It's a good article. I think my favorite
point was the child-level view. Good example of what you can do with a limited palette, too.
I've been wondering, why "Impressionist", though? Perhaps my conception attached to the term is just too narrow. As I've said before, I'm not that good with Isms. But it's been coming up a lot recently, what with the Cafe project, this new article, and the critiques. Hagan's example doesn't have the broken brushwork I associate with Impressionism. He mixes paints on the palette, according to the text, rather than relying on optical mixing. It seems to have relatively finished surface and detail. It's got the right sort of immediacy, but then so does a lot of modern painting. Same with light; most paintings involve light, one way or another. So what makes this style Impressionist?