From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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.

Paul Signac[edit]

...seems to be classified as neo-impressionist, I wonder if he belongs in the list on pos-impressionists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Odinlake (talkcontribs) 09:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Please add a link to the french page[edit]


Link exists. --RPD 23:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

First use of term[edit]

The Oxford Dictionary cites the following usages in order:

  • 1910 C. HOLMES in Notes on Post-Impressionist Painters, 11
  • 1910 The December issue of the Connoisseur 315/2

Which of these — if either — is attributable to Fry? Or does Fry's usage pre-date these? Stumps 14:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

According to Alan Bowness (Introduction to Post-Impressionism: Cross-Currents in European Painting, London 1979-1980, p. 9), the term was coined in a discussion between Fry, Desmond MacCarthy (secretary of the exhibition at the Grafton Galleries) and an anonymous journalist, before the opening of Manet and the Post-Impressionists, which took place November 8th, 1910. MacCarthy ascribed the term to Fry. - An exhaustive commentary on the show is provided by Anna Gruetzner Robins, Modern Art in Britain 1910-1914, London 1997. --RPD 19:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
By the way, do you find entries on mile-stone exhibitions like The Volpini Exhibition, 1889 helpful? If so, Fry's exhibition should also receive an entry. RPD 19:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

my suggestion : Stanley Spencer [2]as external link (?)

Definitely not! See the link provided - --rpd (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Present state & edition history[edit]

Sorry, Friends, this entry was already in a much better state:

  • There's been a lot of vandalism, since my last check, but it was not properly reverted.
  • But at all, there's also a lot of editing done without the knowledge necessary to deal with delicate matters.

Therefore, please do discuss alterations before changing the main page. It's a mess to re-establish reliable information already supplied! --rpd (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned, I think the images are appropriate, and I agree with you that a little more text and references would greatly help this article. I added images of the important Post-Impressionists, Neo-Impressionists and the four Nabis, and the Toulouse Lautrec portrait of Émile Bernard. Someone else has also included a Redon. I think it is better to see a Vuillard or a Signac then to simply just read the name. As Rewald implies Post-Impressionism is a vague and wide rubric. The Pissarro is important, although I have my doubts about Henri Rousseau being in the lead. A charming painter certainly but not a leading Post-Impressionist. Although Tyrenius has placed a Rousseau on the Fauvism page as a possible reason why they called them the "Wild Beasts" according to Roberta Smith of the NY Times. Which is fascinating. I really think the use of images helps the Visual arts articles. I'd like to have enough text to be able to have the pictures illustrating different aspects of Post-Impressionist painting. We are limited but I think the gallery is OK, although I'm thinking about breaking it up into separate galleries. Modernist (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Important for this page is a balanced view, where information supplied in text may be as helpful for the user as an image - so far I agree. But importance cannot be claimed from a private POV: we have to consider the context. Rewald's 'Post-Impressionism' has the most important names already on the table of contents: Van Gogh, Seurat, Redon, Gauguin, and Bernard, and in his preface, Rewald added Toulouse-Lautrec, Henri Rousseau, Cézanne, the Nabis, the Fauves and young Picasso. Little of this information is at present supplied to the reader, and WP has more possibilities than a book: A simple link, and the job is done. - Therefore, I see no need to have

  • a gallery for the Neo-Impressionists at this place, but it would be highly welcome on the Neo-Impressionism-page! (Sorry, I forgot to check whether it exists already.)
  • a gallery for the Nabis at this place, but it would be highly welcome on the Nabis-page! The same applies for Les Fauves.

Finally, a remark on artists to be included in the Post-Impressionism gallery:

Henri Rousseau started exhibiting in one of the first venues of Post-Impressionism, in 1886 at the Société des Artistes Indépendants
Emile Bernard's portrait by Lautrec is probably a first-rate likeness, but definitely not the work adjusting his historical importance. I would prefer to see one of his synthetist paintings of 1888/1889.
Camille Pissarro's neo-impressionist phase (1886-1893) is important for his personal development and for Neo-Impressionism, but for Post-Impressionism in general?

