In my earliest years as an artist, I spent many chilly winter Sunday mornings exploring the Art Institute of Chicago. I was particularly drawn to its large collection of French Impressionist works. I loved that I could experience the green lilypads floating in Monet's cool blue lily pond through color feels of purples, greens, and reds. As I advanced in my art career, I realized how popular this movement was among artists and non-artists alike, and I wondered, why are we so taken with these impressions? Why do they enjoy more popular appeal amongst museum goers compared to the dramatic sculpted details of antiquity or the creamy sfumato blending of the renaissance? So, why is Impressionism so popular? It comes down to two things: its meta-monumental function and its likeness to the universal art of photography.

Even those who are unfamiliar with the curriculum of Introduction to Western Art History will understand that a primary purpose for the artist's work is creating art as monuments. Monuments are pieces made as a public symbol reflecting the memory of a person or event. The effectiveness comes from the remembrance of the monument itself, though sadly, not all monuments are memorable. Perhaps monuments that are overly specific to one event fail to seem relevant as time moves on. Yet, the Vietnam War Memorial, economic in its design, is relatable and memorable by representing widely applicable sentiments.

Impressionism remains relevant over the decades because it serves as an effective monument. Manet, Monet, Renoir, and Degas, for example, all worked on a movement that pushed the artistic boundaries and broke away from the themes of the Renaissance, Baroque, and Romantic periods. Unconcerned with blending perfectly specific images, rendering bible excerpts, historical events, or dramatizing and fictionalizing their works, impressionists painted the world in front of them: fleeting moments of light and seasonality, outdoors in sun and rain as well as darkness. They painted where people were, who people were, and how they lived. This was both novel and audacious. Of course, taking a risk has its social and economic consequences. The new subject matter, painted quickly, in fleeting moments caused a sketch-like quality that seemed unfinished. The concept was so unfamiliar to the art-world that these oddly composed sketches with loose and bare brushstrokes were only honored with wall space in the reject salons. Monet's works, beloved now, at the time were seen as "just an impression". Yet, over time the differences that hindered early success in the beginning, but in time became the movement's winning attribute.

The success of the impressionist movement and some post-impressionist works that followed, such as Van Gogh's Starry Night, was ultimately because of its controversial qualities. Many will recognize Monet's "Sunrise," Manet's "Luncheon on the Grass," and the ballet and equine subjects of Degas are recognizable in a flash These paintings are relatable compared to Boticelli's "Birth of Venus" or Bosch's "Garden of Earthly Delights." They are monuments to people, memories, modernity, and moments. The visible brushstrokes deconstructed the art and allowed beholders into the artist's magic. The compilation of these calculated strokes simultaneously constructed an image for the beholder that was practically living as their eyes would see it, making use of blurred focus and abbreviating non-essential information.

Paintings of the Renaissance and Baroque periods were deemed as possessing a photographic quality in their detailed rendering of the image, Impressionism is the true contemporary to photography. The two art forms, while wildly different, in practice share a similar intent in concept. Impressionistic paintings caught fleeting moments quickly. The shutter speed of the camera, albeit, more akin to a pinhole camera in dim light, but the art captured people in a gesture. It captured light and smoke in an instant, and composition no longer had boarders. This is exactly what photography has been since its inception, but with chemistry and light instead of paint.

Impressionism has a “deja vu” quality to those who grew up with Polaroid and Nikon. One could say this is because Impressionist works were their own successful meta-monuments, timeless images built of simplified brushstrokes. Impressionism has become a monument because of its feeling of modernity even one hundred years later. Nature, friends, industry, it captures the same subject matter as its contemporary art form, Photography, which may be the key to its hold.

Photography carries the impressionist manifesto into the present day, creating an even more successful monument to the impressionist vision. Photography is an incredible technology, in mechanics and its transformative property to internal artist who holds it. True to its original intent, photography allows the artist within us all to be resolved without formal study because of this we all carry the impressionist manifesto in our back-pockets without even knowing it.