Notes · History of ArtUK · A-Levels

Rebellion and revival: the British and French Avant-Garde (1848-99)

One of the six historical periods of Paper 2, the British and French avant-garde of 1848-99 was an age of rebellion and revival, in which artists broke with academic tradition to confront modern life and to pursue new ways of seeing and painting. This topic covers the Realism of Courbet and the scandals of Manet; Impressionism and its revolution of light, modern life and the broken touch; the British revival of the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood and the Aestheticism of Whistler; and the Post-Impressionism of Cezanne, Van Gogh, Gauguin and Seurat - together with the very idea of the avant-garde and its shift from rejection to acceptance, all taught through named works and their analysis.

5 sections~24 min reading time2 competenciesLevel Foundation 1 · Standard 3 · Advanced 1

T·101010 / 12

Exam profile

AO1 · Demonstrate knowledge of named avant-garde works, makers and the 1848-99 contextAO2 · Analyse and interpret Realism, Impressionism and their successors, developing a critical response

Operators:analysecontextualisecompareinterpretevaluateidentify

basic level

AS-Level requires knowledge of the period through a more limited range of named works.

higher level

The full A-Level requires the period studied in depth across painting and its movements, with named works and secure contextual analysis.

Depth

Text

Contents · 5 sections

Rebellion and revival: the British and French Avant-Garde (1848-99)

Overview: rebellion and revival#

FoundationPearson Edexcel 9HT0 Paper 2 (British and French Avant-Garde)DfE GCE History of Art subject content

The avant-garde, 1848-99

Fig. 1The British and French avant-garde, from the Pre-Raphaelite revival and Courbet's Realism through the first Impressionist exhibition (1874) to the Post-Impressionists.

The half-century from 1848 to 1899 was one of the most revolutionary in the history of art, the age in which the modern avant-garde was born in Britain and France. Across these decades a series of artists and movements broke, in different ways, with the established academic tradition - its idealised subjects, polished finish and hierarchy of genres - to confront modern life directly and to invent new ways of seeing and painting. The period's title captures its two impulses: rebellion (the Realists, the Impressionists and their successors, breaking forward toward modernity) and revival (the British Pre-Raphaelites, looking back to reform art by returning to earlier models).

The dominant force to be rebelled against was the academic system, which in France centred on the official Academy, its teaching and its annual public exhibition, the Salon. The academic tradition prized history painting (grand subjects from the Bible, classical antiquity and history), idealised and elevated form, careful drawing and a smooth, finished surface, and it controlled reputation and sales through the Salon. The avant-garde movements defined themselves against this: they turned from elevated subjects to modern life and ordinary reality, from idealisation to truth or sensation, and from the smooth finish to visible, expressive handling - and they increasingly bypassed the Salon for independent exhibitions.

The central theme of the age is the turn to modern life and to new ways of seeing it. Where academic art looked to the past and the ideal, the avant-garde looked at the contemporary world - labourers and peasants, the city and its crowds, cafes, railways, boulevards and the leisure of the modern bourgeoisie - and sought to paint what they actually saw, whether the social reality of Realism or the optical sensation of Impressionism. This confrontation with modernity, in subject and in vision, is what makes the period the beginning of modern art, and it runs through Realism, Impressionism and Post-Impressionism alike.

The idea of the avant-garde itself - the 'advance guard', the small band of artists ahead of their time, misunderstood and rejected by the public and the establishment but pointing the way forward - takes shape in exactly this period. The Realists, the Impressionists and their successors were repeatedly rejected, ridiculed and refused by the Salon and the press, and they responded by forming groups, issuing statements and mounting their own independent exhibitions. This pattern of rejection, defiant self-organisation and eventual acceptance became the model of modern artistic progress, and it is part of what the period established for all that followed.

Britain's contribution took a distinctive form, blending rebellion with revival. The Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, founded in 1848, rebelled against academic convention not by rushing toward modernity but by looking back - reviving what they saw as the sincerity, bright colour and truth to nature of art before Raphael, and pursuing minute detail and moral seriousness. The related movement of Aestheticism, led by Whistler, rebelled in another direction, toward 'art for art's sake' and the primacy of beauty and formal harmony over subject and story. The sections that follow trace these strands - Realism, Impressionism, the British revival and Aestheticism, and Post-Impressionism - and the birth of the avant-garde they together represent.

