HIGHACRES COLLEGIAN
THE ART OF IMPRESSIONISM
What is Impressionism?
This seemingly elementary question 1.6
not., perhaps, quite so simple to answer
as might be imagined. Mile the term
has become part of the common usage of
ar criticism and much has been written
on its history and its technique, the
e.l:3ence of the matter remains elusive.
A s;milar fate has overtaken the word
'Elenaissance," which was used with far
easier confidence a generation or two
ago than it is now. We are not quite
sure when the Renaissance began, or
even when it ended. With more or less
ma-nirAty we speak of the ' , art of the
Renaissance," but our thought is far
fro;: precise* Perhaps we know too much
about it all to make such comfortable
c-larsifications as used to be popular*
Th evolutionary complexities of any
r:er•_.od of art, or of society generally,
onro they are understood with some
c.horoughness, make easy boundaries dif—
ficult and generalizations hazardous
This is particularly the case with
impressionism. We are slowly learning
more about it, but our analyses make
us wary of pat answers. Everyone int—
erested in the art of this period knows
that both Degas and Monet were members
of the so—called Impressionist group,
but not everyone reflects on the wide
gap which separated their respective
styles, a gap which makes most of what
might be said about the one inapplicable
to the other. In other words, we find
ourselves faced with the paradoxical
necessity of differentiating between the
words "Impressionist" and "IMpression—
ismon The Impressionists were the art—
ists who exhibited together in a shift—
ing alliance from :,874 to 1886, but
their individual styles were too various
to be accuratelydescribed by a common
label,
Nomenclature, unfortunately, is only the
beginning of the difficulty. Not only
(Cent.) 1
by Joseph C. Sloane
must one distinguish between artiste
and a style;' it is also necessary to
say what that style was, where it came
from, and when it can be. said to have
come to an end. Some Impressionists
used it consistently, particularly
Monet; others tried it for a while and
gave it up, either partially, af Ren—
oir, or almost altogether, as Ozanne
and Gauguin. The term was presumably
adopted from the derisive twist given
to the title of a picture by Monet in
Louis Leroyts review of the 1.874 group
show in Nadarts old studio in the Rue
Daunou. luression—Sarise was the
picture, and the article was headed
"Exhibition of the Impressionists."
The name stuck to the whole group,
thus causing no small part of the con—
fusion. Since Monetts picture was
indeed representative of his own de—
veloped manner, and since he was cer—
tainly the purest Impressionist of the
lot, the identification of the new
manner with this particular canvas is
entirely just. But Degasts art of
this period was vastly different, and
so were contemporary canvases by Sisley
and Morisot.
Basically, the difference between earl—
ier landscape (or figure work) and the
Impressionist version lies in three
factors: the presence or absence of.
neutral tones either as underpaint for
form construction or as shadow; the
colors themselves; and a manner of
applying pigment which can be described
as nsketchyt" These may, for the m5O
- be considered separately.
The traditional landscape, even as
modified by Corot and the Barbiaon
painters(Barbizon is a villa ,e in
northern France, famous as an art
center) ) had always relied on browns )
greens and grays for achieving that
sense of convincing bulk which created
tree trunks, hills, ruins, farm houses
and so forth. Since artists and view
ers alike were accustomed to this
convention, they came to believe that,
only by the use of these equivalents
for value could outdoor scenes be
(Cont 4)
FRIDAY DECEMBER 5 195€1