> I agree, he's not an Impressionist. (I don't know enough about art history to know what movement he represents, though. I always thought of him more as an individual.)

I've heard him classified as a Neo-Impressionist as well as being a guy that bridged Impressionism and Neo-Impressionism. Unless "Neo" means "Not," and it doesn't, I don't get this at all.

I'd say that he was improperly classified simply because of when he lived, but none of the neo-impressionists struck me as having anything to do with impressionism.

S "wish I could decide whether to capitalize eras in art or not" am