Talk:Impressionism/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Initial comments

Should this be under 'impressionism' instead? The original link was singular rather than Impressionists (which is a common thing). But should it be the '-ism'? I am agnostic - feel free to move it if you change all the occurrences, or to discuss this with me. As far as I can tell 'Realism' is not occupied by some philosophy entry, and I'm going to need either Realist or Realism for the mid-19th century style that precedes Impressionism and of which Impressionism is perhaps a late variant. So, folks: -isms or -ists for painting movements?

Surely -ism for the movement, -ist for someone involved -e.g. Communism, communist; Cubism, cubist; Theism, theist etc etc

Impressionismistism. Let's cover all the bases.  :-)

Seriously, -ism. If we need to we can break out "Neo-realism in art", "Neo-realism in philosophy" (or whatever) as separate entries.

Other art movements are under "ism" with "ist" a redirect. Done -- Tarquin, Wednesday, July 3, 2002

Wik, is there any reason you reverted Lir's additions (which appear to me to be factual) without any edit comments? I will restore if you do not reply. --Delirium 05:12, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

He removed information from the first paragraph without explanation. I restored it as I said in my original edit summary. --Wik 05:13, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)
Sorry, I was getting the diff function mixed up, so misread who was reverting to which version. --Delirium 05:16, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

The information belongs on an article about the painting in question. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Then write that article first before you remove the information here. --Wik 05:14, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

I did write it; also the text was plagarized. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I don't see the name Leroy there either. Also you neglected to link to that article. Plagiarized doesn't matter, if it's not a copyvio, which a half sentence is unlikely to be. --Wik 05:20, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

I did link to the article, you reverted it (remember?). The name Leroy isn't there because u wasted my time with your revert. Lirath Q. Pynnor

You added that only in a later edit. Just do things in order; if you move information, add it first in the other place, then remove it in the original. --Wik 05:27, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

This is one gorgeous article --Ignignot 13:55, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

Will the person who keeps adding her/his son's name to the list of painters who exhibited in the 19th-century Impressionist exhibits please stop your vandalism. We all work too hard on these articles to have them defaced this way. Skeppy

  • I have found the people who has been editing the page, adding abusive comments and the extra name (John Corbett). He is actually in my art class in school so he has been dealt with accordingly. Apologies for this, hopefully it will not happen again :-) nimro 10:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Does J. M. W. Turner deserve a mention? He was too early to be an Impressionist as such but he anticipated their techniques and concerns. Gdr 00:17, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)

Pissarro's name Camille Pissarro is spelled wrong in the image with his paintings. I'd tweak it but I don't know what font that is. Anyone know and even better, have the ability to do that quickly? I fixed the tag, but can't fix the image.

Update from Attempt to Track Down the Font, so I can change the image and keep it in the same style. Got a quote from an expert, whom I asked if it was Arial:

"Decidedly not Arial, but in the same (venerated, except for Arial) family. I would guess maybe Nimbus Sans or Akzidenz Grotesk (sp), if not Helvetica. The anti-aliasing algorithm is making it look weird and foreign."

Modernism template

I've added a template feel free to add new articles to it. Stirling Newberry 00:34, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Post-impressionism

something about post-impressionism should be mentioned in the article, and maybe how post-impressionists are sometimes considered impressionists. (just noticed van gogh had been removed from the list of impressionists, but cezanne is still there) --- Cfitzart 13:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes, I agree there should be something, because of their association (they ARE always hung close to each other in museums), but noting their classification as POST-impressionists. Van Gogh keeps getting added back... --Etacar11 14:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


Encyclopedia

Task of encyclopedia is supplying of as many authentic information as possible. Unacquaintance of author can't be a cause of deletion without any comments but only cause of learn. So, I reverted vandalism by Ewulp and retrieved Podkowinski image. --Tlumaczek 08:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Podkowinski

I did not explain the reason for the "vandalism" as you call it because the reason seemed too obvious for explanation. Since you posted these images on this page on April 20 without explaining or justifying your act, I thought I was removing your vandalism. But since you have asked, here are a number of reasons why it is questionable whether these images should be on this page:

1. Of the three paintings by Podkowinski, two show an Impressionist influence (this is unremarkable, most of the paintings made by anybody anywhere in the world in the 1890s show Impressionist influence), while the largest one is Anti-Impresssionist. It clearly isn't painted from nature in daylight, it's imagined. Lots of black and brown. Smooth modeling. This no more represents Impressionism than the work of Franz Stuck or George Frederic Watts. So why put this one up?

2. Podkowinski is a very obscure artist. Almost nobody in the English-speaking world has heard of him. Google his name and you get 27,700 hits, which seems like a lot. Now Google Gertrude Abercrombie, a local mid-20th century surrealist I admire: 155,000 hits. The fact remains she's not very well known, and I don't think it would be appropriate to put 3 images of her work into the Wikipedia article on Surrealism. It would make Abercrombie seem a much bigger name than she is, equal in importance Ernst or Magritte or Dali. She was a marvelous artist but she had little impact on the history of art.

3. This article on Impressionism will be read by many people with only a casual interest in art, and by children working on school projects. The reader may be seeking the answer to the question, "who were the Impressionists?" The text of the article provides this, but the images tell a different story: Monet has 3 images, Renoir 3, Degas 3, Sisley 3, Pissarro 3, Morisot 3, and Podkowinski 3. A kid writing a report on the Impressionists will think Podkowinski and Monet were the leaders of the 1874 Paris exhibiting group, because of the exaggerated prominence that these images give to the artist. I think it would make sense if the followers of Impressionism were represented by one image each from (for instance) Podkowinski, Sorolla, Chase, Liebermann, Boldini, and the like. This would demonstrate the international dimension of the style. As it stands I think the article is better with no Podkowinskis rather than 3, one of which is symbolist and completely wrong.

