Vétheuil[1]
1901
Oil on canvas; 90.2 × 93.4 cm (35 1/2 × 36 3/4 in.)
Signed and dated: Claude Monet 1901 (lower left, in light orange-red paint)
The Art Institute of Chicago, Mr. and Mrs. Lewis Larned Coburn Memorial Collection, 1933.447
Vétheuil[2]
1901
Oil on canvas; 90 × 93 cm (36 7/16 × 36 5/8 in.)
Signed and dated: Claude Monet 1901 (lower left, in pale-pink paint)
The Art Institute of Chicago, Mr. and Mrs. Martin A. Ryerson Collection, 1933.1161
Return to Vétheuil
In the summer of 1901 Monet rented a modest house in Lavacourt, located just a few miles from his Giverny property, on the Seine across the river from Vétheuil (fig. 1).[3] It was from the balcony of this rented home that Monet began fifteen paintings of Vétheuil. As exemplified by the two versions in the Art Institute’s collection—one painted in midday and one at sunset—Monet’s goal during this campaign was to depict the same, restricted view of the riverbank and the town’s commanding Church of Notre Dame, but in the differing lights of day.1
Fig. 1
Map showing Paris and the region of Normandy.
Monet’s diversion up the Seine that summer—which took place soon after he returned home from his third and final trip to London to paint Charing Cross Bridge, Waterloo Bridge, and the Houses of Parliament (see cats. 38–41)—was likely motivated by several factors. Paul Tucker has suggested that Monet found it to be a good alternative to painting his water garden, which was soon to undergo major renovation.[4] In May 1901, Monet had acquired additional land near his Giverny property in order to enlarge his water lily pond, which he initially had built in fall 1893; by late February or early March 1902, Monet had more than tripled its size and had added a miniature island and four flat footbridges.[5] It has been proposed that the extreme heat of Giverny that summer also may have contributed to Monet’s daily visits to his secondary home and studio in Lavacourt.[6] Feeling guilty that he had not sent news in so long, Monet wrote to his dealer, Paul Durand-Ruel, in July about his inability to work in the intense temperatures: “Considering the heat, it is impossible to work in the studio and outside. It is a year lost. I long for rain and even the cold, so I can get back to work,” Monet explained.[7]2
In addition to a circumstantial decision necessitated by imminent renovation, Monet’s Vétheuil paintings relate to the pursuits he had been exploring in his recent series. In the 1890s, Monet executed serial works of art dedicated to the mutable lighting and atmospheric effects on specific subjects and places—including the Stacks (see cats. 27–33), sites along the coast of Normandy (see cat. 35), the banks of the Seine (see cat. 36), and London (see cats. 38–41)—that he had treated earlier in his career; according to John House, it was “his recurrent wish to return to sites that he had painted many years before, as if to test out his art and his eye against his previous paintings and memories.”[8] Vétheuil was indeed a location that Monet had painted before, and it was imbued with personal significance, perhaps more than any other spot to which Monet returned. It was in Vétheuil in late summer 1878 that Monet had moved with his family—his first wife Camille and their sons Jean and Michel, the latter then only a few months old—to share a house with Ernest Hoschedé (an important patron of Monet and the Impressionists until his recent bankruptcy), along with his wife, Alice, and their six children. It was also here that Camille died and was buried in 1879 and that Monet’s relationship with Alice—who would officially become his second wife in 1892—would develop. Until the end of 1881 when Monet, Alice, and their families moved to Poissy, the artist frequently painted Vétheuil, its main roadway, its church and banks, the surrounding landscape, and his own personal garden there, under varying seasons and weather conditions, and often from his studio boat. A few of his numerous canvases of the village depict nearly the same scene as the one featured in the Art Institute’s paintings twenty years later—in varying weather conditions (fig. 2 [W507], fig. 3 [W518], fig. 4 [W533], and fig. 5 [W534]).[9]3
Figs. 2–5
Fig. 2
Claude Monet (French, 1840–1926). Vétheuil in Winter, 1878–1879. Oil on canvas; 68.6 × 89.9 cm (27 × 35 3/8 in.). The Frick Collection, New York, 42.1.146.
Fig. 3
Claude Monet (French, 1840–1926). Vétheuil in the Fog, 1879. Oil on canvas; 60 × 71 cm (23 5/8 × 27 15/16 in.). Musée Marmottan Monet, Paris, 5024. Bridgeman Images.
Fig. 4
Claude Monet (French, 1840–1926). Vétheuil, 1879. Oil on canvas; 60 × 81 cm (23 5/8 × 31 7/8 in.). National Gallery of Victoria, Melbourne, Australia, 406.4. Bridgeman Images.
Fig. 5
Claude Monet (French, 1840–1926). Vétheuil in Summer, 1879. Oil on canvas; 67.7 × 90.5 cm (26 5/8 × 35 5/8 in.). Art Gallery of Ontario, Toronto, 1354.
