Art history can be an incredibly complicated topic and a really tough nut to crack for anyone who hasn’t spent years upon years learning the various intricacies and subtleties needed to master the subject.
Luckily for all art lovers who just haven’t got the time to understand all the ins and outs of art history, the internet has provided some hilarious and easy-to-grasp tips on how to recognize the work of famous painters. Here is a list of the funniest and most accurate advice, so that you can impress your friends and family the next time you go to a museum or want to talk about something impressive at the dinner table. Scroll down, upvote your favorites, and leave us a comment with your views about art, classical paintings and what you thought of these tips.
This post may include affiliate links.
If Everyone – Including The Women – Looks Like Putin, Then It’s Van Eyck
Jan van Eyck
If It’s Something You Saw On Your Acid Trip Last Night, It’s Dali
Salvador Dalí
If Everyone Looks Like Hobos Illuminated Only By A Dim Streetlamp, It’s Rembrandt
Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn
The person behind most of the art tips is Redditor DontTacoBoutIt. Unfortunately, their account now appears to be dead, but Bored Panda tried reaching out to them for an interview nonetheless. The tips have seen widespread success online, with over 8,800 upvotes and more than 1.17 million views on Imgur.
The Redditor’s explanations about how well-known artists can be recognized at a single glance are as informative as they are blunt and funny. For example, you can know almost for sure that a painting was done by Peter Paul Rubens if everyone’s naked and they all have very large derrières (‘butts’, the word means ‘butts’). And if everyone in a painting looks a bit like Russia’s leader Vladimir Putin, then you can bet your hat that it’s probably Jan van Eyck’s work.
If The Paintings Have Lots Of Little People In Them But Also Have A Ton Of Crazy Bulls#%t, It’s Bosch
Hieronymus Bosch
If Everybody Has Some Sort Of Body Malfunction, Then It’s Picasso
Pablo Ruiz Picasso
Lord Of The Rings Landscapes With Weird Blue Mist And The Same Wavy-Haired Aristocratic-Nose Madonna, It’s Da Vinci
Leonardo da Vinci
So you can show off to your pals even more at your next soirée, here are some more facts to drop about Rubens and van Eyck (besides talking about butts and Putin of course).
A Flemish painter born sometime around 1380-1390, van Eyck is known as one of the early innovators of Early Netherlandish painting and one of the most important representatives of what’s known as Early Northern Renaissance art. As a master painter, he was employed by John III the Pitiless, the ruler of Holland and Hainaut, as well as Philip the Good, the Duke of Burgundy. Van Eyck wasn’t just a painter, he also acted as a diplomat for Philip.
Dappled Light And Unhappy Party-Time People, Then It’s Manet
Édouard Manet
If Everyone Is Beautiful, Naked, And Stacked, It’s Michelangelo
Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni
I don't know why my comment was down voted? I'm a queer woman myself, queer is a perfectly normal academic word to use (there's queer studies, queer literature studies, queer film studies). Queer is simply an umbrella term like the LGBT, only queer encompasses only sexualities while LGBT encompasses gender identities as well. I'm a queer woman and I'm attracted to women. Michelangelo was a queer man and he was attracted to men. The reason I don't use the word homosexual is because he never specified his sexuality and I don't feel comfortable assigning a specific sexuality for someone unless they have specified it themselves. Hopefully this clears it up for some of you 😊
Meanwhile, Rubens (who was also a Flemish painter) was born in 1577 and is thought to be the most influential artist of the Flemish Baroque tradition. Rubens was a specialist in making portraits, landscapes, altarpieces, and history paintings of mythological and allegorical subjects. Rubens was also a scholar and a diplomat who was knighted by Philip IV of Spain and Charles I of England.
Dappled Light And Happy Party-Time People, It’s Renoir
Pierre-Auguste Renoir
If The Images Have A Dark Background And Everyone Has Tortured Expressions On Their Faces, It’s Titian
Tiziano Vecelli
Excel Sheet With Coloured Squares, It’s Mondrian
Piet Mondrian
Imagine being able to come up with something so simple to execute as this and convincing everyone it is great art worth lots of money.
