Is improvisational jazz to impressionism art as smooth jazz is to realism art?

I much prefer Dixieland jazz to the sometime cacophonic free-form style. 

I think I understand the OP and like him I got nothing against modern jazz, unless they play it too darn fast, which can destroy the beauty of the melody and, at worst, make it sound like a symphony.  That's why for me, and I'm only speaking for myself here, just give me that rock 'n' roll music -- it's got a backbeat, you can blues it.

Why such long answers for an obvious answer is curious. I know several engineers, nice guys but clueless re:abstraction.

Thank you all for sharing your thoughts and insights on this thread. I wrote the OP piece last night after many bourbons and a cigar enjoying being down at Auburn’s  campus with the anticipation of going into a stadium to see a college football game for the first time in 2 years!  So I’m glad that the post made sense to some and apologies to those whom it didn’t. I do enjoy other music like the classic rock I grew up with in the 60’s and especially 70’s (Led Zep and Steely Dan especially).  I also listened to a lot of Funk & Soul back in the 70’s which may have laid the groundwork for my later in life Jazz enjoyment.  I do like some of Stanley Clark, Dave Brubeck, and definitely love the Miles led Kind of Blue album!I’ve found that as I got into my late 50’s and early 60’s, i can only “take” small doses of “cacophony”.  That said, I like the advice, many of you provided, to try a little harder dig deeper into improv jazz to appreciate the artists skill and interplay for what it is and don’t focus on lack of melody.  
@bdp24, you suggested J. S. Bach. That reminded me of the music appreciation class i took in college. Our professor told us at the beginning of the semester that our final exam would consist of him dropping the needle on any song on any record of 10 or more classical music composers and we would have to name the composer and the piece. I spent untold hours that semester in the library listening to cassette tape recordings of all the pieces that might be on the exam. I should reconnect with that genre. One last thought, going back to my “cacophony” complaint; i know i need better resolving speakers than what i have today. I have a feeling that hearing a better separation of instruments and notes could help open the aperture to broader jazz & genre enjoyment. 

The key to enjoying jazz of any type is to listen to it. Listen to all of it.

My cousin introduced me to jazz around the age of fourteen. I cut my teeth on West Coast Jazz. Dave Brubeck Quartet, Howard Rumsey's Light House All-Stars, Shelley Mann, Cal Tjader, etc. It all made sense and sounded so melodic. I loved it.

My cousin loved the likes of Thelonious Monk, Charlie Parker, and Charles Mingus. I couldn't stand them. My cousin told me to just keep listening, and I would eventually get it. Sure enough, one night while listening to Monk, the lightbulb went on and I realized that the man was a musical genius. The rest followed suit. 

A friend of mine is an ex-studio musician (guitar). He loves opera. I couldn't stand it. My friend told me the same thing my cousin did about jazz ... just keep listening to it. So, I put a cassette tape of some opera arias in my car and started listening. Bingo! I now have a very nice collection of complete operas and opera highlights. 

So, to the OP and others who don't get abstract jazz, just keep listening. Once you realize that the players are in complete control of the music, you'll start to get it. It helps to follow the bass line. 

Frank

Abstract Art was a CIA project. No kidding... Classified Documents revealed that the whole market for doodle art was created by the CIA, they wanted to show the west as being more advanced and progressive compared to the Rigid Soviet Union.
The agency paid curators, and bought the art to kick start the market.
I think their motives were more of an experiment, to see if they could influence people to abandon classical standards, and accept the post modernism view, that there is no objective beauty.
If you don’t get abstract art and music, don’t worry... you still have a functioning brain, and are probably smarter than the average Joe.

@estreams: Your view of the different strains of Jazz can lead one to this fact: amongst some musicians, the more "difficult" a music is, the more artistic it is. It’s a form of snobery, one I clearly hear in the music of, for instance, Frank Zappa. The term "abstract" is, I believe, a better one than impressionism for what you are talking about.

The snobery comes from the belief that more complex and/or difficult (atonal, lack of melody and/or traditional song chord progressions/structure) music expects and asks more of the listener, requiring a knowledge of music theory, if only to discard it in practice.

If I may suggest a (non-Jazz) music which is very formally structured, melodic, and "inviting" (unlike the off-putting "difficult" strains of Jazz), give J.S. Bach a try. His music is all of the above, but in Baroque music the musician is often free to add his own improvisation embellishment to the written score. In fact, in the 17th and 18th centuries that ability was expected. It’s almost like a musician taking a solo in a song, though to a lesser degree.