Vétheuil: Past and Present
A notable difference between Monet’s paintings of Vétheuil from 1901 and those from around 1879 is the format of the canvas used. While the earlier pictures are typically oriented horizontally—the convention for landscapes—Monet’s paintings of Vétheuil from 1901 are all nearly square, a format he had also used in his series Mornings on the Seine (fig. 6 [cat. 36]) and Water Lily Pond (fig. 7 [cat. 37]), works that were executed closer in time. The fact that all fifteen paintings of Vétheuil from 1901 were executed on almost square canvases, which were not a standard format, indicates that Monet probably had to specially request them from his canvas supplier. In the 1901 Vétheuil works as well as his Mornings on the Seine and Water Lily Pond paintings, there is a tripartite division of space into zones of water, land, and sky, with the water—and the effect of light reflecting off of it—given primary importance. Monet seems less preoccupied, however, with the point where water converges with land or air at the horizon in the Vétheuil paintings than is evident in Branch of the Seine near Giverny (fig. 6) and Water Lily Pond (fig. 7). Despite the fact that the two examples in the Art Institute feature strong reflections of Vétheuil in the water, Monet does not explore the same kind of smooth merging of land and reflection. Some of the 1901 Vétheuil paintings, in fact, do not feature reflections of the town in the water at all, and five include indications of land on the bank of the Lavacourt side of the Seine, further breaking up any kind of smooth transition between reality and reflection (see, e.g., fig. 8 [W1636]).[10]4
Figs. 6–8
Fig. 6
Claude Monet (French, 1840–1926). Branch of the Seine near Giverny (Mist), 1897. Oil on canvas; 89.9 × 92.7 cm (35 3/8 × 36 1/2 in.). The Art Institute of Chicago, Mr. and Mrs. Martin A. Ryerson Collection, 1933.1156.
Fig. 7
Claude Monet (French, 1840–1926). Water Lily Pond, 1900. Oil on canvas; 89.8 × 101 cm (35 3/8 × 39 3/4 in.). The Art Institute of Chicago, Mr. and Mrs. Lewis Larned Coburn Memorial Collection, 1933.441.
Fig. 8
Claude Monet (French, 1840–1926). Vétheuil, Morning Effect, 1901. Oil on canvas; 89 × 92 cm (35 1/16 × 36 1/4 in.). Collection Valentin, Paris, São Paolo, 1972.
Another point of interest involves the inclusion of human presence in Vétheuil’s landscape. Some of the paintings from the earlier period when Monet resided in Vétheuil, including The Church at Vétheuil (fig. 9 [W531]),[11] show the hustle and bustle of daily existence around the village. While Monet consistently represented Vétheuil’s built environment in his paintings from 1901, he downplayed the activities of human life, even though, ironically enough, he traveled to the site—often with family and friends in tow—almost every afternoon in the Panhard-Levassor automobile that he had purchased in December 1900.[12] Only a few of the 1901 paintings are populated, and only with passengers in single, isolated, modest-size boats.[13] Although Monet incorporated active, flickering brushstrokes in these canvases, the lack of a human component makes them appear eerily calm and empty. Back in the vicinity of the town where Monet and Camille had spent the final years of their life together, the artist may well have been moved by old memories, which found their expression in the restrained quiet of these pictures.[14]5
Fig. 9
Claude Monet (French, 1840–1926). The Church at Vétheuil, 1879. Oil on canvas; 51 × 61 cm (20 1/16 × 24 in.). Southampton City Art Gallery, Southampton, Great Britain, 183/1975. Bridgeman Images.
Trouble in Vétheuil?
Monet possibly hoped that his break from Giverny would be productive and beneficial after the considerable difficulty he had experienced finishing the paintings in his London series that he had begun in 1899. As Monet exasperatedly complained to Alice shortly before he returned to Giverny from his final trip to London: “It’s almost impossible to continue work on a painting. I make alterations to paintings and often ones that were passable are worse for the change. No one would ever guess the trouble I’d gone through to end up with so little.”[15] But Monet complained that the Vétheuil works, too, caused him more trouble than he anticipated. Writing to his dealer, Paul Durand-Ruel, that October, he expressed: “I have undertaken a series of Views of Vétheuil that I thought I would be able to finish quickly and that have taken me all summer, so all of the other things [I had been working on] remain in progress.”[16]6
Monet’s explanation that he had to put aside other canvases in order to focus on the Vétheuil paintings seems curious, however, since technical examination of the two versions of Vétheuil in the Art Institute’s collection suggest that these paintings were by no means as labor intensive as Monet made them out to be. While both were completed in more than one session—as indicated by the presence of wet-over-dry paint application—neither exhibit any major compositional changes (see Technical Report). Furthermore, when both works are examined with transmitted light, they attest to the fact that Monet applied paint rather thinly, leaving areas of the ground layer and canvas texture exposed (fig. 10 and fig. 11), suggesting that he worked quickly and confidently in each session without having to go back and make extensive “alterations,” as was necessary for his London series.7
Fig. 10
Transmitted-light and natural-light images of Monet’s Vétheuil (1901) showing the thin application of paint, leaving canvas exposed. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.447. Interactive image.
