The Atlas Collection
Travel posters
For places worth remembering. Modern prints inspired by favourite coastlines, towns and landmarks.
New destinations added regularly
Posters from the places you love
Over 2,700 curated artists
Browse all artists
Curated by Artists
Museum Quality Prints
Crafted to Last
Designed for Interiors
Style It Your Way
Popular prints available framed or on canvas
Timeless Art For Beautifully Designed Homes
Why Choose Us ?
What customers say
Over 5000
Happy Art Lovers
From Our Journal
The Gleaners: Millet's Three Figures in a Field
In his 1857 oil painting The Gleaners, Jean-François Millet depicts three impoverished peasant women bent over a harvested field, collecting remaining scraps of wheat. The work combines detailed rural observation with direct commentary on social inequality in nineteenth-century France. Composition and Subject Description In The Gleaners, painted in 1857, Jean-François Millet places three peasant women squarely in the foreground of a wide, open field. The women perform the backbreaking and tedious work of collecting the scanty remains left behind after a wheat harvest. Their figures are heavy, shown with curved backs and anonymous faces as they scour the newly harvested ground. Each woman bends low to gather leftover grain, filling her apron with whatever slim pickings can be found. Millet used simplified, sculptural forms to depict these labourers, giving their physical posture a monumental quality that dominates the lower portion of the canvas. The background of the canvas creates a spatial contrast with the three central figures in the foreground. In the distance, along a flat horizon bordered by haystacks, cottages, trees, and small figures of workers, the main harvesters are busy loading up a plentiful crop onto wagons. A cool, golden light illuminates the entire countryside scene, exposing the vast gap between the abundant harvest gathered for the landowners and the sparse leftovers left for the poor. By placing the impoverished women in front against a broad sky, Millet ensured that their labour remains the primary focus of the viewer. The Practice and Social Context of Gleaning Gleaning was an established rural practice in France, historically permitted by landowning nobles for the lowest level of peasant society. After the primary crop was reaped and gathered, impoverished individuals were allowed onto the land to collect any remaining scraps of wheat. The task was time-consuming and physically demanding, yet essential for the survival of the poorest rural families. Millet documented this custom during a historical period when traditional countryside routines were beginning to be displaced by the growth of the Industrial Revolution. Prior to Millet's painting, gleaning had typically been represented in Western art through religious history, most notably the Old record story of Ruth. In those earlier artistic traditions, Ruth was depicted as a modest, virtuous woman, placing the practice within a framework of moral piety. Millet broke away from these traditional conventions by presenting gleaning with flagrant realism. Rather than offering a biblical narrative, he depicted the harsh physical reality of rural poverty, showing anonymous women engaged in tedious physical labour without idealised divine intervention. Millet Gleaners. Public domain; source: Wikimedia Commons. Millet and the Barbizon School Jean-François Millet was born in 1814 into a prosperous farming family in northern France. He initially pursued artistic training locally before moving to Paris in his early twenties to continue his education at the École des Beaux-Arts under the painter Paul Delaroche. During his early years in Paris, Millet worked primarily as a portrait painter. However, following the political upheavals of the 1848 French Revolution, he decided to leave the capital and relocated to the small village of Barbizon, situated near Fontainebleau Forest. In Barbizon, Millet became a central figure among a group of artists known as the Barbizon School, who specialised in detailed pictures of the countryside and forest environments. While many of his contemporaries focused strictly on scenery details, Millet brought his own rural background to bear on his subjects, identifying with the hard lot of the country poor. He concentrated on painting scenes of rural life, depicting agricultural workers with empathy and solemn grandeur that elevated working-class