odernity and a traditional order (Handbook 15). While some, like Monet, Sisley and Pisarro, were drawn to the outdoors and landscapes others, such as Degas, Renoir and Manet, were interested with human figures, city and suburban life. Whether or not they were revolutionary in their art is a longstanding debate with no real answer. The one area indisputable when talking about the legacy of the Impressionist movement is their technique of using bold applications of paint to capture the light of a landscape at a particular moment (Willard 18). A proponent of Impressionism, Jules Castagnary described the artists as Impressionists in the sense that they render not the landscape but the sensation produced by the landscape (Handbook 96). Characteristically Impressionist painting depicts what we actually see not what our brain processes as the object. This idea came from the advances in optical science that were discovering how they human eye and brain worked together and separately to allow us to see the images in our head. To mimic this way of seeing, the artists used tints blended together, mixing colours in a hazy and sketchy manner. Therefore up close your eye can only distinguish the patches of colour but when pulled back your brain will aid in distinguishing the colour patches into shapes and known objects to tell you what the painting is of. With such a diverse group of artists, it is nearly impossible to define them with precision or clarity for patrons unfamiliar to their work. Many artists considered part of the Impressionist movement did not adhere to the principles throughout their entire careers (Impressionism 16). Very few of the original Impressionist artists can be considered pure Impressionist painters. Most developed different artistic views but #were once united by their strong desire to exhibit their work and by several common theories on painting (Impressionism 16). In order to properly give s...
