Talk:Impressionism

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2022 and 9 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Xiaoying Dong (article contribs).

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Michelve1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Sociological Impressionism

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

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

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)

• I only notice now that they are all women. And that Paula Modersohn-Becker is included! Johnbod (talk) 02:38, 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)

• Perhaps the article should be re-titled: List of women artists of the Impressionist era...Modernist (talk) 19:58, 7 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)