Impressionism: a historical reconstruction

Impressionism

according to the reviews

 

Introduction:
Impressionism is hard to define. How did the art-critics describe the painting style of the partakers of the 8 ‘impressionist’ expositions?
First it is good to know that the partakers were called impressionists, but also ‘intransigeants’ (rebels), independant, Realists, Naturalists and more, see Why Impressionists? It is also good to know that several partakers were not seen as impressionists, see Main Impressionists.
Still, many reviews (positive and negative) described the characteristics of the painting style of the more avant garde painters. What did they write? Here below you will find summaries per year.

 

1874:
Here below you will find a summary of the reviews on the 1st ‘impressionist’ exposition, concerning the painting style of the avant garde partakers. There were in total 36 reviews (and also 22 announcements)*. 20 of these reviews were predominantly positive, 2 were more or less neutral, 7 were mixed positive and negative and 7 were predominantly negative**. The majority was positive, especially about the renewing art (R2,p106;R410,p211), namely Silvestre and Burty.
Castagnary, in a mixed positive review, explicitly gave the partakers the name ‘impressionists’ and connected this term with the painting ‘impression, soleil levant’ of Monet (R87,p265; 1874/04/29 in Le Siècle: “Exposition du boulevard des Capucines: Les Impressionnistes” (R2,p490;R90I,p15-17;R87,p264/5). He pleads to use the term ‘impressionists‘, because these painters ‘don’t render a landscape, but the sensation produced by that landscape’ and ‘in the catalogue soleil levant of M. Monet is not called landscape but impression.’ (R87,p265;R90I,p17).
Claretie (as Ariste) reviewed ‘MM. Monet …, Pissaro (sic), Mll. Morizot (sic), etc. seem to declare war on beauty’ (R90I,p9;R264,p260;R1,p326). Castagnary, who explicitly pleaded to use the term “impressionists” praised the talent, namely of Monet, Morisot, Pissarro, Renoir and Sisley. But he warns that many subjects don’t lend themselves to a rapid “impression”. (R1,p329/330). Silvestre wrote ‘It is the momentary impression that is the only thing that matters here’ and also ‘What will increase their influence is that their paintings are painted in a singularly cheerful tone.’ (R22I,p108;R90I,p90). Prouvaire pleaded for ‘Painting should render above all ‘the impression’ of things, not their own reality’ (R90I,p34). Wedmore (uRv16) wrote about a ‘reformulation of Realism… it emphasises the transitory effect of things in order to give the impression of them.’ (R410,p215).
Some critics don’t discern a new art-school. Castagnary emphasizes that a school is based on doctrines and not on a technique of execution. (R1,p329/330). De Montifaud affirms this (R410,p212). Others do discern a new art-school. Cardon calls them the ‘school of Impression’ (R90I,p13). Chesnau the ‘school of plein-air‘ (R90I,p18).
The sketchy, unfinished way of painting is often mentioned in the reviews. F. de Gantès even called it an ‘Exposition of sketches’; sketches that render a true impression of nature’ (R90I,p22). Polday remarked ‘sketches where they’re totally ignoring the details’ (R90I,p32) Chesnau praised Monet’s Boulevard des Capucines as ‘never has the ungraspable, the fleeting, the instant of movement been seized and fixed in it’s tremendous fluidity’ and also mentions it’s sketchyness ‘Come closer … and what remains is an indecipherable chaos of palette scrapings’. (R90I,p18)
10 art-critics*** discern a leading group consisting of Monet (10x), Pissarro (9x), Sisley (8x), Degas (5x), Renoir (4x), Morisot (3x), Cézanne (3x), Guillaumin (2x) and Rouart (1x). Cardon, Castagnary and Chesnau (Rv24+25+29=30) exclude some partakers from the avant-garde painters, stating that they are more suitable for the Salon, namely: Boudin (2x), Bracquemond (2x), Brandon (3x), Cals (2x), Colin (2x), Lépine (2x) and de Molins. Chesnau calls it ‘a major error in logic and strategy’ (R90I,p18).
Note*: See seperate page with an overview of the reviews of 1874. Here the reviews are numbered from Rv1 till Rv36.
Note**: The predominantly positive reviews were: Rv1+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+13+14+17+27+29=30+31=32+34+36. The 2 more or less neutral reviews were Rv19+22. The 7 mixed positive and negative reviews were: Rv9+15+20+21+23+24+25. The 7 predominantly negative reviews were: Rv2+12+16+18+26+28+35.
Note***: see Rv6, 13, 21, 24, 25, 28, 29=30, 31=32, 34 and 35. Note: I don’t count the anouncements.

