There are a lot of artists out there who you could sort of call "Impressionists." Let's just stick to the main ones who were central figures in the development of the French movement, and who had their works exhibited together in at least some of the eight Impressionist exhibitions held between 1874 and 1886.
12. Armand Guillaumin
This is clearly the least famous or notable of the Impressionists. Mainly he just helped to influence his friends who became better and more famous painters. A lot of his colors were extremely vivid and intense. Which, in a way, makes him better at being a Post-Impressionist. Still, if Sunset at Ivry (1873) or La Place Valhubert (1875) aren't "Impressionism," then nothing is.
11. Gustave Caillebotte
The youngest of the Impressionists, he also ranks down there with Guillaumin in terms of being remembered or influential. He also painted in a way that is considered more of a "realistic" manner than his fellow Impressionists, which also notches him down a bit in importance for the movement. The range of his detail to looseness in stroke varied greatly. Paris Street, Rainy Day (1877) seems to be super crisp and detailed in drawings, while The Yellow Fields at Gennevilliers (1884) is the very definition of an Impressionist work. But beyond that painting of his with people doing the flooring... he's not really that famous, is he?
10. Frédéric Bazille
Sort of a pre-Impressionist, he died in 1870... four years before the first Impressionist exhibition. Does that mean I'm breaking the rule I just set up about needing to be from between 1874 and 1886? No, because his works were displayed posthumously at those exhibitions. You can definitely see some of his Impressionist-style in works like Portrait of Renoir (1867), Bazille's Studio (1870), or Le Petit Jardinier (1866-7), but then again a lot of his other works don't look super Impressionistey. That's a word, by the way. Impressionistey. Bazille wins the award for coolist Impressionist death though. Unlike those other pansy artists, this dude got shot to death in the Franco-Prussian War at the
Battle of Beaune-la-Rolande. Badass! He was the Pat Tillman of his day.
9. Berthe Morisot
Morisot was a great painter and important to the Impressionist movement, but her most famous contributions to the movement were as a subject of artwork by other Impressionists, rather than as the artist herself. If you Google Berthe Morisot, chances are the first thing you're going to see is a very beautiful and famous Impressionist painting of her. But it's not a self-portrait, it's Berthe Morisot au Bouquet de Violettes (1872) and it's by Manet. Or maybe it's another painting... but still by Manet. Manet drew her a lot (she was married to Manet's brother, Eugène). Still, she has some memorable works like Eugène Manet on the Isle of Wight (1875) , The Dining Room (1875), and Summer's Day (1879).
8. Pierre-Auguste Renoir
Yeah, I'm ranking Renoir this low and you're going to have to deal with it. I'm not sure why anyone would like Renoir. Renoir can't draw hands. He draws hands like Rob Liefeld draws feet. To be a great artist I think you have to learn how to draw five damn fingers and not have them look like blobby meat hooks. How can you not paint hands right if you stare at your hands all damn day long when painting? And I'm not the only one who thinks Renoir kinda sucks. Every single woman he draws looks exactly the same (like Dana Hill from European Vacation). No matter who the model is. And all the paintings are so vapid and light and fluffy. Sorry Renoir, but you're just barely better than the Impressionists that nobody has ever heard of. Are Dance at Le Moulin de la Galette (1876) and Luncheon of the Boating Party (1880-1) great masterpieces of Impressionism? Yep! But they don't make up for a career of other nude bather paintings that are just awful. In fairness, a lot of his awful works are from later in his life and not his Impressionist period.
7. Paul Cézanne
Okay, I really like Cézanne. Of all the painters on this list, he's my favorite. So why am I ranking him down here at #7? Because I'm ranking Impressionists here, and Cézanne really hit his groove as a Post-Impressionist. Cézanne exhibited twice with the Impressionists (at the first Impressionist exhibition in 1874 and the third Impressionist exhibition in 1877), and was a good friend of Pissarro. But he didn't hit his stride until the 1880s, and by that time he had broken away from the Impressionist movement. His greatest works simplified forms and made them even a little... well... boxy. Like squares, or "cubes" to be more exact. Cézanne's style is arguably half-way between the Impressionists and the later Cubists. There would probably be no Picasso or Cubism without Cézanne. Just compare his Jas de Bouffan (1876) to his his Jas de Bouffan (1885-7) and you'll see what a decade of time did to the way he treated the same subject.