Worked example

Rebellion and revival compared

Show how two works of the period rebel against academic convention in opposite directions.

French rebellion forward
Courbet's 'A Burial at Ornans' (1850) rejects elevated history painting to depict an ordinary provincial funeral at monumental scale - modern reality confronting the academy head-on.
British revival backward
A Pre-Raphaelite work rejects academic convention by reviving the bright colour, sharp detail and sincerity of art before Raphael, reforming painting by return rather than advance.
The shared break
Both defy the academic tradition of idealised subjects and smooth finish, but one turns to modern reality and the other to an earlier model.
Conclude
The period's two impulses - rebellion and revival - are opposite routes to the same end: the overthrow of academic authority.

Result: Two works are set against each other as forward rebellion and backward revival, demonstrating the period's twin impulses against the academic tradition.

Typical mistakes

Treating the period as one uniform movement rather than a series of distinct rebellions and revivals against the academic tradition.
Missing the central turn to modern life and new ways of seeing that unites the French avant-garde.

Active revision

Explain what the academic tradition and the Salon stood for, and name one work that rebelled against it and one British work that reformed art by revival; state how each broke with academic convention.

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: Pearson Edexcel Level 3 Advanced GCE in History of Art (9HT0) specification (Pearson Edexcel)

Realism: Courbet and Manet#

StandardPearson Edexcel 9HT0 Paper 2 (Avant-Garde: Realism)DfE GCE History of Art subject content

The principles of Realism

Fig. 2The principles of Courbet's Realism: contemporary subjects, ordinary people, truth over idealised beauty, humble life painted at monumental scale, and a serious social awareness.

Realism, emerging in France around 1848-1850, was the first great avant-garde rebellion, and it consisted in the insistence that art should depict the real, contemporary world honestly - ordinary people, everyday life and social reality - rather than the idealised, elevated subjects of academic history painting. Its leader was Gustave Courbet (1819-1877), a defiant, politically radical painter who declared that art should deal only with real, existing things, and who set out deliberately to paint the unidealised life of his own time and place. Realism rejected not only academic subjects but the whole idea that art should idealise: truth was to replace beauty as the aim.

Courbet's landmark works of 1849-50 announced the rebellion. 'The Stone Breakers' (1849) depicted two labourers breaking stones by the roadside, an old man and a boy at grinding manual toil, with unflinching, unidealised directness and real sympathy for the poor. 'A Burial at Ornans' (1849-50) showed an ordinary provincial funeral, filling a huge canvas - a scale traditionally reserved for grand history painting - with the plain, unglamorous inhabitants of Courbet's home town. To paint humble, contemporary, ordinary subjects at monumental scale, without idealisation, was a deliberate affront to the academic hierarchy, and it caused scandal precisely because it dignified the everyday.

The principles of Realism are worth naming clearly, because they underlie much that follows. Realism insists on contemporary subjects (the here and now, not history, myth or religion); on ordinary people and everyday life (peasants, labourers, the poor and the bourgeois, not gods and heroes); on truth over beauty (no idealisation, even where the result is plain or harsh); and, in Courbet, on a serious social and often political awareness, making the conditions of ordinary life and labour visible and worthy of art. These principles - the turn to the modern, the ordinary and the truthful - would be inherited, in transformed forms, by the Impressionists and their successors.

Edouard Manet (1832-1883) is the pivotal figure who carried the rebellion further and pointed toward Impressionism, though he is not simply a Realist. Manet took up the depiction of modern life but treated it with a bold, flat, summarily brushed technique that broke with academic finish and modelling, and he provoked outrage with works that confronted the public directly. His 'Olympia' (painted 1863, exhibited at the Salon in 1865) shows a nude in the pose of a classical Venus but unmistakably a modern woman, a courtesan, meeting the viewer's gaze with cool directness - a scandalous collision of the revered tradition of the nude with unvarnished modern reality, painted with flat, harsh light and little modelling.

For analysis, Realist and Manet's works should be read for their rebellion against academic convention in both subject and handling. Ask how the subject breaks with the idealised, elevated tradition (ordinary life, the modern, the truthful, even the shocking); how the scale and treatment defy academic expectation (the monumental scale of humble subjects, the flat, bold, unfinished handling); and what the effect and meaning of this break are - the dignifying of ordinary life, the confrontation of the viewer, the assertion that modern reality is a fit and serious subject for art. This turn to the real and the modern is the foundation of the whole period.