 

1876:
Here below you will find a summary of the reviews on the 2nd ‘impressionist’ exposition, concerning the painting style of the avant garde partakers. For a short summary see the main page on the 2nd ‘impressionist’ exposition.
Note: See the links for the view of Duranty and Mallarmé in their extended articles written in 1876.
Mancino (Rv1) criticises the partakers as being devoid of any creative thought, of any knowledge of composition, of any trace of drawing, of the least notion of perspective, of any anatomical knowledge, of any virtuose brushwork.’
Pothey (Rv6) remarked ‘They are ironically called impressionalistes and intransigeants, while all together they search independance. For the most part they depart from the standard methods, but they add a personal kind of drawing, a virile execution and render a new kind of expression.’
Le Petit Moniteur universel (Rv14) wrote ‘They only show sketches of which the colour is as poor as the drawing’.
Burty (Rv16) reviewed: The idea that dominates in this group is the research for the light and the effects of ‘plein air’, the iridescence of colour. He later (Rv43) reviewed: Their method ‘consists in studying nature en her varies aspects, chiefly in the open air… intruducing man, his passions, his allusions, his feelings, into the midst of this everlastingly impassive nature.’
Silvestre (Rv21) reviewed ‘This interesting school uses a method of simplification using elementary harmonies; less worried about form, it is exclusively decorative and colourfull. They seek the direct impression from nature en plein air using bright and charming hues, nice and vibrant tones, a whole new palette.’
Zola (Rv22) remarked ‘They … have the ambition to render above all the impression true to nature.’ Later (Rv50) he remarked ‘They are also called impressionists, because some among them above all want to render the impression of beings and things. For me they are simply a group of naturalist painters who directly study nature.’ In another review (Rv54) Zola quotes Duranty approvingly, that the crucial issues were those of coloration, drawing and a serie of original views. But, Zola seems to have a preference for the colorists over the draftsmen. He criticises the more finished works of Béliard, Caillebotte and Degas, whereas Duranty is highly positive on Caillebotte and Degas. He also writes ‘The artists I am talking about are called “impressionists” because the most of them make a visible effort to communicate above all the true impression given by things and beings; they want to grasp it and reproduce it directly, without losing themselves in unimportant details, that remove all the fresness of the personal and lively observation. But each, gladly, has his own original feature, his particular way of looking and transferring the reality.’
La Liberté (Rv23) remarked ‘They find it sufficient to indicate certain effects on a sketch to give an idea of the value of the painting.’ and writes about ‘paintings with awful, clashing colours, sketches with revoltingly brutal brushstrokes.’
Vachon (Rv25) criticises ‘(they) do everything contrary to what others do, without worrying in the least about good senes or truth. They paint the trees red or yellow, the houses indigo, the waters crimson or red. … they are jokers.’
Alfred de Lostalot (Rv26) reviewed: This new school eliminates all that is convention; they focus on emotion, on the impression of the moment and use the most simple means. Everything for the eye, nothing for the thought. The impressionist school chases the various effects of light.
Baron Schop (Rv31) reviewed ‘The search for light, and its blossoms and its iridescence, that is the peak of their art. This process of patient analyses in which they make ranges (of colour), follow the vibrations, study the intimite reports of various tonalities. They are in line with Manet (and Wagner in music). They should refrain from using dramatic effects and illusions, and restrict to intellectual realism. They represent the plein air, a product of nature and a direct reaction. They are against the Institute’s painting, academic and polished, against the satiny smoothness of Bouguereau and the sentimentality of Cabanel, against the banality of refinements and the vulgarity of cheap tricks. Their goal is simplification and rudimentary harmonies. They disdain form and deliberately decapitate an ideal for greater strength and virility.’
Bigot (Rv32) reviewd ‘They are called impressionists because they mainly want to render an impression of nature. They are also called ‘intentionnistes’ and ‘intransigeants’. They react against the black paintings made in studios, against polished paintings. They are namely influenced by Rousseau, Corot and Chintreuil. They exclude shadows, soften the contours, melt the colours, juxtapose hues side by side. These new realists render the objects as they appear in the distance, only rendering the essential.’ And later ‘The study in the landscape genre, even though she is a bit vague, still manages to please sometimes; we never look at all the details in nature; it is sufficient that some lines attract our attention, that some bright spots shine here and there. The human figure supports this genre less, and it is here that the incurable vice of this system appears.’
Enault (Rv34) remarks ‘one doesn’t find a smooth, correct and pure line and no harmonious colours.’
Blémont (Rv35) reviewed: What is an Impressionist? “They, using various methods of execution, follow a same goal: to render with absolute sincerity, without adjustment or mitigation, by simple and broadly applicable methods, the impression awakened in them by aspects of reality.” Art is not for them a meticulous and scrupulous imitation of what was once called “the good nature”. They don’t imitate, they translated, they interpret, they strive to bring out the resultant of the lines and multiple colours that the eye perceives at a glance when looking at an object. They are synthetists, not analists. They render their personal and direct sensation. In theory we aprove fully. But, the execution is something else. This is not always according their intentions. Still, they are free.’
G. d’Olby (Rv38) reviewed ‘(they) are directly inspired by nature; their eye only sees … a whole of an impression, the spectrum … the simplifications of form.’ And he writes about ‘delicately contrasting tones and values… that seems empty, hollow and mediocrely substantial’ to the visitor. He ends with ‘Manet, Rembrant and Corot used a system of symplification, which were the result of a profound study, which aims to summarise an impression through its dominant characteristics, by clearing away unnecessary details, or which undermine the unity of effect.’ But, he didn’t find this at this exhibition.
Baignières (Rv41) reviewed ‘They have established as a system the theory of the impression. They confine oneself to a truthful rendering of what the eye sees, a sort of telegraphic mechanism.’ And later ‘The theory here displayed starts from a true principle: the love for nature. But, loving and observing is not sufficient, one has to work and study. The system of the impressionist has the allure of dispensing with the need to learn.’
Bertall (Rv42) reviewed: For it is their impressions that they claim to portray to us. They use a feverish brush dipped in the most vivid and incoherent colours. They use a clash of colours without form and harmony, without perspective and without drawing. They abolish half-tones, paint the trees pink and the hair blue.’
Cherbuliez (Rv55) writes of ‘paintings that are not more than sketches’ and ‘They don’t render what they have seen, but what they have sensed, like symbols, rendering red trees, pink grass and lilac sky.’
Henry James (Rv61) wrote ’the painter’s proper field is simply the actual, and to give a vivid impression of how a thing happens to look at a particular moment’. He makes clear that they loosely treat a subject and render a general expression. (R1,p370/1)

