Why Did Claude Debussy So Stridenly Reject the "Impressionist" Label?

Whether Clair de Lune, La Mer, Deux Arabesques, or Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun, Claude Debussy’s great works are, to many ears, highly Impressionistic and reminiscent of the mid-to-late 19th century grandmaster painters of Impressionism and Post-Impressionism. One critic noted that “the Impressionist painters’ use of brush-strokes and dots is paralleled in the music of Debussy.” Nigel Simone in the Cambridge Companion to Debussy similarly said, “It does not seem unduly far-fetched to see a parallel in Monet’s seascapes.”

Debussy would have none of this. He despised the Impressionist label and maintained that anyone using the term was an “imbecile,” even though in his own writings, Debussy’s philosophy dovetails with the Impressionist mindset. He seems at one with it, yet the association drives him nuts.

Debussy struggled for respect his entire life, especially in his early years. Tchaikovsky scoffed at his earliest works as “pretty” pieces lacking serious compositional rigor, which left Debussy feeling like a lightweight. (Had Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, and Chopin been alive then, I imagine they would have reacted the same way as Tchaikovsky to many of Debussy’s works.) Yet whereas JMW Turner ignored or laughed off criticism of his genre-bending works, Debussy felt the sting his entire life, perhaps pointing to a quirk in his personality. Did Satie, Faure, Ravel, Albeniz, and notable others so stridently reject the Impressionist label? I thought the masters of Impressionist painting welcomed the label and reveled in their fraternity of unconventionality. Clearly, I could use a crash course in art history and music history lol.

Wild guess - he thought the “impressionist” label denoted - superficiality? slapdash methods? undue (self-appointed/self-conscious) radicalism?

Or he just didn’t want to be confined to someone else’s label.

Agreed, it sounds like it had more to do with general perceptions of Impressionism at the time and Debussy’s specific beliefs about the term. The 19th century art world was torn by the conflict between traditional desires for in realism and the impressionist movement. If Debussy fell on the “realism” side of that divide it makes sense that he would resent being associated with an art movement he disapproves of, especially considering he was working in an entirely different medium.

I think it’s undeniable that his music pairs well with impressionist works, but he clearly did not intend that. For much of Debussy’s life Impressionism was unpopular both among critics and the public, who considered impressionist works to be unfinished sketches lacking artistic rigor. I think the assessment that Debussy disliked being considered a lightweight played into that.

[Moderated]
If ever there were a question perfectly suited to our Cafe Society forum (dedicated to discussion of the arts), this is it. Moving.

It would certainly fit the idea that much of his earlier popular pieces were - and still are - seen as “pretty picture” salon pieces.

I agree. Returning to my original point, Turner rejected the traditionalists who rejected him. He didn’t give a damn what they thought. It should be noted that Turner was born in 1775 v. Debussy’s birth nearly a century later, in 1862, so Turner’s paradigm shift was even more remarkable.

Still, Debussy, like most artists, craved respect and affirmation. Perhaps his works sounded not just gauzy and ephemeral to critics – perhaps they dismissed Debussy’s works as “sentimental,” which is the kiss of death of all artistic endeavors. One has to wonder what Debussy thought of the oils of Monet, Renoir, Degas, and their Impressionist brethren. It’s not like they were the Thomas Kinkades of their time.

I thought Impressionists weren’t supposed to be strident about anything.

Soft murmurings of disapproval would be more appropriate.

This is little more than a WAG, but maybe he resisted being labeled, categorized, and put in a box, as opposed to just rejecting that particular label.

Because the term was originally used as a form of insult against Monet’s painting entitled ‘Impression, soleil levant (Impression, Sunrise)’ made as a derisory comment by an art-critic in the journal Charivari.
I don’t know if those whom we now call The Impressionists, ever used it of themselves.

There’s an excellent book by Roger Shattuck on that period called, The Banquet Years’

This.

The term was seen as pejorative, and Debussy probably didn’t want his music to be associated with it. He didn’t seem to like the term itself either. According to him, he was “trying to do something else - realities, so to speak…”

J’essaie de faire “autre chose” – en quelque sorte, des réalités – ce que les imbéciles appellent “impressionnisme”, terme aussi mal employé que possible, surtout par les critiques d’art.

But there may be another reason. I wouldn’t be surprised if Debussy felt a closer affinity to the Symbolist movement :

Stéphane Jarocinski … place Claude Debussy plus du côté du symbolisme que de l’impressionnisme…

If that’s the case, it may be another reason why he didn’t want his music to be lumped with Impressionism.

Probably, except for Chopin.

I play a couple of pieces by him daily and always follow them with the only Debussy piece I can play. It works unexpectedly well. Chopin made most of his career in France, so there may be a connection there.

He might have just felt that a word for a style of painting had no applicability to music.

“I hope they don’t think we’re a rock ‘n’ roll outfit.” - Mick Jagger