Fig. 11
Transmitted-light and natural-light images of Monet’s Vétheuil (1901) showing the thin application of paint, leaving canvas exposed. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.1161. Interactive image.
Perhaps it was the psychological toll of revisiting Vétheuil, and the attendant memories of his deceased first wife, that made the 1901 Vétheuil paintings take longer than Monet expected. But considering that Durand-Ruel was clamoring for the eleven London canvases he had reserved from Monet back in November 1899, it is possible that Monet fabricated this excuse to justify why he was unable to hand over any of the London works owed to the dealer. In the same letter from October in which Monet complained to Durand-Ruel about the unexpected extra time needed for the Vétheuil views, Monet concluded by referring to the delinquent paintings: “Finally, next week I will take care of finishing some of the old things that you chose and will send them to you soon.”[17] Indeed, the following month Monet was finally able to give four London paintings to Durand-Ruel, but no more would enter the dealer’s hands until their exhibition at the gallery in 1904.[18] Although he began the 1901 Vétheuil works later than the London series, Monet relinquished them more easily. Monet was able to work up a number of them—probably including the two in the Art Institute’s collection—into a finished state by February 1902, when he included them in an exhibition at Durand-Ruel’s rival gallery Bernheim-Jeune.[19]8
Jill Shaw9
Vétheuil, 1901 (Cat. 42)
Technical Summary
Claude Monet’s Vétheuil was executed on a pre-primed, non-standard-size linen canvas. A warp-thread match was detected with Waterloo Bridge, Gray Weather (1900; 1984.1173 [W1557]) (cat. 38), suggesting that the fabric for these paintings came from the same bolt of material.[20] The ground consists of a single, off-white layer. A light-toned, brushmarked underpainting layer was broadly applied in the sky and the foreground area of the water. The central area of the painting (the landscape, the village, and the reflections), on the other hand, were painted directly on top of the ground layer, which remains exposed in small areas through breaks in the open network of brushstrokes. For the most part, the paint was relatively thinly applied, often lightly dragged across the surface in strokes that accentuate the texture of the underlying canvas weave. Slightly thicker, brushmarked strokes define the features of the hillside and daubs of impasto were used for the light-colored walls of the buildings and their reflections, creating a varied surface texture. The work includes both wet-on-wet and wet-over-dry paint applications, applied in discrete touches of color with very little blending on the canvas. A few minor changes were made to some of the buildings in the foreground of the village, which seem to be related to slight shifts in position or changes in size.[21]10
Multilayer Interactive Image Viewer
The multilayer interactive image viewer is designed to facilitate the viewer’s exploration and comparison of the technical images (fig. 42.1).[22]11
Fig. 42.1
Monet’s Vétheuil (1901). The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.447. Interactive image.
Signature
Signed and dated: Claude Monet 1901 (lower left corner, in orange-red paint[23]) (fig. 42.2). Traces of similar paint to the left of the C suggest that the signature was initially started in a slightly lower position and closer to the left edge. It also appears that the final C was started with a paler orange paint, then gone over with the deeper orange that was used for the rest of the signature and date (fig. 42.3). The underlying paint layers were dry when the painting was signed and dated.12
Fig. 42.2
Detail of Monet’s Vétheuil (1901) showing the signature. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.447.
Fig. 42.3
Photomicrograph of the signature of Monet’s Vétheuil (1901) showing the paint application. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.447.
Structure and Technique
Support
Canvas
Flax (commonly known as linen).[24]13
Standard format
The original dimensions were approximately 89 × 92 cm. This slightly wider than square format is not a standard size; both dimensions, however, correspond to standard stretcher-bar lengths.[25]14
Weave
Plain weave. Average thread count (standard deviation): 16.8V (0.7) × 19.9H (0.6) threads/cm; the horizontal threads were determined to correspond to the warp and the vertical threads to the weft.[26] A warp-thread match was found with Waterloo Bridge, Gray Weather (1900; 1984.1173 [W1557]) (cat. 38).[27]15
Canvas characteristics
There is mild, fairly even cusping along all four edges. The cusping pattern appears to correspond to the placement of the original tacks.16
Stretching
Current stretching: Dates to 1973–74 conservation treatment (see Conservation History); copper tacks spaced 7–10 cm apart.17
Original stretching: Tack holes spaced 5–7 cm apart.18
Stretcher/strainer
Current stretcher: ICA spring stretcher. Depth: 2.7 cm.19
Original stretcher: The pre-1973/74-treatment stretcher may have been the original stretcher.[28] An undated report in the conservation file describes the previous stretcher as a Buck type 2, six-membered, including horizontal and vertical crossbars, with keyable mortise and tenon joints and beveled at the back. The report gives the following dimensions: overall, 89.5 × 93 cm; outside depth, 1.7 cm; width, 6.5 cm; inside depth, 1.6 cm; distance from canvas position, 0.5 cm; length of mortise, 6.5 cm[29] (fig. 42.4).20
Fig. 42.4
Black-and-white image (1973) of the back of Monet’s Vétheuil (1901) showing the previous stretcher. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.447.
