Defining Impressionism

The realm of art, like many others such as the literary world, has been going under a perpetual metamorphosis since its beginning. There are patterns of rebellion against the orthodox tradition, resistance and criticism, acceptance and it begins all over again. These rebellious painters of the late 19th century, now referred to as the Impressionists, were at first criticized for producing "unfinished" pieces of artwork. Paul Smith talks about how although these paintings are supposed to portray what the world looks like through fleeting glances, never pausing for too long at one object or scene of interest. The question is, whose eyes are we looking through? The topic of "flaneur," a "casual, male urban observer," reveals that these artists painted their objects or scenes with the kind of expectation that the viewers of the painting will share the same experiences as the "flaneur," the imaginary spectator of the paintings, that will enable them to identify with that standpoint the painters originally intended to represent. Is that fair? Does this mean any observer who is not of casual, male, urban status cannot fully aprpeciate this painting? Is it fair at all that the painters prescribe this expected standpoint for their viewers? Isn't art supposed to be unprejudiced, something for everybody to enjoy? Smith mentions that "the implication that Impressionist paintings were done for men has become the object of much recent critical attention, particularly among feminist writers." Despite the fact that I am far from being a "casual, male urban observer" I enjoy looking at Impressionist paintings; but does that make my appreciation for these artworks any less valid? Before reading this article, I had no knowledge of "flaneur" and nevertheless I enjoyed the paintings. I always thought that these artists painted what they experienced and transferred their sensations onto canvases. There seems to be however, a paradox, surrounding this concept. Smith discusses how the artists abided by strict philosopical and scientific guidelines about what sensations are supposed to be, even though sensations are supposed to be personal experiences for an individual, therefore something you cannot impose standards on. I sense a hypocrisy; Impressionist artists rebelled against the strict, orthodox guidelines for producing "good art" imposed by the Ecole des Beaux-Arts, but they enforced guidelines on themselves anyway. Does this overthrow the artistic domain of Impressionism?