cafes where the artists often congregated, calling it "Tortini's." Now, everyone on Earth who cares knows the place was called Tortoni's, and we know it because of Manet's famed painting "Chez Tortoni," stolen from the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in 1990. If you Google "Tortini's Paris" there's never been any such establishment. It's a minor spelling error, but every time she mentions it, she calls it by the wrong/misspelled name. On page 9, she describes Gericault's "Raft of the Medusa" as a "story of fifteen shipwrecked sailors." That is actually not what that painting is about at all; it's about the Medusa disaster that befell a slave ship returning to France from Senegal. On page 28 she wrongly claims that the two men in Manet's "Luncheon on the Grass" were modeled by Manet's brothers, and then corrects the point in an endnote. She says on page 32 that Manet and Victorine Meurent met "in the corridors of the Law Courts," which is not an established fact (I learned that they met when Manet saw Victorine playing guitar in the street for coins; that's why one of his earliest paintings of her is her as a guitar player. He never depicted her at the Law Courts...hmmm.) And on page 36, she presses that Leon Leenhoff was definitely Manet's son, when that's never been established either (Leon could have easily been Manet's half brother, or his nephew). She claims that Manet and Degas met at the cafes (and gives no other specific information), but the Met's current Manet/Degas exhibition established that they met at the Louvre, both copying Velazquez. There are places where Puvis de Chavannes is spelled "Chavanne" (p. 106). The painting of Madame Charpentier is not a painting of her with her "daughters" (p. 160), because the Metropolitan Museum of Art that owns the painting identifies one of the children as Charpentier's son Paul (he's dressed like a girl, but it's apparently him). There is only one dog in the painting, not "dogs," and it's like the author didn't even bother to Google the painting to look at it on the Met's website to see what it looks like (it's reproduced in the book, and there's only one dog). She claims that Mary Cassatt studied at the "college of Philadelphia" (p. 183, nope: it was the Philadelphia Academy of Fine Arts). It doesn't get into the Dreyfus Affair (1894), which split a lot of members of the group, because Roe does not go much past the late 1880s. Also, Roe would have to admit that Renoir was an anti-semite, and that would be a pickle, since she goes to great lengths to paint him as a loving husband, father, and great friend to the Impressionists. These are just the few points that stuck out to me as glaringing false.
So: when you have a book with this many errors, can you trust anything in it? I lost faith in the author by page six. I am not sure why I continued with it. It was boring to boot. The reason why it took me seven weeks to slog through it was because much of it was about how much money (and really small change money) that the various Impressionist painters managed to squeeze out of friends and collectors (mostly Monet, who spent the first 40 years of his life completely broke). There is so much listing of who received a few measly hundred francs from whom and for what, it is like the text was an art history book assigned to be written by an accountant. Or a real estate agent, because every chapter details where people moved to, and what address, and what their rent was. This might be interesting to someone if they are trying to map out where a painter was in relation to what they painted in a particular time period, but it is done here ad nauseam. And knowing their rent did not enrich my knowledge of them at all.
So, I can't really recommend this book. If I have to say why I even gave it two stars (it deserves none, it's so sloppy), I would say only that it has a passible bibliography; there is a rough sketching out of the relationships of the core members of the group; it covers all eight of the Impressionist exhibitions; and it has a few nice color illustrations. But the fact that this book became a New York Times Bestseller disturbs me, because I shudder at all of the wrong information that all those readers had to needlessly put into their brains. Don't waste the money, frankly, on this book. Instead, grab it at your local library and use the bibliography in the back of this book to find better written books on the same subject.
January 7, 2024
I learned so much about these painters and the history of France during their lives.
May 15, 2020
I bought this book years ago when I first started reading about art seriously, and for some reason just never got to it. I've read other different (and more detailed) books about the Impressionists since. This is pretty short, less than 300 pages. It's a decent introduction to the subject, but beware of a lack of illustrations, keep Google handy.