Manufacturer’s/supplier’s marks
None observed in current examination or documented in previous examinations.21
Preparatory Layers
Sizing
Not determined (probably glue).[30]22
Ground application/texture
The ground layer extends to the edges of all four tacking margins, indicating that the canvas was cut from a larger piece of primed fabric, which was probably commercially prepared. Cross-sectional analysis indicates that the ground consists of a single layer that ranges from approximately 30 to 100 µm in thickness (fig. 42.5). 23
Fig. 42.5
Photomicrograph of a cross section of the ground and canvas layers of Monet’s Vétheuil (1901). Original magnification: 100×. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.447.
Color
The ground is off-white, with some dark and possibly red or brown particles visible under magnification (fig. 42.6).24
Fig. 42.6
Photomicrograph of the left edge of Monet’s Vétheuil (1901) showing the ground layer. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.447.
Materials/composition
Analysis indicates that the ground contains lead white and calcium carbonate (chalk)[31] with traces of iron oxide, silica, and silicates.[32] Binder: Oil (estimated).25
Compositional Planning/Underdrawing/Painted Sketch
Extent/character
No underdrawing was observed with infrared reflectography (IRR) or microscopic examination.26
Paint Layer
Application/technique and artist’s revisions
The village, landscape, and reflections in the water were all painted directly on top of the ground, whereas a relatively thick, textured underpainting was applied in the area of the sky and the foreground water. This selectively applied underlayer appears light in color and mostly covers the ground. It is evident when the work is viewed in transmitted light, which reveals that the painting is more translucent in the central area and more thickly built up in the top and bottom sections (fig. 42.7). The broadly applied, sweeping strokes of the underpainting in the sky and the water are visible in the X-ray (fig. 42.8), and the texture of these brushstrokes remains evident on the paint surface through the thinner, more flatly applied layers painted on top (fig. 42.9, fig. 42.10). Where the underpainting is visible through breaks and abrasion in the upper paint layers, it ranges in color from off-white to pale blue (fig. 42.11, fig. 42.12). The crisp ridges of the underlying brushstrokes were not disturbed by the subsequent buildup of paint, suggesting that there was some passage of time between the application of the underpainting and the upper paint layers (fig. 42.13).27
Fig. 42.7
Transmitted-light and natural-light images of Monet’s Vétheuil (1901) showing the buildup of the paint layers. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.447. Interactive image.
Fig. 42.8
X-ray and natural-light images of Monet’s Vétheuil (1901) showing broad sweeping brushstrokes in the sky and the water. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.447. Interactive image.
Fig. 42.9
Detail of the water in Monet’s Vétheuil (1901) showing the broad brushstrokes of the underpainting. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.447.
Fig. 42.10
Detail of the sky in Monet’s Vétheuil (1901) showing the broad brushstrokes of the underpainting. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.447.
Fig. 42.11
Photomicrograph of the water in Monet’s Vétheuil (1901) showing white and pale-blue underlayers exposed at small areas of light abrasion. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.447.
Fig. 42.12
Detail of the sky in Monet’s Vétheuil (1901) showing the brushstrokes of the pale-blue underpainting. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.447.
Fig. 42.13
Photomicrograph of a tree in Monet’s Vétheuil (1901) showing discrete colorful brushstrokes used to build up the hill. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.447.
The buildings and landscape, and their reflections, were built up using relatively open brushwork that leaves small patches of exposed ground visible throughout. The hillside consists of long, directional strokes of discrete color applied wet-on-wet with little blending of the strokes (fig. 42.14). In the execution of the hill, the earliest brushwork—likely associated with the initial lay-in—was lightly applied, often just hitting the peaks of the canvas weave; the surface was then built up using a more loaded brush that left thicker ridges of paint, as well as some final strokes, lightly applied, that skip across the surface revealing colors from underneath (fig. 42.15). Along the horizon, the artist moved back and forth between the sky and the landscape. For example, basic indications of the trees and church steeple were made over the textured underpainting of the sky; the purples and blues of the sky were then brought down around these features, with thicker strokes used to build up the foliage and the steeple, which was applied last, on top of the sky (fig. 42.16, fig. 42.17). Magnification reveals that some areas of foliage were composed from an array of superimposed strokes of discrete, often vivid, color (fig. 42.18). The general forms of the architecture were indicated with some very light, cursory brushwork. The landscape passes underneath the edges of the buildings, which indicates that it was built up, for the most part, before the buildings were developed (fig. 42.19, fig. 42.20). The buildings were often articulated using a combination of light, sketchy brushstrokes (such as the vermilion strokes used to delineate the rooftops) juxtaposed with thick, impasted, lead white–rich strokes (mainly for the light-colored walls) (fig. 42.21, fig. 42.22). Final details, such as the windows of the tall, thin, yellow building on the left side, were added wet-in-wet (fig. 42.23). The area occupied by the reflection was mapped out early on: both the underpainting and the blue and purple tones of the water stop roughly at the border between the water and the reflection. The ground layer remains visible through the open brushwork of the reflection (fig. 42.24). The forms reflected in the water were built up in a network of individual, short, mainly horizontal strokes (fig. 42.25).28
Figs. 42.14–42.16
Fig. 42.14
Detail of the landscape in Monet’s Vétheuil (1901) showing colorful brushstrokes. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.447.
