This probably isn’t impressionism…

You know when you say something enough times that it just... becomes your schtick? Even if it’s not entirely accurate?

Yeah. That’s me with “semi impressionistic.”

Because if we’re being honest—actually honest—it’s not really true. Not by the official, art-history-definition, people-with-degrees-would-nod-knowingly kind of way.

And yet... I keep saying it.

Why?

Have you met me? I have a very special skill set where I take something relatively simple and make it unnecessarily complicated and slightly painful to explain.

So here we are.

What impressionism actually is

Impressionism came out of late 19th-century France and was basically a polite rebellion against very rigid, traditional painting.

Instead of perfectly polished, hyper-detailed work, artists started asking: "What if we just painted what it feels like to stand here for a second?”

So you start to see loose, visible brushstrokes... light and colour doing most of the heavy lifting... everyday subjects (nothing overly dramatic required)... and moments that feel fleeting and kind of peaceful.

Artists like Claude Monet, Pierre-Auguste Renoir, and Camille Pissarro were less concerned with perfection and more interested in capturing a moment before it disappeared.

Which is lovely.

And makes total sense.

And is very much not exactly what I do.

And then expressionism shows up like...

“Hold my beer! We’re making this emotional!”

And that's how expressionism came along later, deciding reality was optional.

Instead of painting what you see, it leans into distortion... bold, sometimes slightly aggressive colour choices... exaggerated shapes... and feelings.

Lots of feelings.

Artists like Edvard Munch and Wassily Kandinsky weren’t trying to document a scene—they were trying to get something out of their heads and onto the canvas.

Subtlety? Not really the goal.

So naturally, I made this confusing.

Here’s where I take a perfectly good definition and... reinterpret it.

When I say “impressionism,” I don’t mean: “capturing light in a technically correct, historically accurate way.”

I mean:

What it felt like to be there.

How the moment hit.

What stuck around after everything else moved on.

So less “scientifically accurate light study” and more “emotional reference with a visual residue.”

Which—if we’re keeping score at home—leans a little closer to expressionism.

So calling my work “semi impressionistic” is...let’s call it artistically adjacent.

But also... art labels are a bit of a mess

Art history really loves a neat little box.

This is Impressionism.

This is Expressionism.

This is Abstract.

Everyone stay in your lane.

Meanwhile, actual artists are over here like: “Ummm...what if I just do all of that at once and see what happens?”

Impressionism loosened things up.

Post-impressionists like Vincent van Gogh and Paul Cézanne pushed it further. Expressionism kicked the door open and said, “Your inner chaos is valid!”

And everything after that? Just... building on the beautiful mess.

"Abigail" (this one demonstrates the "somewhere between what I see and what I feel…")

So what am I actually doing?

Honestly?

A bit of all of it.

Whether it’s photography or painting, I start with something real—a bird, a shoreline, a stand of trees—but I’m not trying to document it like evidence in a nature documentary.

I’m translating it.

There’s observation in there. There’s feeling in there. There’s memory doing whatever memory does (which is not always reliable, let’s be real).

And somewhere along the way, it becomes less about what it looked like and more about what it felt like to stand there.

the quiet between moments...

Bottom-ish line

I say “semi impressionistic” because it’s a quick, familiar way to give people a general idea of both my photography and my paintings without launching into... all of this.

Also—full transparency—it’s already on my banner, and lord knows I am not paying to reprint that thing just to fix my own artistic identity crisis. So here we are.

Committed.

But the truth?

Whether it’s through a lens or with a brush, it’s not really about fitting into a movement. It’s about capturing the part of a moment that doesn’t leave right away—the feeling, the light, the colour of it all as it lingers.

And yes—I am fully aware that I just took a simple label and turned it into a whole thing.

Again.

On brand.

And now, the important part

On the trail with buddy… he’s here for the snacks, I’m here overthinking art movements…

At the end of the day, after all the overthinking, art history spirals, and me questioning my own labels...

Buddy would like you to know that none of this matters unless there are snacks involved.

He’s still out there on the trail, living his best life, accepting hugs like they’re a full-time job, and reminding me that maybe—just maybe—it doesn’t have to be this complicated.

(He's not wrong...but is he right?)

🐾