I personally love Impressionism art. I love how informal it is and how you can just use you imagination on some pieces to see everything in the painting. However there are some Impressionism pieces of art that are a little too formal for my taste, and to me don’t really fit into the category of Impressionism. Take Edgar Degas’ painting, The Dancing Class (painted in Paris, 1874), to me it is too formal to classify as an Impressionism piece. There are distinctive lines and structure in this piece, instead of just colors blended together to create a picture. Its more abstract than earlier art, but to me its not abstract enough to be considered Impressionism.
Pierre-Auguste Renoir’s painting, Le Moulin de la Galette (painted in Paris, 1876), now to me that is Impressionism at its best. If you look there are no real definite lines in the heart of the painting. There are some for chairs and lights, but the people are all made of colors. Renoir just blended colors into shapes instead of painting in the lines. I also love how the people have expressions on their face but no lines, so you as the observer can depict their expressions in your own way. This is definitely my favorite painting in the Impressionism category and that I have seen so far.
Impressionism art is much more fun than earlier art because its not so serious. I personally don’t like having to look at solemn men and women or religious beliefs when looking at a painting. I like to look at something happy or something I have to use my imagination to depict. The Baroque era is an excellent example of what Im talking about, all the paintings seem so serious, and theres really no imagination used when looking at one. The artist has told you exactly what to think and there is no deviation from it. For a quick example look at George de La Tour’s work, The Hurdy-Gurdy Player (painted in France, 1631-1636). There is not mystery in this painting, its just a man playing the Hurdy-Gurdy, theres no mystery. Where as the work above, Le Moulin de la Galette, you don’t know what everyone is thinking because their facial expressions are so vague that you the observer must figure it out. Art is suppose to inspire the imagination, and Impressionism art does that better than any other kinds of art we have studied so far.
Resources
http://www.ocaiw.com/galleria_degas/index.php?gallery=ball&id=48
http://www.metmuseum.org/Collections/search-the-collections/110003530
Paris' Art Blog 101 
I enjoy reading your thoughts and feelings about impressionism and I like how you presented your thoughts by presenting the other kinds of artwork you compared to. I agree with you about how the impressionist artist do create artwork that allows the viewer to use their imagination (most of the time). I see what you are saying about the first picture, the dancers, and that the lines are pretty structured. Your explanation of impressionism, especially with comparisons, makes the characteristics of this art easy to understand. In the last painting with the hurdy gurdy player, I understand your perspective on this and how it doesn’t leave much room for imagination. However, I feel that even with the given information in the title there still is room for the viewer to explore their imagination. The other items in the picture and the expression on the man’s face are just a couple of the ways someone can get creative in wondering about it. But that is my thoughts.