Introduction to Impressionism
Material Assembled by Martine Gray

See also:  Art Terms:  Impressionism
             Impressionism by Robert Reiff

Impressionism was a revolutionary development in painting which, from the start, involved French, British, and American artists and which culminated in the period 1874-1886 in Paris, France. In the 1870’s, its advocates were often derided and ridiculed, and several of the original Impressionist painters, including Claude Monet, Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Camille Pissaro, and Alfred Sisley, lived in abject poverty for many years while they were trying to gain recognition as serious artists and educate the eyes of the public away from conventional art.

Like other aesthetic terms, such as Gothic, Baroque or Mannerist, the word Impressionist initially had a derogatory meaning. It was coined in April 1874 by the journalist Louis Leroy, who wrote derisively of one of Monet’s paintings. The painting, Impression: Sunrise aroused the following sarcastic comments from Leroy: "I might have guessed as much. I was just thinking that, since I am so much impressed, there must be some impression in that picture."

The word Impressionism stuck, however, because it aptly suggested one of the acknowledged goals of the new painters: "To record the sharpness of the initial sensation," as one of the few favorable contemporary critics, Mr. Burly, put it. Here is how Jean Leymarie defines this goal: "An effort to reveal no more of the reality than the shifting flux of appearance, i.e., the immediate, virgin form taken by sensations before they can be acted upon by will, reason, or the passions... Impressionism is an emotional response to visual sensations devoid of theoretical principle." (Impressionism: Biographical and Critical Study, Geneva, 1955, Vol. 2, p. 28) The Symbolist poet, Stéphane Mallarmé, a friend of Edouard Manet, was aiming at the same effect in literature. He wanted to "paint not things themselves, but the effects they produce" ("peindre non la chose mais l’effet qu’elle produit").

In order to achieve this common goal, the Impressionists went many different ways. Some of them were excellent colorsts with little experience at drawing. They emphasized a new theory of colors. Others were superb draftsmen for whom the application of color was only one aspect of the painter’s art. They disagreed on subject matter, the landscapists pitted themselves against the urban painters; they disagreed on the best light to be shed on an object (sunlight versus artificial light); they also disagreed on the use of black for outlining objects or casting shadows, etc. There were more disagreements than agreements between these men and women who were all struggling for acceptance.

The word Impressionism is therefore a confusing term. It refers not to a school of painters with common subject matter, techniques and goals, and acknowledged leaders, but rather to a changing group of independent avant-garde artists of the late 19th century. Those artists did not admit to belonging to any one school of thought and sometimes bitterly fought between themselves about the nature and methods of their art, or even the titles to be given to their joint exhibitions. These exhibitions are best seen as challenges to the official Salon where academically "correct" paintings were shown.

This is how Charles S. Moffett develops this point in his introduction to The New Painting: Impressionism 1874-1886 (Geneva, 1986) (pp. 17-21):

"The exhibition planned in 1874 by the group of painters surrounding Monet and Renoir was not to be that of ‘a small clique.’ The critic Paul Alexis pointed out that "they intend to represent interests, not tendencies, and hope for the adhesion of all serious artists.’ the Group eluded a simple definition and seemed to exist principally for the purpose of providing an alternative to official exhibitions.

The first of 8 jointly organized shows was held in April 1874. The last took place 12 years later. The artists were known variously as Independents, Impressionists, Intransigents, phalangists, and radicals, and were occasionally characterized as lunatics, maniacs, and worse (a caricturist suggested that pregnant women risked miscarriage at the sight of the new art). The identity and philosophy of the group were unclear because the participating artists wished to avoid a name for the association that denoted a specific style. The need for a neutral title is evident in the label they chose for 1874: Société anonyme des artistes peintres, sculpteurs, graveurs, etc. (A group of artists, painters, sculptors, printmakers, etc.)

By 1876, the term Impressionism was widely used, and no longer bore the pejorative connotations intended by the critic who made the term popular in 1874. In 1879, Degas proposed the title ‘un groupe d’artistes indépendants, réalistes, et impressionistes’ for the upcoming exhibition. But only the phrase ‘group of independents’ proved acceptable to the general membership.

The eight group shows were in fact ‘umbrella’ exhibitions for a diverse and complex association of avant-garde artists whose constantly changing membership obviated the ongoing usefulness of a term such as Impressionism.

The expression ‘the new painting’ used by the critic Edmond Duranty, a friend of Degas, accurately describes the main thrust of the group exhibitions, although the word Impressionism will unquestionably remain sysnonamous with French avant-garde painting of the 1870s and 1880s. It is one of the many similarly imprecise art historical terms that suggest an extremely limited range of stylistic possibilities and thereby distort our view of a particular period or school. The so-called Impressionist movement was more than the introduction of plein-air painting. During the 1870s and 1880s, artists turned to new subjects and developed new styles appropriate to them. In addition, although the new art evolved as a logical consequence of Realism and Naturalism, it soon led toward an art that quickly exhausted the possibilities of imagery concerned principally with the appearance of things as they are. Paradoxically, it also grew increasingly abstract."

