It is bizarre to me the way we look at the Impressionists. Their paintings with their hazy focus, pastel colors and calm, often domestic, natural subject matters appeals a lot to people nowadays. Maybe because they are “safe” paintings for non-art connoisseurs/scolars/etc. They do not have the rigidity and stark chiaroscuro contrasts of previous paintings, with their biblical, historical and/or mythological dramas, nor are they abstract or “weird” (like the surrealists for example). Their softness and non-aggressive nature renders them easy to understand, easy to look at, pleasing to a larger populace. Maybe that is why their paintings are reproduce on objects the most (except maybe for Van Gogh’s?), on umbrellas, and mugs, and coaster, and handbags, etc.
Has this commercialization of their aesthetics (an aesthetics often associated nowadays with mothers and grandmothers painting in their garden, and exposing at the local fair) rubbed these works of art, and their makers, of their power and strength?

The Impressionists were rebels. They were going against almost everything that was deemed acceptable in art at the time. They were rejected from the Académie. They created their own exhibitions and defended their visions. Their art changed everything. It changed the way people looked at paintings, it paved the way for future artists. They refused to go with the status quo and followed only their own vision. Surely that deserves more then being relegated to umbrellas and coasters?