Talk:Impressionism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
 
Note icon
This article is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
WikiProject Visual arts (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Sociological Impressionism[edit]

Hey is there anything on this site to do with Sociological Impressionism, in reference to Simmel, I can see how the artistic fits in with his writing, as it uses ordinary subject matter and it is accessible, any help woulld be welcome, thank you Clare Banting

Notable New Zealand Artist deserves inclusion[edit]

I'm a scholar of impressionism and was surprised to see James Nairn not included here, could open the articles sphere to a world view, more content for beyond france section perhaps, thoughts?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/marlborough-express/lifestyle/arts/7820531/Retelling-the-story-of-our-first-impressionist

Manet[edit]

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[edit]

  • 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[edit]

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[edit]

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)