Some art-critics criticise the use of colour:
Sir Frac (Rv18) writes of ‘excesses of colour and fanciful shapes’
Wolff (Rv24) remarked ‘There doesn’t excits a landscape as painted by Pisarro (sic) with violet trees and skys of fresh butter.’
Maillard (Rv27) accuses them of excessive use of colour.
Porcheron (Rv28) writes ‘Pissarro… his sheep are orange and blue, the trees are blue, the field is blue, everything is blue.’
Schop (Rv31) writes of ‘excessive colouring’.
Eanult (Rv34) remarked ‘Pissarro has to wear decolouring spectacles to really see the joy of nature.’
G. d’Olby (Rv38) marked on Pissarro and Monet: ‘Their palette evokes the intense tones of the solar spectrum, conveying impressions from nature that don’t appear to this world. (…) The objects are seen as if through a prism that breaks light down into its primary colours.’

 

1877:
Here below you will find (in the future) a summary of the reviews on the 3rd ‘impressionist’ exposition, concerning the painting style of the avant garde partakers.

 

1879:
Here below you will find (in the future) a summary of the reviews on the 4th ‘impressionist’ exposition, concerning the painting style of the avant garde partakers.

 

1880:
Here below you will find (in the future) a summary of the reviews on the 5th ‘impressionist’ exposition, concerning the painting style of the avant garde partakers.

 

1881:
Here below you will find (in the future) a summary of the reviews on the 6th ‘impressionist’ exposition, concerning the painting style of the avant garde partakers.

 

1882:
Here below you will find (in the future) a summary of the reviews on the 7th ‘impressionist’ exposition, concerning the painting style of the avant garde partakers.

 

1886:
Here below you will find (in the future) a summary of the reviews on the 8th ‘impressionist’ exposition, concerning the painting style of the avant garde partakers.

 

Sources:
The most important sources are the reviews, namely as gathered by Ruth Berson (1996=R90I).
See also the overviews per year: 1874; 1876;

 

Recommanded citation: “Impressionism: menu linking to various aspects. Last modified 2026/04/01. https://www.impressionism.nl/impressionism-according-to-the-reviews/”

 

Note: additional info will be added.