6. Mary Cassatt
Mary was the least French of the French Impressionists because she was American-born. Don't hold that against her. Like the other Impressionists, Cassatt was trying to paint something different than what the "Salon" (Paris's official art society) wanted art to be, and was rejected. She teamed up with the Impressionists, especially Degas, and helped to define the movement. Unfortunately, her repertoire of subjects was somewhat limited. While there is nothing wrong with being a "figure painter" in general, perhaps due to the sexism of the time about what a woman should paint... Cassatt didn't have subjects much beyond mothers, children, and mothers holding children. What is probably her most famous work, Little Girl in a Blue Armchair (1878), was partially re-worked by Degas.
5. Camille Pissarro
Pissarro is almost like Cézanne in the sense that hist Post-Impressionist work became more famous than his Impressionist work. That being said, it's not like Pissarro was some Johnny-Come-Lately after the Impressionists. Born in 1830, Pissarro was actually older than all of the other Impressionists - and a full 18 years older than the youngest of them (Caillebotte). He was a father figure to the movement, but also then a father figure to the Post-Impressionists. In his Jalais Hill, Pontoise (1867) you can see a very Impressionistey (remember, that's a word!) painting a full seven years before the first "Impressionist" exhibition of 1874. But the works he's most famous for you could almost argue verge upon Pointillism. Pissarro's work by the mid-1880s was much more similar to Seurat than it was to Monet or Sisley. And hey, speaking of Sisley...
4. Alfred Sisley
Alfred Sisley was an Impressionist's Impressionist. He'll never have the same name recognition or fame as the final three on the list, but a look at his work shows a catalogue of textbook Impressionism. Unlike your Pissarros or Cézannes you won't see any styles bleeding into Post-Impressionism. His St. Martin Canal (1870) is an Impressionist masterpiece. Almost twenty years later he paints Church in Moret (1889) and it's also an Impressionist masterpiece. In-between you get stuff like Molesey Weir (1874), La Seine au point du jour (1877), and A Path at Les Sablons (1883)... which are all, you guessed it, Impressionist masterpieces.
3. Édouard Manet
Manet will always suffer from the fact that his name is too close to Monet, and therefore will always sort of have that "Oh right, he's the one that's not Monet" stigma. But Manet was a quintessential Impressionist painter. How much so? Enough so that I'm breaking the "their paintings had to be exhibited in one of the Impressionist exhibitions" rule. Manet technically never participated in any of the Impressionist exhibitions. Born in 1832, he was just two years younger than Pissarro and therefore older than most of the Impressionists. By the time the Impressionists were struggling to find recognition and acceptance for their innovative styles, Manet was already an established and famed painter. Probably his two most famous works, The Luncheon on the Grass and Olympia, both dated from 1863 - over a decade before the first Impressionist exhibition. But Manet was a key figure in the transformation from "Realism" to Impressionism. Just look at his different versions of The Execution of Emperor Maximilian (1867-9), which clearly show a range between Realism (the version hanging in the National Gallery in London) and his seemingly "unfinished" version (at the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston) which could only be called "Impressionist." Sure, he didn't feature in an Impressionist exhibition, but if his (earlier referenced) 1872 portrait of Berthe Morisot au Bouquet de Violettes is certainly an Impressionist painting. The same would go for famous works like The Cafe Concert (1878), or A Bar at the Folies-Bergère (1882).
2. Edgar Degas
Was Degas a little limited in his range of ballerinas and bathers? I suppose. But it's good to have a "thing" that makes you memorable. If you go to a museum anywhere in the world and see an Impressionist ballerina, you can instantly say "Degas!" and probably be right. You can't say the same for other Impressionists. Can I instantly tell the difference between a Monet and a Sisley landscape? No. If you showed me Sisley's Bridge at Villeneuve-la-Garenne (1872) and Monet's Argenteuil (1874) and asked me which painting was by which artist, I would have a 50/50 chance. It would simply be a guess on my part. Armand Guillaumin has some haystack paintings that look just like Monet haystack paintings. From afar can I tell them apart? No. Up close can I tell them apart? No. They look the same. But a Degas painting doesn't look like anyone else's. Would Degas be pissed that I call him the second best Impressionist? Probably, but only because he despised the term "Impressionist" and rejected it. You'll see that even after the Impressionist period he continued working and had bolder, more contrasting, flatter colors like the rest of the Post-Impressionists. He continued to paint the same subjects - dancers, bathers, courtesans.
