The Impressionist painters are often believed to have formed the first coherent avant-garde group to break with the establishment both stylistically and institutionally. Recent scholarship has, however, emphasized that they were not interested in collective recognition. We empirically analyze exhibition patterns and contemporary reception of the eight alternative exhibitions traditionally associated with Impressionism to demonstrate that there was no consistent group of artists who contributed to these exhibitions, and that the exhibitions were not predominantly understood as Impressionist exhibitions in contemporary reviews. To the extent that the painters were perceived as a collective there existed various competing labels of which Impressionists, Independents and Intransigents were the most important ones. We then provide a theoretical interpretation to suggest why the alternative exhibitions were organized: they contested the monopoly of the Paris Academy and the associated official Salon and provided more, and different opportunities to exhibit. But the development of a collective identity and market category of Impressionism would have required overlap of interests and collective action. This did not take place because few artists were willing to promote a collective identity at the expense of their individual reputation, and sub-groups among the artists pursued different goals through the alternative exhibitions. Finally, we consider some third-party actors who had an incentive to promote Impressionism as a market category. We demonstrate that they had limited success and provide some preliminary evidence that the collective identity of Impressionism was only firmly established decades after the exhibitions were organized.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
De Rambures also participated twice under a different name: Jacques François in 1876, and Jacques-François in 1877 (Reff, 2020, p. 207).
All quotes are translated from the original French by the authors.
Agnello, R. J., & Pierce, R. K. (1996). Financial returns, price determinants, and genre effects in American art investment. Journal of Cultural Economics, 20(4), 359–383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-005-0383-0
Angrand, P. (1965). Naissance des Artistes Indépendants, 1884. Nouvelles Editions Debresse.
Armstrong, P. (2013). Avant-garde: The legacy of Paul Durand-Ruel. International Journal of Literature and Art, 1(2), 15.
Beckert, J., & Rössel, J. (2013). The price of art. European Societies, 15(2), 178–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2013.767923
Berhaut, M. (1994). Gustave Caillebotte. Catalogue Raisonné des Peintures et Pastels (New). London: Wildenstein Institute.
Berson, R. (Ed.). (1996). The new painting: Impressionism 1874–1886: Documentation—Reviews (Vol. 1). Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco.
Boime, A. (1969). The Salon des Refusés and the evolution of modern art. The Art Quarterly, 32(4), 411–426.
Boime, A. (1986). The academy and French painting in the nineteenth century (2nd ed.). Yale University Press.
Braden, L. E. A., & Teekens, T. (2020). Historic networks and commemoration: Connections created through museum exhibitions. Poetics, 81, 101446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2020.101446
Brettell, R. R. (2011). Pissarro’s People. Prestel Verlag.
Brettell, R. R. (1986). The “first” exhibition of impressionist painters. In C. S. Moffett (Ed.), The new painting: Impressionism 1874–1886 (pp. 188–202). University of Washington Press.
Buelens, N., & Ginsburgh, V. (1993). Revisiting Baumol’s ‘art as floating crap game.’ European Economic Review, 37(7), 1351–1371. https://doi.org/10.1016/0014-2921(93)90060-N
Caves, R. (2000). Creative industries: Contracts between art and commerce. Harvard University Press.
Chagnon-Burke, V. (2012). Rue Laffitte: Looking at and buying contemporary art in mid-nineteenth- century Paris. Nineteenth-Century Art Worldwide, 11, 2.
Dekker, E. (2016). Exemplary goods: Exemplars as judgment devices. Valuation Studies, 4(2), 103–124. https://doi.org/10.3384/VS.2001-5992.1642103
Dekker, E. (2020). Review of “innovation commons: The origin of economic growth” by Jason Potts. Journal of Cultural Economics, 44(4), 661–664. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-020-09392-2
Delacour, H., & Leca, B. (2011). The decline and fall of the Paris Salon: A study of the deinstitutionalization process of a field configuring event in the cultural activities. Management, 14(1), 436–466.
