Sign Up | Log in |

Impressionism MBTI

Myers Briggs type and personality details of 'Impressionism'
Impressionism MBTI type
Realm:


Category:
Visual Arts

TOTAL MBTI VOTES: 13


ISFP - 6
INFP - 4
ISFJ - 3

[Famous ISFPs]

Log in to vote!

TOTAL ENNEA VOTES: 7


9W1 - 4
4W5 - 3

[Famous Enneagram 9]

Log in to vote!

Old (unmoderated comments)

Impressionism = ethereal, individualistic, emotion-flavoured (Fi) impression of sensual scenery full of colours, light and unique perspective that you're experiencing right at the moment (Se). Nothing to do with Si, Fe or Ti. Of course ISFJs or INFPs can be impressionists if they like it, but ISFPs are naturally impressionistic, just like INFPs are naturally expressionistic, as it's actually full of abstract/symbolic meaning, philosophical themes and visualisation of the subconscious (so like impressionism it's individualistic and feeling-dominated [Fi], but the perception of reality in which that highly personal mood is manifested is intuitive [Ne], not sensory [Se]).I think I should have said "natural properties of color" instead of light.

MBTI type of Impressionism

. Anyway, to clarify it more why something like Monet's paintings can't be Si-dom.Si in art manifests as a preferance for detail, specially the higher it is in the stack.

Find out about Impressionism personality type

. A Si-dom painter would naturally be inclined towards detailed paintings ( plus a feeling of nostalgy or sentimentalism), which goes against Monet's style. Instead we see a disposition toward a direct sensorial impression (Se), but abstracted towards its essence (Ni), dissolving all the details, going towards a pure feeling-sensorial experience (Fi-S).Information about Myers Briggs Type Indicator of Impressionism. Si-dom wouldn't be able to abstract like that, as its tendency is to detail. Se-dom neither probably ( altough Renoir or Manet could be Se-doms, but not Monet).Which of the 16 personality types is Impressionism?. If one thing is clear for me about Monet is that in him, Sensation and Intuition are close together, almost fused, def. not one inferior, the other dominant. But I personally don't see the Ne and he's a bit too in touch with the sensorial experience to be N over S.It seems to me a case of socking in the sensorial experience (Se) and then abstracting to the essence of the overall image (Ni). I'm still open to INFP (not really seeing it tough) but not Si dominance, inferior intuition.There's also not such things of the movement being of a preference in one sense but not in other, seems a case of "in theory, but not in practice" which just means the theory is built on the wrong premise.I suppose if we're talking about the impressionist *movement*, then yes, ISFP does fit better than ISFJ. I was mainly thinking if the impressionist *style*, by which I mean the aesthetics of the paintings themselves regardless of art history or politics. I think we're talking about two different aspects of Impressionism here, which is why there's such a schism in votes.I tought impressionism was more of a response to clasicism, where the natural properties of light were ignored in favor of old forms, so impressionism tried to go the opposite direction by accentuating the natural proporties of light at the expense of form, which seems like a focus on sensation above anything, and of extraverted orientation: Se, as such being a pretty anti-N and anti-Si movement.Like capturing light with as little interferences from Ideas ( low N) or artistic preconceptions (low Si or not at all). But "making an image look like it was glipsed briefly or indirectly" is also an inteteresting way to look at it, and that sounds more Si...but definitely not Si dominant. Si, specially in dominant position is not just glimpses or impressions, it's more of an internally consistent framework of such impresions.I don't see Si-doms painting an image like it "was glimsed briefly", an impression for a Si-dom is instantly compared to a whole history of more or less similar impresions, making the act of suspending and particularizing such an image almost impossible, as the image is either made to fit in a larger whole or if not discarded.It could be however low Si, as lower Si is much vague due to having less power and consistency.Also, high Si is all about valuing a sense of stability, and what greater mark of stability in painting than the shape? But in more extreme cases of impresionism, like Monet, the shape is geting more and more disolved at the expense of capturing the proprieties of light.That one thing giving painting through its previous history a sense of stability, of something solid, is getting rid of. SJ? Also, any kind of consistent building of sensations through the persons history is denied in favour of a highly instinctive approach to painting. SJ? Impresionism is anti academic establisment, instinctive and anti methodic, getting rid of all the ladders and props in place in order to start what painting means all over again.If I could summarize the spirit of it is " a child looking at the world through fresh new eyes". That and the Fi passion. If there's one thing that makes good impressionist paintings it's the Fi.I honestly can't see the high intuition in impressionism either, maybe post-impresionism where the approach is more thought through, but impressionism itself favours a more instinctive, and like Scotty says, direct approach.But Impressionism and Si-dominance are anti-thetical both in approach and in spirit.I'm still sticking to my guns and saying ISFJ. Say what you will about the people who used the technique, but the technique itself and the idea behind it (making an image look like it was glimpsed briefly or indirectly) seems totally Si to me.In addition, I was thinking about the use of impressionistic element in other type of arts too, for example, in plays, impressionistic element is used more symbolically and thus more Fi+Si than Si alone.I feel that this depends on which impressionistic artist you're talking about. Some are more Si and some Fi+Si. The style itself can't be just one type or function.You win. I'll keep my INFP vote because I love Monet.It's not about simplifying. Impressionist visual art has a more direct connection to reality, than impressionist music. Are you really going to try to deny that?No one invited the ISFJs to this party."visual art is more ISFP" Why do you simplify things so much?I agree with Bob here about this and Monet. I'm not sure about Monet really - I lean S, but his later stuff seems so very N. Still, Impressionism as a whole appeals more to a direct sensory response rather than something of a symbolic or esoteric nature. I tend to feel that impressionist visual art is more ISFP, and impressionist music is more INFP.LOL So much Se for the ISFP voteImpressionist paintings are nothing ISFJ like. It's all about the natural light in there. Don't get fooled by the name.You all guys know I'm right so fix your votes. Thank you.Those ISFJs votes are so random and not well thought out.Why INFP? Impressionism is pure Si, IMO.It's INFP from every angle, I forgot to add.We seriously need to discuss this, guys. But I'm not in the mood now.