When speaking about Impressionist Photography today, one key question needs to be asked: where does this idea come from, and can it be traced back historically?
This page explores how photography evolved in the 19th century, how the visual language of painting influenced early photographic experiments, and how photographers like George Davison began to challenge traditional definitions of photographic truth.
But there is another important question behind this exploration: is “Impressionist Photography” an anachronism? The term “Impressionism” is so closely associated with painting that applying it to photography might seem, at first, like a modern reinterpretation. Yet as early as 1891 and again in 1893, George Davison himself used the word explicitly, publishing articles that defended a photographic approach grounded in fleeting impressions, light, and atmosphere. At the time, Monet was still alive, Degas was experimenting with photography, and many of the key actors of the Impressionist movement were still active. Far from being an anachronism, the connection between photography and Impressionism was already part of the artistic discourse in the late 19th century.
Photography in the 19th Century: More Than a Scientific Tool
Since its public introduction in 1839, photography has often stood between two poles. On one side, a documentary approach focused on technical precision and factual accuracy. On the other, a more artistic vision aiming to express atmosphere, emotion, and visual experience.
This tension gave birth to early movements such as naturalism and pictorialism, which proposed a new way of seeing through the camera. These approaches questioned the assumption that photography had to be sharply defined or mechanically objective. Instead, they sought softness, mood, and interpretation.
During the same period, in the 1870s and 1880s, Impressionist painting was taking hold in France, led by artists like Claude Monet, Alfred Sisley, and Camille Pissarro. These painters refused academic realism and aimed to capture transient effects of light and emotion.
By the late 1880s, Paul Durand-Ruel, a key art dealer, brought Impressionist exhibitions to England. Among them were paintings by Claude Monet, displayed in London. These exhibitions exposed British viewers and artists to a radically different aesthetic, one that valued perception over precision. It was within this context that English photographers began to adopt similar values.
The Emergence of the Term “Impressionist” in Photography
Photographers such as Peter Henry Emerson and George Davison began to defend a photographic vision that was no longer about documenting facts. It was about expressing an inner response to light, composition, and the natural world. The term “Impressionism” started to appear not as an imitation of painting, but as a way to name a photographic sensitivity.
In late 1890, George Davison delivered a lecture in which he presented his ideas on the role of impressionism in photography. The full text was later published in The Photographic Times in four parts — on January 16, January 30, February 6, and February 13, 1891 — under the title “Impressionism in Photography.” These excerpts reflect his groundbreaking vision of photography as a medium of personal expression and atmospheric perception, aligned with the spirit of Impressionist painting.
Impressionism in Photography
By George Davison
Part I – January 16, 1891
“Nothing but a return to nature can break up such ‘styles and tricks’ and free an artist from the tyranny of previous great names and works.”
“It was such a return to nature, such a close observation of natural appearances under the influence of the materialistic tendency of the age, that led to the growth and practice of the body of painters known as impressionists.”
“Abandoning all consideration of the arrangements and mechanism of previous workers, they have consulted only their impressions of natural scenes, and, to those impressions, painted.”
“With one point of sight and one subject of supreme interest, they have aimed to seize, above all else, the action and first impression of that subject.”
“Truth to nature is the first article of their faith, and the truest that science teaches concerning light and color, and the manner in which the eye sees is made a guiding principle.”
Part II – January 23, 1891
“Photography compels to much that is naturalistic. It has proved the keenest critic of conventionalism, and has exerted great influence upon the painter’s art.”
“Photographers have accepted this degradation of their art, and have even joined voice in deprecating any reform or movement which promised better artistic expression as ‘aping the conventionalities of painting.’”
“Some of the photographers of the older conventions have lately objected to any but the most limited use of focusing for expressing the relative interests of a picture, and have even insisted that definition is the distinctive characteristic of photography.”
“There is a supposition in this view of an insufficiency in nature, and a necessity for what I have referred to as Mr. Brett’s ‘improvement and exaltation of natural images.’”
“The interest in such work and in symbolism is, as a rule, feeble and superficial for the nature student compared with the absorbing and exquisite pleasure derived from a bit of simple, natural beauty, faithfully and spiritedly painted.”
“It is not the province of art to teach or illustrate history, nor is it at its best with any didactic or moral aim.”
Part III – January 30, 1891
“After all, nature is the best possible painter. Art has performed its highest function when it has enabled us to see ‘the eternal picture which nature paints in the streets,’ and has opened our eyes to the masters of eternal art.”