If The Paintings Have Tons Of Little People In Them But Otherwise Seem Normal, It’s Bruegel
Pieter Bruegel the Elder
So... little naked people is Bosch, little clothed people is Bruegel, got it!!!
If All The Men Look Like Cow-Eyed Curly-Haired Women, It’s Caravaggio
Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio
If Everyone In The Paintings Has Enormous Asses, Then It’s Rubens
Sir Peter Paul Rubens
The butts are proportionate to the figures. So... I'd say thicc
Load More Replies...
Rubens was madly in love/lust with his younger wife, the very plump and rosy-cheeked Helene Fourment -- she was his standard of beauty and he painted her many times, mostly clothed (with her ample bosom front and center) but also, and famously, naked and wrapped in a fur rug. Being plump was a sign of prosperity and health back in the day for both men and women when many people starved. That's still true in many Third World countries.
It's to depict gods and goddesses as they were decadent and powerful, not like the mortal plebs they ruled over, plump equals wealth and beauty., skinny equals poor and unattractive. Oh and of course they have to be butt naked!
So odd that today, unnaturally thin women are considered beautiful.
Load More Replies...
From now on if I'm having a bad body image day I'm going to replace "I'm fat" with "I'm Rubenesque!" 😘
Load More Replies...
Ummm, those are realistic asses. Just wait, yours is coming soon to your pants :) Enjoy!
Enormous asses? Really disappointed in you Bored Panda. Why haven't you commented on the tiny penises in Michelangelo? Is that comment by any chance touching a sensitive subject about men's bodies? This is clear cut sexism... very disappointed.
Some of these paintings make me wonder. Did people really just prance around naked a lot more than these days? Or was it more of a forbidden fruit -kind of situation? And yes, those aren't exactly enormous butts.
Definitely not! These are allegorical paintings depicting Greek and Roman scenes, pretty much the only time it was acceptable to painted nude (and occasional figures like Adam and Eve). Often if a royal mistress wanted to be painted with her breasts showing, she would be 'Diana' or some figure. It was a way for artists to paint the human body and sometimes provide something 'titillating' while still being respectable art. There were some exceptions throughout the years but the painting "Olympia" by Manet in 1865 was considered shocking because it is simply a nude woman, probably a prostitute, staring at the viewer. Manet used the title 'Olympia,' an ancient Greek reference as a mask, but he was clearly simply painting a nude (it didn't help that Olympia was a nickname for prostitutes).
Load More Replies...
Ok, they aren't the butt enhanced Kardashians but they got butts. Better 'n mine!
I would like to also blow that big conch or something like what that guy is doing it could be so much fun!
I read this and freaked cos I thought something inappropriate was in the painting..... I'm so sorry oh god I'm awful
Load More Replies...
Big, beautiful women unite! Ruben painted real women with big butts, thighs, tummies and breasts. In his day it!, it was the norm. I call myself Rubenesquej. 😊
The young lady in the upper painting seems to suffer from Hallux valgus (hammer toe). The one on the right in the lower picture, seems to have undergone a breast preserving cancer operation. But I guess those weren't invented yet... :D
I find these body types actually very beautiful, it's sad that today we only consider one body type beautiful, there are so many of them to admire also I saw some people saying those are plus sized woman, in very good intentions but for me these are just woman who aren't skinny but also aren't fat, like, regular woman?? mainly the girl in the first painting, I think we are starting to see anyone that is not skinny as fat
Wait a minute, I didn't give him permission to paint me in the nude!
Well, there is a description of curvy, plus size woman: they have shapes by Rubens
Looks like the Kardashians and J-lo didn't invent anything after all...
At my age now I'm a Rubens woman including the long hair that won't stay in place.
It's funny that people applaud the "realistic body type"... Your perception is modern. Remember "ideal" body shape has changed multiple times, over time. So what you're applauding is also what you're condemning.
@2wheel the woman on the left does look very muscular in the arm/chest area. Of course I didn't think about the hard workers. But then again I never would've thought painters would paint people from the lower classes.
In first painting I'm not real sure what his doing to that seashell??
Little in the middle, but she got much back! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X53ZSxkQ3Ho
My dad always describes Rubens as painting "lots of writhing pink flesh". Quite apt.
Thinking more like lumpy people who possess an adoring look at others?
I'm not an art history major but I do know that many artists from the renaissance period used male models regardless of who they were painting.
Load More Replies...
If Every Painting Is The Face Of A Uni-Browed Woman, It’s Frida
Frida Kahlo
Description forgot to add that there must be monkeys present, and shadow mustaches.
If Everything Is Highly-Contrasted And Sharp, Sort Of Bluish, And Everyone Has Gaunt Bearded Faces, It’s El Greco
Doménikos Theotokópoulos - El Greco ("The Greek")
If The Painting Could Easily Have A Few Chubby Cupids Or Sheep Added (Or Already Has Them), It’s Boucher
François Boucher
Here's some more, from an ex art student: If it has wavy and pronounced brushstrokes, it's probably Van Gogh If there's lots of little people with thin "matchstick" legs it's Lowry If there's a lot of bright hippie-like patchwork color, it's likely Gustav Klimt If it looks like an acid trip, it's Kandinsky If it looks like it's been painted made with individual spots/dabs of paint, it's Seurat. If it looks like someone spilt paint everywhere, then it's Pollock. If they have no or barely visible eyebrows, it's Da Vinci.
And if the painting is a landscape with snowy mountain tops and happy little (pine) trees, it's Bob Ross.... :-)
Load More Replies...
If the painting is a landscape painting featuring gardens, Christmas, cottages, warm lights and a sweet sense of nostalgia, it's Thomas Kinkade.
My husband said if I bought a Thomas Kinkade, he'd buy a velvet Elvis. Stalemate.
Load More Replies...
If everything happens in a room, light from window, awesome details and perspective, it's Vermeer
Now I can up my game as a pretentious art scholar who knows more than you.
If it's stupid, ridiculous nonsense selling to people with more money than sense it's Modern Art
If the installation needs a plaque to justify it as art, it's contemporary modern art.
Load More Replies...
If the painting has no real background, everything in it (including people) looks topsy-turvy, it's very colorful, and there's a fiddler in there somewhere, it's Marc Chagall.
It’s a translation, not an original work. You should honour the original author https://californian-bi4.livejournal.com/185917.html
Hey Bored Panda... is this what you do?... take people's work and not credit them. Thanks Anya... It's bad enough to just take and re-post but then to not give credit - that is rude.
Load More Replies...
You know you did this yourselves 3 years ago, right? https://www.boredpanda.com/how-to-recognize-painters-by-their-work/
If it's an acid trip^10th, it's Megritte. If it is an old discarded object it's Douchamp. Looks like a child's painting from preschool? Miro. Gives you nightmares even when you're not sure why? Goya. A couple of squares, that'll be $10 mil, please? Malevich.
Another artist that's easy to identify on sight is Seurat. I'm surprised he didn't get a guide here.
This would be awesome for teachers to use as a resource for kids to teach then about the famous artists. I really enjoyed it, thanks for posting.
If it moves or is a large abstract piece of sculpture, it's Alexander Calder.
Very interesting. I can't imagine a situation in which I'd ever use this knowledge, but it's interesting that famous artists' work can be boiled down to simple concepts like this.
I've read this in 2010's livejournal in russian. Here is google translated version of probably first source of this guide: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=ru&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fcalifornian-bi4.livejournal.com%2F185917.html&sandbox=1
Repost. https://www.boredpanda.com/how-to-recognize-painters-by-their-work/
That was fun... except for the sexuality cause heads dragging their ego into the matter because they are clearly more portant than a light-headed take on art history. 🙄
Not to be a d**k but I feel like a few of these are pretty obvious who it’s by:Frida,Picasso,Rembrandt,Dali,Monet Well I guess it’s obvious as long as the painting is done in the artist ‘usual’ style
How about if it looks like it was printed on a dot matrix printer it's Seurat?