Delacour, H., & Leca, B. (2017). The paradox of controversial innovation: Insights from the rise of impressionism. Organization Studies, 38(5), 597–618. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840616663237
Dempster, A. M. (2014). Risk and uncertainty in the art world. Bloomsbury Publishing.
DiMaggio, P. (1987). Classification in art. American Sociological Review, 52(4), 440–455.
Distel, A. (1989). Impressionism: The first collectors. Abrams Inc.
Durand, R., & Khaire, M. (2017). Where do market categories come from and how? Distinguishing category creation from category emergence. Journal of Management, 43(1), 87–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316669812
Durand-Ruel, P. (1939). Les archives de l’impressionnisme. Lettres de Renoir, Monet, Pissaro, Sisley et autres. Mémoires de Paul Durand-Ruel. Documents. In L. Venturi (Ed.), Durand-Ruel. WorldCat.org.
Duret, T. (1878). Les Peintres Impressionnistes. Librairie Parisienne.
Duret, T. (1919). Histoire des Peintres Impressionnistes. Pissarro, Claude Monet, Sisley, Renoir, Berthe Morisot, Cézanne, Guillaumin (New). H. Floury.
Eisenman, S. F. (1986). The intransigent artist or how the impressionists got their name. In C. S. Moffett (Ed.), The new painting: Impressionism 1874–1886 (pp. 51–59). University of Washington Press.
Etro, F., Marchesi, S., & Stepanova, E. (2020). Liberalizing art. Evidence on the Impressionists at the end of the Paris Salon. European Journal of Political Economy, 62, 101857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2020.101857
Fields, B. S. (1979). Jean-François Raffaëlli, 1850–1924: The naturalist artist [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Columbia University.
Galenson, D. W. (2011). Market structure and innovation: The case of modern art symposium: Creativity and the law. Notre Dame Law Review, 86(5), 1921–1932.
Galenson, D. W., & Jensen, R. (2007). Careers and canvases: The rise of the market for modern art in nineteenth-century Paris. In C. Stolwijk (Ed.), Current issues in 19th-century art: Van Gogh studies 1 (pp. 136–166). Waanders Publishers.
Galenson, D. W., & Weinberg, B. A. (2001). Creating modern art: The changing careers of painters in France from Impressionism to Cubism. American Economic Review, 91(4), 1063–1071. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.91.4.1063
Green, N. (1989). Circuits of production, circuits of consumption: The case of mid-nineteenth-century French art dealing. Art Journal, 48(1), 29–34.
Haans, R. F. J. (2019). What’s the value of being different when everyone is? The effects of distinctiveness on performance in homogeneous versus heterogeneous categories. Strategic Management Journal, 40(1), 3–27. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2978
Harrison, C. (1993). Impressionism, Modernism and originality. In F. Frascina, N. Blake, B. Fer, T. Garb, & C. Harrison (Eds.), Modernity and modernism: French painting in the nineteenth century (pp. 141–218). Yale University Press.
Heckert, D. M. (1989). The relativity of positive deviance: The case of the French Impressionists. Deviant Behavior, 10(2), 131–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.1989.9967806
Isaacson, J. (1980). The crisis of Impressionism. University of Michigan Museum of Art.
Isaacson, J. (1986). The painters called Impressionists. In C. S. Moffett (Ed.), The new painting: Impressionism 1874–1886 (pp. 372–393). University of Washington Press.
Jensen, M. (2010). Legitimizing Illegitimacy: How creating market identity legitimizes illegitimate products. In Research in the sociology of organizations (Vol. 31, pp. 39–80). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X(2010)0000031004
Jensen, R. (1994). Marketing Modernism in fin-de-siècle Europe. Princeton University Press.
Jones, C., Maoret, M., Massa, F. G., & Svejenova, S. (2012). Rebels with a cause: Formation, contestation, and expansion of the De Novo Category “modern architecture”, 1870–1975. Organization Science, 23(6), 1523–1545. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0701
Karpik, L. (2010). Valuing the unique: The economics of singularities. Princeton University Press.
Khaire, M., & Wadhwani, R. (2010). Changing landscapes: The construction of meaning and value in a new market category-modern Indian art. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 1281–1304. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2010.57317861
Krämer, F. (2015). Monet and the birth of Impressionism. Prestel.
