Defining Impressionism

In Defining Impressionism, Paul Smith seeks a concrete explanation of what Impressionism entails and does this by examining various works of art and the different definitions available. He concludes by stating that despite it claiming to be spontaneous, Impressionists learn how to achieve the desired effect by studying artistic precedents. As such, these painting can never be a “first impression” of nature, as the artist’s point of departure can never be removed from his social positioning. This is to imply that the painting is never a reflection of primordiality as it is intended to be. It is instead the eruption of the painter’s experiences onto the canvas. This failure to capture ourselves in nature in this most primitive state hints at the failure of Impressionism. However, this idea of an interiority, or the manifest consciousness of an individual is questionable. Perhaps, our identities or consciousness are simply accumulations of our learned experiences. As such, Impressionism has been able to capture precisely what our visual experiences are – projections of our experiences in this society. To suggest that visual events can have no informational, cultural significance is reductive, and to try to represent it that way is futile. In other words, impressionism attempts and succeeds in capturing our most immediate responses to nature, but even our most immediate responses do not depart from a blank slate. Another point to consider is the act of viewing these Impressionist paintings. They are once again a projection of the viewer’s experiences. As such, Impressionist paintings are indeed unique distinct visual events, removed from each other and from the metaphysical. Encapsulated in these paintings are different possibilities that emerge. Perhaps, what is important is not to seek the first impression, this perfect and untainted image but to place paintings in a social and historical contexts and seek understanding of the many varying visual experiences that arise from it.