1. Claude Monet
Money was the most prolific of the Impressionists, and the one who embodies the movement the most. Monet's Impression, Sunrise (1872) is the piece of art which the entire movement is named after. An art critic in Le Charivari magazine condescendingly used the title of that painting in his review called, "L'Exposition des Impressionnistes," with the term probably meaning to be an insult. But the Impressionists took the term and ran with it (except for Degas). Monet's subjects were wide ranging. You likely already know that he's famous for water lilies, ponds, bridges, poplars, haystacks, views of Rouen Cathedral, Charing Cross, the Houses of Parliament, and so on. He painted all kinds of things. Yet impressionism isn't just defined by the loose brushstroke, it's defined by its subjects: everyday scenes of normal life. Monet helped to set the art world aflame by simply drawing scenes like young people picnicking on weekends rather than famous people or historic/mythological scenes. If Seinfeld was a "show about nothing," Monet helped to create "art about nothing." And with photography emerging in this era it became less important for painting to try to capture a perfect depiction of reality. Monet is not my favorite artist by far - but he's definitely the most Impressionistey of the Impressionists.
 |
| Admit it, you have no idea who this is. |
12. Armand Guillaumin
This is clearly the least famous or notable of the Impressionists. Mainly he just helped to influence his friends who became better and more famous painters. A lot of his colors were extremely vivid and intense. Which, in a way, makes him better at being a Post-Impressionist. Still, if Sunset at Ivry (1873) or La Place Valhubert (1875) aren't "Impressionism," then nothing is.
11. Gustave Caillebotte
The youngest of the Impressionists, he also ranks down there with Guillaumin in terms of being remembered or influential. He also painted in a way that is considered more of a "realistic" manner than his fellow Impressionists, which also notches him down a bit in importance for the movement. The range of his detail to looseness in stroke varied greatly. Paris Street, Rainy Day (1877) seems to be super crisp and detailed in drawings, while The Yellow Fields at Gennevilliers (1884) is the very definition of an Impressionist work. But beyond that painting of his with people doing the flooring... he's not really that famous, is he?
10. Frédéric Bazille
Sort of a pre-Impressionist, he died in 1870... four years before the first Impressionist exhibition. Does that mean I'm breaking the rule I just set up about needing to be from between 1874 and 1886? No, because his works were displayed posthumously at those exhibitions. You can definitely see some of his Impressionist-style in works like Portrait of Renoir (1867), Bazille's Studio (1870), or Le Petit Jardinier (1866-7), but then again a lot of his other works don't look super Impressionistey. That's a word, by the way. Impressionistey. Bazille wins the award for coolist Impressionist death though. Unlike those other pansy artists, this dude got shot to death in the Franco-Prussian War at the
Battle of Beaune-la-Rolande. Badass! He was the Pat Tillman of his day.
9. Berthe Morisot
Morisot was a great painter and important to the Impressionist movement, but her most famous contributions to the movement were as a subject of artwork by other Impressionists, rather than as the artist herself. If you Google Berthe Morisot, chances are the first thing you're going to see is a very beautiful and famous Impressionist painting of her. But it's not a self-portrait, it's Berthe Morisot au Bouquet de Violettes (1872) and it's by Manet. Or maybe it's another painting... but still by Manet. Manet drew her a lot (she was married to Manet's brother, Eugène). Still, she has some memorable works like Eugène Manet on the Isle of Wight (1875) , The Dining Room (1875), and Summer's Day (1879).
