Renoir is not my favorite painter, nor am I a fan of impressionism, but I still respect his talent.  Renoir is certainly preferable to what is considered art today.    Renoir was Catholic  but I don't think he produced any religious art.

'Renoir sucks at painting' movement demands removal of artist's works

Holding signs that said “ReNOir”, “Take ’em down! Renoir Sucks” and “God Hates Renoir”, members of the Renoir Sucks at Painting movement protested outside the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston on Monday. The group, led by organizer Max Geller, demanded the museum remove Renoir paintings – of which there are many, including the famous Dance at Boufival, 1883 – from its walls.

  I can think of many painters that are more worthy of being protested against.   Max Geller sounds like a Jєωιѕн name. I bet that has something to do with why Renoir was singled out.

Geller said he felt “pretty agnostic” toward other artists; hating Renoir is his movement’s main passion, and he said every other painting at the Museum of Fine Arts is “overwhelmingly beautiful”. He suggested the museum replace its Renoir collection with work that reflects more diversity rather than “just white males and their white male gaze”.

Yup, definitely Jєωιѕн.  I guess that shouldn't come to a surprise. A Jєω attacking Western culture? What? That would never happen!  

What have Jєωs contributed to art except degeneracy and filth?

I'm not a fan of Renoir, but I wonder (as Clark does) if it has anything to do with his much-noted prejudice towards Jєωs, and siding against Dreyfus.

Max Geller acts as a gatekeeper for his tribe:




About the Dreyfus affair:

However, a rather different impression seems to emerge from Julie’s account. As the editors of the diary point out [14], she regularly records Renoir as expressing a variety of anti-Jєωιѕн views. So, for example, in January 1898, during a discussion of the Affair, Julie quotes Renoir as saying, “[The Jєωs] come to France to earn money, but if there is any fighting to be done they hide behind a tree… There are a lot of them in the army, because the Jєω likes to walk about wearing a uniform”. During the same discussion, Julie notes that Renoir also “let fly on the subject of Pissarro, ‘a Jєω’, whose sons are natives of no country and who do their military service nowhere”. Renoir goes on, “It’s tenacious the Jєωιѕн race. Pissarro’s wife isn’t one, yet all the children are, even more so than their father.”[15]

On another occasion, Julie quotes Renoir talking about how he “naturally” refused to sign a petition which the Jєωs and anarchists were signing for a reconsideration of the Dreyfus trial. During another interminable discussion, a “very worked up” Renoir observes that  “the peculiarity of the Jєωs is to cause disintegration”. On a later occasion he derides Gustave Moreau’s painting as “art for Jєωs”[16].

Reading these unguarded comments, it seems that Renoir’s true feelings went beyond mere political conservatism, and were less neutral than his son’s book would suggest.

--http://www.artinsociety.com/julie-manet-renoir-and-the-dreyfus-affair.html

More:

In 1882, Renoir equated the Salon with “Jєωιѕн” taste, and when he washed his hands of the Jєωs, he was also rejecting the “beauty Salon.” Renoir’s belief that Jєωιѕн taste predominated at the Salon becomes even more evident in his comments about his fellow painters, Léon Bonnat and Gustave Moreau. Both artists were closely associated with the Ephrussi circle, which had been enthusiastically collecting and commissioning their work for decades. After his falling out with the Cahen d’Anvers family, Renoir vowed not to compromise his integrity any further in pursuit of Jєωιѕн patrons or the Salon, and he expressed disgust at Bonnat and Moreau for catering to his former patrons. In the fall of 1882, Renoir wrote to Bérard sarcastically:

I must return to the true path of painting and I have decided to enter Bonnat’s studio after all. In a year or two, I’ll be earning 30,000,000,000,000 francs a year. And don’t ever mention portraits in the sunshine to me again. A good black background, that’s the ticket![44]
As he renounced his Jєωιѕн patrons, and his anti-Semitic remarks became more frequent, Renoir’s wrath was directed at the artist most commonly associated with Jєωιѕн high society. Bonnat painted almost every member of the salons juifs, including Albert and Louilia Cahen d’Anvers, Charles Ephrussi, Marie and Edouard Kann, Louise Cahen d’Anvers, Mme Leopold Stern, Mme Bischoffsheim, Countess Potocka, Joseph Reinach, Abraham de Camondo, and Henri Cernuschi. Like many society portraitists, Bonnat and his wife became members of high society, particularly the world of the salons juifs.

In the twentieth century, Jacques-Emile Blanche recalled the affinity of “wealthy Jєωιѕн financiers” for Bonnat. Blanche was correct in asserting that it was Bonnat, and not Renoir, who was truly the portraitist of Jєωιѕн high society. Blanche explained that Renoir’s Jєωιѕн patrons were “not at all convinced of [Renoir’s] talent” but were promised by Ephrussi “enormous returns on the sale of Impressionist pictures.”[45] Accusing Jєωιѕн art patrons of speculation was a common trope of anti-Semitic discourse, and Blanche’s tone was demeaning when he described Ephrussi’s circle as “rather proud of their audacity” in commissioning portraits from Renoir that ultimately “ended up in the laundry room or were given away to former governesses.”[46]

Bonnat was not the only artist on Renoir’s mind during his “crisis of Impressionism.” He was also thinking about Gustave Moreau, who had enjoyed success in Parisian high society for many years, particularly among Jєωιѕн patrons.[47] Albert Cahen d’Anvers and Charles Ephrussi had been enthusiastic supporters of the artist since the early eighteen-seventies.[48] Vollard remembers Renoir’s resentful comments about Moreau:

It is incredible that Gustave Moreau could have been taken seriously! Why, he could not even draw a foot! They talk so much about his scorn for the world. . . . But he certainly knew what he was about when he conceived the idea of painting with gold colors to take in the Jєωs! He even fooled Ephrussi, who I thought had more sense than that. I went to Ephrussi’s house one day and the first thing I laid my eyes on was a Gustave Moreau.[49]    
As Renoir contemplated a new direction in his career, his experiences with Jєωιѕн patrons colored his thinking. While apparently rejecting their taste, he also took it into account, because he realized that they were among the most important and wealthy patrons of the period.

--http://www.19thc-artworldwide.org/autumn13/melanson-on-renoir-and-the-influence-of-Jєωιѕн-patrons