In spite of this freedom of inter-communication, the development of American art has been along independent lines--at least along _one_ independent line, a line so individual in its characteristics it deserves the name _American_-Impressionism, or, more generically, Virile-Impressionism. By Virile-Impressionism is meant a manner of viewing nature and a mode of painting quite different from the more superficial refinements of Impressionism on the one hand and the extraordinary developments of Post-Impressionism on the other. Let us try to make this clear. * * * * * As already noted, Impressionism attained a logical end in the painting of brilliant light effects, especially in the works of the Neo-Impressionists, the pointillists. In short, the drift of Impressionism in France was toward more and more brilliant reflections of the _surfaces_ of things. This extreme _attentuation_ was quite foreign to the spirit of America, which is more _material_ and _practical_. * * * * * It may be our fault, it is certainly our virtue, that we are material and practical in our outlook. In a big, sane sense we are _dreamers_. Only dreamers could carry the Panama Canal to completion, and, to mention lesser works, only dreamers could build such terminals as the Pennsylvania and New York Central in New York, and such buildings as the Woolworth and the Manhattan. But our dreams always take practical shape. We are a nation of inventors _because_ we are a nation of dreamers. Hence, while our artists were quick to respond to all that is good and strong in Impressionism, they found little satisfaction in the ultra-refinements of Neo-Impressionism. The result was that when France pressed Impressionism to its extreme, a normal and healthy reaction took place in American art. Many of the strong painters of America began doing things of their own. They still adhered closely to nature. They remained Impressionists in the older significance of the term, but they painted not the _surfaces_ of things but the _substance_--in short, they were _Cézanne_-Impressionists as distinguished from _Monet_-Impressionists. For instance, Winslow Homer was a great and true Impressionist, but he had nothing in common with the Neo-Impressionists, and little in common with Monet. He had, however, a great deal in common with Cézanne. His pictures give one an impression of _nature herself_, of the power of the sea, the adamant of the rocks, the significance of life, yet each one is an accurate transcript of what he saw. He did [Illustration: SEGONZAC Forest ] not go into his studio and _create_ pictures out of his imagination; he let his imagination play upon nature, but nature controlled all he did. He was, in a sense, the greatest of _American_-Impressionists--he was a Virile-Impressionist.