Worked example

Analysing a Realist rebellion

Analyse how Courbet's 'A Burial at Ornans' (1849-50) rebels against the academic tradition.

The subject
It depicts an ordinary provincial funeral, crowded with the plain, unglamorous inhabitants of Courbet's home town - the everyday, contemporary and unheroic.
The scale
This humble subject fills an enormous canvas, on a scale traditionally reserved for grand history painting - a deliberate affront to the academic hierarchy of genres.
No idealisation
The figures are unidealised, ordinary and individually observed, with no elevation toward beauty or nobility - truth in place of the academic ideal.
The meaning
By dignifying ordinary life at monumental scale, Courbet asserts that the real, contemporary world is a fit and serious subject for art - the core Realist rebellion.

Result: Courbet's work is analysed as a Realist rebellion in subject, scale and handling, dignifying ordinary life against the academic tradition.

Typical mistakes

Reducing Realism to 'painting things realistically', missing its deliberate turn to ordinary modern subjects and its social and political charge.
Treating Manet as simply a Realist or an Impressionist rather than the pivotal, provocative figure between them.

Active revision

Analyse Courbet's 'A Burial at Ornans' or Manet's 'Olympia' for how its subject and handling rebel against academic convention, and explain why it caused scandal.

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: GCE AS and A level subject content for history of art (Department for Education)

Impressionism#

StandardPearson Edexcel 9HT0 Paper 2 (Avant-Garde: Impressionism)DfE GCE History of Art subject content

Realism versus Impressionism

Fig. 3Realism and Impressionism share the turn to modern life and the break with the academy, but diverge in handling and aim: Realism keeps solid form and social content; Impressionism pursues broken touch and fleeting light.

Impressionism, which emerged in France in the 1860s-70s, is the central movement of the period and one of the most important in the history of art, for it made the fleeting sensation of light and modern life its subject and broke decisively with academic technique. The Impressionists - Claude Monet, Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Camille Pissarro, Alfred Sisley, Edgar Degas and Berthe Morisot among them - sought to capture the immediate visual impression of a scene: the momentary effect of light, atmosphere and colour on the eye at a particular instant, painted quickly and directly rather than composed and finished in the studio. The movement takes its name from Monet's 'Impression, Sunrise' (1872), mockingly seized on by a critic at the group's first independent exhibition in 1874.

The Impressionist technique was a genuine revolution in how paint was handled. Rejecting the smooth, blended, invisible finish of academic painting, the Impressionists used short, broken, visible strokes of bright, often unmixed colour, laid side by side so that the eye blends them at a distance - a technique that makes the surface shimmer and vibrate with the flicker of light. They painted much of their work outdoors, directly before the motif (en plein air), to catch the true colours of daylight and its rapid changes, and they largely abandoned black and earth shadows for coloured shadows, observing that shadows are full of reflected colour. The result was a new brightness, immediacy and optical vibrancy.

The subject of Impressionism was modern life and the sensation of seeing it, inheriting Realism's turn to the contemporary but transforming it. The Impressionists painted the leisure of modern Paris and its suburbs - boulevards, cafes, the theatre and the racecourse, boating parties, gardens and the countryside of weekend escape - and above all the effects of light on water, foliage, snow and the moving crowd. Rather than telling stories or teaching lessons, they aimed to record a moment of modern experience as the eye actually receives it, making the transient effects of light and the texture of contemporary life the true subject of the picture.

Monet is the purest exponent of the Impressionist pursuit of light, and his later career pushed it to its logical end. Increasingly he painted series of the same subject - haystacks, poplars, the facade of Rouen Cathedral, and finally his own water-lily garden at Giverny - at different times of day and in different weather, tracking the endless transformations of light and colour across a constant motif until the subject almost dissolves into pure optical sensation. In Monet the Impressionist project - to paint not the object but the light and atmosphere in which it is seen - is carried furthest, pointing toward the later dissolution of the subject in modern art.

