Thinking about Identity of Groups

I have this upsetting relationship with art history. It is not a hatred towards history. I find history can be highly interesting to myself. One thing that rubs me the wrong way about the way art history is taught (at least at my university) is the focus of lumping art into movements.

For instance, here is a quote from a reading for my class:
"The Impressionists' discovery of Japanese prints reinforced their interest in the life of the city, but it also marked a momentous intersection between a rich Eastern tradition of portraying urban life and an important climax in the Western tradition."

First of all let me note off topic, this reading contains no images of Japanese prints or Impressionist Paintings. I have a somewhat underdeveloped theory that Art Historians do not actually care that there is an actual image.

But what makes me gnaw my teeth the most is the lumping of artists as Impressionists. Even if they had similar styles of painting, the painters themselves would have most certainly different lifestyles, background, favorite beers, ect. Reading that article leaves me with the feeling all impressionists were deeply inlove with Japanese prints. Which, in my head, seems to have major conflicts. I would reason that surely not every apple bobbing Impressionist loved a Japanese print. Perhaps maybe they had a certain bias against Japanese culture. But I don't know if this is true beause it is not written about. There is little care that people made the paintings. If there is any mention of artists, usually it goes as for as saying something like 'With the movement of impressionism we see artists like monet..." So the article succesfully says, Monet is an Impressionist and thats all that bears fruit with Monet.

I am at odds with art history and I assume it will be a contenual source of frustration seeing as I have to take art history classes to get my degree.