was actually thinking of symbolism. Other commentators on Petrașcu's work often called him an impressionist, with a pejorative meaning. Thus, Olimp Grigore Ioan, the editor of Literatură și artă română, wrote that: "...By his way of execution, this artist belongs entirely to the Impressionist school... Petrașcu indulged in a kind of hard impressionism that did not allows you to make a work of greater extent and power; In the genre he has adopted, he will always be condemned to do small works, a kind of sketch that can provoke the admiration of art enthusiasts when they indicate the steps of an artist in the execution of a powerful work, but which, in isolation, will always make you think of a certain impossibility of conception or execution." That is, in the sense of Vasile Florea, the commentators could not forgive the painter the sketch character he gave to his works, which led to confusion with the techniques of the Impressionist current. Like Olimp Grigore Ioan was Mihail Dragomirescu who commented and stated that Petrașcu was in fact a direct descendant of the impressionism displayed by Grigorescu at the end of his career and that the sincerity of the impression resulting from his work is limited only to visuality. He also opined that this effect is characteristic of Impressionism and that art, as a result, is imperfect in its very essence. Virgil Cioflec mocked the chronicler for these opinions, for which reason in 1908, Dragomirescu returned with a more explicit argument "...Here is a painter whose deeply pictorial vision could take him very far, if he would be haunted beyond measure by the manner of impressionism whose leading representative in our country he is. His colored spots live; but their contours do not live long enough, of which he seems to have an instinctive horror." As Dragomirescu was a follower of academism, he categorized any freedom of expression as impressionism. Petrașcu's annexation to Impressionism eventually became an art chronicle. This fact lasted until late, when Petrașcu already had a typical post-impressionist formula, as opposed to the current that appeared in France in the years 1860–70. A columnist from the magazine Contimporanul considered the painter a neo-impressionist, ie a pointillist who was a follower of Paul Signac and Georges Seurat. This happened in 1923, when Petrașcu had already made the Self-Portrait that is today in the Zambaccian Museum. The comments are fair but