4. As you scroll down the article includes the "List of Impressionist artists", with the names of many artists whose paintings show Impressionist influence. Somebody reading this article who wants to learn more about the followers of the Impressionists can follow the links to articles on individual artists. But Podkowinski is a redlink, so it's a dead end. Here are images by an artist who very few readers have heard of, and no info on who he is anyplace in English Wikipedia. This absence of context is grounds for removing the images in my opinion.

These are the reasons I deleted the images the other day. For now I will let other editors decide, but I think they do more harm than good hereEwulp 04:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree, he is too obscure to be featured so prominently. --Etacar11 05:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
In the two weeks since I posted, nobody has come to the defense of keeping the Podkowinski images in this article. While the red link issue has been resolved, the other 3 problems remain, and they are significant, so if there are no objections I will remove the images this week.
In a short article on Impressionism intended for general readers, certain pivotal artists MUST be mentioned, other artists are secondary, and many other artists, however good, are footnotes in the story. Podkowinski, while a figure of importance in the visual arts of Poland, is not on any short list of the world's thirty most important Impressionists. Since a picture is worth 1000 words, giving 1/7 of the images in this article to Podkowinski grants him front-page headline status equal to Monet & entirely out of proportion to his importance.
We should all be trying to maintain best encyclopedic standards. A Wikipedia article is not an image gallery; images to illustrate an article should be few and well-chosen. Any reader coming to this article in the past two weeks experienced one of two reactions: 1) they were misled as to who the main Impressionists are; or 2) they were disappointed in Wikipedia not meeting professional standards, as one of these artists is placed in the spotlight for no better reason than that he is a particular favorite of one contributor. Therefore in my opinion the removal of these images is more than justified.
Podkowinski is not being eliminated from Wikipedia -- there are in fact 2 articles on the artist, one spelled with and one without special characters -- these should be merged but that's another matter. Ewulp 03:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Two things

Should Vincent Van Gogh be added to this catagory of Impressionists? What's more, Paul Cézanne's, surname doesn't have an accent on the "e".

Good point about Cézanne, & this has been fixed. Van Gogh is mentioned a couple times in the article with internal links, so he's not ignored, but he's usually counted as a post-Impressionist because of the subjectivity of his vision. Ewulp 01:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Much appreciated.

Improving this article?

I was reviewing this article as a possible WP:V0.5N, and the article seems pretty nice (I'm not an art expert, but I know what I like!). However, the lack of references (inline are preferable) would kill its nomination. Can the folks who contributed most to this article put in some of their references, than perhaps nominate the article? You could also nominate it at WP:GAN. Another improvement would be to format the long list of impressionist painters at the end to look nicer. I'd like to see our test CD include some decent art articles such as this one, at present we're very weak in that area. Thanks! Walkerma 04:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello Walkerma, I'm not a major contributor to this article but can add a few references (I lack books on the subject, except a shelfload on Degas & 1 on Caillebotte). What kind of format do you have in mind for the list -- is it easy to do for a lo-skill type, and is there an example somewhere in WP of a formatted list to model on? Ewulp 03:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Bear in mind that the refs should in theory represent what was used to write the article - always hard to add retrospectively! In a case like this I think you need to be careful only to choose sources that match key pieces of information in the article, if you do that it's fine. There are two formats for inline refs, one (the more popular, I think) is the <ref></ref> system used at Acetic acid or Antarctica, and the other is the Ref/Note system that can be see in Indole (take a look at the history section). The commonest term to use is "References", but some articles separate "References" from "Notes". Material that is relevant but not used for the article can be added as "Further reading" or "External links". Does this help? Cheers, Walkerma 06:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

List of Impressionists

This list has grown by accretion and included several artists not really known for Impressionism -- Bakst for instance. Lucy Bacon is almost a complete unknown who painted very little before giving it up for a religious life. A comprehensive list is not desirable, it would take a week to scroll through it. If the list is to be limited to perhaps 40 names (is that a sensible maximum?), it seems the choices should be representative & rational. Walkerma, did you have an idea how the list should be formatted? Ewulp 05:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't ignoring this posting, I've been trying to think how it could be done - lists on Wikipedia can often look ugly when they get this long. Accretion is a common problem in such lists, trimming the excess was a good start. I tend to dislike articles containing long lists of names that fill a couple of screens/pieces of paper. None of the solutions I can suggest is perfect, but you could consider one of the following:
  • Create a separate page called List of impressionists or List of impressionist painters or whatever. A good solution if the list is expected to be long, and it could be done as a table of information (birth/death year, nationality, styles, etc.), rather like List of research stations in Antarctica.
  • Create a similar, but shorter, table within the main article. Takes up no more screenfuls, but gives the reader a lot more information than a simple, boring list of names.
  • Something like {{UKPrimeMinisters}} or {{UK supermarkets}} might be a useful thing to create, and this could be added to all of the individual Impressionist painters' pages too.
  • If only a few names are to be included, create a prose narrative including those names - probably not appropriate here (better for <12 names).