subjects to a monumental scale. Political Controversy and Public Reaction When Millet exhibited The Gleaners in Paris, the painting provoked strong disdain and suspicion among conservative thinkers and the French public. In the aftermath of the 1848 revolution, the prosperous middle class and landowning elites were alarmed by depictions that invested the poor with dignity and monumentality. Middle-class landowners were increasingly resisting the traditional granting of gleaning rights, fearing the rural poor and linking them to the newly emerging, politically active urban working class. Conservative critics viewed Millet's depiction of working-class poverty as a subversive political statement and a direct criticism of French social structures. They condemned what they perceived as an improper glorification of peasants and the working poor. During this period, prominent political writers such as Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, alongside novelists including Émile Zola and Charles Dickens, were actively championing the working class, making Millet's artistic subjects deeply contentious among middle-class viewers. Despite this hostility from conservative quarters, other contemporary viewers and socialist commentators strongly defended Millet's work. Admirers praised his bold stance and artistic approach, viewing The Gleaners as a celebration of honest, hard-working lives rather than a political threat. They appreciated his empathy for agricultural labourers and his use of surprisingly varied colours to convey the dignity of peasant life. Style, Technique, and Modernity Measuring approximately 83.5 by 111 centimetres, The Gleaners demonstrates Millet's mastery of oil on canvas technique. The painter achieved a calm atmosphere across the surrounding countryside through a balanced composition and a refined palette of earthy tones, muted yellows, and soft blues. His preliminary drawings for the composition show a sculptural simplification of form, reducing complex figures to heavy, solid shapes that emphasise their intimacy with the land and the physical gravity of their pose. By portraying the reality of rural labour without academic polish, Millet represented a broader transition from traditional academic painting to Naturalism and Realism, paving the way towards modern art. Although his paintings retained a certain sentimentality compared to the uncompromising works of Gustave Courbet, Millet's realistic treatment of peasant life altered how working people were portrayed in art history. Today, The Gleaners is housed in the Musée d'Orsay in Paris, where it remains a central work of nineteenth-century French painting.
Cú Chulainn: Birth, Arms and the Road to Scáthach
During a strange night, Deichtine helped deliver a boy while the Ulstermen lodged in her house, then nursed him alongside two foals before the house vanished. After his death, a creature in wine led to a second conception, making Lugh his divine father. The Conception and Birth of Cú Chulainn A woman went into labour during the night while a company of Ulstermen, including Briccriu and Fergus, stayed in her spacious house. Outside, a mare gave birth to two foals. Deichtine entered the house to help with the birth and brought out a boy. The Ulstermen took charge of him and gave him the foals. Deichtine nursed him at her breast. At dawn, the house and its occupants had vanished. Nothing remained eastward of the Brug except the Ulstermen’s horses, the baby and the two foals. The company returned to Emain Macha, where Deichtine raised the boy. He was called Sétanta. He later fell ill with a fever and died. The women of Ulster lamented him, and Deichtine grieved deeply for her foster-son. After the lamentation, Deichtine returned home and asked her servant for a drink. A cup of wine was brought to her. A tiny creature was in the drink, and she swallowed it without noticing. This creature was the means by which Lugh fathered a child. Accounts differ over whether Lugh appeared to Deichtine in human form, as a god, in a dream, or while she was in bird form. In the account of the miraculous conception, the child was later brought forth from her. Deichtine bore a son and gave him the name Sétanta. His conception made Lugh his divine father. The heroes of Ulster disputed who should raise him, then shared responsibility for his upbringing. Each offered what he could teach or give. Fergus instructed him in the manly arts, Findchóem