@edcyn- +1.
Bill Hart

Nice post, @deadhead1000- I don't think anyone seriously thinks they can convince a person to like a certain type of music, and the added difficulty with jazz (not quite as much as a factor with rock during its heyday) is that jazz performers appear on lots of records as non-featured artists. To a lesser degree true with rock, but some of my favorite work is actually that of the side persons/session players on a given recording. 
I grew up around people who would follow the Dead; my listening of them told me they were consummate, and could jam blues/folk/rock/ endlessly at a high level of technical and musical proficiency, but it really is a long trip, isn't it? (Some of these jazz tracks are entire sides, not making that a measure of anything). 
On Tull, having come up on them from the beginning, "Stand Up" is so much the template for what that band did in creating a men in tights medieval balladeer meets crushing rock (the guitar wielded by Martin Barre was pretty gnarly); This Was is more blues and jazz and doesn't reflect the general direction of the band (though Aqualung, commercially and musically, may be the album of broadest appeal). But, at the end of the day, just using that band as an example you can find different periods associated with different overall sounds/styles from the band. Sometimes, your point of entry affects your perception, too. 
In connection with jazz, I really didn't pay any attention to any of these records at the time they were released. They were only discovered by me after many excursions into more unfamiliar terrain, sometimes, with knowledge of one or another musicians who appeared with them for that particular recorded performance. 
Maybe my mantra should be listen more, talk less. But, then you'd never see me. :)

To a certain extent you are on the mark when it comes to music that has obvious scales, tunes & meter being roughly equivalent to representational art.  And again, it is indeed a matter of taste whether or not you prefer your music to be straightforward. The thing is, the world is extraordinarily complex. A lot of it simply does not make sense at first or even second blush. I gotta say, though, that once you begin stretching your aesthetic sensibility and allow yourself to become comfortable with things that might not be crystal clear at first glance, you'll uncover a whole universe of treasures. 

I totally get what you are saying. For instance, I like some Miles, but then I get lost in some of his free-form. I can appreciate what he is doing, but after one or two of his more improvisional stuff, I start to have trouble following it. My opinion is, you have to really sit and listen "hard" and not lose track of what he (or others) are saying with their improvisions - whether in art or music. In relationship to art, I believe it’s similar, for some art, you have to "study" and think hard about it to get what the artist is trying to say.
I don’t feel dumb for not sometimes understanding and I don’t put myself down for it. Some art I get (Banksy, Van Gough) others not so much (Lichtenstein, Duchamp). I get most Miles, and some other improvisional jazz guys, but some I don’t. Actually there is classical I feel the same way about, and rock. A good example of rock, I can listen to 1-2 songs of Yes, but then I find it gets "annoying". Even though I know Yes makes amazing music. Same with Jethro Tull and Frank Zappa - great music, but only a little at a time and not all of it, but that’s me, not the quality of the artist. However, as my nickname alludes too, I get all of the Dead. And I know many who can’t stand what they do (my wife sadly). I cannot explain why. But I do continue to re-try those musicians and artists every once in a while. I think someone else here called it "active listening". Some music and art are simply not for casual listening no matter what. I’d suggest to you to try it in small doses and also play one song 2-3 times in a row. Sometimes repeated listening/exposure helps to dig into it deeper.
I am not saying I am right or wrong. about this or any artist, just telling you how I hear and see it myself and understand where you are coming from.

Oh, as an add, what I listen to in Jazz that's smooth but not mush, try Stanley Clark, Return to Forever, The Modern Jazz Quartet.

Not sure I am following your analogy. Are you saying smooth jazz is more like photo realism in painting? And that improvisational jazz is more like impressionism? I’m not sure I’m capable of answering that.
I was not listening to jazz for years, despite having shelves of straight-ahead stuff, some of it considered "important," but what got me going again several years ago was stuff in the ’70s done by some of the players who had serious credentials but no market. So, what I began to explore was more eclectic, personal, less commercial stuff that eventually became very collectible because it was only issued in small runs by small or private labels. Strata East and Nimbus West come to mind-- some great material on those labels.
Cecil McBee became one of my favorites- a very melodic bass player who appears on a lot of so-called spiritual/soul jazz and some stuff that is classified as "free jazz." I don’t like complete cacophony, but appreciate it more as an accent or element of contrast -- Pharoah Sanders is known for this multi-phonic squawk from his horn but he can slide back into a melodic line which hits the center of the sweet spot in a way that is sublime.
There’s a lot out there to explore. I think one of the virtues of modern jazz (or any type of music for that matter) is that you can educate yourself by listening and the process is pretty enjoyable. And there’s a fair amount of information out there to tap into.
For me, it isn’t an intellectual pursuit, or one that I consider an investment. But, the more edgy stuff is something I have "ears" for now, partly due to exposure and digging down into a vein that has proved to be rich, e.g. McBee’s work. I guess I like straddling the line between what would be considered post-bop and "free" jazz, although I’m always happy to listen to Art Pepper (Cecil appears on one of his late records "Today"), or Bud Powell or other greats from the earlier eras.

So to be brief, you dislike interesting, and enjoy boring.