July 12, 2023
A little difficult to follow every artist individually (I would recommend writing little bios as you go) but altogether an incredibly riveting read. You also have the added bonus of looking like a genius carrying it around
January 28, 2025
Its pretty fun, the details are funny and interesting. There are some inaccuracies? So I do think some things should be taken with a grain of salt..
April 26, 2021
A bit boring. Could've been salvaged had it had more illustrations and photographs.
I found myself googling a lot, which was silly because this should've been handy. I mean it's literally a book about art.
I found myself googling a lot, which was silly because this should've been handy. I mean it's literally a book about art.
March 21, 2019
A lively and detailed depiction of the rise of the painters that have become known as the Impressionists. It charts the lives of the eight ‘core’ painters, their relationships, scandals, successes and failures: Monet, Renoir, Manet, Cézanne, Degas, Sisley, Pissarro, Morisot; as well as a number of minor, but no less interesting, characters.
The book is bracketed by the years 1860 (when Monet arrived in Paris) and 1886 (the year of the first Impressionist exhibition in New York, marking a major shift in how the group was received). In between we see how the group, ridiculed by the established art world, set up their own series of exhibitions.
I came to this book to understand Monet, but his most interesting works lie after after the timeline of this book. The book’s greatest success is the sense of character. In fact, Monet comes across as a bit of a dick - deeply self-centred, constantly leveraging others for money - although no doubt these traits account for his success. Roe gives him fairly short shrift.
Manet is the true hero of this story. Although he never exhibited with the impressionists, he was at the vanguard of the movement with his radical style and subjects. He bore all the scorn with admirable charm.
Other impressive characters are father-figure Pissarro; Renoir the sweetheart; fierce Morisot; rather manic Cézanne; and Degas, who I always assumed had a weird relationship with women from his art, but emerges as a respectful and profound artist in Roe’s words.
The book also ‘paints’ a convincing picture of Paris’s transformation - from empire under Napoleon III, to the new republic. Paris’s streets were transformed in this time, from a medieval city to the city of light it is today. Although some of the detail might try the patience of people with less interest, I got a lot out of this book.
The book is bracketed by the years 1860 (when Monet arrived in Paris) and 1886 (the year of the first Impressionist exhibition in New York, marking a major shift in how the group was received). In between we see how the group, ridiculed by the established art world, set up their own series of exhibitions.
I came to this book to understand Monet, but his most interesting works lie after after the timeline of this book. The book’s greatest success is the sense of character. In fact, Monet comes across as a bit of a dick - deeply self-centred, constantly leveraging others for money - although no doubt these traits account for his success. Roe gives him fairly short shrift.
Manet is the true hero of this story. Although he never exhibited with the impressionists, he was at the vanguard of the movement with his radical style and subjects. He bore all the scorn with admirable charm.
Other impressive characters are father-figure Pissarro; Renoir the sweetheart; fierce Morisot; rather manic Cézanne; and Degas, who I always assumed had a weird relationship with women from his art, but emerges as a respectful and profound artist in Roe’s words.
The book also ‘paints’ a convincing picture of Paris’s transformation - from empire under Napoleon III, to the new republic. Paris’s streets were transformed in this time, from a medieval city to the city of light it is today. Although some of the detail might try the patience of people with less interest, I got a lot out of this book.
April 17, 2021
Some of the most famous and beloved artists of all time, whose works now sell for millions of dollars, started out as starving artists in Paris and its environs, struggling with ridicule and rejection. Sue Roe tells their story--Monet, Renoir, Degas, Cezanne, Pisarro and others. Overall, I found the story quite interesting. It's impressive that these artists kept at their art in spite of the hardships, which included begging friends and family for money and moving frequently because of inability to come up with the back due rent. There also was plenty of scandal, with mistresses and out-of-wedlock children.
Roe also tells the stories of several of the artists in their friend group who weren't so poverty stricken, including the two best known women impressionists, Berthe Morisot and Mary Cassatt, and Edouard Manet, who was a transitional figure between realism and impressionism, and found more acceptance for his work during his lifetime. The impressionists got their big break when an art dealer, Paul Durand-Ruel, brought their work to the United States.
