Is Impressionism Necessarily Devoid of Form Content? -132

Discussing the distinction between the eyes and the other senses in painting. Painting at its most basic is color-values on a flat surface. Since the canvas is flat there is no form, only the illusion of it. There is likewise no light, only the illusion of it. What skills therefore are the most likely to be helpful in expressing those and other content that comes through the retina to the brain?

In Response to I...Genius2 and Antiguos

QUESTION: Western painting has a sculptural optical tradition. The problem with just painting the optical, is that the figure will lack form and weight. The problem with Sargent as a painter, is that his work lacks weight, and often poor modelling of arms and hands.
I...Genius2

Also an argument pro form and not only shape is easy to prove...In space everything is black, only by the interplay of light and matter that we see color. Form is matter and color light...in painting you may have color, but without form it won’t resemble nature. As soon as you think of color you are conceptualizing an idea as you pointed out. Nature doesn’t put labels on things, but a painter must, to pick and choose what he depicts. The old idea was based on form which is tactile, and so color as glazes because color cannot be seen in the dark, yet that cube still exists when we touch it. One of the reasons Davinci recommended to start with a toned canvas and add light to reveal form...then color... the impressionist seem to work backwards they look for sensations of color and give the illusion of form
Antiguos