too many executions, which led to an awkward impression of helplessness. Nicolae Grigorescu and sămănătorism esthetics were the main factors influencing Petrașcu's art for the beginning of the 20th century. Grigorescu's shadow hovered tutelage even if the artist painted at Vitre, Montreuil or Târgu Ocna. But, from this period it was found by the art critics that there were differences between the emul and the master from Câmpina more and more important with the passage of time, so that the Grigorescian residues with time faded, finally leaving free the uniqueness of Petrașcu's work. His painting became more rocky and with a more pronounced material consistency. Unlike Grigorescu whose landscapes displayed a perspective that is lost in the distance, the landscapes designed by Petrașcu have limited spaces of all kinds of objects or obstacles (trees, houses, etc.) that close the horizon, so limit the perspective in one linear. As a result, neither the linear nor the aerial perspective have anything in common with the plein air conception, but they have both been transformed into one full of modernity that brings it closer with great strides to decorativism. This feature later evolved in the art of the Romanian painter and became a feature that individualized him as a style, from all the rest of his confreres. However, there is another important feature present in Petrașcu's paintings. This can be defined by the unfinished aspect of the works, which shocked the artist's contemporaneity. Perceived as a critique of Nicolae Grigorescu's work, the definition of the non-finite made an epoch in those times. However, Gheorghe Petrașcu went even further. He pushed the technique to the point of creating an impression of negligence in the work. Nicolae Iorga stated that Petrașcu's landscapes have harsh colors, that they appear violently, are bitter and that his paintings can only be admired with a certain mood and only in certain circumstances. The style used by the artist was easily confused with Impressionism, which was exactly what he did: he had a contempt for form and smooth painted surfaces. Ștefan Petică was the first to classify Petrașcu as an impressionist in 1900. The critic Vasile Florea considered that this fact is not surprising because in those years, the impressionism in music and plastic art was subsumed to the symbolism that was understood as modernism, as opposed to academicism and traditionalism. Florea also stated that when Petică said impressionism, he