Impressionistic or painterly? Artistic styles in oil paintings

Detail from “Mr. Efficient”, oil, 30 x 30 inches, private collection, ©Linda Hugues

I say…painterly

People often ask me what my style of paintings are, adding, “Is this Impressionism?”. I respond that I think of them as painterly. But I never had an easy answer as to why. So now in this blog post – with the help of some famous painters – I’m going to define the difference between the two.

Impressionism: Claude Monet on the left, Berthe Morrisot on the right.

The real impressionists

When I think of Impressionism, I think first of Claude Monet, and then all the rest of the impressionists including Berthe Morrisot, Edgar Degas, Mary Cassatt, Edouard Manet, Camille Pissaro, Pierre-Aguste Renoir, and Paul Cezanne.

Wikipedia says that impressionism is characterized by "relatively small, thin, yet visible brush strokes, open composition, emphasis on accurate depiction of light..., ordinary subject matter, inclusion of movement..., and unusual visual angles." I’ll agree with that.

Many impressionists concentrated on painting landscapes and on translating the effects of light into paint on canvas. In my work I prefer to focus on the figures in a landscape, which is considered a genre painting. Here are two excellent examples of impressionist genre paintings by Monet, left, and a detail of a painting by Morrisot, right. These paintings certainly have the small visible brushwork and emphasis on the depiction of light that Wikipedia talks about. Also note that the figures seem more shimmering than solid.

Painterly: John Singer Sargent, left, and Joaquin Sorolla, right.

Now this is Painterly

Now contrast those paintings with these by John Singer Sargent on the left and Joaquin Sorolla on the right. Where impressionistic paintings generally have small, overlapping brushwork with colors that blend visually, here there is more of a sense of a solid form, and the figures are is clearly, although loosely, defined. These artists use color, bold brushwork, and edges to model form. To me this feels painterly.

Wikipedia says "An oil painting is painterly when there are visible brushstrokes, the result of applying paint in a less than completely controlled manner, generally without closely following carefully drawn lines." Well, it may look uncontrolled, but I say these masters knew exactly what they were doing when they wielded that brush.

But then Wikipedia goes on to say "The Impressionists, Fauvist, and Abstract Expressionists tended strongly to be painterly movements." Huh?

So Impressionism is by definition painterly? But to me the brushwork and the result is very different! This article, from ThoughtCo.com, agrees with me and considers the two styles to be separate movements.

Two of my painterly details; “No Time For Lunch”, left, and “No Hurry”, right, private collections, ©Linda Hugues.

Where my work fits

If you put examples of my work next to the previous masters’ (complete hubris, I know) you'll see that my brushwork is more similar to the second group than to the first. I don't consider myself an impressionist because I do not use small brushstrokes juxtaposed against each other to create the effects of shimmering light. I use larger brushstrokes of solid color to define form and create a sense of mass. I love the feel of laying down a juicy stroke of just the right color in just the right place to create the sense of three dimensions using light and shadow. That, for me is the magic of painting.

Impressionist or painterly painter? In researching this article, I learned that the answer is not clearly defined. Certainly many impressionist painters, like Mary Cassatt, Edouard Manet, and Edward Degas produced some work that seems more painterly than impressionistic.

So in the end it's up to to the artist to define their style. I think my new answer will be, "Yes, my work can seem impressionistic, but I consider it painterly, because of the strong brushwork and solid forms."

I think I’ll get that printed on my new business cards.