“Two photographers separately treating the same subject will produce two impressions almost, if not quite, as different in qualities as would two impressionist painters in monochrome.”
“The lens, as used by a trained observer, sees very much as the eye sees; and that most of the suppression and selection possible to a painter genuinely consulting his impressions is also at the command of the photographer.”
“The best of what is felt and thought to be ‘ideal beauty’ is ‘abridgement and selection.’ This abridgement and selection is the broad treatment in painting, the effect that the eye sees, and the photographer has the means of seizing or subordinating the same facts by the power of focusing that he possesses over the lens.”
“It is the light that is the first and foremost fact of any scene or picture—the color, the action, and sentiment of the figures.”
“The artist’s work always falls short of his impressions received from nature. When he has succeeded in seizing for us one tithe of the splendor, the sweetness of nature, one single aspect and expression of the human face perfectly, as we ourselves know nature and life commonly, it will then be time to talk of idealizing.”
Part IV – February 6, 1891
“Definition is not the distinctive characteristic of seeing.”
“It is the light that is the first and foremost fact of any scene or picture—the color, the action, and sentiment of the figures.”
“Mathematical accuracy is not necessarily artistic truth.”
“Whether in painting or photography, it is purely a matter of the instrument used and the use made of it.”
“Both the photographer and the painter have the same aim, and it is not surprising if printing upon the same papers produce similar results.”
“Photography has pre-eminently more of painting qualities than any other monochrome process.”
“Photography is not specially limited to, nor compelled to emphasize, facts of form. It gives form by means of tone against tone.”
“The crude, ignorant workmanship that is so common is no fair test of its capabilities.”
Part V – February 13, 1891
“The power of expressing artistic impressions by photography is possible, and photography, artistically employed, has the same aim [as painting]: an honest attempt to paint what they see.”
“Photography has yet to get its Whistlers; and it works in a manner very different from etching.”
“It is from no mere formula of fuzziness or definition that the best work derives its quality, but from the acquisition of artistic facts by observation and experience.”
“Men will weary of emphasis. The keenest aesthetic pleasure is to be derived from the spirited truthful rendering of character, whether in face, figure, or landscape.”
“Nature will never go out of fashion. Prejudice will fade, and even one generation ahead will find the value of photographic portraiture, if it be natural and permanent.”
“With fewer limiting conditions, our every impression of the visible world—light, color, action, and form—will come within its scope to express.”
April 27, 1893 – Davison’s Final Argument
“Let us be clear: photography is not, in itself, art—any more than a brushstroke is. But both can be used as art, depending on the person using them.”
“And thus we assert: Impressionism belongs not only to painters, but to photographers as well.”
“The conventional use of the word Impressionism relates to capturing momentary effects of light and vision. Over time, the term has broadened. Today, it often includes all work where general impressions take precedence over detailed execution.”
“Even if we take the primary definition—capturing fleeting visual effects—this makes Impressionism uniquely suited to photography.”
Why This Text Still Matters
George Davison’s statement is not a reinterpretation. It is an original document from the 19th century that proves the term “Impressionism” was already used to define a photographic approach grounded in light, sensation, and interpretation.
When we speak today of “Impressionist Photography,” we are not inventing a trend. We are reconnecting with this forgotten heritage. Davison’s words give legitimacy to a practice that continues to evolve, without needing to mimic painting or submit to outdated categories.
This is where the story begins. What follows in the next pages are explorations of technique, influence, and expression. But everything starts here.
So… is “Impressionist Photography” an anachronism?
After reading these original texts, and seeing the artistic debates unfold in real time, while Monet was still painting and photographers were actively shaping the future of the medium, the answer is clear.
No. Impressionist Photography is not a revision. It is a revival of a real and radical idea, born in the very age of Impressionism itself.
The Photographic Times and American Photographer – Key Facts
- First issue: January 1871 (as The Photographic Times)
- Merged title: Became The Photographic Times and American Photographer in the mid-1880s
- The magazine was published weekly in some periods and monthly in others.
- Returned title: Later reverted back to The Photographic Times
- Final issue: Published until 1915, when it was discontinued
Sources
- George Davison, Impressionism in Photography, The Photographic Times, January and February, 1891
- Phillip Prodger, Impressionist Camera: Pictorial Photography in Europe, 1888–1918, Saint Louis Art Museum, 2006
To Go Further
Explore how Impressionist Photography evolved in theory, technique, and influence through the pages below, from historical roots to modern interpretations.