Some input, I hope. Proceed according to your own scope, and be encouraged to add text to this page: It urgently needs rework. --rpd (talk) 01:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Brief response[edit]

I appreciate your expertise and your scholarship, and I will consider your remarks carefully before I proceed. However I'm not sure that I agree with everything that you've written above. If Rewald mentions the Nabis (as he does) in his text, then images of the Nabis are well placed here at Post-Impressionism. Rewald mentions Seurat, and my memory of reading Camille Pissarro Letters to his son Lucien, Edited (with the assistance of Lucien Pissarro) by John Rewald long ago tells me that Lucien Pissarro urged his father to be supportive of Seurat and his new ideas about painting. Which led Camille Pissarro towards trying new painting techniques more in concert with the vision of the new generation - that came to be widely known as Neo-Impressionism. Angrand, Signac, and Cross exhibited in all the yearly exhibitions between 1884 and 1893 at the Société des Artistes Indépendants while Rousseau missed only the first one, as did Lucien Pissarro. Gauguin, Van Gogh, Toulouse-Lautrec, Redon, Bernard, Theo van Rysselberghe, and the Nabis make fewer appearances and Cezanne does not appear. Camille Pissarro's alignment with the younger artists however brief - is an important and valuable inclusion that underscores the interconnection between Impressionism and Post-Impressionism, as do the inclusion's of Paul Gauguin, Paul Cezanne and Vincent van Gogh albeit to a lesser degree, all of whom either desired to be or were at one time considered to be Impressionists.

In Rewald's chapter II Seurat and his friends the issue of Neo-Impressionism is discussed and is included at great length in Rewald's index's - see III Neo-Impressionism pp.562-567. However logic and common sense tells us that while Neo-Impressionism clearly characterizes a particular type of Post-Impressionism those artists like Paul Signac Theo van Rysselberghe, and Henri Edmond Cross clearly fall under the larger Post-Impressionism umbrella. Paul Cezanne, Vincent van Gogh, Paul Gauguin and Georges Seurat have come to be regarded as the major Post-Impressionist figures. However Cezanne begins as an addendum of Rewald's as do the Nabis, Lautrec, Fauvism, young Picasso, and its our loss that he didn't publish Volume II. I added the portrait of Bernard by Lautrec because he - Bernard is mentioned in the text, as is Lautrec. As Rewald implies - so might Fauvism and young Picasso, be included here but time and common sense indicates those figures (Matisse and Picasso) refer to and represent Modernism and Modern Art in the 20th century, and are better placed elsewhere. Modernist (talk) 13:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The article comes across at the moment as much about Rewald as about Post-Impressionism, so I think he should be less prominent. I suggest also to emphasise the distinction (which is already there) between the initial Post-Impressionists, namely Cezanne, Van Gogh, Gauguin, Seurat and Lautrec, and artists such as the Fauves, who were influenced by them and their development of Impressionism, not directly influenced by the Impressionists. Books such as Post-Impressionists by Frank Elgar (Phaidon) only list Cezanne etc, and make no mention of the Fauves at all in terms of Post-Impressionism. If the Fauves are seen in this light, should not Die Brucke also be for that matter. Styles, Schools and Movements by Amy Dempsey (Thames & Hudson) starts the Post-Impressionism chapter with Fry's 1910 show, which included Picasso, Matisse, Derain and Vlaminck. It seems odd to categorise Picasso as a Post-Impressionist. It seems there are the original Post-Impressionists, and the Post-Post Impressionists. I'm not going to be working on the article, so these are just some thoughts for consideration. Tyrenius (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The main problem is the current state of the article: The definition needs to be reconsidered in the context of recent publications on French and German Expressionism, and the next chapter should be a short outline of the relations between the concurring movements and main artists. But all in all, I think we should keep in mind the present state of knowledge. Modernism is now seen as the central force since the French revolution, with filiations in the arts from Classicism and Romanticism onwards to Impressionism and Post-Impressionism. The conflict we are discussing now, derives from the traditional use of the term "modern" and this more or less recent shift in its meaning. I absolutely agree that this article cannot be considered completed, before these relations are not transparent to the reader. --rpd (talk) 20:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that this article depends too heavily on Rewald (as important as he is), the idea of Post-Impressionism seems from the vantage point of the 21st century to represent the birth of the multiple avenues of vanguard painting that came out of or followed Impressionism, roughly from the 1880s through the advent of the clear and unvarnished beginnings of Modernist painting in the second decade of the 20th century. Picasso is influenced by Cezanne to be sure but also earlier by Toulouse Lautrec and later by Gauguin. Modernist (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