My interpretation - sexuality was a big thing in those days.. and clearly artist expressed their sexual desires or grievances through art for example - François Boucher has cupids in the background which makes this art about love. and this is clearly two women who are intimate with each other. he clearly desired to see two women together.
Those are not 2 women on that painting, they are Jupiter and Callisto.
Load More Replies...
Here's some more, from an ex art student: If it has wavy and pronounced brushstrokes, it's probably Van Gogh If there's lots of little people with thin "matchstick" legs it's Lowry If there's a lot of bright hippie-like patchwork color, it's likely Gustav Klimt If it looks like an acid trip, it's Kandinsky If it looks like it's been painted made with individual spots/dabs of paint, it's Seurat. If it looks like someone spilt paint everywhere, then it's Pollock. If they have no or barely visible eyebrows, it's Da Vinci.
And if the painting is a landscape with snowy mountain tops and happy little (pine) trees, it's Bob Ross.... :-)
Load More Replies... If the painting is a landscape painting featuring gardens, Christmas, cottages, warm lights and a sweet sense of nostalgia, it's Thomas Kinkade.
My husband said if I bought a Thomas Kinkade, he'd buy a velvet Elvis. Stalemate.
Load More Replies... If everything happens in a room, light from window, awesome details and perspective, it's Vermeer
Now I can up my game as a pretentious art scholar who knows more than you.
If it's stupid, ridiculous nonsense selling to people with more money than sense it's Modern Art
If the installation needs a plaque to justify it as art, it's contemporary modern art.
Load More Replies... If the painting has no real background, everything in it (including people) looks topsy-turvy, it's very colorful, and there's a fiddler in there somewhere, it's Marc Chagall.
It’s a translation, not an original work. You should honour the original author https://californian-bi4.livejournal.com/185917.html
Hey Bored Panda... is this what you do?... take people's work and not credit them. Thanks Anya... It's bad enough to just take and re-post but then to not give credit - that is rude.
Load More Replies... You know you did this yourselves 3 years ago, right? https://www.boredpanda.com/how-to-recognize-painters-by-their-work/
If it's an acid trip^10th, it's Megritte. If it is an old discarded object it's Douchamp. Looks like a child's painting from preschool? Miro. Gives you nightmares even when you're not sure why? Goya. A couple of squares, that'll be $10 mil, please? Malevich.
Another artist that's easy to identify on sight is Seurat. I'm surprised he didn't get a guide here.
This would be awesome for teachers to use as a resource for kids to teach then about the famous artists. I really enjoyed it, thanks for posting.
If it moves or is a large abstract piece of sculpture, it's Alexander Calder.
Very interesting. I can't imagine a situation in which I'd ever use this knowledge, but it's interesting that famous artists' work can be boiled down to simple concepts like this.
I've read this in 2010's livejournal in russian. Here is google translated version of probably first source of this guide: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=ru&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fcalifornian-bi4.livejournal.com%2F185917.html&sandbox=1
Repost. https://www.boredpanda.com/how-to-recognize-painters-by-their-work/
That was fun... except for the sexuality cause heads dragging their ego into the matter because they are clearly more portant than a light-headed take on art history. 🙄
Not to be a d**k but I feel like a few of these are pretty obvious who it’s by:Frida,Picasso,Rembrandt,Dali,Monet Well I guess it’s obvious as long as the painting is done in the artist ‘usual’ style
How about if it looks like it was printed on a dot matrix printer it's Seurat?
My interpretation - sexuality was a big thing in those days.. and clearly artist expressed their sexual desires or grievances through art for example - François Boucher has cupids in the background which makes this art about love. and this is clearly two women who are intimate with each other. he clearly desired to see two women together.
Those are not 2 women on that painting, they are Jupiter and Callisto.
Load More Replies... 