Fig. 42.15
Detail of the landscape in Monet’s Vétheuil (1901) showing thin paint applications that accentuate the canvas texture. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.447.
Fig. 42.16
Detail of the horizon in Monet’s Vétheuil (1901) showing the buildup of the brushwork. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.447.
Fig. 42.17
Photomicrograph of the horizon in Monet’s Vétheuil (1901) showing the buildup of the brushwork. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.447.
Fig. 42.18
Photomicrograph of a tree in Monet’s Vétheuil (1901) showing the layering of colors. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.447.
Figs. 42.19–42.21
Fig. 42.19
Detail of the village in Monet’s Vétheuil (1901) showing the buildup of the brushwork. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.447.
Fig. 42.20
Detail of the village in Monet’s Vétheuil (1901) showing the buildup of the brushwork. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.447.
Fig. 42.21
Detail of the buildings in Monet’s Vétheuil (1901) showing the buildup of the brushwork. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.447.
Fig. 42.22
Photomicrograph of the village in Monet’s Vétheuil (1901) showing the juxtaposition of thick and thin paint applications. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.447.
Fig. 42.23
Photomicrograph of a building in Monet’s Vétheuil (1901) showing wet-in-wet paint application. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.447.
Fig. 42.24
Photomicrograph of the reflections in the water in Monet’s Vétheuil (1901) showing exposed ground. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.447.
Fig. 42.25
Photomicrograph of the reflections in the water in Monet’s Vétheuil (1901) showing the buildup of the brushwork. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.447.
Minor alterations were made to some of the buildings in the foreground of the village. On the right side, in the area of the blue-roofed house and the red-roofed one to the immediate left, there are two roughly square shapes and a strong horizontal stroke between them that are visible from beneath the surface (fig. 42.26). The thick, directional strokes of these underlying forms are visible in the X-ray (fig. 42.27), and their texture remains evident on the surface of the painting, particularly when viewed in raking light. The paint appears to be off-white in color. The underlying brushwork may constitute part of the early lay-in of the composition and thus indicate slight shifts in position or size between the initial planning of the houses and the painting of them. In the building on the far left, the X-ray seems to indicate the presence of a second pitched roof to the right of the one visible in the final composition. This was subsequently painted over (fig. 42.28).29
Fig. 42.26
Detail of the buildings in Monet’s Vétheuil (1901) showing changes made to the composition. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.447.
Fig. 42.27
X-ray and natural-light details of Monet’s Vétheuil (1901) showing changes made to the composition. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.447. Interactive image.
Fig. 42.28
X-ray and natural-light details of Monet’s Vétheuil (1901) showing a possible change made to the composition. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.447. Interactive image.
The vertical canvas threads are sometimes more pronounced, probably the result of the sweeping horizontal strokes of the paint buildup, which emphasize the canvas texture in that direction. Areas of paint around the edges of the composition appear slightly flattened, as if the work was framed when the paint was still soft.30
Painting tools
Brushes, including 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 cm width, flat ferrule (based on width and shape of brushstrokes); a broader 2.0 cm wide brush was used for the underpainting in the sky and water. A few brush hairs are embedded in the paint layer.31
Palette
Analysis indicates the presence of the following pigments: lead white, cadmium yellow, chrome yellow, vermilion, red lake, viridian, ultramarine blue, cobalt blue, and cobalt violet.[33] UV fluorescence of some of the red strokes suggests the presence of red lake throughout the landscape.[34]32
Binding media
Oil (estimated).[35]33
Surface Finish
Varnish layer/media
The painting has a thin, even, synthetic varnish that was applied in 1974 (see Conservation History). The surface is relatively matte with subtle variations in surface sheen depending on the qualities of the underlying paint. The 1974 treatment report states that the painting previously had a discolored, yellowed, soft resin varnish; its origin is unknown.34
Conservation History
In 1973–74, a discolored surface film was removed. The canvas was wax-resin lined and restretched on an ICA spring stretcher. A layer of polyvinyl acetate (PVA) AYAA was applied. Inpainting was carried out. A layer of methacrylate resin L-46 was applied, followed by a final layer of AYAA.[36]35
Condition Summary
Overall, the painting is in very good condition. It is wax-resin lined and the canvas is stretched taut on an ICA spring stretcher. There are no planar deformations. There is some wear around the edges of the canvas and a small hole at the upper right corner. There is a moderate amount of cracking and small losses in the ground layer on the tacking edges. There is some slight flattening of impastoed paint, which is probably related to the lining procedure. Minor retouching around the edges is related to abrasion and tiny losses, especially at the top and the lower left edges. There are wax-resin residues from the lining adhesive around the edges. There is a significant amount of starch-paste residue from the facing used during the lining process embedded in the recesses of the paint texture. This is mainly visible only under magnification, but has a subtle effect on the painting where it is more concentrated, scattering the light by causing those areas to look lighter. The synthetic varnish coating has an even, relatively matte surface that varies slightly according to the surface qualities of the underlying paint.
