Background
Impressionism emerged in the 19th century as a new art movement originating in Paris, France. The term was coined from a critic’s statement in regards to Claude Monet’s Impression, soleil levant in which the critic stated that the painting was a “mere impression.” It is characterized by the use of small, thin brush strokes and the emphasis on changing light. There is also crucial emphasis placed on movement which adds to the perception and overall experience of the work. The focus was placed more on the portrayal of the visual effects rather than details and was achieved by using mixed and unmixed color that was not blended smoothly or shaded.
My Overall Opinion of Impressionism
I generally dislike Impressionism as an art style. I like the idea of it and I like the goal of capturing a fleeting moment, but with the lack of detail most of the works make my eyes seem out of focus. Personally, I prefer looking at paintings with great detail and focus with a great emphasis on realism. I tend to like paintings which are of nature and outdoors which is why I don’t completely hate Impressionism; there seems to be an abundance of Impressionist works that focus a great deal on nature and outdoors. As Impressionism works try to capture the fleeting moment it is as if I am moving while looking at it and never given a chance to focus clearly on any component of the painting. I like being able to look at detail and focus on particular areas and draw conclusions or specific opinions based on the detail; with Impressionism it seems there is not enough of the picture there to draw a conclusion on the things I am looking at. There are some aspects I like about Impressionism such as the realistic leaning scenarios and the concept of the fleeting moment, but overall I feel like I am just looking at jumbled colors with a lack of transition and no focus.
Impressionism Works
Claude Monet – Grainstack. (Sunet), 1890-91
In this particular painting by Monet, which is from a series of Impressionist paintings he completed titled Haystacks while living in Giverny, France; I really appreciate the use of light that is used in it and also the level of shading to go along with the light. I also like the scenario; it is very nature oriented and is a common, everyday scenario. What I don’t like about this painting is my very issue with Impressionist works: it has a lack of detail that I desire and it is very “fuzzy” to look at. It really seems like this painting has more to offer than what is shown and while I know that he achieved what the characteristics of the style are, I just think that he has a painting that is left with loads of potential.
Claude Monet – Study of a Figure Outdoors: Woman with a Parasol, 1886
This painting was completed while Monet was living in Giverny, France in 1886. The lack of detail in this painting is unappealing to me and leaves me wanting to see what it would look like if it was painted in a manner of great detail and focus. I can only imagine that if it was painted with vibrant, smooth colors with easy transition points that it would be a very outstanding painting from my point of view. It is a very realistic scenario which, again, is something that I like to look at however it is so blurry that it seems like a fleeting scene from a dream. I really do not like the lack of color mixing and transitions, the Impressionist style is definitely something I don’t enjoy. I know that some very big names emerged from this period such as Monet, Manet, and Renoir so it is safe to say that this style is very appealing to a lot of people however, I am not in that category of majority.
Edouard Manet – Boating, 1874
This is a painting that I dislike much more than I like. Manet completed this painting in Paris in 1874. The general scene seems blotchy and pixilated and it is not very appealing. Even if the subjects were moving or if I was moving I don’t think that such a lack of detail would be observed. I think that this painting shows an overuse of the “fleeting” concept to the point where it is losing any marginal realistic quality that it may have had from the commonality of the scene. I feel like if I were to be the most critical of any piece of work that is of the Impressionist style that it would be this painting or others like this one where the scene is so convoluted by the overuse (or misuse) of light brush strokes and the absence of smooth colors. One positive thing I have to say about this painting is that I like the general color scheme, if it were to be done in great detail I think the colors chosen are absolutely perfect.
A Comparative Analysis
Rosa Bonheur
I would like to start this section by mentioning that I had never heard of Rosa Bonheur before the beginning of the Romantic Era lesson, but after having originally seen her works to my extensive searching of her works, I have really come to enjoy just about everything she has painted. Rosa Bonheur is a fine example of a Realist painter and she was characterized as an animal and nature painter. Rosa Bonheur studied her subjects extensively and used her prior knowledge of animal anatomy to create works that were very realistic with great amounts of detail. Homage is owed to this astonishing artist as I feel that her name should have been known to me long before taking this class.
Rosa Bonheur – Labourage nivernais, translated: Ploughing in Nevers, 1849
This is claimed to be her first great success; it was completed in France in 1849. The level of detail is outstanding it is just overall the style of art that I enjoy. I really like the scene of the animals, the nature, and the impression of hard work. The shading is well done and it is evident the where the light source would be located and that there is only one. Looking at the fleeting moment concept of Impressionist works, this painting also has a clear moment of transitory properties with a higher level of detail and focus. This is a perfect example of the style of art that I like. In contrast to the paintings of Impressionist style I have to point out that the detail, clarity, and scene shown in Labourage nivernais far exceeds that of the Impressionist style words. This painting also has, to some extent, the feeling of a transitory scenario but the emphasis is clearly placed on the details and focus whereas the focus of the Impressionist paintings is clearly placed on the overall visual effects for the fleeting moment.
