Individuality of the Painter

In “Defining Impressionism” by Paul Smith, Smith attempts to define Impressionism through the attitudes of the dominant artists of the Impressionist movement, instead of characterizing it as a certain form of window into society, gender roles, or the psychology of the artist. Smith mentions the very individualistic nature of the Impressionist painting, citing that, “Trying to pain their own impressions and sensations – or subjective responses to nature – the different Impressionists produced sometimes radically different interpretations of the same scene, even when they painted side by side.” Smith directly describes the impressions as subjective, depending completely on the mood, emotions, and state of mind of the painter at a particular moment in time. The scene that exists is being viewed through the lens of the painter’s own individual reactions, and then translated into a painting. The individual’s interpretations of the scene are inseparable from the painting, so that the painting itself will tell as much about the painter as it does about the scene being painted.
Paradoxically, Impressionism seems to want to capture reality without any interpretation of the individual painter. Smith evaluates the impressionist view that sensations, “were supposed to be formless in the sense that they were mere visual events with no informational or cultural content - patches of colour in the perceiver’s mind, and no more.” This idea as an aspect of Impressionism removes the individuality of the viewer entirely from the painting. It seems that any mind that was a tablula rasa, a blank slate, that happened to be viewing a particular scene at a particular time of day would then paint the exact same Impressionist image (or have that image in their imaginations). If we take form away from the objects we paint, and instead see them purely as different colors and shapes, then what we get is the image the Impressionists are trying to recreate. This removal of individuality seems to contradict the translation of emotions and state-of-mind onto the canvas that is also characteristic of Impressionist art. If one has no idea what they’re looking at, how can their emotions about the subject matter affect the painting? Wouldn’t the overall emotion be the same for any innocent eye: confusion?
Ultimately, I thought that the Impressionists are still trying to capture reality and truth in their paintings. They want a more complete reality than what the classical art could attain, and so they add in the emotions of the painter and the effects of atmosphere and blurriness on the image being painted. Also, the Impressionists are attempting to paint what is actually there, independent of the interpretations of forms that are a result of their personal backgrounds. Honestly, I can’t tell if they want the image as it is, or the image as they see it. On the one hand, it seems they want the image as they see it, by trying to accurately capture the glancing sensation and emotional effects they get when they look upon the image. On the other hand, the want the image as it is, stains of color, regardless of how they see it due to their interpretations of forms that have been taught to them from an early age. I still don’t know to what extent impressionist art is effected by the individuality of the painter, but I do know that it is a complex and seemingly paradoxical issue.