Impressionism resurfaces
Critic Sebastian Smee argued in a new essay that Impressionism was born out of violent social upheaval — a historical reframe that’s circulating this week online. Social posts are echoing the thread: a March 28 user named Claude Monet their top nostalgic pick for childhood‑vibes, tying the movement to emotional and societal roots. (x.com) (x.com)
Sebastian Smee’s long-form treatment is Paris in Ruins: Love, War, and the Birth of Impressionism, published by W.W. Norton on Sept. 10, 2024 in a 384‑page edition. (wwnorton.com) Smee is a Pulitzer Prize–winning art critic now at The Washington Post, where excerpts from his book and related essays have been promoted. (washingtonpost.com) The narrative centers on the “Terrible Year” of 1870–71 — the Franco‑Prussian War, the Siege of Paris, and the Paris Commune culminating in the Bloody Week of May 1871 — and traces how those events intersected with Parisian artists’ lives. (sl.nsw.gov.au) Smee foregrounds figures who remained in the besieged city — Édouard Manet, Berthe Morisot and Edgar Degas — while noting that contemporaries such as Claude Monet, Paul Cézanne and Camille Pissarro worked from outside Paris during the same period. (culturedmag.com) Publishers and mainstream reviewers have singled the book out — New York Times Book Review editors’ choice and a Washington Post notable nonfiction pick — even as some commentators have pushed back, calling Smee’s retelling a revisionist reshaping of Impressionism’s origin. (mitpressbookstore.mit.edu) Paris in Ruins was shortlisted for the 2025 State Library of New South Wales General History Prize, and Smee has presented the book at events including a public lecture at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. (sl.nsw.gov.au)