1. Landscapists vs. Urban Painters

The Impressionists divided themselves into two groups, and at the Café Guerbois where they met to discuss art and exchange ideas, they sat at two different tables.

• The Landscapists painted exclusively outdoors. They were excellent colorists. They included Claude Monet, Camille Pissaro, Alfred Sisley, and later Paul Cézanne.
• The urban painters concentrated on street scenes or interior vignettes at the theatre or the opera, for example, and individual portraits. They often sketched on the spot, but painted in a studio. They were Hilaire Degas, Berthe Morisot, Fréderic Bazille, and Pierre-Auguste Renoir. Except for Degas, these urban painters made occasional concessions to the landscapists and did enjoy painting in the open air, as long as the weather was pleasant.

Edouard Manet became the hero of the new painters after the scandalous notoriety of his Déjeuner su l’herbe and Olympia in 1863 at the Salon des Refusés. But he never publicly accepted his role as leader of the Impressionist "revolution" and only joined Monet and Renoir in their outdoor expeditions in 1872.

2. Contemporary Subject Matter

The subject matter of the Impressionists was definitely contemporary. They rejected the mythological, historical or military themes which won accolades at the official Salon, and depicted contemporary everyday scenes often peopled with friends or relatives who could be easily identified. They did not dress up their models as ancient goddesses or Roman emperors or beautify them to agree with the Greek ideal of beauty. Instead, they presented them with their actual features, dressed in modern clothing, and performing ordinary but revealing actions. Some of Degas’ dancers are caught in ungainly attitudes, but they look real. Many of Renoir’s merry-makers are coarse or pedestrian-looking, but they seem alive. All these characters are painted realistically.

Moreover, the figures in an Impressionist painting give an impression of spontaneity, as if they had been caught unaware by the eye of a camera. A Degas ballerina is tying her shoelace; one of Mary Cassatt’s society ladies is hiding the bottom of her face as she sips of cup of tea; another character may be turning his back to the viewer or may be so engrossed in the spectacle at the opera that he has not noticed the painter who was sketching him. These people seem not to be posing at all. The composition of the pictures reflects the same effort at immediacy. Figures are grouped casually, and part of an arm or leg may actually be outside the picture frame. The impression of immediacy, however, is no more than an appearance, an illusion. It is the result of long hours of observation and labor. Degas, for example, remarked: "No art is less spontaneous than mine." Here is how Edmond Duranty explains the Impressionists’ choice of subject matter ("The New Painting: Concerning the Group of Artists Exhibiting at the Durand-Ruel Galleries," 1876 essay reproduced in The New Painting: Impressionism 1874-1886, pp. 37-49):

"What drawing wants in terms of its current goals is just to know nature intensely and to embrace nature with such strength that it can render faultlessly the relations between forms, and reflect the inexhaustible diversity of character. Farewell to the human body treated like a vase, with an eye for the decorative curve. Farewell to the uniform monotony of bone structure, to the anatomical model beneath the nude. What we need are the special characteristics of the modern individual – in his clothing, in social situations, at home, or on the street. The fundamental idea gains sharpness of focus. This is the joining of torch to pencil, the study of states of mind reflected by physiognomy and clothing. It is the study of the relationship of a man to his home, or the particular influence of his profession on him, as reflected in the gestures he makes; the observation of all aspects of the environment in which he evolves and develops.

A back should reveal temperament, age, and social position; a pair of hands should reveal the magistrate or the merchant, and a gesture should reveal an entire range of feelings. Physiognomy will tell us with certainty that one man is dry, orderly, meticulous, while another is the epitome of carelessness and disorder. Attitude will reveal to us whether a person is going to a business meeting, or is returning from a tryst... Hands kept in pockets can be eloquent. The artist’s pencil will be infused with the essence of life. We will no longer simply see lines measured with a compass, but animated, expressive forms that develop logically from one another...

As we are solidly embracing nature, we will no longer separate the figure from the background of an apartment or the street. In actuality, a person never appears against neutral or vague backgrounds. Instead, surrounding him and behind him are the furniture, fireplaces, curtains, and walls that indicate his financial position, class, and profession. The individual will be at a piano, examining a sample of cotton in an office, or waiting in the wings for the moment to go onstage, or ironing on a makeshift table. He will be having lunch with his family, or sitting in his armchair near his worktable, absorbed in thought. He might be avoiding carriages as he crosses the street or glancing at his watch as he hurries across the square. When at rest, he will not be merely pausing or striking a meaningless pose before the photographer’s lens. This moment will be a part of his life as are his actions.

The language of an empty apartment must be clear enough to enable us to deduce the character and habits of its occupant. The passersby in a street should reveal the time of day and the moment of everyday life that is shown.