Lee, B. H., Struben, J., & Bingham, C. B. (2018). Collective action and market formation: An integrative framework. Strategic Management Journal, 39(1), 242–266. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2694
Lena, J. C., & Peterson, R. A. (2008). Classification as culture: Types and trajectories of music genres. American Sociological Review, 73(5), 697–718. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240807300501
Lobstein, D. (2006). Les Salons au XIXe Siècle. Paris, capitale des arts. Editions de la Martinière.
Mainardi, P. (1993). The end of the Salon. Art and the State in the Early Third Republic.
Mei, J., & Moses, M. (2002). Art as an investment and the underperformance of masterpieces. American Economic Review, 92(5), 1656–1668.
Moffett, C. S. (Ed.). (1986). The new painting: Impressionism 1874–1886. University of Washington Press.
Patry, S. (Ed.). (2014). Paul Durand-Ruel. Le Pari de l’Impressionnisme.
Perloff, M. (2003). The futurist moment: Avant-garde, avant guerre, and the language of rupture. University of Chicago Press.
Pickvance, R. (1986). Contemporary popularity and posthumous neglect. In C. S. Moffett (Ed.), The new painting: Impressionism 1874–1886 (pp. 242–265). University of Washington Press.
Potts, J. (2019). Innovation commons: The origin of economic growth. Oxford University Press.
Ray, R. B. (1994). How to start an avant-garde. The Antioch Review, 52(1), 34–43.
Reff, T. (Ed.). (2020). The letters of Edgar Degas (Vol. 1). The Wildenstein Plattner Institute Inc.
Renneboog, L., & Spaenjers, C. (2013). Buying beauty: On prices and returns in the art market. Management Science, 59(1), 36–53.
Rewald, J. (1973). The history of Impressionism (4th ed.). New York Graphic Society.
Roos, J. M. (1996). The Politics of the Société Anonyme. In Early Impressionism and the French State (1866–1874) (pp. 204–220). Cambridge University Press.
Schapiro, M. (1997). Impressionism. George Braziller.
Schroeder, J. E. (2005). The artist and the brand. European Journal of Marketing, 39(11/12), 1291–1305. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560510623262
Sgourev, S. V. (2013). How Paris Gave Rise to Cubism (and Picasso): Ambiguity and fragmentation in radical innovation. Organization Science, 24(6), 1601–1617. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0819
Shiff, R. (1984). Cézanne and the end of Impressionism. University of Chicago Press.
Thompson, J. A. (2020). Old and new worlds: Durand-Ruel and the international market for Impressionism. In C. H. Force (Ed.), Pioneers of the global art market (pp. 43–58). Bloomsbury.
Tucker, P. H. (1984). The first Impressionist Exhibition and Monet’s Impression, sunrise: A tale of timing, commerce and Patriotism. Art History, 7(4), 465–476.
Tucker, P. H. (1986). The first Impressionist exhibition in context. In C. S. Moffett (Ed.), The new painting: Impressionism 1874–1886 (pp. 92–117). University of Washington Press.
Varnedoe, K. (1987). Gustave Caillebotte. Yale University Press.
Venturi, L. (1968). Les Archives de L’Impressionnisme (Vol. 1). Burt Franklin.
Vollard, A. (1920). Auguste Renoir (1841–1919). Les Editions G. Crès et Cie.
White, H. C., & White, C. A. (1965). Canvases and careers: Institutional change in the French painting world. Wiley.
Whiteley, L., & Harrison, C. (2022). Pissarro: Father of Impressionism. Ashmolean Museum.
Wijnberg, N. M., & Gemser, G. (2000). Adding value to innovation: Impressionism and the transformation of the selection system in visual arts. Organization Science, 11(3), 323–329.
Zuckerman, E. W. (1999). The categorical imperative: Securities analysts and the illegitimacy discount. American Journal of Sociology, 104(5), 1398–1438.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
De Strooper, L., Dekker, E. Why the Impressionists did not create Impressionism. J Cult Econ (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-023-09479-6