Rosa Bonheur – Doe and Fawn in a Thicket, 1868
This painting was completed in France in 1868. In my opinion the amount of detail in this painting is greater than the detail in Labourage nivernais. This is an amazing scene that I like because it is raw nature which I prefer over all else. It is very calm which is nice, but I tend to prefer paintings with some level of action in them. What I like most about this painting is the detail of the background brush. I also really appreciate the realistic feel of the natural light being blocked out by the surrounding trees and creating that ambient light that is displayed. I think this is another great example of a Realist style painting; it has a very raw and natural scene and the detail and clarity are remarkable. Looking at Impressionist paintings, particularly Study of a Figure Outdoors: Woman with a Parasol by Claude Monet, the difference in detail seen in the shrubbery is very noticeable and these two paintings are obvious representations of different styles of art.
Modern Hyperrealist Painter Denis Peterson
Hyperrealism paintings are very detailed representations of an everyday object or scene. I chose to compare the Impressionist paintings with a Modern Hyperrealist painting because the difference in the styles and outcome of the artwork is out of this world. When looking at an Impressionist painting and a Hyperrealism painting side-by-side, it would be easy to glance at them and determine that the Hyperrealist painting is not a painting but a photograph. Here is a painting by Denis Peterson who is a renowned modern artist of the Hyperrealist style. This painting is titled Pureeka. The detail is unbelievable and it is easy to see how far art has come, especially in the mode of paint and texture. Acrylic paint was used in Denis Peterson’s work and it has the ability to be much glossier and presents a very vivid image with sharp enough contrast to mistake the painting for a real life scene. It is unclear when this painting was completed, but it was completed in New York City after the year 2000.
Summary
While I am not a fan of the Impressionist style of art, it is unfair not to give credit where it is due. The painters and their works presented in this post are world class and their success speaks for itself. The Impressionist artists that were mentioned in this post accomplished in their paintings what they sought to. Just because the Impressionist style does not speak to me the way that Realist style works do does not mean that I do not appreciate the art, I just have a different preference. These Impressionist artists all keep to the common characteristics of the Impressionist style and are highly successful in doing so. Comparing them to Realist style artwork really brings out the “mere impression” effect that the foundation of the style is built around. The Impressionist style places less emphasis in detail and more emphasis on the overall impression and experience; this is especially true when comparing the Impressionist works to the Hyperrealist work by Denis Peterson. Looking at the level of detail and sharp color of David Peterson’s Pureeka, it is obvious that there is much less emphasis on detail in the Impressionist style than in the Realist or Hyperrealist style. I think the comparisons speak for themselves in separating the styles from one another and it is also very fascinating comparing Peterson’s work with acrylic paint to the Romantic Era works that used oils.
References
“Haystacks (Monet).” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 22 Mar. 2014. Web. 24 Mar 2014.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haystacks_(Monet)>
“Impressionism.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 24 Mar. 2014. Web. 24 Mar. 2014.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impressionism>
“Rosa Bonheur.” artinthepicture. n.d. Web. 24 Mar. 2014.<http://www.artinthepicture.com/paintings/Rosa_Bonheur/
“Rosa Bonheur.” The Art History Archive. WebRing. n.d. Web. 24 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.arthistoryarchive.com/arthistory/realism/Rosa-Bonheur.html>
“Rosa Bonheur Ploughing in Nevers.” Musee d’Orsay. n.d. Web. 24 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.musee-orsay.fr/en/collections/works-in-focus/painting/commentaire_id/ploughing-in-nevers-2040.html? cHash=60f905d6af>
“the hyperreal paintings of denis peterson.” Denis Peterson. 2014. Web. 24 Mar. 2014.
Beau's Blog 
I really enjoyed the paintings you have posted. My favorite is the one by Claude Monet, Study of a Figure Outdoors: Woman with a Parasol. I really enjoy his work and my blog post contained one of his pieces. Claude Monet produced paintings that were always good examples of Impressionism. Many of his paintings were vibrantly colored but also had a lack of detail. In the painting Study of a Figure Outdoors: Woman with a Parasol by Claude Monet a lot of detail is left out including the woman’s face. I believe that this lack of detail helps take the viewers attention away from any details and focuses towards the beauty of the scene, the colors, and how they blend. I really liked your comparison with the realist paintings. I think that Impressionism compares very well with Realism. Realism uses a lot more detail that Impressionism. You can definitely see this difference between the painting Grainstack by Claude Monet and the painting by Denis Peterson. The thing that catches my attention the most in the Peterson painting is the large sign, it takes my attention away from the beauty of the scene, unlike in the Grainstack painting where there is almost no detail at all. As a side note, I tried to follow your link to the Peterson painting, however when I clicked on it I received an error message. The link could possibly be broken or it may just be my computer. I would check it and see.
I really enjoyed your blog post! You had all of the information within it and it was well divided so no one got lost. I liked how you started with showing a little bit of the background of impressionism. You had some really strong comparisons that showed why you did not like impressionism compared to others. I agree with you about detail, that was the main problem I had with impressionism, is that there was not enough detail for me. I really enjoyed all the information you provided! Good Job!
I really enjoyed reading your blog, it was incredibly detailed and I learned quite a bit. I had never heard of Hyperrealism before and after seeing this I realized I see it everywhere! Thank you for a little bit of Enlightenment, I think you chose good pieces to demonstrate the differences in the styles of art as well. Monet is one of my favorite painters specifically for the qualities you mentioned but I can understand wanting to see more distinct shapes and shading. His use of lighting however was unparalleled!