For analysis, an Impressionist work should be read for its handling, its light and its modern subject together, and located against both Realism and what follows. Analyse the broken, visible brushwork and bright, juxtaposed colour and how they create optical vibrancy and the impression of light; the coloured shadows and plein-air freshness; the momentary, informal, snapshot-like composition; and the modern-life subject caught as a passing instant. Setting Impressionism against Realism (which shares the modern subject but keeps solid form and studio finish) and against Post-Impressionism (which reacts against its formlessness) is a powerful way to define exactly what the movement achieved and where its limits were felt to lie.

Worked example

Analysing Impressionist light and touch

Analyse how an Impressionist landscape captures the fleeting effect of light.

The brushwork
Short, separate, visible strokes of bright, often unmixed colour are laid side by side, so the surface is a mosaic of touches that the eye blends at a distance.
Colour and shadow
Shadows are painted in colour rather than black, and the whole is keyed high and bright - the colours of daylight observed directly rather than mixed toward academic browns.
Plein-air and the moment
Painted outdoors before the motif, in an informal, snapshot-like composition, the work records a single passing effect of light and atmosphere.
The effect
The broken touch and bright juxtaposed colour make the surface shimmer with the flicker of light - the painting captures a fleeting sensation of seeing, not a fixed object.

Result: The Impressionist landscape is analysed as broken touch, coloured light and the captured moment - the movement's revolution in technique and aim made concrete.

Typical mistakes

Describing Impressionism only by subject (pretty scenes) and missing the revolutionary broken-brushwork technique and pursuit of optical light.
Assuming Impressionism simply continues Realism, rather than transforming the modern subject into a record of fleeting sensation.

Active revision

Analyse an Impressionist painting (a Monet, Renoir or Pissarro) for its brushwork, colour and light, its plein-air freshness and its momentary modern subject; then contrast its handling with an academic or Realist work.

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: Pearson Edexcel Level 3 Advanced GCE in History of Art (9HT0) specification (Pearson Edexcel)

The Pre-Raphaelites and Aestheticism#

StandardPearson Edexcel 9HT0 Paper 2 (Avant-Garde: the British revival)DfE GCE History of Art subject content

British revival and French rebellion

Fig. 4Two paths of the avant-garde: Britain rebelled by revival (Pre-Raphaelite truth to nature; Aestheticism's art for art's sake); France rebelled by advance (Realism's modern life; Impressionism's light).

Britain's avant-garde took a distinctive path, and the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, founded in London in 1848 (the same year Realism stirred in France), rebelled against the academic tradition by revival rather than by rushing toward modernity. The Brotherhood - whose leading members were Dante Gabriel Rossetti, John Everett Millais and William Holman Hunt - rejected what they saw as the empty, formulaic grandeur of academic art descended from Raphael, and looked back for renewal to the sincerity, bright colour and truth to nature they admired in the art before Raphael (hence 'Pre-Raphaelite'). Their rebellion was thus a reform through return to an earlier ideal.

The Pre-Raphaelites pursued an intense truth to nature combined with moral seriousness and rich symbolism. They painted with minute, sharp-focused detail and brilliant, jewel-like colour (often on a wet white ground that made the colours glow), studying flowers, foliage, fabric and faces with near-obsessive fidelity, and they chose serious subjects from the Bible, medieval legend, Shakespeare and poetry, or morally charged scenes of modern life. Millais's 'Ophelia' (1851-52), with its drowning Shakespearean heroine amid meticulously observed riverbank plants, exemplifies their fusion of extreme naturalistic detail, glowing colour and poetic, symbolic subject matter - a very different modernity from the French.

Aestheticism, emerging in Britain from the 1860s-70s, was a further and quite different rebellion, asserting the doctrine of 'art for art's sake' - that art exists for the sake of its own beauty and need serve no moral, narrative or useful purpose. Its leading figure was the American-born, London-based James McNeill Whistler (1834-1903), who titled his paintings as 'Nocturnes', 'Symphonies' and 'Arrangements', by analogy with music, to insist that they were harmonies of colour and form rather than stories or messages. His 'Nocturne in Black and Gold: The Falling Rocket' (c.1875), a near-abstract evocation of fireworks over the Thames, treats the subject as a pretext for a subtle arrangement of tone and colour.

