In comparing the ideality of art and the actual artifact, we will find that the results will normally vary widely according to the eye of the beholder. To impose a judgment of whether a painting can achieve the status of ideal form, one must first understand the purpose behind the piece of art. Art is a human effort to express internal visions into a physical form so that these visions may have an external outlet. Naturally, the painting is ultimately a reflection of the artist's mental image. It would be nearly impossible to fully comprehend the intricacies of the artist's imagination that compel him to create such a work of art. Therefore, the only person suited to impose judgment upon the ideality of a piece of art is the artist himself.
             There was a lot of controversy over the ideality of art in the Impressionist period of the late 19th century, especially in France. Claude Monet is notorious for stirring up much of this controversy with his Impressionist works. Motivated by their discontent against traditional artistic conceptions, Monet along with colleagues pushed towards a new form of art; Impressionism. They first went against The Salon, a French state-sponsored art exhibition that offers opportunities for artists of that time to display and sell their work if and only if the painting is conservative in illustrating traditional subjects that are theatrical, monumental, and true to form. In his painting of Il Pont d'Argenteuil (1874), Monet uses his art to challenge these ideals set forth by The Salon. The Salon believes that ideal art should invite the viewers to look past the gilded frames and feel as if they are part of the scene beyond. (Thomson). Monet went against the norm by using a balanced combination of different compositions, colors, and brushwork. He is determined to prove that the ideality of art can only be determined by the artist himself, not with guidelines set forth by conservatives like The Salon....