The Impressionist painters were criticized in their time because of their innovative style that broke with traditional artistic conventions, especially regarding painting technique, the representation of subjects, and the composition of works.
The Impressionists did not follow the classical rules taught by the art schools of the time at all. Normally, artists had to adhere to specific rules: a smooth and clean painting, very detailed, with historical, religious, or mythological themes, in short, serious and noble above all. The Impressionists, however, broke these classical rules by preferring quick, visible brush strokes and a very spontaneous way of painting. Their approach was extremely free, not aiming to represent reality precisely, but rather making room for their personal sensations: this shocked quite a few people. They were criticized for lacking seriousness, for not respecting exact proportions, or simply for being technically poor. Basically, they tossed tradition aside, and of course, this did not please everyone.
Impressionists abandon dark and sober colors of traditional paintings in favor of bright and luminous shades, often placed side by side without prior mixing. From a distance, the colors merge in the eye to recreate a natural luminous sensation: this is called optical mixing. They also use colored shadows, far from the usual black and gray, which profoundly astonishes their audience. By playing with quick, light, and vibrant strokes, they primarily seek to capture the ephemeral effect of the sun, reflections in water, or the surrounding atmosphere. This radical choice contrasts so greatly with academic habits that many consider these works garish or artificial.
Impressionist painters surprised and displeased because they painted everyday life without idealizing or embellishing it. In contrast to traditional noble and heroic subjects, they represented very simple scenes: moments in a café, strolls in a park, a busy train station, or even women calmly styling their hair at home. These choices seemed banal or insignificant to many critics of the time, who were used to seeing historical, mythological, or religious scenes. Their interest in ordinary life shocked some conservative minds, who saw these works as lacking artistic ambition or too trivial to be worthy of interest in official exhibitions. However, today we understand that these supposedly insignificant subjects were actually a courageous way to showcase the beauty of the present moment, of the everyday, and of authenticity.
Impressionists often used quick, visible, and spontaneous strokes, which led their contemporaries to feel that the paintings were sloppy or unfinished. The public, accustomed to carefully smoothed and perfectly detailed painting, struggled to appreciate these works filled with apparent and sometimes chaotic brushstrokes. Some critics even spoke of canvases painted in a hurry, comparing their paintings to sketches or preparatory drafts rather than finished serious works. The impressionist touch, light, quick, and blurred, puzzled many at the time, as it completely broke away from what was considered "true" artistic craftsmanship.
In their time, Impressionist painters were seriously maligned by the press and the public. Their exhibitions were seen as kinds of artistic provocations. What they painted seemed strange, unusual, downright failed in the eyes of an audience accustomed to the realistic and meticulously crafted paintings of the era. Some critics openly mocked them, saying that their works resembled sketches, blobs, or child's scribbles. The very term "Impressionist" actually comes from a critic, Louis Leroy, who wanted to ridicule Monet's painting titled "Impression, Sunrise". These artists were also accused of lacking seriousness and technique, to the point of often being excluded from major official exhibitions and academic Salons. It was far from easy for them.
The term 'Impressionism' comes from a painting by Claude Monet titled 'Impression, Sunrise', which was exhibited at an exhibition in 1874. This name was originally used as a mocking critique by the journalist Louis Leroy before being adopted by the artists themselves.
The official Salon of Paris, a major artistic institution of the time, regularly rejected Impressionist works, thus prompting the artists involved to organize their own independent exhibition as early as 1874.
Impressionist artists often painted outdoors (referred to as painting 'en plein air'), a practice that was unusual at the time when painters primarily created their works in studios, adhering to strict rules of representation.
Despite the initial strong hostility towards the Impressionists, some critics and collectors, such as Paul Durand-Ruel, recognized their talent early on, actively supporting these artists and contributing to their future renown.
Academic critics frequently dismissed scenes of everyday life, such as walks, cafés, or urban landscapes that the Impressionists cherished, viewing them as too ordinary or insignificant.
The photograph accurately reproduced reality, which led Impressionist painters to express their personal impressions more than a strict realism, resulting in misunderstandings and negative criticism at the time.
The academies criticized Impressionist painters for using bright and unconventional colors, often applied directly in distinct strokes, considering it unattractive and contrary to established aesthetic rules.
Despite a difficult beginning, the public gradually came to appreciate the innovative approach of the Impressionists, recognizing the beauty of their spontaneous study of light and the modernity of their themes, ultimately leading to a complete rehabilitation.
Because Impressionist painters used a quick technique and visible brush strokes, contrasting sharply with the precision and detailed finish required by traditional academic art.
No one has answered this quiz yet, be the first!' :-)
Question 1/5
