that encompassed all of French modernism of the late nineteenth century. Though such a term would still ignore their immense debt to Old Masters such as Hals, Rubens and Velasquez.
Part of the problem, of course, is that the term was used without making any distinction among French modernist styles. This is certainly a common practice among non-scholarly writers. Yet, once a particular art-historical narrative becomes a received idea, it tends to tyrannize over later writers. Certainly this is the case with Selz and Finke, whose views on Liebermann and Corinth were among the few available in English 25 years ago. As late as 1974, for example, Finke noted that, since there was no "viable alternative" to this method of joining the painters then, so long as one recognized the differences in their aims and techniques from those of the French Impressionists, there was no reason not to link the three in this manner. Yet, both writers had enormous difficulties reconciling the Impressionist designation with the work of the painters. Selz, speakin
...