Twitter/X

Perell names four favorite paintings in Paris

2026-08-07 · 13:29 UTC ·@david_perell ·3 min read

Brief

David Perell shares four favorite Paris paintings (two Renoirs at the Musée d'Orsay, a Matisse at the Grand Palais, and one from the Louvre) and uses them as a springboard for reflections on Parisian urbanism and aesthetics. He highlights how Napoleon III’s commission of Haussmann produced long, airy avenues and a low six‑story skyline, and notes the Musée d'Orsay’s near‑demolition in the 1970s as a cautionary tale about preserving classic buildings. Perell confesses to finding the Louvre’s interior overwhelming and its 17th–18th century sequence insincere, while praising the glass pyramids as a successful modern/classical pairing. He celebrates ornamentation—Guimard’s subway signs and Lebourg’s fountains—rejects pure austerity (invoking Adolf Loos), and warns that market‑driven construction outside protected centers often yields stark, unfriendly architecture; he adds that modern smartphone zoom (~400mm) reveals details the naked eye (≈50mm) misses.

Why it matters

Perell names four favorite paintings in Paris: two from the Renoir exhibition at the Musée d'Orsay, one Matisse at the Grand Palais, and one from the Louvre’s permanent collection.

Key details

  • He notes Paris’s low skyline—almost none of the buildings exceed six stories—and attributes the city’s long, wide, straight avenues and emphasis on light to Napoleon III’s commission of Baron Haussmann to “aérer, unifier, embellir.”
  • Perell says he hasn’t enjoyed visits to the Louvre because it’s overwhelming and he dislikes the main sequence of 17th–18th century French paintings as technically impressive but insincere; paradoxically he loves the glass pyramids, quoting Sheehan Quirke that they model how modern and classical architecture can coexist.
  • He defends ornament and aesthetic investment—citing Hector Guimard’s Art Nouveau subway signs and Charles Auguste Lebourg’s fountains—argues decorated buildings endure longer (contrasting Adolf Loos’s anti-ornament view), and expresses skepticism of pure YIMBY “build, build, build” thinking because many new developments outside Paris’s center feel stark and unfriendly; he also praises modern smartphone zoom (≈400mm) for revealing architectural detail beyond a naked-eye ~50mm view.
Source evidence

My four favorite paintings from Paris.

Two from the Renoir exhibition at Musée d'Orsay, one from Matisse at the Grand Palais, and other from the Louvre’s permanent collection

David Perell (@david_perell)

Some additional thoughts on Paris:

  • It offers a word of caution against tearing down classic buildings. For example, the Musée d'Orsay is one of the prettiest museums I know, but it was almost torn down in the 1970s until they found a new use for the abandoned train station.

  • If New York is a place where you find yourself looking up, Paris is a place where you find yourself looking far. This is because, in Paris, almost none of the buildings are more than six stories tall and the avenues are long / wide / straight. When I looked into why, I learned that Napoleon III specifically asked Haussmann, his designer, for an injection of air and light into the city: aérer, unifier, embellir.

  • It feels wrong to type these words, but I haven’t particularly enjoyed either of my visits to the Louvre. Of course it’s grand and impressive, but something about the museum is very overwhelming. Maybe it’s the crowds. Or maybe it’s the layout, which is hard to follow. Or maybe because there’s so much pressure on A Day at The Louvre. But also because, by and large, I don’t particularly like the main sequence of 17th and 18th century French paintings. They’re technically impressive, but feel insincere and over-the-top. I want to like them, but I don’t.

  • That said, I feel differently about the Louvre’s exterior. It’s trendy to criticize the glass triangles outside of it, but I absolutely love them. As my friend Sheehan Quirke said, they’re a north star for how modern and classical architecture can (and should) coexist. The best part of the triangles is how they bring the original building to life, and they do it through contrast. The old enhances the new and the new enhances the old. In particular, I like how the mid-day sunlight bounces onto the museum which spotlights different parts of the walls as the sun moves throughout the day.

  • The city celebrates the virtue of going beyond utility and insisting on doing things better than they need to be done. The two examples I’ll remember are Hector Guimard’s Art Nouveau subway signs and Charles Auguste Lebourg’s water fountains. Ordinary infrastructure need not be ordinary! 

  • The same spirit showed up in mundane interactions, like when I ordered a cheese plate and the lady behind the counter didn’t just give me cheese but specified the exact order I should eat those cheeses in order to maximize the combination of flavor profiles. 

  • Architects like Adolf Loos have been critical of ornamentation on buildings because it’s so expensive in labor and money to produce. And yes, it costs more to decorate a building. But the added up-front cost of decorating a building is worth it because people generally like ornamented buildings more than austere ones. And so, they last longer if only because they’re less likely to be demolished. And what’s the point of a rich society if we aren’t using our wealth to make the world a prettier and more delightful place to be? 

  • And yet, even in Paris, where aesthetic value is held in such high regard, the quality of architecture plummeted the second I got out of the city center. I’ve had the same experience in cities like Amsterdam and Canary Wharf, just outside of London. Seeing the contrast between Paris’ protected urban center and what got built by the free market just outside of it makes me skeptical of pure YIMBY-ism. I subscribe to the idea that expensive real estate is to blame for many of our problems, but I’m reluctant to get on the “build, build, build” train because so much of what gets built these days feels so stark and unfriendly. 

  • If you’re fond of architecture, get a new smartphone. The new zoom capabilities have taken my ability to appreciate architecture to a new level because there are details I can see with a 400mm zoom that are invisible to my naked eye. Being able to zoom in and frame photos is a reminder of how much beauty the naked eye misses because we can only see at the equivalent of a ~50mm lens.

— https://nitter.net/david_perell/status/2082442872557601178#m