The clash between Aestheticism and the older view of art's moral purpose came to a head in the famous Whistler v. Ruskin libel trial of 1878. The critic John Ruskin, a champion of truth to nature and moral seriousness in art (and an early supporter of the Pre-Raphaelites), attacked Whistler's 'Falling Rocket' as 'flinging a pot of paint in the public's face'; Whistler sued for libel and, in effect, defended the artist's right to pursue pure formal beauty. The episode dramatises the deep divide of the age between art conceived as truth and moral instruction (Ruskin, in part the Pre-Raphaelites) and art conceived as autonomous beauty (Whistler, Aestheticism) - a divide that points forward to modern abstraction.

For analysis, the British movements should be read as alternative rebellions to the French, and set against them. The Pre-Raphaelites rebel by reviving earlier truth to nature, glowing colour and moral, symbolic subjects (minutely detailed, story-rich, serious); the Aesthetes rebel by subordinating subject to formal beauty and 'art for art's sake' (Whistler's musical harmonies of tone). Both differ sharply from the French turn to modern life and optical sensation, and comparing the British revival and Aestheticism with French Realism and Impressionism brings out the full range of the period's rebellions - and the emerging idea, in Whistler, that a painting is first an arrangement of form and colour, which Modernism would later take up.

Worked example

Contrasting British and French rebellion

Contrast the Pre-Raphaelite and Impressionist approaches to painting nature.

Pre-Raphaelite truth to nature
A Pre-Raphaelite work such as Millais's 'Ophelia' renders every leaf, flower and reflection in minute, sharp-focused detail and glowing colour - nature observed with near-microscopic fidelity and moral seriousness.
Impressionist light
An Impressionist landscape dissolves such detail into broken strokes of bright colour, capturing the overall effect of light and atmosphere at a passing moment rather than every particular.
The opposite aims
One pursues exhaustive, permanent detail and symbolic meaning; the other pursues the fleeting optical impression - truth to the thing versus truth to the sensation of seeing it.
Conclude
The contrast shows the two avant-gardes rebelling against the academy in opposite directions - the British by intensified detail and revival, the French by the broken touch and the captured moment.

Result: The Pre-Raphaelite and Impressionist treatments of nature are contrasted as detail-and-revival against light-and-sensation - the period's British and French rebellions defined against each other.

Typical mistakes

Assuming all avant-garde art rushed toward modernity, missing that the Pre-Raphaelites rebelled by looking back to an earlier ideal.
Treating Aestheticism as mere decoration rather than the serious doctrine that art exists for its own formal beauty, pointing toward abstraction.

Active revision

Compare a Pre-Raphaelite work (such as Millais's 'Ophelia') and a Whistler 'Nocturne', analysing how each rebels against academic convention and how their aims differ from French Impressionism.

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: GCE AS and A level subject content for history of art (Department for Education)

Post-Impressionism and the idea of the avant-garde#

AdvancedPearson Edexcel 9HT0 Paper 2 (Avant-Garde: Post-Impressionism)DfE GCE History of Art subject content

Impressionism versus Post-Impressionism

Fig. 5Post-Impressionism keeps Impressionism's bright, independent colour but reacts against its formlessness, adding structure (Cezanne, Seurat) or symbol and feeling (Van Gogh, Gauguin).

Post-Impressionism is the term (coined later, by the British critic Roger Fry, in 1910) for the work of a group of French artists of the 1880s-90s who built on Impressionism but reacted against what they felt were its limitations - its dissolution of solid form, its concentration on the fleeting optical surface, and its lack of structure, symbol and deep feeling. They kept Impressionism's bright colour and independence from the academy but sought to put back into painting order and structure, or symbol and emotion - each in a highly individual way. The four great figures usually named are Paul Cezanne, Vincent van Gogh, Paul Gauguin and Georges Seurat, and between them they opened the doors to twentieth-century art.

Cezanne (1839-1906) sought to restore structure and permanence to Impressionist colour, famously wishing to 'make of Impressionism something solid and durable'. He built his landscapes, still lifes and figures from patches of carefully modulated colour that construct solid form and deep space through colour relationships rather than conventional modelling, analysing the underlying geometric structure of what he saw (his repeated views of Mont Sainte-Victoire are the classic example). His constructive, analytical approach to form - treating the picture as a built structure of colour planes - would be the direct springboard for Cubism, and he is often called the father of modern art.

