Not everyone knows about Baroque art or Cubism but most know about Impressionism. Love it or hate it, it is a very well-known style. I, personally, have always loved the style of Impressionism as well as the idea of an art movement going against the conventions of the time and shocking some people. The reason I love the style is the loose brushstrokes and the way the colors blend together seems so carefree. The subject matter is nice too, just people doing ordinary things, not engaging in battles or biblical scenes.
People in Motion
Here is a Impressionist painting that I love, The Star by Edgar Degas, completed in Paris in 1876. The loose brushstrokes convey a sense of movement, and the impression that this a moment caught in time and in the next second her position will be different. The light also helps with the impression of movement. The subject does not look posed, but rather spontaneous. Interestingly, Degas despised the label “Impressionist” and thought of himself as more of a realist. However, when we compare this painting to a Realist painting you can see why he was an Impressionist and also why I prefer Impressionism more.
Here we have The Stone Breakers Gustave Courbet, a Realist painting completed circa 1850 in France. The brushstrokes are not visible giving the scene a, well, realistic quality. This also makes the scene look frozen in place, even though the stone breakers are in the middle of their tasks. The colors blend into each other less. It just does not seem as exciting as Impressionist paintings. The subject itself is more grim, the clothing of the stone breakers is tattered and they are not like the middle class subjects of Impressionism.
Landscapes
One tradition that Impressionists continued was the landscape painting. In fact, Impressionists loved nature. We can see differences in the landscapes of the Impressionist movement and the Rococo era below. Just because Impressionist paintings were not part of the Realist movement does not mean they could not be realistic.
To the left we have the Rococo painting “Idyllic Landscape With Woman Fishing” painted by the French artist Francois Boucher in 1761. Although beautiful, the trees do not look real but rather like fantasy. The painting is also rather busy, with the clouds competing with the trees competing with the people. On the other hand, on the right is Claude Monet’s Banks of the Seine, Vetheuil, completed 1880 in France. The focus is more on the simple serenity of nature. The way the colors blend together in the water and flowers looks more natural. While not as dramatic, it is still quietly impressive.
Parting Thoughts
I love Impressionism because of the way it conveys movement and the transitory way of real life. It manages to still be realistic but also beautiful. It does not rely, unlike art like Baroque art, on subject matter to be dramatic but rather on light and movement.
"Important Art and Artists of Realism." The Art Story, The Art Story Foundation, 2016. Accessed 18
Oct. 2016. http://www.theartstory.org/movement-realism-artworks.htm
"The Evolution of Rococo." Indianapolis Museum of Art, 5 Apr. 2014. Accessed 18 Oct. 2016. http://www.imamuseum.org/blog/2014/04/05/the-evolution-of-rococo/
Walton, Kimberley. "Contrasting the Work of Cézanne and Monet: Two Unique Paths To Modernism."
Empty Easel. Accessed 18 Oct. 2016. http://emptyeasel.com/2007/11/08/contrasting-the-work-of-cezanne-and-monet-two-unique-paths-to-modernism/
Emily's Art Blog 
I really like your post you really differentiated impressionism from realism, I have always enjoyed realism, however i always enjoyed the colors of the impressionist art. Think that you are right that impressionism really does convey motion very well i would say better than realism, and that its reliance on light and motion really enhance the painting.
LikeLike
I like the second piece that you talked about more than the first one because there seemed to more more going on and more items in the painting to look at. In the first painting my focus was drawn to the ballerina and there wasn’t much else to retain my attention. I loved the landscape paintings, especially how the artists included items in the foreground, which makes the painting look more realistic and three dimensional. After doing some research I learned that majority of Edgar Degas’s paintings were of dancers. Aside from paintings he was known for his sculptures as well.
LikeLike
One thing I love about Impressionism is that, like you mentioned, it’s “…just people doing ordinary things, not engaging in battles or biblical scenes.” Yet, it looks so beautiful! Impressionism shows us that the subject matter is not the top priority, technique and style of each brush stroke is what makes the painting stand out. The Star by Edgar Degas, is a beautiful piece with a simple subject. With the way the blurry brush strokes appear, it seems as if the “…brushstrokes convey a sense of movement.” Like a camera with slow shutter speeds, attempting to capture a photo of a ballerina spinning.
I like how you said that “Just because Impressionist paintings were not part of the Realist movement does not mean they could not be realistic.” In Claude Monet’s Banks of the Seine, Vetheuil, it is visible that the plants’ edges are not sharp like most realistic pieces, but it feels more real than the example you showed, Idyllic Landscape with Woman Fishing by Francois Boucher. Boucher’s Rococo painting is gorgeous and has clean lines, but like you mentioned “the trees do not look real but rather like a fantasy.” It makes me feel as if I am looking at a painting. The Rococo piece is more complex than Monet’s Impressionist piece. Monet’s painting is simple and bright, and makes me feel as if I am literally outside viewing the same landscape as Monet did. These were great comparisons.
p.s. Good comparisons and examples of “People of Motion” and “Landscape”.
LikeLike
I find that I too enjoy Impressionism! It has a really beautiful way of just capturing everyday moments. The brushstrokes and blending really make the picture come alive! The way you compared Impressionism to Realist style really shows the major contrast between the two; they are really complete opposites. Its amazing how art styles can be so different, yet they are all amazing in their own unique ways. Do you think photography compares to Impressionist style painting, as far as capturing the moment? I feel as if Impression paintings come to life more than a photograph can.
LikeLike