Kimberley Muir36
Frame
Current frame (installed in 1991): The frame is not original to the painting. It is an American reproduction of a Louis XIII torus frame with carved centered flowers on a laurel-and-berry garland with acanthus-leaf miters, plain hollow, and carved ribbon ornament and cove at the sight (APF, Inc., New York, 1991). The frame is water gilded over brown bole on gesso. The hollow is burnished with selective burnishing on the carved ornament. The gold has been heavily rubbed overall and toned with thin oil paint washes, casein washes, and dark flecking. The carved basswood moldings are mitered and nailed. The molding, from perimeter to interior, is cushion-shaped dentil molding; torus with carved centered flowers on a laurel-and-berry garland with acanthus-leaf miters; fillet; hollow; fillet; torus with carved ribbon; and cove at the sight (fig. 42.29).[37]37
Fig. 42.29
Monet’s Vétheuil (1901) in its current frame. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.447.
Previous frame (installed by 1975, removed 1991): The work was previously housed in an American, mid-twentieth-century, L-shaped narrow frame with a gilded face on a mahogany molding with exposed splines at the miters. The frame may be a design by James L. Speyer (fig. 42.30).38
Fig. 42.30
Monet’s Vétheuil (1901) in a previous frame, installed in Paintings by Monet, Art Institute of Chicago, Mar. 15–May 11, 1975. Institutional Archives, Art Institute of Chicago.
Previous frame: Sometime between 1956 and 1962 (based on an approximate date of an archival photograph (fig. 42.31), the work was mounted together with the Art Institute’s other version of Vétheuil in a painted shadow box. The paintings’ stretchers were mounted to the back panel of the frame with the edges of the canvas exposed. This frame was probably only utilized during this installation.[38]39
Fig. 42.31
Monet’s Vétheuil (1901) in a previous frame, gallery installation, 1956/62. Institutional Archives, Art Institute of Chicago.
Kirk Vuillemot40
Paris, Bernheim-Jeune, Oeuvres récentes de Camille Pissarro et nouvelle série de Claude Monet, Feb. 20–28, 1902.[46]49
New York, Brooklyn Museum, Paintings by Contemporary English and French Painters, Nov. 29, 1922–Jan. 2, 1923, cat. 179, as Vetheuil, Messrs. Durand-Ruel.[47]50
Minneapolis Institute of Arts, An Exhibition of French Impressionist Paintings, Mar. 1–Apr. 30, 1923, cat. 22, as Vetheuil, 1901.[48]51
Providence, Rhode Island School of Design, May 22–Oct. 23, 1923, no cat.[49]52
New York, Union League Club, Paintings by Modern French Masters, Jan. 6–8, 1925, cat. 16, as Vetheuil.[50]53
Waterbury, Conn., Mattatuck Historical Society, Paintings by French Impressionists, Apr.–May 9, 1925, no cat.[51]54
Art Institute of Chicago, “A Century of Progress”: Loan Exhibition of Paintings and Sculpture for 1934, June 1–Oct. 31, 1934, cat. 222.[52]55
University of Chicago, Lexington Hall, Mar. 1–20, 1954, no cat.[53]56
University of Chicago, College of Humanities, Feb. 27–Mar. 16, 1956, no cat.[54]57
Art Institute of Chicago, The Paintings of Claude Monet, Apr. 1–June 15, 1957, no cat. no.[55]58
Art Institute of Chicago, Paintings by Monet, Mar. 15–May 11, 1975, cat. 103 (ill.). (fig. 42.32)59
Fig. 42.32
Installation of Monet’s Vétheuil (1901) in Paintings by Monet, Art Institute of Chicago, Mar. 15–May 11, 1975. Institutional Archives, Art Institute of Chicago.
