123
You’ve seen Gustav Klimt’s “The Kiss,” but have you seen his floral paintings? Absolutely ethereal!
(lemmy.dbzer0.com)
this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2025
123 points (99.2% liked)
Art
696 readers
6 users here now
THE Lemmy community for visual arts. Paintings, sculptures, photography, architecture are all welcome amongst others.
Rules:
- Follow instance rules.
- When possible, mention artist and title.
- AI posts must be tagged as such.
- Original works are absolutely welcome. Oc tag would be appreciated.
- Conversations about the arts are just as welcome.
- Posts must be fine arts and not furry drawings and fan art.
founded 2 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Thanks for sharing these. :D
As usual, my first thought on these was "impressionism," but evidently Klimt is considered a "symbolist," rather. I was never formally taught art history, so it's been an interesting (if slightly puzzling) challenge, understanding the key differences between the two genres...
I'm also self taught when it comes to art history.
A single label is never necessary. Everything is a combination of different styles. Especially since the two genres you mentioned are not opposing in any way
Btw, that's awesome. I'm a middle-aged bloke still struggling to learn more about it, so I'm frankly a bit jealous. :P
Infinitely large art world. Noone can know enough.
I'll give you what GPT5.1 came up with a little while ago for me. NOTE: I try to use it very carefully (mostly for enhanced searches), so I have a fair amount of confidence that it's 'in the ballpark' here:
Gustav Klimt is not considered an Impressionist. He is classified primarily as a Symbolist and as a leading figure of the Vienna Secession, an art movement that sought to break away from academic traditions and develop a more decorative, expressive, and psychologically charged visual language. Below is the precise rationale:
Different Core Objectives
Impressionism focused on capturing fleeting sensory impressions—light, atmosphere, color, and the immediate visual experience. Klimt’s work, by contrast, was oriented toward symbolic meaning, eroticism, allegory, and psychological depth. His images are not records of optical perception.
Stylistic Divergence
Impressionist painters used quick, broken brushwork and avoided strong outlines. Klimt developed a highly decorative, flat, patterned surface, often incorporating gold leaf, mosaic-like structures, and rigid contours. His work is fundamentally design-driven, not perception-driven.
Use of Ornament and Abstraction
Impressionism avoids ornamentation; Klimt embraces it. His “Golden Phase” is defined by dense ornamentation, Byzantine influences, and abstraction integrated with figuration.
Movement Affiliation
Klimt co-founded the Vienna Secession in 1897, which aligned more with Symbolism, Art Nouveau (Jugendstil), and early Modernism, not with the French Impressionist circle of the 1870s–1880s.
Subject Matter Differences
Impressionists favored landscapes, everyday scenes, and outdoor light. Klimt focused on mythology, allegorical themes, erotic female figures, and psychological portraiture. His orientation was conceptual, not observational.
In short:
Klimt was not an Impressionist because his aims, techniques, and aesthetic philosophy diverged sharply from Impressionism. He belongs to Symbolism and the decorative modern movements of Central Europe rather than to the optical naturalism of the Impressionists.
So I'm with you in spirit (I love the idea of things melding in to each other), but in the art world, it looks like there are some fairly sharp, distinctive differences between the two genres, FWIW.
Hey I get using gpt as a search engine. Thats OK.
Yes he didn't not historically fall into the impressionist period. His use of material like fold leaf is very anti impressionist too.
I find the objectives to be muddled in individual pieces. Although an acceptable claim in the general sense.
But can still achieve the same goal often. Despite having no interest or directly referencomg or learning from impressionists.
Yeah I got nothing there. Except maybe that it was not all that Klimt did. As this post shows.
Again this post shows a similar pattern.
Honestly this is correct. But the way our brains process it can create a link bw the two.
There are moments where Klimt’s colors soften and his edges blur, and one can feel a distant family resemblance to Impressionist atmospherics.
This just shows how many directions modernism was branching at once.
(I am mostly playing devils advocate here, he's not really an impressionist painter)
Yeah, I think I get what you're saying. Maybe... it's that we can certainly observe knowable, relatable elements amidst all kinds of different forms, across life and artistry?
At the same time-- when "art scholars" talk about certain forms, I also want to make sure I know what their specific thinking-set is, if that makes sense.
Eh, I like our occasional art talks. I'm always learning something..!
❤️