8. Pierre-Auguste Renoir
 |
| Pictured: Meat hooks. |
7. Paul Cézanne
Okay, I really like Cézanne. Of all the painters on this list, he's my favorite. So why am I ranking him down here at #7? Because I'm ranking Impressionists here, and Cézanne really hit his groove as a Post-Impressionist. Cézanne exhibited twice with the Impressionists (at the first Impressionist exhibition in 1874 and the third Impressionist exhibition in 1877), and was a good friend of Pissarro. But he didn't hit his stride until the 1880s, and by that time he had broken away from the Impressionist movement. His greatest works simplified forms and made them even a little... well... boxy. Like squares, or "cubes" to be more exact. Cézanne's style is arguably half-way between the Impressionists and the later Cubists. There would probably be no Picasso or Cubism without Cézanne. Just compare his Jas de Bouffan (1876) to his his Jas de Bouffan (1885-7) and you'll see what a decade of time did to the way he treated the same subject.
6. Mary Cassatt
Mary was the least French of the French Impressionists because she was American-born. Don't hold that against her. Like the other Impressionists, Cassatt was trying to paint something different than what the "Salon" (Paris's official art society) wanted art to be, and was rejected. She teamed up with the Impressionists, especially Degas, and helped to define the movement. Unfortunately, her repertoire of subjects was somewhat limited. While there is nothing wrong with being a "figure painter" in general, perhaps due to the sexism of the time about what a woman should paint... Cassatt didn't have subjects much beyond mothers, children, and mothers holding children. What is probably her most famous work, Little Girl in a Blue Armchair (1878), was partially re-worked by Degas.
5. Camille Pissarro
Pissarro is almost like Cézanne in the sense that hist Post-Impressionist work became more famous than his Impressionist work. That being said, it's not like Pissarro was some Johnny-Come-Lately after the Impressionists. Born in 1830, Pissarro was actually older than all of the other Impressionists - and a full 18 years older than the youngest of them (Caillebotte). He was a father figure to the movement, but also then a father figure to the Post-Impressionists. In his Jalais Hill, Pontoise (1867) you can see a very Impressionistey (remember, that's a word!) painting a full seven years before the first "Impressionist" exhibition of 1874. But the works he's most famous for you could almost argue verge upon Pointillism. Pissarro's work by the mid-1880s was much more similar to Seurat than it was to Monet or Sisley. And hey, speaking of Sisley...
_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg/1024px-Alfred_Sisley_-_Un_sentier_aux_Sablons_(A_path_at_Les_Sablons)_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg) |
| Now That's What I Call Impressionism! Volume 2 |
Alfred Sisley was an Impressionist's Impressionist. He'll never have the same name recognition or fame as the final three on the list, but a look at his work shows a catalogue of textbook Impressionism. Unlike your Pissarros or Cézannes you won't see any styles bleeding into Post-Impressionism. His St. Martin Canal (1870) is an Impressionist masterpiece. Almost twenty years later he paints Church in Moret (1889) and it's also an Impressionist masterpiece. In-between you get stuff like Molesey Weir (1874), La Seine au point du jour (1877), and A Path at Les Sablons (1883)... which are all, you guessed it, Impressionist masterpieces.
3. Édouard Manet
Manet will always suffer from the fact that his name is too close to Monet, and therefore will always sort of have that "Oh right, he's the one that's not Monet" stigma. But Manet was a quintessential Impressionist painter. How much so? Enough so that I'm breaking the "their paintings had to be exhibited in one of the Impressionist exhibitions" rule. Manet technically never participated in any of the Impressionist exhibitions. Born in 1832, he was just two years younger than Pissarro and therefore older than most of the Impressionists. By the time the Impressionists were struggling to find recognition and acceptance for their innovative styles, Manet was already an established and famed painter. Probably his two most famous works, The Luncheon on the Grass and Olympia, both dated from 1863 - over a decade before the first Impressionist exhibition. But Manet was a key figure in the transformation from "Realism" to Impressionism. Just look at his different versions of The Execution of Emperor Maximilian (1867-9), which clearly show a range between Realism (the version hanging in the National Gallery in London) and his seemingly "unfinished" version (at the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston) which could only be called "Impressionist." Sure, he didn't feature in an Impressionist exhibition, but if his (earlier referenced) 1872 portrait of Berthe Morisot au Bouquet de Violettes is certainly an Impressionist painting. The same would go for famous works like The Cafe Concert (1878), or A Bar at the Folies-Bergère (1882).
2. Edgar Degas
 |
| Wow! Degas painted ballerinas?!?! |
1. Claude Monet
 |
| Light and spontaneous brushwork creating splashes of color? Fuck yeah! |
No comments:
Post a Comment