STUDENT POST: Impressionists: The Black Sheep of the Artistic Family? Or Pioneers for the Modern Age?

by: Adele Mallow-Spears, undergraduate art history student

When looking at Claude Monet’s Impression Sunset with its soft lines, vivid colors and rather innocuous subject matter would you think that it would be a catalyst for a rather rebellious and controversial art movement in Paris? Before learning about the history of art before and during this period, I would not have guessed this either. In fact, like most people nowadays, I saw this painting and thought it amazing that such a blurry image could command such an obscenely high price today! Well, as with many things in life, nothing is really as simple as it seems on the surface. My aim for this post is to have you contemplating whether the Impressionists were truly the rebellious “black sheep” of the artistic family? Or were they pioneering the way for later modern art styles and modern ideal in general?

Monet, Manet, Renoir and other artists started meeting at a café in Paris. The discussion of the goals of their art and art in general came up several times apparently. From these discussions the artists realized how they were of a like mind, they wanted to attempt to capture moments of life in the world around them. The idea of trying to convey a moment or event as it was occurring seemed very exciting and sparked a passion. Impressionists like Degas still produced most of their work with a studio, but many others, like Monet, preferred to work outdoors. To make this more interesting is when artists, like Manet, also chose to use angles, shadowing and subject matter not commonly accepted.

I am sure you are wondering what I mean by that. Well, the French Academy of Art, along with its affiliates, had rather strict guidelines about what techniques, styles and subject matter stood as acceptable.

The Academy, a place where budding artists could train, held a lot of influence of the artistic community in France as well as the other communities throughout Europe. France and Italy still stood as the artistic Meccas of Europe. The art shows of the time, called Salons, were often by invitation and the Academy often held sway over the invitation list. With that in mind, I will attempt to summarize their ideals to give you a better idea of why the Impressionists caused such controversy. For one thing, the Academy revered the classical styles and techniques, as well as seeing a great importance in using perspective (creating depth and a vanishing point). To avoid boring you with my attempts to describe these, I will show you the School of Athens by Raphael (1510-1511):

The foreground, middle ground and background with vanishing point are very obvious in this painting. Also, the well-defined forms, flowing lines, and the bright hues, as well as lighting, illustrate the classical style excellently in my opinion. Also, this painting stood in excellence with the Academy due to it being a historical painting. Genre paintings (scenes of people in everyday life in a particular area) and portraits (paintings of one or more people at the center and posed) were considered to be acceptable subjects. However, landscape (outdoor scenes that did not include people) and still lifes (posed paintings of inanimate objects) didn’t even warrant their attention most of time. These paintings were rarely accepted into the Salons.

With all of this in mind, you can imagine how the Academy felt about a painting such as Monet’s Impression, Sunset, which could be defined as a landscape but with blurred, indistinct lines and bright contrasting colors. To answer that question, I will simply say that a critic harshly named Monet, Manet and others of like style/mind “Impressionist” due to this painting. To make this even better, at a Salon set up by Napoleon for all the rejected art works, Manet displayed his Luncheon on the Grass. The conservative critics and Academy members were completely shocked that he dared to use such odd angles, odd shadowing and risqué subject matter. Now, nudes were not uncommon in art by any stretch, but having the women be the only nudes among conservatively dressed men and the picnic strewn about the grass makes the observer feel like they had just walked in on something very private. Needless to say, this only added fuel to the fire. Despite being criticized, belittled and sometimes outright ignored by many of their peers and the public, this didn’t stop the Impressionists from pursue art in a way that made sense and held meaning for them.

Being willing to take risks, keep on one’s chosen path despite roadblocks, and endure criticism the entire time stands as one of the best examples of modern thinking. Modern thinking in the sense that what becomes important is the individual experience, individual perception and the pursuit for self-actualization. For one of the first times in history, some artists were not creating art with a patron or the art market in mind. No, the works created were ultimately for the artist themselves and the progression of art. With the beginning of the foundation having been laid for a broader perspective on what constitutes fine art, the future artists definitely benefitted from the Impressionist’s rebellious spirit.

Sources: "Whisler's Velvet Revolution," slate.com; Impressionism