Hope this helps! Thanks for getting some references in there! I'm hoping that by the time you're finished, you or I can nominate this! Thanks, Walkerma 05:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

ELBOW

It seems the ELBOW mnemonic device is sometimes used by art educators, but it's a faulty way of identifying Impressionist painting — much of Gerhard Richter's work meets the elbow criteria but he's miles from Impressionism — and it seems to complicate things unnecessarily. Is someone who can't remember the description "everyday scenes painted with spontaneity & attention to transient light & color" going to have an easier time recalling which body part (was it ankle? knee? tonsil..?) and what each letter represents? Possibly it's of some value as a teaching tool but I think it's slightly inane for inclusion in the article. Ewulp 07:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I would agree, sounds like something from a children's art class...unnecessary here. --Etacar11 20:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

MONET WAS A BRiiLiiANT PAiiNTER ii REALLY ADMiiRE HIS WORK LOL

Non-visual impressionism

Can we say anything about how impressionism is echoed in other art forms? Wilde's Picture of Dorian Gray, for example, clearly has impressionistic writing that tries to copy the painters with language. I know there has ben some writing about impressionistic writing, but I don't know enough to contribute to the article. Roger 19:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you brought this up--in my opinion this article should address this subject a little more fully. There are links to Impressionist music and Impressionism (literature) in the first section, but after that nothing--and following those links doesn't lead to very much either, the articles are very brief. I'll try patching in a short section that leads to those main articles. Ewulp 02:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Wynford Dewhurst

I have reverted the additions regarding this artist, who was a minor painter. His writings may be of interest, but are not seminal to the history of Impressionism, nor to the purported link between French and English painting, which was already well established via Degas, Whistler, and Sickert, among others. For that matter, a cross-channel relationship from the time of Delacroix, Constable, and Bonington, long preceding impressionism, is well established. JNW 17:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Impressionism

"The name of the movement is derived from the title of a Claude Monet work, Impression, Sunrise (Impression, soleil levant), which provoked the critic Louis Leroy to coin the term in a satiric review published in Le Charivari." What was that criticism? I believe he said it wasn't a finished painting... which should be included. Instead of the personal impression that the artists had of the landscape.--Hitsuji Kinno 22:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Leroy's criticism, in the form of an imaginary dialogue, is described and quoted in the "Beginnings"section, but I've just added this link to the complete text of his review. Ewulp 22:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

facts

i just want facts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.114.223 (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Albert Henry Krehbiel

Seems to be an ongoing edit war regarding this painter's inclusion as a renowned American Impressionist. I support Modernist's reversions. It is clear that the scholarship on American Impressionism does not place Krehbiel in the company with the more prominent artists mentioned here. JNW (talk) 04:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing the previously included artists and comparing to this one, I have to agree - although I am not a scholar of Impressionism. The "do NOT remove this" attitude of the IP in question and the self-promotional writing style of the Krehbiel article also don't lend much support to the other stance. Tan | 39 04:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree as well. He doesn't merit inclusion. --Etacar11 13:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Absinthe

Because of its growing popularity during the 19th century absinthe may have played a role in the impressionist movement. Can anyone cite a page that could prove/disprove this?

Absinthe? Why not wine, a more pervasive substance in France?

In all seriousness, one could as easily attribute to alcoholic beverages or tobacco much "credit" for all sorts of esthetic efforts. One could also discuss the chemical effects of some of the paints used upon painters (including cadmium and chromate pigments.

As a rule we see the brushstrokes and their organization -- not the thought processes that made some canvas what it is. No method exists of separating any artist (or composer or writer) from any substances that he or she used... including absinthe, nicotine, and ethyl alcohol.--Paul from Michigan (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


Sir Winston Churchill

Although Sir Winston Churchill is better known for other achievements, most notably saving Western Christian Civilization from barbarity that would have made Genghis Khan wince, he was a competent painter and could probably have made a good living as an artist had he chosen such a route. I have noticed that his paintings seem impressionistic. Any comments?--Paul from Michigan (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

He is a famous person and he might have painted impressionist paintings, but that does not make him a noted impressionistShekure (talk) 13:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The article is an art history article about the movement of Impressionism, the first Impressionist painters, it's origins, inventors, and early practitioners. Many later followers, amateur painters and fans of the Impressionists (Churchill being one) painted in the manner and/or the style of Impressionism. Many still do today, however they don't belong in this historical article. Modernist (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It occurs to me that there is not a "legacy" or "Influence" section. Ty 01:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Part of the legacy is that Impressionism became (quoting a phrase from a source I don't recall) practically the default style for Sunday painters. Churchill could get a passing nod in that connection. Ewulp (talk) 03:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Not to mention the Royal Academy, New English Art Club et al. Don't forget Prince Charles! Ty 04:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. Is there a need for a legacy section, given the mention already of influences, as well as a heading for post-impressionism? JNW (talk) 04:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Images in black boxes

I don't think they're appropriate or attractive. Ty 01:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, they seem way too formal and impersonal, and they make it difficult to appreciate the art. A legacy section might work, we could call it Post - Post-Impressionism  : ) ....Modernist (talk) 02:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Same here. The boxes are too heavy for images that are meant to breathe. JNW (talk) 02:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it would look altogether better to have individual paintings representing the major originators interspersed throughout the article and/or in gallery sections, as in the format for the self-portrait article. JNW (talk) 03:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, this is the last place you'd want heavy black frames roping the images together. Ewulp (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Great work on the new images, Modernist. Thanks, JNW (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Legacy

Try some ideas here. Maybe we can add - Cezanne, Van Gogh, Gauguin, and Seurat...Modernist (talk) 05:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Broken Link?

http://www.phillipscollection.org/docs/education/lbp-kit_4.pdf

In Notes, reference 12 is a broken link. Above is the correct, working link. Don't really know how to add it in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZenAkrua (talk • contribs) 06:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)  Done Thank you for picking this up. Enki H. (talk) 13:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Albert Henry Krehbiel revisited

