Defining Impressionism

According to Paul Smith, "Impression, Sunrise, was about Monet's search for spontaneous expression, but was guided by definite and historically specific ideas about what spontaneous expression was." Indeed, such spontaneous expression (of following sensation and reaction to what was seen) was a direct challenge to what the "Impressionists" were dissatisfied with: "the classical training at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts, or the state-run school of fine art, and especially with the its emphasis on historical and mythological subject matter and 'correct' drawing in the manner of the antique or Renaissance masters..." And yet ironically, as Smith explains, was in fact influenced by the same ideas it sought to challenge (However, this is not to say that the Impressionist movement lacked any originality, quite the contrary).

Here is where the recurring theme of art and art history lies: to what extent is a movement a rebellion of the dominant and/or previous movement? The Impressionists adopted the ideal of 'spontaneous expression' when painting, certainly defying classical norms . But even still "they paradoxically had to learn how to achieve the desired effect by studying artistic precedent." Now then we can infer from this that even though Impressionism was indeed a revolution in aesthetics in Western art, it indeed follows a certain thread (not to say that art and art history is linear) from the previous movement. Thus the reality is that revolutions rely upon the previously dominant not just for the rebellion itself, but also to organize the new ideals and norms. Can that be reconciled and should it be? These philosophical questions can apply to almost any movement in relation to their predecessors. However, given that 'spontaneous expression' is such a great departure from previous forms, its paradoxical nature merits extra attention and observation when asking the question "Can a movement ever really break from its predecessor and what would that look like?"