Neo-Impressionism was the logical outcome of Impressionism. It was simply the attempt to paint light in still more scientific fashion, by the use of the primary colors laid on in fine points in such a manner that at the proper distance the points fuse and produce the tone desired. The use of small dabs or points of color instead of brush strokes gained for the movement the name “_Pointillism_.” Neo-Impressionism was not a reaction from Impressionism but an attempt to advance still further the painting of light effects. Seurat and Signac simply attempted to out-Monet Monet. They were the last word in Impressionism. After them the reaction--_Post-Impressionism_, something fundamentally different from and opposed to the very theory of Impressionism. It is, perhaps, a national characteristic of the French to be intense on all they undertake, and if there is one quality common to the generation of painters who followed the earlier impressionists it is intensity. This earnest passionateness has produced developments in two main directions, towards more intense luminosity and towards more intense simplification. The first is exemplified in the work of _the Pointillists_, who carried it to its logical conclusion, the division of tones, and built up their pictures with points or square touches of pure colour. Paul Signac, for example, is dazzling in his scientific presentment of the power of light. It is difficult to believe that luminosity can be carried further than in his radiant canvases whose force makes the most brilliant Turner appear pale and weak in comparison. Signac’s method, it may be noted in passing, is a square touch of pure colour as opposed to the circular spots of Seurat, the inventor of Pointillism, Theo van Rysselberg, and the late Henri-Esmond Cross. If Signac has reached the limit in intense luminosity, Henri Matisse, Otho Friesz, and André Derain, among others, stand for intense simplification. But it is still a little too early to deal with their astonishing works, and any one sincerely desirous of comprehending the aims of these revolutionary painters may be recommended to commence his course of initiation by a serious study of the works of Cézanne and Gauguin. These two deceased painters are to their younger comrades what Marx and Kropotkin are to the young social reformers of today.[13] We are constantly led astray by words--at best they are imperfect instruments of thought. As has been often noted in the literature of painting, all art is _impressionistic_ in the broad and fine sense of the term. Hence to divide painters into Impressionists and Non-Impressionists involves a contradiction. In painting his _purely imaginative_ creations of light effects Turner was as much of an Impressionist as Monet in painting his _closely observed_ light effects.