Edinburgh, Royal Scottish Academy, Monet: The Seine and the Sea, 1878–1883, Aug. 6–Oct. 26, 2003, cat. 76 (ill.).60
Art Institute of Chicago, Claude Monet, 1840–1926, July 22–Nov. 26, 1995, cat. 115 (ill.).61
Fort Worth, Tex., Kimbell Art Museum, The Impressionists: Master Paintings from the Art Institute of Chicago, June 29–Nov. 2, 2008, cat. 82 (ill.).62
Documenation from the Durand-Ruel Archives
Inventory number
Deposit Durand-Ruel New York 12664, Durand-Ruel, New York deposit book 1908-25[65]94
Inventory number
Stock Durand-Ruel New York 4742, Durand-Ruel, New York stock books 1908–25 and 1926–48[66]95
Photograph number
Durand-Ruel New York photograph no. 9709[67]96
Other Documents
Fig. 42.33
Fig. 42.34
Inscription (fig. 42.35)[70]99
Fig. 42.35
Labels and Inscriptions
Pre-1980
Label
Location: pre-1973–74-treatment stretcher (discarded); preserved in conservation file
Method: printed label with handwritten script
Content: Monet (No.) 4742 / Vetheuil / 1901 mm3 (fig. 42.34)100
Label
Location: pre-1973–74-treatment stretcher (discarded); preserved in conservation file
Method: handwritten script
Content: Monet 12664 / Vétheuil, 1901. (fig. 42.36)101
Fig. 42.36
Label
Location: pre-1973–74-treatment stretcher (discarded); preserved in conservation file
Method: printed label with stamped number
Content: 638 (fig. 42.37)102
Fig. 42.37
Number
Location: pre-1973–74-treatment stretcher (discarded); 1973 photograph in conservation file
Method: handwritten script
Content: 9709 (fig. 42.38)103
Fig. 42.38
Number
Location: pre-1973–74-treatment stretcher (discarded); 1973 photograph in conservation file
Method: handwritten script
Content: [BV?]C / 506 (fig. 42.39)104
Fig. 42.39
Inscription
Location: pre-1973–74-treatment stretcher (discarded); 1973 photograph in conservation file
Method: handwritten script
Content: [illegible; covered by remnants of paper tape] (fig. 42.40)105
Fig. 42.40
Label
Location: stretcher[71]
Method: printed label
Content: I. C. A. SPRING STRETCHERS / OBERLIN, OHIO 44074 (fig. 42.41)106
Fig. 42.41
Post-1980
Label
Location: backing board
Method: printed label with typewritten script
Content: THE ART INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO / artist Claude Monet / title Vetheuil, 1901 / medium oil on canvas / credit Mrs. Lewis Larned Coburn Memorial / Collection / acc.# 1933.447 / LZ-341-001 1M 1/90 (Rev. 1/90) (fig. 42.42)107
Fig. 42.42
Label
Location: backing board
Method: printed label
Content: The Art Institute of Chicago / “Claude Monet: 1840–1926” / July 14, 1995–November 26, 1995 / Catalog: 115 / Vétheuil / Vétheuil, effet rose / The Art Institute of Chicago, Mrs. Lewis Larned Coburn / Memorial Collection (1933.447) (fig. 42.43)108
Fig. 42.43
Label
Location: backing board
Method: printed label with handwritten script
Content: Monet: THE SEINE AND THE SEA—Vétheuil and Normandy, / UK, Edinburgh, Royal Scottish Academy Crate 23 TELNG 03.071 / 076 / Claude Monet / Vétheuil (Vétheuil, in pink light, effect Rose) / Oil on canvas / 88.30 × 91.50 cm / USA, Chicago, The Art Institute (fig. 42.44)109
Fig. 42.44
Examination and Analysis Techniques
X-radiography
Westinghouse X-ray unit, scanned on Epson Expressions 10000XL flatbed scanner. Scans digitally composited by Robert G. Erdmann, University of Arizona.110
Infrared Reflectography
Fujifilm S5 Pro with X-Nite 1000B/2mm filter (1.0–1.1 µm); Inframetrics Infracam with 1.5–1.73 µm filter.111
Transmitted Infrared
Fujifilm S5 Pro with X-Nite 1000B/2mm filter (1.0–1.1 µm).112
Visible Light
Natural-light, raking-light, and transmitted-light overalls and macrophotography: Fujifilm S5 Pro with X-NiteCC1 filter.113
Ultraviolet
Fujifilm S5 Pro with X-NiteCC1 filter and Kodak Wratten 2E filter.114
High-Resolution Visible Light (and Ultraviolet)
Sinar P3 camera with Sinarback eVolution 75 H (PECA 918 UV/IR interference cut filter and Kodak Wratten 2E filter).115
Microscopy and Photomicrographs
Sample and cross-sectional analysis using a Zeiss Axioplan2 research microscope equipped with reflected light/UV fluorescence and a Zeiss AxioCam MRc5 digital camera. Types of illumination used: darkfield, differential interference contrast (DIC), and UV. In situ photomicrographs with a Wild Heerbrugg M7A StereoZoom microscope fitted with an Olympus DP71 microscope digital camera.116
X-ray Fluorescence Spectroscopy (XRF)
Several spots on the painting were analyzed in situ with a Bruker/Keymaster TRACeR III-V with rhodium tube.117
Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM)
Zeiss Universal research microscope.118
Scanning Electron Microscopy/Energy-Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy (SEM/EDX)
Cross sections analyzed after carbon coating with a Hitachi S-3400N-II VP-SEM with Oxford EDS and a Hitachi solid-state BSE detector. Analysis was performed at the Northwestern University Atomic and Nanoscale Characterization Experimental (NUANCE) Center, Electron Probe Instrumentation Center (EPIC) facility.119
