Impressionism and myopia

I was sitting in my Hum II class, being taught by Dr Paul Zafaralla during the summer term of 2000. He introduced us to the different art movements, including Renaissance, Baroque, and Gothic. I thought that I would be most impressed by the Renaissance because of the realism and the intricate study of light. However, I ended up liking the Impressionism movement more, particularly the works of Claude Monet.

I have to note, however, that I am still not an expert on any of these art techniques. My exposure has been limited to what I've seen and liked in museums. So, don't think that I'll pass of as an art scholar.

Anyway, I've been wondering for a long time why I liked the impressionist works even though the artworks mostly feature blurred images... many taken at different times of the day. It's as if the artist stopped way before the lines were refined.

And then I saw this work by Monet, "Venice The Doge's Palace Seen from San Giorgio Maggiore" in an encyclopedia of art movements (which I found at the Concord branch of the Contra Costa Library). Then I got it.

Venice The Doge's Palace Seen from San Giorgio Maggiore

These Impressionists succeeded in presenting blurred images of the world... an impression of how light plays on objects... exactly what I see without my eyeglasses on. It's as if the painters during this movement all had myopia! Of course, it's probably not true; nevertheless, their paintings showed what the world looks like for people whose vision of things far off is limited.

The lines were much more subdued, refined, with the structure mostly blending into the background... none of the violent strokes that made Vincent van Gogh, a post-Impressionist, famous. 

Now that I understand art a bit more, the next step for me is to understand what makes art, even those that I found ugly and weird, art. Let's see how far I go on that one... I still need to learn to appreciate contemporary art.