we could go on and on about impressionism.

Historically, it was a HUGE milestone, but from a painter's perspective, there was very little that was truly 'new' about it in terms of either painting technique, or perception of the world.

i'm not trying to belittle the impact of it too much--i agree that it changed the world. but there is a great deal of misconception about how 'new' and 'painterly' it all actually was.

that's the part that was 'marketing ploy.'

there was true substance to it.--i genuinely believe that. but to sit down and read a summary of impressionism in any art history book is to be lead to believe that prior to impressionism the entire art world resembled the french academie in its desire to see glossily rendered nymphs (more classical than even the classics!) mischevously tugging at satyrs, all the while showing us their fleshy (bums) for lack of a better internet-suitable word.

in truth, the ideals as to what good painting was--that had been developing over a period of centuries--resembled impressionism much more than neoclassicism. (rembrandt--esp. late rembrandt, velasquez, goya, el greco, etc. would have all been scoffed right out of the salon). in this sense, impressionsim was more of a moving 'back on track' than the bogus avant-gardeism we mentioned previously.

impressionism was supposedly based upon a rejection of the past, and you must agree that this idea is simply unadulterated, raw misinformation.

the 'new' painterly ideals of the impressionists had been highly esteemed values in painters over the course of several hundred years preceding them. (this is my entire point--nothing more).

if this idea is questionable, look up the defining tenets of impressionism, then look into some rembrandt, velasquez, and a few others.

the similarities are striking--you will find:
1. boldness of execution in brushwork
2. areas of information summarized into raw, flat color treatments--for both rendering and compositional purposes
3. patches of pure color overlaid upon one another to form composite colors ('optical greys, vs. true greys).
4. subjects from la vie quotidienne, if you will.--contemporary people take prominence, when possible, versus elevated themes and literary illustrations.
5. paintings executed out-of-doors

without the above tenets, there's not much left to impressionism (except a high-key palette), and, strikingly, all of the above had been accomplished at minimum two-hundred years previous to the salon des refusees.

anyways, enough on that. hope it cleared up a few things on my beliefs about impressionism. (of which i'm a huge fan, by the way--just an HONEST fan).

Further, i agree with you on the first four points of part #2 (beliefs on painting), but disagree on the last two.

I will add a couple of points that i believe are responsible for your "bleak vision" and answering "no" to points 5&6.

#1. the VAST majority of current painting is poor-to--mediocre at best.
#2. People do not know what good painting is, and do not recognize it or understand it when they see it, so it is difficult for them to be interested in it.
#3. when painting does enjoy a resurgence, people mistake 'realism' for 'good painting.' these words are NOT synonyms, and never have been throughout painting's history.
#4. painting simultaneously is and is not about the appearances of things.
#5. the people who are most confused about the above points are artists.

given the above, yes, painting may continue to be an 'endangered species' as you put it. but perhaps it should be.

even so, i do not believe it will either die, or cease to be important. certainly, its general value is diminishing, though.

i'll try to get back to this shortly.
douglas