This paper examines Claude Monet's iconic painting Impression: Soleil Levant (1872) as both the catalyst for the Impressionist movement and an expression of Monet's individual artistic vision. Drawing on art historical sources, the paper traces how Louis Leroy's derisive use of the word "impressionist" in 1874 paradoxically defined a generation of painters. It distinguishes Monet's introspective focus on light, nature, and atmospheric sensation from the more socially oriented work of contemporaries such as Degas and Renoir, and situates the painting within the broader cultural context of nineteenth-century middle-class life in France.
The paper uses comparative analysis as its central method, measuring Monet's aesthetic choices against those of fellow Impressionists to isolate what is uniquely characteristic of his vision. By contrasting Monet's introspective focus on light and nature with Renoir's and Degas's more social subject matter, the paper avoids sweeping generalization and supports its thesis with concrete differentiation.
The paper opens by establishing the historical moment of the term "impressionist" and its derisory origins. It then distinguishes Monet's aesthetic from that of his peers before addressing the internal controversy the label generated within the movement itself. A dedicated section reconstructs the painting's genesis at Le Havre. The conclusion ties the cultural context of middle-class French life to the painting's lasting significance.
The word impressionniste was first used to describe Claude Monet and his group of artists when it appeared in the Paris art publication Le Charivari on April 25, 1874. Louis Leroy sneered that Monet's painting Impression: Sunrise was merely an impression with a brush, not a true work of painting (Pioch, "Impressionism," 2004). Yet although the phrase "impressionist" was used derogatorily to describe what would become a seminal landscape painting of twentieth-century art, long after Leroy himself was forgotten, the painting Impression: soleil levant — to use the French title — should not be seen merely as embodying the Impressionist movement. It is also a unique work of the individual artist.
Art critic Robert Herbert has called Monet's work a deepening of Manet's previous, flatter renditions of aristocratic and suburban Paris. Rather than "modern" and extroverted in style — like Manet's portraits of nudes rendered in harsher brushstrokes — Monet's landscape work, such as Impression: Sunrise, was dreamlike and internal in its scale (Herbert, p. 28). Although the broad, tree-lined boulevards and large parks that filled the French city with air and light gave inspiration to many of the Impressionists, as leisure became a prime concern of the middle class, the subjects of Monet's work turned away from the various forms of middle-class entertainment so beloved by his peers.
Degas and Renoir's Impressionist paintings featured the social life that developed in cafés — concerts, ballet, horseracing, picnicking, and boating. Monet, by contrast, was more apt to focus on light and nature, sunlit fields and shimmering waterscapes, rather than bustling city views and social or domestic scenes. He was more concerned with what light and shadow revealed about his internal life than with the choice of subject matter (Kelder, p. 75). His formative work set the tone for criticism of the Impressionists and helped define the movement's focus on ordinary life and light, yet it should not be seen as embodying the period alone — it is equally characteristic of the individual artist, Claude Monet.
Even the use of the term "impressionist" was controversial within the movement. The word was taken up with pride by Monet and his followers. Monet used it to name the next group exhibition — called the Exposition des Impressionnistes — because he was proud that his work conveyed impressions of inner life rather than outer reality. When the label was adopted by the broader group of artists, however, many disliked it, and it was consequently dropped from two of the subsequent exhibitions as a result of internal disagreements (Pioch, "Impressionism," 2004).
Monet always said he painted this first impressionistic picture of the sun as seen through mist at the harbour of Le Havre during a stay there in the spring of 1872. He recalled that as soon as he saw the sun, he made a sketch to capture the atmospheric moment. The work was therefore catalogued as Impression: Soleil Levant, 1872, even though the final painting was not exhibited until 1874. He wished to record the date of the work's conception rather than of its final execution, because for Monet, impressionistic art was always about the moment of creation in the artist's life and memory.
Claire Wilson (2004) has identified Monet's fascination with gardening and horticulture as typical of the evolving age, in which political and intellectual life was elevating the middle-class love of gardening, flowering, and the cultivation of both the private and interior sphere alongside the world of the public sphere and society. This cultural context helps explain why Monet's Impressionist vision resonated so deeply with his era. His attentiveness to nature — whether a misty harbour at dawn or a carefully tended garden — reflected broader shifts in how the French bourgeoisie understood leisure, beauty, and selfhood.
Wilson, Claire. In the Gardens of Impressionism. Glasgow: Vendome Press, 2004.
You’re 79% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.