Why do many art historians value Camille Corot’s early sketches more than his later finished landscapes?

Art historians and modern audiences often value Camille Corot’s early oil sketches more than his later finished landscapes because of their technical freedom, clarity of color, and sense of immediacy.1

While Corot’s later, self-consciously poetic landscapes—such as his Souvenirs—were highly popular during his lifetime for their silvery tonality and dreamy, lyrical atmosphere, they were often composed of standardized elements designed to evoke a specific mood. In contrast, his early sketches, which were created directly from nature, are prized for their spontaneity, vitality, and a "basic truth to nature" that the more formal, studio-finished pictures often lacked.12

During the early 19th century, these sketches were typically viewed only as raw material for larger, more "dignified" exhibition pieces. However, Corot’s ability to capture the immediacy of light and atmosphere in these works helped pave the way for the Impressionists, who later looked upon his naturalistic approach with great veneration. By the 20th century, the artistic appreciation of his work shifted, favoring the directness of his early sketches over the more artificial, constructed compositions of his later career.12