Van Gogh (1853-1890) and Gauguin (1848-1903) took the other, expressive and symbolic direction. Van Gogh used intense, non-naturalistic colour and vehement, visible brushwork to convey emotion, charging his landscapes, portraits and night skies (such as 'The Starry Night', 1889) with a turbulent, personal feeling - colour and touch as the direct vehicle of the artist's inner state. Gauguin rejected naturalism for a 'Synthetist' art of flat areas of arbitrary, symbolic colour and simplified, outlined forms, seeking a more primitive, spiritual and imaginative art (pursued in Brittany and then in Tahiti). Between them they established colour and form as means of expression and symbol, not merely of description - a foundation of modern art.

Seurat (1859-1891) took the analytical, structural direction to a systematic extreme, developing Pointillism (or Divisionism): building the picture from tiny, regular dots of pure, separated colour, based on contemporary theories of optics, so that the colours mix in the viewer's eye. His great 'A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte' (1884-86) applies this method to a monumental, carefully composed scene of modern Parisians at leisure, freezing the Impressionist subject into a still, ordered, almost architectural design. Seurat shows the Post-Impressionist impulse to give the fleeting Impressionist moment a deliberate, permanent structure - here through a quasi-scientific technique.

For analysis, and to close the period, Post-Impressionism should be read as the bridge to modern art and as a set of individual reactions to Impressionism, and the whole period understood through the idea of the avant-garde. Analyse how each Post-Impressionist keeps Impressionist colour but adds structure (Cezanne, Seurat) or expression and symbol (Van Gogh, Gauguin), and how this points forward to Cubism, Fauvism and Expressionism. And recognise the pattern the whole period established: the avant-garde as a succession of rejected, self-organising movements, each breaking further from tradition, moving from initial ridicule to eventual acceptance - the very model of modern artistic progress, on which the twentieth century would build.

Worked example

Analysing a Post-Impressionist reaction

Analyse how Cezanne builds on and reacts against Impressionism, and why this matters for modern art.

What he keeps
Cezanne keeps the bright colour and independence of Impressionism, painting directly from nature outside the academic tradition.
What he adds
He reacts against Impressionism's formlessness by building solid form and deep space from patches of modulated colour, analysing the underlying geometric structure of what he sees.
The method
In his repeated views of Mont Sainte-Victoire, the landscape is constructed as an ordered structure of colour planes - Impressionist sensation made solid and durable.
The consequence
This constructive, analytical treatment of form became the direct springboard for Cubism, so Cezanne bridges the avant-garde of the 1890s to twentieth-century modern art.

Result: Cezanne is analysed as keeping Impressionist colour while restoring structure, and as the bridge to Cubism - Post-Impressionism read as the doorway to modern art.

Typical mistakes

Treating Post-Impressionism as one style rather than a set of individual reactions to Impressionism (structure versus expression and symbol).
Missing how Post-Impressionism bridges to twentieth-century art and how the period established the avant-garde model of rejection then acceptance.

Active revision

Analyse a Post-Impressionist work (a Cezanne, Van Gogh, Gauguin or Seurat) for how it builds on and reacts against Impressionism, and explain how it points forward to twentieth-century art.

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: Pearson Edexcel Level 3 Advanced GCE in History of Art (9HT0) specification (Pearson Edexcel)

References & sources

Sources

Pearson Edexcel

Pearson Edexcel Level 3 Advanced GCE in History of Art (9HT0) specification

Department for Education

GCE AS and A level subject content for history of art

Rebellion and revival: the British and French Avant-Garde (1848-99)

5 sections~24 min reading time2 competenciesLevel Foundation 1 · Standard 3 · Advanced 1

Rebellion and revival: the British and French Avant-Garde (1848-99)

Key points

Rebellion and revival compared

Key points

Analysing a Realist rebellion

Key points

Analysing Impressionist light and touch

Key points

Contrasting British and French rebellion

Key points

Analysing a Post-Impressionist reaction

Sources

Rebellion and revival: the British and French Avant-Garde (1848-99)

Key points

Rebellion and revival compared

Key points

Analysing a Realist rebellion

Key points

Analysing Impressionist light and touch

Key points

Contrasting British and French rebellion

Key points

Analysing a Post-Impressionist reaction

Sources