I'd like consensus as to whether Albert Henry Krehbiel should be listed here. In my opinion his work is good and his biography is of a serious, respected artist of the period who taught at the Chicago Art Institute. Although he is not a leading figure he was an American Impressionist...Modernist (talk) 14:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Imo a mention at American Impressionism is enough, unless you can nominate one of the Americans already listed to be dropped. Krehbiel is pretty late, and the list of figures influenced here is already rather weighted towards Americans - there were apparently no English artists so influenced! Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I added Walter Sickert and agree that Krehbiel is not among the leaders of the Americans, please add a few other English painters...Modernist (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Imo Albert Henry Krehbiel was a highly regarded American impressionist and has its place in the list. Imo Albert Henry Krehbiel should be in the list with other American Impressionists or with clarification of the period Impressionism in relation to American Impressionism. Similarly as was handled in Lyrical Abstraction. (Salmon1 (talk) 16
07, 1 August 2009 (UTC))
Krehbiel is not accepted as belonging to the top echelon of American Impressionists; none of the publications on American Impressionism that I am familiar with place him alongside Chase, Hassam, Cassatt, et al. By the same token, Wynford Dewhurst is not recognized as a preeminent English practitioner, on the order of Sickert, Steer, or the expatriate Sargent. This is not to deny them their qualities or influence, but merely seeking to reflect the long-term appraisals of scholarship in the field. JNW (talk) 23:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Enough said. Salmon1, unless you can come up with an impeccable source that demonstrates Krehbiel beongs in a brief list like this, I'd forget it. Johnbod (talk) 00:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Per JNW, I'm substituting Steer for Dewhurst. I agree that the American section is hefty enough, and the link to American Impressionists can supply the curious reader with the names of minor figures. Ewulp (talk) 00:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Trains

With all due respect I don't see this section adding anything encyclopedic to the article on Impressionism. I welcome other opinions...Modernist (talk) 03:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

1. The Impressionist period is roughly from 1865 through 1890.

2. The general public resisted the Impressionists for almost all of the 19th century.

3. Cezanne painted mostly in and around his home.

4. Pissarro traveled some, but his paintings in Paris of street scenes were what cemented his success with the public.

5. Degas mostly walked to his subjects.

6. Manet was a Parisian as reflected in his work.

7. Monet campaigned around the French countryside but his successful choices of subject went well beyond his painting scenery to appeal to vacationers.

I see little relevance in the following...Modernist (talk) 03:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


Many other technological advancements like the paint tubes, occurred during the time of Impressionists. During the early 1900s, France’s main focus was on improving the infrastructure of its cities and on modernization. Of these new advances, the invention of the locomotive train had the greatest impact. Before the 1920’s, railways in France used horses to pull the carriages. France’s first locomotive was introduced to the public in 1832. These faster locomotives cut travel time to 1/5 of the fastest stage coaches. [1] Painting outdoors was made easier for the Impressionists because of train travel. The artists could travel faster and father to paint wherever they pleased. [2] Traveling outside of the city by train was not only for the artists, but also for the newly emerged middle class. Now they too could recognize the locations in the paintings because of their frequent visits. Train stations would encourage travel on weekends and holidays by lowering fares for vacations to the countryside. Vacations were another aspect of leisure for the newly formed middle class, and on these vacations visitors could experience carnivals and fairs. [3] The new relaxed feelings of traveling to the country and of the middle class’s pursuits of leisure were the subjects of many Impressionistic paintings. Prior to the advent of this new and easy for of transport the artists were restricted in both their subjects and locations. This represents a significant contrast between Impressionism and the previous traditional art forms of Realism and Romanticism.

The content is interesting, but per: Modernist, has a narrow application. It's also too long for this article and an awkward fit under the techniques heading. If a proper context is found, perhaps one sentence can be introduced mentioning the role of train travel in facilitating more landscape choices for the painters. Even then, it's probably a footnote. JNW (talk) 04:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Paint in tubes had the biggest technological impact on the painters' mobility, and mention of that remains. The information about trains is interesting, but given what Modernist outlined above, it doesn't seem the premise is true for the core Impressionists. However, those who followed, taking up Impressionism and plein air painting, probably did enjoy the advantages of train travel. --sparkitTALK 05:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
The material is of marginal relevance; more than a few words or a footnote would be undue emphasis. Ewulp (talk) 06:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

notes

  1. ^ Dietz, Frederick C. “Age of Coal and Iron.” The Industrial Revolution. New York City: Henry Hold and Company, 1927. p 25-26
  2. ^ Kleiner, Fred S., and Christin J. Mamiya. “Chapter 29: The Rise of Modernism: the Later 19th Century.” Gardner’s Art Through The Ages. Ed. David Tatom. 11th ed. Belmont: Harcourt College Publishers, 2005. p. 311
  3. ^ Herbert, Robert L. Impressionism: Art, Leisure, and Parisian Society. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988. p. 303

help

i can't find impressionisim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.85.239 (talk) 12:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Impressionnism

Pleaase note that the artist Maximilien LUCE (France) is also well-known, and a member of "Pointillisme" group of artists. 82.238.173.171 (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Manet

The section on Main Impressionists claims that Manet did not regard, nor was regarded as an Impressionist. Such an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence (based on reliable sources). I tried to change this but was reverted. Now I have reverted to a statement of bare facts. Ideally, the list should not give these patchy and controversial one-liners, especially given that each painter has his or her own article. Manet of course was the unofficial leader of the group, and did not participate in the exhibitions for political and tactical, rather than artistic reasons. I used to give lectures on the history of Impressionism based on Rewald's History of Impressionism (John Rewald, The History of Impressionism, The Museum of Modern Art, 4th revised edition 1973, ISBN 0-87070-369-2.), so I know what I am talking about, and can easily source it (when I have time). The WP article on Manet does not say either that he did not regard himself as Impressionist, nor that he wasn't regarded as such. I do not know if any sources say this, but even they do, they should not be given wp:undue weight. If you disagree, please discuss here rather than revert. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Without being any sort of expert I would think the article presents a pretty conventional view, as does Manet, which is not in contradiction of this article. That "Manet of course was the unofficial leader of the group" I would not regard as conventional, though no doubt it has been said. Johnbod (talk) 14:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, what statements in the article are you talking about? The article says several things about Manet in different places, so can you please refer to specific statements? - BorisG (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
All of them. Do you see contradictions; if so, where? Johnbod (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Maybe not contradictions, but different statements say different things, and I may agree with one but not another. For isnatce, the article currently says :Édouard Manet, although regarded by the Impressionists as their leader,[8] never abandoned his liberal use of black as a colour, and never participated in the Impressionist exhibitions. This sounds acurate to me. However it previously also said that Manet did not regard himself as an Impressionist, nor was regarded as such. This is a strong statement, and unless I see a direct quote, I won't be convinced. I am trying to search in my copy of Rewald's book but this is a huge volume, you know... It is actually best to avoid these definite statements, at least in the list of artists, where presenting different points of view would be awkward. Our article on Manet makes no such simplistic statements. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Image changes