Yes I see here [3] your creation of the gallery at Neo-Impressionism. I agree that the Nabis article would benefit from an addition which I will include; however I am of the opinion (see above) that Post-Impressionism - the larger rubric benefits everyone by including images of the major figures as well as Les Nabis, the Symbolists, the Neo-Impressionists and if a good one presents itself - an Emile Bernard synthetist painting of 1888/1889, so as to define the scope of pre-modernist painting that grew out of Impressionism - with pictures and text. Modernist (talk) 13:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Checking your recent edits, I think you'd better reconsider the aims and needs of an encyclopedia. Entries on major topics like Post-Impressionism cannot supply and are not wanted to supply detailed information on sub-topics like Neo-Impressionism - that's the reason for a separate entry on Neo-Impressionism, for example. Lack of concentration on the main issues in a central page will only produce confusion: At present, a user finds a little bit of information, a lot of images, and links to other pages in poor state. Is this our aim? --rpd (talk) 10:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for you message, initially it is of importance to create these articles, and then refine them. The beauty of working with a variety of people with differing levels of experience and expertise is the essence of building this encyclopedia. It is a pleasure working with you, because you know so much about what you write, I try my best to write about the little that I know about art history, the articles become more refined as we add and as we subtract. I have added the names of Anna Boch, Willy Finch, Georges Lemmen and several other lesser known Neo-Impressionists not to confuse the issue but rather to enlighten the subject, perhaps showing information and connection that the ordinary and casual reader would never - on their own be able to discern. I'd like these articles to show the complete story. While there is an emphasis on the French painters here - clearly in Belgium and in England there were others. In fact while the article states that Post-Impressionism is very important in France's artistic history. - Wouldn't it be better said as Post-Impressionism is very important in the history of Western art? Why only the French? The art is worldwide, Paul Cezanne's influence on the Spaniard Pablo Picasso changed the direction of 20th century art...not only in France. The case can be made that the 20th century Claude Monet's Water Lilies influenced and affected American painting via Jackson Pollock and later Jules Olitski and others. I am also a little troubled by the limits imposed here by the notion of French painting being the only arena of Post-Impressionism. However I am certainly appreciative and happy for your input and expertise. Modernist (talk) 13:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
"Post-Impressionism is very important in France's artistic history" - bit of a meaningless statement anyway. see WP:PEACOCK! Tyrenius (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
What in the world - may I ask does this sentence and tag have to do with Post Impressionism? - "In the years 1918-1933, people united in Europe to dance on a vulcan.[citation needed]"? - What does that have to do with Post Impressionism,? who wrote that? Why? - Modernist (talk) 02:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Not a clue, but it is kind of surrealistic. Here's the edit:[4] JNW (talk) 02:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, esoteric knowledge, but thanks to this article it's starting to spread and once wiki's 200+ mirror sites pick it up, it will soon become widely known that between 1918 and 1933 that is what people did. Beam me up!. I suppose, sadly, it's more likely to be this one. Tyrenius (talk) 02:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
One prefers the possibility that it is a euphemism for something unseemly. JNW (talk) 02:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
A sort of cross between Poussin and Courbet perhaps? Anyhow, the whole article comes across too essay-ish at the moment, and Rewald is too prominent, at the expense of focusing on the article subject. Tyrenius (talk) 02:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Back to earth, I propose to delete and forget this edit: it's a bit off road, in this context. --rpd (talk) 14:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It was entertaining, but I think we have a consensus on it now. As a matter of interest, what does it mean? Tyrenius (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Tanz auf dem Vulkan is the title of at least two German films (see IMDB), both featuring conditions and ways to the outburst of violence. In a metaphorical way, "dancing on a vulcan" has recently been used to describe the precarious situation between the wars. --rpd (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Aha, I have to admit, that was one really funny line. Modernist (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Something else I've learnt through wiki editing. Great phrase, I'm sure we all agree! It must have a place in an article somewhere. Tyrenius (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Post-Impressionism is very important in France's artistic history. I hope we agree to delete this phrase, too. It makes me sick to see it on the screen.--rpd (talk) 16:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Done, Modernist (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Emily Carr[edit]

I'm just passing through, here, but I thought I'd mention something: this gallery might profit from the inclusion of Emily Carr. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion. From what I know of her work she is more at home in Expressionism then with the Post-Impressionists. Her paintings have the feel of early modernism as it was painted in France, Italy, Germany and the United States, c. 1920s...Modernist (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

First use of the term Post-Impressionism[edit]

An interesting snippet[5] that says Frank Rutter possibly used it first in print. Was Fry already using it in conversation or planning for his show, I wonder? Ty 05:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

main meaning[edit]

the main meaning of postimpressionism is that: Post-impressionism extended impressionism while rejecting its limitations —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

From see also section[edit]

I have removed people listed below from the "see also" section. They should be in the article if they are relevant: