Official salon refused their paintings. Their common goals enabled them to band together in order to exhibit in the photographer’s Paris studio. Their initial exhibition in 1874 encompassed Impression: sunrise by Claude Monet. The exhibition attracted critics that dismissed them as artists of impressions. The opponents argued that the groups of artist were incapable of producing well and properly finished and composed painting (Britt 1999). This paper will criticize the impressionist painters by arguing that they are not modern painters. The paper will argue by outlining some of the works of impressionist painters that go against the above statement.
Impressionist painters are involved in painting landscape, as well as outdoor scene paintings. They work for a short period and stops when the light changes and return on the subsequent day when lights are similar. During the early 19th century, French painters confronted landscape directly just like English painters in some of the smaller oil paintings; they used more conventional and accepted colors. The innovation in packaging colors in flexible and portable tubes and making a range of colors available have eased the work of impressionist artists. The range of colors varies as some are less fugitive and others being less poisonous. Despite the importance of these latest developments to improve the artistic work and their practical consideration, it has not yielded much because it is the impressionist goals and criteria of working which alienates the mass or public. They have not produced anything new that can impress the public, but instead they alienate the public. This makes them maintain their tradition other than moving to modernity. A good example of such work is Monets Hayastacks (Nord 2000).
Impressionist painters are painting rapidly at the expense of drawing and painting with the aim of capturing the dynamic effects of lighting on the