  • moved Cassatt's The Child's Bath from "Beyond France" section to gallery, because most of her work was done in France - Cassatt was an American...Modernist (talk) 13:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • removed Monet's Water Lilies from "Music and literature" section, because it has nothing to do with music or literature - see below...Modernist (talk) 13:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • changed opening image from Monet's The Cliff at Étretat after the Storm to one of his Haystacks, which is much more recognizable and illustrative of impressionism - Matter of opinion...Modernist (talk) 13:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • moved Morisot's The Cradle from "Impressionist techniques" to Gallery, Cassatt's Lydia Leaning on Her Arms is enough for such a relatively small section
  • removed landscapes from "Main impressionists" section, if any image belongs here wouldn't it be a group portrait (if one exists)? - The landscapes are fine, and the Impressionists as far as I know despised the term and did not pose for a group portrait...Modernist (talk) 13:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • there were three Monets and three Renoirs in "Beginnings" section, they seem randomly placed and squash the text. Removed two of each
  • moved Pissarro's Boulevard Montmartre to "Content and composition" section
  • changed "Post-impressionism" image from Pissarro's Children on a Farm to self-portrait by Van Gogh, the most famous post-impressionist - Pissarro was an Impressionist who connected through his son Lucien to the next generation - the Post Impressionists; - Van Gogh was not an Impressionist and does not belong here...Modernist (talk) 13:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

This image selection and layout is by no means perfect, but I think it's a massive improvement nonetheless. - HappyWaldo (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the input and discussion. It's a major movement in European painting that requires imagery; however improvements are welcome - please help improve the text as you can...Modernist (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Should I go through with the above changes? Text-wise I can try turn the "Beyond France" section from a list into prose. - HappyWaldo (talk) 23:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Try expanding the Beyond France section...Modernist (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay. As for the image clutter/randomness problem? I was told to discuss the "bold edit" before making it. If you object then I would like to know why. - HappyWaldo (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
The images are needed. The article was edited by several editors and the consensus was to include these images. Please respect that, thanks...Modernist (talk) 12:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
By the way - regarding your comment regarding Monet and Music and literature - there was a deep and undeniable connection and mutual regard between Debussey (who is termed an impressionist composer) and Monet; which is why that image was placed where it is. - Here are 2 links - [1], [2]...Modernist (talk) 12:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
The consensus was to have seven text-squashing images in one section? "The images are needed" three Renoirs are needed? Why? It looks to me like random editors have added images as they please and it's built up over time. "Cassatt was an American" the Heidelberg School and Skagen Painters have more claim to being "beyond France" than Cassatt. "Van Gogh was not an Impressionist and does not belong here" His name more than any other is synonymous with post-impressionism. "The landscapes are fine, and the Impressionists as far as I know despised the term and did not pose for a group portrait" How do landscapes few people recognize compliment the list of impressionists? Did the impressionists paint portraits of one another? Maybe they could be added instead. - HappyWaldo (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Image layout is covered by WP:LAYIM, WP:Gallery and WP:IMAGE amongst others. There is no need to establish or follow local consensus on edits when there are clear guidelines (and Wikipedia recommends against it). So yes, images should be moved to context near relevant text/section WP:PERTINENCE and redundant images should be removed. Also looking at the article at the recommended 1024 pixel (and smaller) browser width the left hand image in "Content and composition" should be removed - text-squashing. The image gallery should also be removed since galleries should have some point and not just be "Images of" galleries per WP:GALLERY and WP:NOTGALLERY. They should be linked up in the Wikimedia Commons category "Impressionist paintings" (link already provided in "External links") if they have not been already. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Fantin-Latour, Un atelier aux Batignolles, Manet, Renoir, Frédéric Bazille, Zola, and others
This article was created by editors connected to the visual arts project; the format is relatively widespread. Galleries are widely used in visual arts articles; the images have all been carefully selected and unless you have consensus to make radical changes - I suggest that you don't. As to Cassatt was an American in France - in the late 19th century - through the mid-20th century American artists went to Europe to paint and to learn about painting; well to do artists like Cassatt stayed and lived there although she helped spread the market to America and eventually she returned to the USA; while many American artists made Impressionist related work in France see - (American Impressionism) - and in the United States - Cassatt is probably the best known and is rightfully representing American painting. As far as Post Impressionism goes - as I mentioned Pissarro is a bridge between the two movements. His pointillist paintings are representative of the new movements innovation - formulated by Seurat and championed by Lucien Pissarro among others - and the image of Pissarro is correctly representative of the new movement. By the way - add representatives of the Heidelberg school and others if you see they are not represented; and add a section on portraiture - they nearly all painted portraits - Manet painted some gorgeous portraits of Berthe Morisot - add a section on portraits...Modernist (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
What is "radical" about my proposed changes? I'm only following Wikipedia guidelines. This article isn't special or exempt from those guidelines. The current image layout is radical. Again, seven images in one section. You won't find a featured article with that (or at least the version given featured status). No balanced section needs three images by one artist. It's merely decorative and doesn't tell us anything about the text. If every article followed a consensus reached in the early stages of its development then Wikipedia would atrophy. I don't know enough about impressionist portraiture to add a section on it, but I know an image like the one you posted would be a lot better than the two landscapes. "His pointillist paintings are representative of the new movements innovation - formulated by Seurat" why not replace it with Seurat's A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte? A broad article needs a broad range of artists and iconic works should be used wherever possible. - HappyWaldo (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
"consensus to make radical changes" would be WP:Gallery, i.e. it has already been established. There is no need to look for local consensus nor should we per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. WikiProject Visual arts shows no consensus on galleries with the plurality being against overuse of galleries when ever the subject comes up on the talk pages, RfC. As to what works to include where, one or two textbooks can decide that, as opposed to editorial opinion. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Having worked here creating visual arts articles since 2006 - and nearly 85,000 edits later - I can tell you the galleries work well; and the visual arts galleries work within the guidelines...Modernist (talk) 02:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Claiming your own empirical knowledge supersedes guidelines or making WP:MOREX arguments gets us nowhere. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Per HappyWaldo' proposed:

  • moved Cassatt's The Child's Bath from "Beyond France" section to gallery,....agree....Cassatt was never "Beyond France", she learned Impressionism and painted it in France. An image or two from painters listed who were not in France should be used.
  • removed Monet's Water Lilies from "Music and literature" section, because it has nothing to do with music or literature.... yes, applied meaning is not actual meaning.
  • changed opening image from Monet's The Cliff at Étretat after the Storm to one of his Haystacks, which is much more recognizable and illustrative of impressionism..... yes - Image should be easy to read as Impressionism per WP:IMAGE. "Cliff" shows no charactrestics of Impressionism at thumb scale. "Claude Monet, Impression, soleil levant" is second vote for me, it named the movement and would be a good summary image.
  • moved Morisot's The Cradle from "Impressionist techniques" to Gallery, Cassatt's Lydia Leaning on Her Arms is enough for such a relatively small section..... agree. "The Cradle" does not really show what is being talked about at thumbscale WP:IMAGE and its an over-image problem, pushes into the next section.
  • removed landscapes from "Main impressionists" section, if any image belongs here wouldn't it be a group portrait (if one exists)? ...... remove Camille Pissarro, Hoarfrost, overimage and artist is represented in other pics
  • there were three Monets and three Renoirs in "Beginnings" section, they seem randomly placed and squash the text. Removed two of each .... the squash seems ok but three Monets and three Renoirs sure don't represent the "thirty artists" in the first show.
  • moved Pissarro's Boulevard Montmartre to "Content and composition" section...... Section is overloaded (image squeeze) Berthe Morisot, Reading and Alfred Sisley, View of the Saint-Martin Canal, Paris should be moved to "Beginnings" and Monets "Terrasse à Sainte-Adresse" should be added -->Japanese prints/Japonism[3].
  • changed "Post-impressionism" image from Pissarro's Children on a Farm to self-portrait by Van Gogh, the most famous post-impressionist .... yes, section should contain one of the four mentioned - Vincent van Gogh, Paul Gauguin, Georges Seurat, and Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec per WP:PERTINENCE.

Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

For the "Beyond France" section, I would suggest Hip, Hip, Hurrah!, as it shows members of the Skagen Painters and is featured in the book 1001 Paintings You Must See Before You Die (see references). Re opening image, I agree that Claude Monet, Impression, soleil levant is just as worthy as a Haystack. If it is used then perhaps an image of Louis Leroy could be put in its current place. As for "Post-Impressionism", Van Goghs appear on the covers of books titled Post-Impressionism by Bernard Denvir, Nathalia Brodskaïa and Belinda Thomson - first three results for "post-impressionism" on Google Books. - HappyWaldo (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

portraits

Here's a start to a portrait section...Modernist (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Nice, but like I said, I'm not the man for the job. So far your only argument for the retention of misplaced/redundant images is they "are needed", and were chosen as a result of a local consensus with some unnamed editors. I think once these images are taken care of it will be easier to expand the text and maybe room will be made for more images. - HappyWaldo (talk) 05:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


