n 2024, the world celebrated the 150th anniversary of Impressionism—an art movement that challenged socio–cultural norms and democratized art. Pushing against the unyielding, academic style of painting, painters in 19th century France like Claude Monet, Camille Pissarro, and Paul Cézanne started painting outside (en plein air) to capture the natural yet fleeting light that made Impressionism so rebellious. This artistic rebellion was made possible thanks to the invention of the paint tube in 1841 which granted artists from any class and gender the ability to portray everyday life as it appears in that moment. During a politically charged time, Impressionism’s unconventional and candid depictions of life—coupled with the radical notion of art embracing inclusivity—confronted perceptions of equality and self–expression.
The invention that reshaped art
Prior to the Industrial Revolution, paints were hand mixed and frequently left on palettes—limiting artists’ ability to paint beyond the confines of an indoor setting (save for the labor intensive pig’s bladder method). The invention of the paint tube was a pragmatic one, aiming to better facilitate the process of painting. But the small metal tube—along with a foldable easel—triggered a catalyst for something much bigger. The transportability, quite literally, opened the doors for Impressionism as artists began to wander outside. But how did a change of setting and a lead–riddled tube warrant a movement worth writing about 150 years later?
Given the costly supplies and complex process, much art prior to the invention of the paint tube was commissioned by the bourgeois, and the subjects reflected that. Typical paintings portrayed the nobles in all their opulence, so you can imagine society’s shock when the more mundane, everyday life scenes of the working class people revealed themselves on the other side of the canvas. The working class was finally represented in artwork, whether as the subject or the painter or both; Impressionism was an unapologetic way of painting as a mechanism for social change. It exposed social hierarchies in an unexpected medium and brought a new meaning to self–expression.
The method (and “lunatics”) behind the madness
The shapeless, often disproportionate figures and thick, rapid brushstrokes, were critiqued for its supposed “vulgarity.” But the aim was not to offend, rather, to capture nature and candid scenes at various times of day—depicting “...a world in motion” that more adequately expressed “...the energy of the modern world.” The idea of modernity and self–expression was furthered by the presence of a woman in the radical group of painters, Berthe Morisot. Morisot’s inclusion in the first impressionist exhibition evidently amplified the controversy of the movement with one critic ridiculing the exhibition as, "five or six lunatics, one of which is a woman."
Morisot was known as an artist as much as she was a muse. Another impressionist, Édouard Manet, frequently painted portraits of her (a love story for another day). Morisot and Manet, like others, were both criticized for their provocative portrayal of nudes. Manet famously responded to the general reproach of Impressionism: “I paint what I see and not what others would like to see.” He believed so wholeheartedly in the movement that he once challenged a critic to a duel… by sword.
This dogged attitude toward their methods is what makes Impressionism such a source of awe. The mid–to–late 19th century, marked by technological invention and economic strife, was the perfect backdrop for a movement that confronted socio–economic norms and presented art as a catalyst for necessary change.
150 years later, we’re faced with rapid technological growth and impediments to culture that Manet would undoubtedly unsheath his sword for. Perhaps we can look to Impressionism as a reminder to take in the fleeting moments, with all its flaws, and as a mechanism to unapologetically profess our differing viewpoints.
a global affairs media network
A tale of art, lunatics, and the invention that pushed boundaries
Claude Monet's Bridge at Dolceacqua (1884). Public domain. Retrieved from Raw Pixel.
January 7, 2025
2024 was the 150th birthday of Impressionism. The art movement was a form of rebellion and catalyst for necessary change—and it still has something to teach us today, writes Melissa Metos.
I
n 2024, the world celebrated the 150th anniversary of Impressionism—an art movement that challenged socio–cultural norms and democratized art. Pushing against the unyielding, academic style of painting, painters in 19th century France like Claude Monet, Camille Pissarro, and Paul Cézanne started painting outside (en plein air) to capture the natural yet fleeting light that made Impressionism so rebellious. This artistic rebellion was made possible thanks to the invention of the paint tube in 1841 which granted artists from any class and gender the ability to portray everyday life as it appears in that moment. During a politically charged time, Impressionism’s unconventional and candid depictions of life—coupled with the radical notion of art embracing inclusivity—confronted perceptions of equality and self–expression.
The invention that reshaped art
Prior to the Industrial Revolution, paints were hand mixed and frequently left on palettes—limiting artists’ ability to paint beyond the confines of an indoor setting (save for the labor intensive pig’s bladder method). The invention of the paint tube was a pragmatic one, aiming to better facilitate the process of painting. But the small metal tube—along with a foldable easel—triggered a catalyst for something much bigger. The transportability, quite literally, opened the doors for Impressionism as artists began to wander outside. But how did a change of setting and a lead–riddled tube warrant a movement worth writing about 150 years later?
Given the costly supplies and complex process, much art prior to the invention of the paint tube was commissioned by the bourgeois, and the subjects reflected that. Typical paintings portrayed the nobles in all their opulence, so you can imagine society’s shock when the more mundane, everyday life scenes of the working class people revealed themselves on the other side of the canvas. The working class was finally represented in artwork, whether as the subject or the painter or both; Impressionism was an unapologetic way of painting as a mechanism for social change. It exposed social hierarchies in an unexpected medium and brought a new meaning to self–expression.
The method (and “lunatics”) behind the madness
The shapeless, often disproportionate figures and thick, rapid brushstrokes, were critiqued for its supposed “vulgarity.” But the aim was not to offend, rather, to capture nature and candid scenes at various times of day—depicting “...a world in motion” that more adequately expressed “...the energy of the modern world.” The idea of modernity and self–expression was furthered by the presence of a woman in the radical group of painters, Berthe Morisot. Morisot’s inclusion in the first impressionist exhibition evidently amplified the controversy of the movement with one critic ridiculing the exhibition as, "five or six lunatics, one of which is a woman."
Morisot was known as an artist as much as she was a muse. Another impressionist, Édouard Manet, frequently painted portraits of her (a love story for another day). Morisot and Manet, like others, were both criticized for their provocative portrayal of nudes. Manet famously responded to the general reproach of Impressionism: “I paint what I see and not what others would like to see.” He believed so wholeheartedly in the movement that he once challenged a critic to a duel… by sword.
This dogged attitude toward their methods is what makes Impressionism such a source of awe. The mid–to–late 19th century, marked by technological invention and economic strife, was the perfect backdrop for a movement that confronted socio–economic norms and presented art as a catalyst for necessary change.
150 years later, we’re faced with rapid technological growth and impediments to culture that Manet would undoubtedly unsheath his sword for. Perhaps we can look to Impressionism as a reminder to take in the fleeting moments, with all its flaws, and as a mechanism to unapologetically profess our differing viewpoints.