However, this is not historical fiction. You have to be really interested in art history to get into this book. It is filled with detail about the paintings and the different places the artists lived. Roe also is fond of using French phrases without defining them, which gets to be annoying.
Roe also tells the stories of several of the artists in their friend group who weren't so poverty stricken, including the two best known women impressionists, Berthe Morisot and Mary Cassatt, and Edouard Manet, who was a transitional figure between realism and impressionism, and found more acceptance for his work during his lifetime. The impressionists got their big break when an art dealer, Paul Durand-Ruel, brought their work to the United States.
However, this is not historical fiction. You have to be really interested in art history to get into this book. It is filled with detail about the paintings and the different places the artists lived. Roe also is fond of using French phrases without defining them, which gets to be annoying.
October 2, 2022
Я дуже довго йшла до того, щоб її прочитати.
Купила паперову в Парижі в Орсе десять років тому. Тоді я не знала англійської так, щоб могла її прочитати.
Почала в минулому році. Але шрифт дуже малий, мені було важко. А ще я кожну адресу заносила в карти на телефоні, щоб потім поїхати знову в Париж і подивитися на всі ті дома.
А потім почалась війна. Книга залишилася в Київі. Я взяла в бібліотеці електронну версію. Книга встигла приїхати, коли я ще читала електронну.
Я б назвала її 33 нещастя. Така важка була доля цих художників.
Для мене було велике відкриття, що Піссаро і Сезан були знайомі з доктором Гаше, бували у нього ще задовго до Ван Гога. Цікаво було про це читати, бо я була в домі Гаше, я навіть знайшла на своїх фотках дім, де жив Сезан.
В книзі є великий список літератури. Звісно, що я почитаю ще про тих, чиєю творчістю я восхищаюся. І піду в музей подивитися на їхні картини (в Торонто є один зал, але всі вони там є).
Купила паперову в Парижі в Орсе десять років тому. Тоді я не знала англійської так, щоб могла її прочитати.
Почала в минулому році. Але шрифт дуже малий, мені було важко. А ще я кожну адресу заносила в карти на телефоні, щоб потім поїхати знову в Париж і подивитися на всі ті дома.
А потім почалась війна. Книга залишилася в Київі. Я взяла в бібліотеці електронну версію. Книга встигла приїхати, коли я ще читала електронну.
Я б назвала її 33 нещастя. Така важка була доля цих художників.
Для мене було велике відкриття, що Піссаро і Сезан були знайомі з доктором Гаше, бували у нього ще задовго до Ван Гога. Цікаво було про це читати, бо я була в домі Гаше, я навіть знайшла на своїх фотках дім, де жив Сезан.
В книзі є великий список літератури. Звісно, що я почитаю ще про тих, чиєю творчістю я восхищаюся. І піду в музей подивитися на їхні картини (в Торонто є один зал, але всі вони там є).
October 27, 2014
Sue Roe views the Impressionists as you might observe a flock of birds -- individuals, yet often interdependent as they struggled to redefine art. Roe''s binoculars don't let us get too close; we end up taking notes on quirks that differentiate these remarkable souls. I'm the nosy type and am glad to know the artists' problems, families, and inclinations as a reflection of their time and place, But it was kind of boring, a trudge through time behind a flock of artists who together altered our vision.
August 14, 2021
Full of rich stories and legacies of the impressionist painters. For someone with less background knowledge of these artists, making simple notes in the first two parts may be helpful; but by the end of the book you may feel you are saying goodbye to old friends. I appreciated the deep research required to tell the stories in such a personal way, as well as the historical tales of Paris told throughout. This would be a great book to read before a trip to Paris and better yet before attending Musée d'Orsay.
July 17, 2011
Generally I am more interested in getting to know the person than learning the details of what he did. This book talks about both, but the emphasis is on the people. And because the Impressionist painters as well as their place and time are infinitely interesting (to me), I enjoyed the heck out of this book.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 222 reviews