So far no consensus has been attained for the deletion of images (some of which masterpieces of the Impressionist and Neo-Impressionist period) from this article.Coldcreation (talk) 11:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually the consensus does exist per the Wikipedia guidelines mentioned above i.e. do not stack images, do not squeeze text, do not use Wikipedia articles as image hosts, images should be used in context and not be redundant. The question here would be is there any good reason not to follow those guidelines. If there is no very good reason not to follow then we follow the guidelines. If someone has a problem with the guidelines then they are on the wrong talk page, you take it up at the relevant guideline talk page. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
There are now 33 images, too many for an article of this size. WP:PERTINENCE states "be watchful not to overwhelm an article with images by adding more just because you can." Modernist's latest edit summary - "unrelated to your IDON'TLIKEIT - looks fine" - is the kind of flippant remark you would expect from a troll, not a seasoned editor. - HappyWaldo (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Artworks need to be seen. Wikipedia guidelines mentioned above are general guidlines, not specifically tailored for articles about art or artists. Clearly such articles transcend the limits (vis-à-vis recommended image count) of standard non-visual arts related topic. Coldcreation (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The artwork is seen, its called "read the article Post-Impressionism, or see the Commons". One article does not need to contain images that are already in another article and Wikipedia articles are not simply image hosts. If you think WP:IG, WP:LAYIM, or WP:IMAGE is missing something then get it changed. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Many Impressionist painters continued into the Post-Impressionist or Neo-Impressionist phases of the movement. The works you deleted from the article were indeed classified by art historians as Impressionist, or borderline Impressionist. The text just above the images in question reads: "Paul Cézanne, who participated in the first and third Impressionist exhibitions, developed a highly individual vision emphasising pictorial structure, and he is more often called a post-Impressionist. Although these cases illustrate the difficulty of assigning labels, the work of the original Impressionist painters may, by definition, be categorised as Impressionism." The images belong in this article.Coldcreation (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
"Clearly such articles transcend the limits (vis-à-vis recommended image count) of standard non-visual arts related topic." No, this article's image layout is just as awful as any other non-visual arts related topic that has "transcended the limits". Re-cap: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." Fountains of Bryn Mawr and I have cited several policies and guidelines. Modernist cited "IDON'TLIKEIT", Coldcreation none. - HappyWaldo (talk) 23:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
First they asked for Post Impressionism to be expanded - they wanted Van Gogh to replace Pissarro - you know Van Gogh was late to the party - he came to Paris and his brother Theo introduced him to Impressionism and he radically changed his work; in admiration and having been profoundly influenced by Pissarro as well as the other Impressionists. Pissarro is an important link - to the Post Impressionists. I added the major Post Impressionists and all we are getting now from 2 editors is more complaints. Two editors who have contributed essentially nothing to this article. One editor who clearly does not understand galleries or guidelines or the visual arts...Modernist (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I want a diverse range of artists represented by a standard number of images, not a Pissarro in the Post-impressionism section when image-wise he already represented elsewhere in the article with three images, nor three Renoirs in one section that are unrelated to the corresponding text. - HappyWaldo (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
This is not about what you want this is about Impressionism. - You also want to include Australian Impressionism - which I said to do - by the way...Modernist (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
You told us what we "wanted" re Van Gogh. I know it's not about what anyone wants. I'm not going to add any images or expand any text until these problems are resolved. Would you be willing to part with two of the three Renoirs? - HappyWaldo (talk) 00:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
This is an article about Impressionism - probably the most important art movement of the 19th century - early 20th century - certainly the most popular. We include the major Impressionists - 5 works by Monet, 5 by Degas, 4 by Pissarro, 3 by Renoir, 3 by Morisot, 2 by Sisley, 2 by Cassatt, 1 by Bazille, I by Guillaumin, 1 by Caillebotte and only 1 Manet and a Whistler. I added a Gauguin, a Cezanne, a Van Gogh, and a Seurat. Clearly I should add 2 or 3 more by Manet and probably 1 more Renoir - who was a major Impressionist painter and all of whose images belong in this article...Modernist (talk) 01:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Explain how the three Renoirs relate to the corresponding text and are not merely decorative. Explain why Renoir needs three images in one section when the section names 23 other artists and numerous other things that could be represented with an image. - HappyWaldo (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Lets be crystal clear - I don't and no one else here owes you an explanation of anything. Who are you? Read this: WP:IDON'TLIKEIT, if you can improve the article - add text then please do so...Modernist (talk) 01:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm an editor trying to ascertain the logic behind some of your statements. - HappyWaldo (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
It's not that hard...Modernist (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I swapped one of the Renoirs with Manet's The Luncheon on the Grass, which directly relates to the corresponding text. Do you think this is an improvement? - HappyWaldo (talk) 02:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Good job, as I said - work...Modernist (talk) 02:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Modernist said "I don't and no one else here owes you an explanation of anything." --- errr, yes you do. Reasons to include or not include content is based on your explanation, i.e. a reliable source, a policy, or a guideline that supports it. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, that's your opinion; you clearly have no experience working on articles in the visual arts - you are owed nothing - nothing...Modernist (talk) 02:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
And with that fine example of civility lets move on to editing what does have consensus. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
You added two early Monet paintings that pre-date his Impressionist work and do not belong in this article. This article is about Impressionism in case you don't know...Modernist (talk) 04:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Lets be clear - you have no consensus...Modernist (talk) 04:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Per edit consensus:

  • Early Monet, - View At Rouelles inserted at context. Image explains origins, as does "Le déjeuner sur l'herbe"- Images augment article text, articles are not image repositories of only one style. Consensus to explain with earlier works ("Le déjeuner sur l'herbe") already shown.
  • late Renoir "Girl with a Hoop" moved to gallery - three Monets and three Renoirs in "Beginnings" section/don't represent the "thirty artists" / fixing diversity and moving images into context was not disputed.
  • Monet "Woman with a Parasol" moved to context - simple WP:LAYIM. WP:LAYIM was not disputed.
  • Sisley "View of the Saint-Martin Canal, Paris" moved to content - three Monets and three Renoirs in "Beginnings" section/don't represent the "thirty artists" / fixing diversity and moving images into context was not disputed.
  • Monet Jardin à Sainte-Adresse (added to context) is an Impressionist work, (exhibited at the 4th Impressionist exhibition, 1879) referenced as Japonism. WP:LAYIM/WP:PERTINENCE was not disputed.

Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 05:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Since there is no further comment I will restore some of these edits. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