nursed him, Conall Cernach became his foster brother, and Conchobar became his foster father. Other accounts say that Sualtaim mac Roich was his father, or that Deichtine remained a virgin by vomiting out the child. Source note: Primary text: the ancient sources. Corpus check: Celtic Mythology; The Táin : translated from the Irish epic Táin Bó Cualinge. Cú Chulainn Takes Arms A prophecy of glory reached Cú Chulainn, and he seized weapons. He set out in a chariot with his charioteer, Ibor, on his first outing. Ibor warned him that danger lay ahead, but the boy would not turn back. They travelled through Mag mBreg, and Ibor named the forts, fields, fords, settlements, strongholds and fortresses between Temair and Cenannos. He pointed out the fort of the three sons of Nechta Scéne. The brothers were Fóill, Fannall and Tuachell. Their father was Fer Ulli, son of Lugaid, and their mother was Nechta Scéne. They were enemies of the Ulstermen because the Ulstermen had killed their father. They also claimed to have killed as many Ulstermen as were then living. Cú Chulainn asked to meet them. Ibor warned him against seeking such danger, but Cú Chulainn said they were not travelling there to avoid it. They released the horses where the bog met the river, and Cú Chulainn told Ibor to wake him if warriors appeared. The three sons came down to the stream and demanded to know who had entered their land. Ibor said that a boy was there on his first outing and that he was taking him home. Fóill mocked the boy and ordered him to leave. Cú Chulainn woke and declared that no boy was there, only a man ready to fight. Ibor warned him that Fóill the Sly could not be struck after a first missed thrust. Cú Chulainn swore by the god of his people that Conchobar’s spear would not miss. He cast it at Fóill and broke his back, then cut off his head and took his spoils. He killed Fannall and Tuachell as well, taking the weapons of the three brothers. Cú Chulainn then told Ibor to drive towards Emain Macha. He first made the charioteer circle the fortress so that the other boys could see him. When Ibor tried to return through the gates, Cú Chulainn ordered him onwards. They travelled to Sliab Fúait, where Conall Cernach was keeping watch for Ulster. Cú Chulainn claimed that he had come to relieve him. When Conall said he was too young, Cú Chulainn broke the shaft of his chariot with a stone. He then returned to Emain Macha in a battle frenzy. Cú Chulainn Takes Arms. Original MythSource illustration created for this story; not a historical artwork. Source note: Primary text: the ancient sources. Corpus check: Celtic Mythology. The Wooing of Emer and Training with Scáthach Cú Chulainn drove with his charioteer, Laeg mac Riangabra, to the Gardens of Lug to meet Emer, daughter of Forgall Monach. No chariot team in Ulster could match their speed. Emer was on the green with her foster-sisters, who were studying embroidery and fine stitching with her. She recognised Cú Chulainn and greeted him. He had come after a search lasting a year, during which messengers had looked throughout Ireland for a suitable wife for him without success. Cú Chulainn and Emer became attached to one another. Emer declared that she loved him and that she was under his protection. Forgall opposed the match. He presented Emer to Lugaid, the great king of Alamiach’s son, who had come with twelve chariot-warriors to seek wives. Emer resisted the proposed marriage. She held Lugaid’s cheeks and swore by his life and honour that she loved Cú Chulainn. Lugaid feared Cú Chulainn and returned home without taking her as his wife. Cú Chulainn then travelled to Alba, where Scáthach was at war with her rival Aífe. Scáthach trained him in supernatural combat. He underwent demanding adventures and learned the skills needed for battle. During this time he faced Aífe and defeated her. His training with Scáthach completed the trials connected with his courtship of Emer. Cú Chulainn returned from Alba and won Emer as his wife. The courtship had taken him from the Gardens of Lug to Forgall’s opposition, then to Alba and Scáthach’s instruction. Emer’s own resolve helped preserve her bond with him, while Cú Chulainn’s journey and victory over Aífe secured his claim to marry her. Source note: Primary text: the ancient sources. Corpus check: Celtic Mythology Rocks!; The Táin : translated from the Irish epic Táin Bó Cualinge.
Renoir's Boating Party: Who Was at the Table?
