A person will look different in portraits by different artists. Is it just the artistic vision of a model, the abilities of an artist, or is it different depending on a style? What’s the difference between impressionist and, say, romanticist or realist portraits? Well, for one thing, the message is totally different…

You look at the paintings and you feel them differently. The romantic artists portrayed people in critical moment of struggle, inner conflict, the situations of hard choices and life-changing circumstances. These portraits breathe of passion, vehement emotions and pathos, they feel restless, they take a person out of the comfort zone and throw into the whirlpool of endless fight between nature and time, time and civilization, the passions and the obligations, the morals and the dreams. Realists, on the other hand, depict a “type” – a representative of a class, a profession or a nationality, not an average one, but the collective type possessing the most characteristic features of the group developed to the utmost quality.  The portraits turn out exaggerated images of a representative of a certain group mostly devoid of individual traits.

As for impressionism, it did not have a grave philosophical background as a style, but did have a strong emotional and aesthetic message. The artists strive to capture a fleeting moment, momentary pleasures, passing impressions of everyday life in its rapid pace. Portraits look like an image of a stranger you glanced at in the street and passed by – you don’s stop to have a better look and you don’t really care, it’s just the first impression. And so, impressionist portraits are very dynamic and light. What looks familiar and feels stable in real life, here turns blurry and elusive. The eye of an artist only sees what’s unique and evanescent – a fleck of sunlight on drapes and hair, a half-smile, a windswept dress… An impressionist person is a bundle of positive and highly transient emotions, and images on impressionist portraits feel flimsy and ephemeral.