Is Edgar Degas an Impressionist, or is he the "Odd Man Out" of the Impressionists? The purpose of this paper is not to answer the question, but to point out the ambiguous treatment Degas has received in the recent literature on Impressionism and to reconsider the definition of Impressionism. It seems that the instability of Degas' identity derives from his artistic technique (for example, dark color, rigid drawing style, etc.) and his preference of figure paintings over landscape paintings. Those who have tried to define or analyze Impressionism theoretically (for example, R. Shiff, N. Broude) tend to exclude Degas, explicitly or implicitly, from the central group of Impressionists. For it seems that Degas fails to meet a critical condition for definition as an 'Impressionist', that is, his paintings lack the trinity of "landscape/plein-air/spontaneity." On the other hand, those who prefer a sociological reading of Impressionist paintings (for example, R. L. Herbert, T. J. Clark), have regarded Degas as Impressionist without reservation, because his paintings are full of important information for their studies. For further study of Impressionism, it is necessary to be conscious of the gap between the polarities of the two different scholarly methodologies and to clarify the ideologies of the Impressionist painters. Only after such examination, can we again ask why the landscape has been given such importance in discussions on Impressionism.
抄録全体を表示