POV

I have the feeling some parts of this article are written implicitly as within the POV of the impressionists. For instance, academic painters would sternly disagree with a sentiment such as "Colour was somber and conservative, and traces of brush strokes were suppressed, concealing the artist's personality, emotions, and working techniques." One can arguably see a tremendous amount of personality, emotions and working technique in academic painters. This rather reads as history being written by the victor. I would feel it more appropriate if it were rewritten as that the impressionists _argued_ that it was thus. —77.169.107.215 (talk) 18:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, that is the standard description of academic art and that article says as much, as does the article on false surfaces, the latter seen as a prominent feature of academic art. If there is some sourced text that counters this standard view, we could perhaps add something. freshacconci talk to me 19:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
"Colour was somber and conservative, and traces of brush strokes were suppressed, concealing the artist's personality, emotions, and working techniques." That sentence should be removed since its an unreferenced claim here and Academic art (an article with only one reference). The WP:BURDEN would be on the editor restoring it, not the other way around. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
It only reads as "history being written by the victor" if the description is perceived as disparaging. But in fact, the academicians at mid-century generally regarded a smooth finish as a virtue. In this they followed the teaching of J.A.D. Ingres, who said: "The brushstroke, as accomplished as it may be, should not be visible: otherwise, it prevents the illusion, immobilizes everything. Instead of the object represented, it calls attention to the process: instead of the thought, it betrays the hand." Ewulp (talk) 05:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
My problem is not at all with the brush-stroke (I say the Bouguereau-finish, whether you like it or dislike it, is a fact), rather the implication that its effect is "concealing the artist's personality, emotions, and working techniques." That is a highly subjective statement and I acknowledge the impressionists probably _did_ think this. But it surely cannot be said to be the opinion that academic painters held then or being held now. —77.169.107.215 (talk) 14:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I rewrote the section with reference. All artists/styles may portray emotion in their art, there is no reference that one style is more "emotional". If a hallmark of academic art is that it is unemotional that should be referenced. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Another few sentences to clarify the situation confronting the academic artists and the independents has just been added. Coldcreation (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Ewulp, the sentence about the golden varnish does not refer to the Impressionists. They did not generally apply such, as did the academicians. And many of the synthetic colors that the Impressionsists used were in fact brighter. This needs to be written in the article as it's an important point. Coldcreation (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
The paragraph in question describes the status quo ante before the Impressionists arrived on the scene. Here is the text as I left it: "The Académie preferred carefully finished images that looked realistic when examined closely. Paintings in this style were made up of precise brush strokes carefully blended to hide the artist's hand in the work. Colour was restrained and often toned down further by the application of a golden varnish." This seems unlikely to confuse the reader; the context makes it obvious that the line about golden varnish describes the kind of art that the Académie preferred. A few lines later the Impressionists are introduced: "Some younger artists painted in a lighter and brighter manner than painters of the preceding generation", and here we already have the point about the brighter color, which is attributed to their "manner" rather than their selection of art supplies. This seems to me to be the correct emphasis in these first paragraphs of the article. The importance of the new pigments to the Impressionists is given its due in the "Impressionist techniques" section: "The impressionists also made bold use of newly developed, brighter pigments such as cerulean blue". This could be elaborated, but it seems better to emphasize that the Impressionists found a new way to use the newer pigments—by laying them on relatively flat, unmixed, and opaque—than to risk suggesting to the reader that the academicians could have painted brighter pictures if only the synthetic pigments had existed earlier. Because in fact many of the synthetic pigments were marketed in France from the 1820s, and were used by academic artists—who typically mixed black with them to make smoothly gradated shadows which were subsequently glazed over with asphaltum for an old-master finish. Cerulean blue was available to artists starting in the 1860s, but can we say with certainty that Cabanel and Cot never touched the stuff? Our article should say more about what the Impressionists didn't use, but I think the "Beginnings" section is the wrong place to introduce a lot of technical details. Ewulp (talk) 01:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • FWIW my unencyclopedic take on the period is that prior to Impressionism the considered correct way to paint was Dark to Light...while the Impressionist innovation introduced the concept of painting Light to Dark; which consequently changes the perception of color; by placement on a white or light ground, allowing the color to read more easily as language...Modernist (talk) 12:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
You're right, that's important and is entirely missing here. An edit is in progress. Ewulp (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Impressionism page improvements

Looking to edit page to be more visually appealing. Pendletonlori4 (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

a question about impressionism

does impression start over? and how does impressionism influence our daily life? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.41.197.222 (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Impressionism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Impressionism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Changes to the page

Hi, I am letting you all know that I plan on making some changes to this page. One would be updating the headings to different sections because I feel it will make the page better and will help it flow well. Another is trying to make the 'Beginnings' section shorter because the length seems to be too long. Hopefully, these changes will make the page better! Michelve1 (talk) 16:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Should List of Impressionist artists be created?

There's a draft in progress at Draft:List of Impressionist artists. Should this be created or is Category:Impressionist artists good enough? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd say this list should not be created - the first artist I looked at, Helene Schjerfbeck, is not an Impressionist, her bio does not mention the word (and many that do should not). Others are the same. I suspect the creator has a weak grasp of what Impressionism is. The term is used extremely loosely, especially in the art trade, as it encourages sales, and the category is also ridiculously bloated - over 200 American Impressionists - who knew! Look at Warren Eugene Brandon, born in 1916!! Johnbod (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
and Luis Fraile, chosen at random from the same category, born 1947. Coldcreation (talk) 18:57, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
and Angela Wakefield, born 1978!!! Coldcreation (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Not needed, doesn't seem needed...Modernist (talk) 23:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Agree, the subject treated as a bare list would be more confusing than useful. Ewulp (talk) 01:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Actually the categories almost make the list look good. Removed the last two... Johnbod (talk) 02:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The draft is now at Draft:List of women Impressionists. Is that one suitable? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:07, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

it's better, but I think a high proportion are not actually Impressionists. Johnbod (talk) 02:25, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Nor from "the Impressionist era" unless that is stretched by some decades. We have American Impressionism, & some belong to that, but it needs to be kept distinguished. Many of the Europeans are Symbolists, Expressionists, or more or less Academic, and are so described in their articles. I think the list derives from the Yale UP catalogue for "Women Artists in Paris, 1850-1900" (3 US locations last year), but calling them all Impressionists is just wrong. Better to turn it into a list with that title, or an article on the exhibition. Johnbod (talk) 02:25, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

intro

IMO, that first paragraph is unsuccessful in defining impressionism. how bout keeping it simple: impressionism is a 19th-century art movement characterized by depicting the impressions made by things rather than depicting their true appearances, with the goal of capturing their essences rather than their simple outward manifestations. - or some such; that's just off the cuff. but i mean, all those details re the strokes & the light & the movement, etc - they seem out of place in an introduction; they should come later in the article. something generally descriptive seems required. i'd think that the preface of any book of impressionist paintings would contain in the first few sentences/paragraphs the language and the source needed. 208.52.50.184 (talk) 06:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Impressionism/Archive_1&oldid=1136815043"