The Meaning of Impressionist Art?

[knobl...@bvu.edu]

Betsy Knoblock
Buena Vista University
Communication and Art Major

I am a large fan of French Impressionist art, but enjoying this unique
era of art doesn't seems acceptable to my fellow art students and
professors. I think part of their unacceptance is due to their
questions of "quality" and skill of these artists, their choice of
plain subjects, and the idea that art was brought down a level during
this era of art history.

I agree that art was brought to a DIFFERENT level- a level of
commonality and reality. For the first time, subjects of paintings
were of common people and places-not of regals and castles. Art could
now (in the late 1800's) be appreciated by those who were never given
this opportunity before because of their social standings. And, for
one of the first times, the salon shows became scadalous and art
critiques weren't seen in such high standings.

I like Impressionist art for many reasons beyond those stated above. I
love the color, the comfortable settings, and the splender in the
images created by Monet, Renoir, Degas, Cassatt, and many others. This
is the first era of art where I feel something emotionally with the art,
not just visually. Their work seems fresh and alive. The people seem
happy, comfortable, and content with everything around them. And maybe
I like it because it gives me this idealistic sense of France and it's
people of the 19th century. But even though it was a century ago,
Impressionist art captured the feelings, the sights and sounds of an
era that will never return.

So, what is wring with this era? Why is Impressionism so "low-class"?
I ask for understanding-am i just not seeing the obvious faults or
realizing the true meaning of these artisits and their work? I ask for
ideas and issues-not to prove me wrong, but to make me understand why
Impressionism is thought of this way.

Thank you,
Betsy Knoblock

[Takeitdown]

while i myself may be one of the last to openly defend impressionism..in
doing that i realize the bias. there is a great deal of high browed
exclusivism. every little old ladies bathroom has a monet in it. printed
and reprinted, imitated by weekend painters all over the world. Its a
modern bias. one which is unable to recognise the value of something
because of the way it is viewed today. It is easy to see why someone would
hesitate to envolve too much praise on something that is so over seen, so
over familiar, as impressionism is. the true value of the work is obvious,
by my critieria of good art. it reflects the times it is from, it has a
timeless understand-ability, it used revolutionary techniques (and
materials) its hard to realize for example the effect of having factory
made, tubes of paint availaable to these artists. for this is something we
cannot imagine as being revolutionary, becaause we, modernists, know of no
other way. i, myself am a colorist, color is what effects me, and i think
alot of peoples' lack of concern and being moved by impressionism is the
color schemes selected. an analogous, harmonious scheme is soothing,
considered dull. but is still very effective, very necesarry. its not
reactionary like fauvism. it doesnt beg for attention. it sometimes
against its own need for recognition, asks to be glanced at, often holds
no powerful message, and that is why it is overlooked