In real life view of things and people are manifested in a thousand unexpected ways. Our vantage point is not always located in the center of a room whose two side walls converge toward the back wall; the lines of sight and angles of cornices do not always join with mathematical regularity and symmetry. Nor does our point of view always exclude the large expanse of ground or floor in the immediate foreground. Sometimes our viewpoint is very high, sometimes very low; as a result we lose sight of the ceiling, and everything crowds into our immediate field of vision, and furniture is abruptly cropped. Our peripheral vision is restricted at a certain distance from us, as if limited by a frame, and we see objects to the side only as permitted by the edge of this frame...

Consider a figure either in a room or on the street. It is not always in a straight line with two parallel objects or at an equal distance from them. It is confined on one side more than on the other by space. In a word, it is never in the center of the canvas or the center of the scene. It is not shown whole, but often appears cut off at the knee or mid-torso, or cropped lengthwise. At other times the eye takes it in from up close, at its full height, and relegates to perspectival diminution others in a street crowd, or a group gathered in a public place..."

3. The argument Over Open-Air and Indoor Painting.

In order to depict contemporary life or rural scenes as they actual experienced them in all their immediacy, the Impressionists burst out of the confining artificial environment of the painter’s studio. They seldom used studio models. Even Degas, who had no test for plein-air painting, recorded the scenes that interested him on the spot, as he was witnessing them, at the opera or the racetracks. After completing his drawing, he went back to his studio to do the actual painting. Mary Cassatt picked up his habit and always carried a sketchbook with her.

Monet and the Landscapists, on the other hand, went much further. They felt that a painting should be begun and completed in one spot, before the qualities of light and the atmosphere at a particular moment in the day could change. To them, every painting was the record of a unique irreplaceable experience. The conditions of light could never be duplicated. They applied this belief to the painting of human beings as well as landscapes, since the flesh tones of a model were only true when the model was bathed in natural light, lit equally on all sides. Renoir, on the other hand, painted indoors as well as outdoors.

Early on, Monet and Pissaro discarded the browns, grays, and dark greens of other contemporary landscapists and returned to the pure colors of the rainbow. Others followed suit. They rejected the convention of chiaroscuro, the contrast of light and dark. For them, there was no such thing as black in nature: shadows were dark purple, and the black contours used to outline people or objects were distortions of the viewer’s sensations. Also, in the blazing light of day, perspective as it was taught at the Ecole des Beaux Arts made no sense to them. They created their own "atmospheric" perspective. Not all the so-called Impressionists agreed with these revolutionary departures from traditional art. All of them, though, did experience with the technique of "broken color" which Watteau had already used in the 18th century. Thus, they could better render the vibrations of the air and the shimmering of light on water or shiny textiles.

The theory of "broken color" involves "the application of pigment in small strokes of different tints which merge at a distance, as distinguied from the application of tints mixed up on the palette" (R.H. Wilenski, Modern French Painters, New York, 1949, p. 7). Here is how Jean Leymarie describes the technique in Impressionism: A Biographical and Critical Study (pp. 13-14):

Monet and Pissaro "launched into dazzling juxtapositions of pure colors that only merged when seen at a certain distance from the canvas; this was the famous ‘optical mixture.’ Thereby, they instinctively rediscovered the law of complementary colors formulated by Chevreul and intuitively put into practice by Delacrois, i.e., each of the three primary colors of the spectrum (red, blue, yellow), which blend into all possible color combinations, is optically intensified by its complementary (for example, red by green, which is a mixture of blue and yellow; blue by orange, which is a mixture of red and yellow; yellow by violet, which is a mixture of blue and red), and the breaking up of tones into tiny sparkling dabs enhances this effect. Hence the predilection of Monet and his friends for green fields dotted with poppies (or other specks of red), orange gleams of sunlight on blue water, violet shadows thrown on sunny yellow roads, faces, or walls – all of which so amazed their contemporaries that for years the Impressionists were accused of astigmatism."

Here is how Edmond Duranty describes the great discovery of the new painters (The New Painting: Impressionism 1874-1886, pp. 42-43):

"In the field of color they made a genuine discovery for which no precedent can be found, not in the Dutch master, not in the clear, pale tones of fresco painting, nor in the soft tonalities of the 18th century.

They are not merely preoccupied by the refined and supple play of color that emerges when they observe the way the most delicate ranges of tone either contrast or intermingle with each other. Rather, the real discovery of these painters lies in their realization that strong light mitigates color, and the sunlight reflected by objects tends, by its very brightness, to restore that luminous unity that merges all seven prismatic rays into one single colorless beam – light itself.

Proceeding by intuition, they little by little succeeded in splitting sunlight into its rays, and then reestablishing its unity in the general harmony of the iridescent color that they scatter over their canvases. With regard to visual subleties and delicate blending of colors, the result is utterly extraordinary."