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

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.

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. 

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. :)

@edcyn- +1.
Bill Hart

@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.