Post-impressionism... ?!

Shiff writes, "Postimpressionism was, and is, an awkward invention, a new whole substituted for its disparate parts. ... The name itself implies that a theoretical chasm separates impressionist art from whatever followed it, whether neoimpressionist, symbolist, 'neoclassical,' or 'expressionist.'" Many art movements are usually a reaction to the previous dominating movement but I still don't really quite understand why Fry and MacCarthy chose the title "Post-Impressionism" because it's hard to see the clear difference between Impressionism and the movements that followed it.

"LeCompte saw that Cezanne's style rendered him acceptable to both impressionist and symbolist ideologies." To me, Cezanne embodies the difficulty found in trying to categorize art into various periods: he fits in everything and nothing. He can be an impressionist, symbolist, neoclassical, or "expressionist. When asked to make a statement about his art, Cezanne used many of the same words that impressionist used such as "sensation." It is explained that although his theory is close to the impressionists, his style is changed by his temperment because it "causes distortion."

"Cezanne, as the 'Pouissan of impressionism,' the Poussin of the experience of nature, filled out Denis's system of classification in completing a triumvirate of true artists: the classical Poussin, the primitive Gauguin, and the natural Cezanne." Shiff describes classic art as art that "maintains a balance between found nature and made art." However, the means to get to that balance confused me. Poussin became a classical master because he went back to Ancient classics (Roman sculptures, etc.) but he didn't just copy them... he studied them and then he learned how to express his style and personality. "To remake nature on the antique is to follow the inverse ... to remake nature after Poussin ... to remake Poussin after nature..." (a block of text on p182)

SAY WHAT?!