Pierre-Auguste Renoir painted Luncheon of the Boating Party in 1881 on the balcony of the Restaurant Fournaise in Chatou. The composition brings together fourteen named friends, acquaintances, and models from contemporary Parisian society around a lunch table along the River Seine. Identifications at the Restaurant Fournaise In the left foreground of the 1881 canvas, Renoir’s fiancée and future wife, Aline Charigot, sits at the table playing with a small dog. She wears a Prussian blue dress paired with a hat decorated with orange-red flowers. Directly across the table in the right foreground sits the painter Gustave Caillebotte. A keen rower, Caillebotte is depicted wearing a straw hat and a white sleeveless shirt while straddling a chair. Seated beside him, model Angèle Legault drinks from a glass while wearing a blue-and-white hat. Antonio Maggiolo, an Italian journalist, leans over the table to speak with her. The remaining figures surrounding the table represent a cross-section of Parisian social circles. Leaning back against the balustrade is Alphonse Fournaise, the son of the restaurant proprietor. His sister, Louise-Alphonsine Fournaise, rests her chin on her hand as she leans against the wooden railing. Further back, actress Jeanne Samary covers her ears with her fingers. Standing beside her are painter Paul Lhôte, dressed in red and white clothing, and Eugène-Pierre Lestringuez, a civil servant from the Ministry of the Interior. Art historian and banker Charles Ephrussi stands in a black top hat, conversing with poet Jules Laforgue, who is smoking a pipe. Actress Ellen Andrée wears pearl earrings while conversing with Maggiolo. Social Hierarchy and Placement The gathering on the terrace at Chatou presents a casual assembly of contemporaries from various social strata. Academic painting conventions of the nineteenth century typically rendered individuals of higher social standing at a larger physical scale to denote rank. Renoir discarded this traditional hierarchy, relying entirely on visual perspective to establish the relative size of each figure. Wealthy art patrons, working actresses, rowers, and civil servants occupy the same scene without spatial artificiality. Charles Ephrussi, an affluent banker and art historian, stands near the back of the group in formal attire, sharing space with informal rowers and studio models. Behind the assembled party, the River Seine remains visible through the balcony structure, complete with passing sailing boats on the water. The setting at the Restaurant Fournaise allowed Renoir to depict his acquaintances relaxing together in an informal outdoor environment. Pierre-Auguste Renoir - Luncheon on the Boating Party (Detail - Still life). Public domain; source: Wikimedia Commons. Composition and Use of Light The structural composition relies on the diagonal line of the wooden balcony railing to divide the canvas into two distinct regions. One half of the space contains a dense, overlapping group of figures engaged in conversation. The opposite side remains largely open, featuring only Louise-Alphonsine Fournaise and her brother Alphonse. This division places structural emphasis on the proprietor's children through the contrast between the crowded and vacant areas of the terrace. Illumination enters the balcony through a large opening adjacent to the standing man in the hat and the woman leaning on the railing. Renoir unified the composition by allowing light to reflect off specific surface areas, including the white tablecloth and the sleeveless tops worn by the men in the foreground. He selected complementary colours, placing the orange-red of the flowers on Aline Charigot’s hat against the Prussian blue of her dress, while repeating these tones in muted shades across the clothing of background figures. Revisions and Studio Practice Renoir commenced the work without preparing formal preliminary sketches, relying only on minimal underdrawing directly on the canvas surface. Modern technical examinations using X-radiographic and infrared analysis demonstrate that the artist altered the arrangement repeatedly during execution. The scans reveal that a figure initially positioned to look directly towards the viewer was later painted over and replaced by a male figure facing Alphonsine. The process of completing the canvas proved logistically complex because the models posed in small groups or as individuals rather than all at once. Models frequently arrived late or failed to keep their appointments, disrupting the artist's schedule. In a letter to his patron Paul Berard, Renoir expressed his frustration with the painting, stating that he no longer knew where he was with the work and that it was annoying him increasingly. Reception and Exhibition History The completed canvas was displayed at the Seventh Impressionist Exhibition in 1882, held in rented rooms at 251 Rue Saint-Honoré in Paris. The business operations of the exhibition were managed by the art dealer Paul Durand-Ruel, allowing the participating artists to focus on their entries. Three contemporary critics declared Renoir's canvas to be the finest painting in the exhibition. Writing in Le Pays on 10 March 1882, critic Paul de Charry described the work as fresh and free without being bawdy. In La Vie Moderne on 11 March 1882, Armand Silvestre praised the draftsmanship, noting that the remarkable drawing resulted from the juxtaposition of hues rather than outlined edges, calling it one of the most beautiful pieces produced by independent artists. In contrast, Albert Wolff published a harsh review in Le Figaro on 2 March 1882, writing that Renoir would have produced a pretty picture had he learned to draw. The painting was eventually acquired for the Phillips Collection in the United States, where actor Edward G. Robinson later described spending hours standing before the canvas during visits to the museum in Washington.