Automated Thread Counting
Thread count and weave information were determined by Thread Count Automation Project software.[72]120
Image Registration Software
Overlay images registered using a novel image-based algorithm developed by Damon M. Conover (GW), John K. Delaney (GW, NGA), and Murray H. Loew (GW) of the George Washington University’s School of Engineering and Applied Science and the National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.[73]121
Image Inventory
The image inventory compiles records of all known images of the artwork on file in the Conservation Department, the Imaging Department, and the Department of Medieval to Modern European Painting and Sculpture at the Art Institute of Chicago (fig. 42.45).122
| Location/Negative # | Format | Purpose | Date | Lighting, Notes |
| C11551 | 1934 | |||
| Conservation | 35 mm color slide | Pretreatment | Nov. 1973 | Normal, overall |
| Conservation | 8 × 10 B&W negative | Pretreatment | Nov. 5, 1973 | Normal, overall |
| Conservation | 8 × 10 B&W negative | Pretreatment | Nov. 5, 1973 | Normal, verso |
| Conservation | B&W negative | Pretreatment | Nov. 5, 1973 | Infrared, overall |
| Conservation | 8 × 10 B&W negative | Pretreatment | Nov. 5, 1973 | Ultraviolet, overall |
| C39180/MX401 | Posttreatment | Jan. 15, 1974 | ||
| C39187 | Posttreatment | Jan. 15, 1974 | Normal, overall | |
| E29755 | Sept. 23, 1994 | Normal, overall | ||
| G28501 | Digital | Mar. 11, 2008 | Normal, overall | |
| G28502 | Digital | Mar. 11, 2008 | Normal, detail | |
| 132280 | Digital | Loan exam | Nov. 2008 | Annotated image E29755 |
| Conservation | Digital | OSCI | Apr. 11, 2011 | Detail images and scans of verso, labels (7 total) |
| Conservation | Digital | OSCI | Apr. 12, 2011 | Normal, overall |
| Conservation | Digital | OSCI | Apr. 12, 2011 | Infrared (Fuji, 1000B/2 mm filter), overall (2 total) |
| Conservation | Digital | OSCI | Apr. 12, 2011 | Raking light, overall (3 total) |
| Conservation | Digital | OSCI | Apr. 12, 2011 | Ultraviolet, overall (2 total) |
| Conservation | Digital | OSCI | Apr. 12, 2011 | X-ray films scanned/digitally composited, overall |
| Conservation | Digital | OSCI | Apr. 15, 2011 | Transmitted light, overall (2 total) |
| Conservation | Digital | OSCI | Apr. 15, 2011 | Transmitted infrared (Fuji, 1000B/2 mm filter), overall |
| Conservation | Digital | OSCI | Apr. 19, 2011 | Photomicrographs of surface (20 total) |
| Conservation | Digital | OSCI | Apr. 21, 2011 | Macro details (17 total) |
| G39496 | Digital | OSCI | Apr. 3, 2012 | Normal, overall; composite of G40229–G40253 |
| G40229–G40253 | Digital | OSCI | Apr. 3, 2012 | Sections (25 total) |
| G39498 | Digital | OSCI | Apr. 4, 2012 | Normal, frame only |
| G39497 | Digital | OSCI | Nov. 12, 2012 | Ultraviolet, overall |
Vétheuil, 1901 (Cat. 43)
Technical Summary
Claude Monet’s Vétheuil was executed on a pre-primed, non-standard-size linen canvas. The off-white ground consists of two layers. The painting was built up using a relatively open network of brushstrokes that leaves the ground layer and canvas texture visible throughout. There are no apparent changes to the composition, which was built up directly from the initial lay-in. Areas where the canvas weave remains prominent, combined with the low-relief texture of underlying brushwork and surface strokes of low impasto, contribute varied texture to the paint surface. The work was carried out in more than one session and incorporates both wet-over-dry and wet-in-wet paint application. The generally warm palette and narrow tonal range used by the artist impart an overall warm, rose-colored tonality to the work. There are areas of localized abrasion and slightly flattened or pressed paint, which occurred while the painting was in progress, but it is difficult to say whether they are related to the artist’s working process or whether they were accidental occurrences. A few minor damages—tiny gouges and paint losses that occurred when the paint was still soft—were restored using a zinc white–containing paint. The retouching is difficult to distinguish from the original paint in some places and appears to have been applied early on.[74]123
Multilayer Interactive Image Viewer
The multilayer interactive image viewer is designed to facilitate the viewer’s exploration and comparison of the technical images (fig. 43.1).[75]124
Fig. 43.1
Monet’s Vétheuil (1901). The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.1161. Interactive image.
Signature
Signed and dated: Claude Monet 1901 (lower left, in pale-pink paint[76]) (fig. 43.2). The signature was started using a deeper-purple paint; the artist then went over the l a second time with a pale pink paint, which was used for the remainder of the signature and date (fig. 43.3). This paint becomes very faint in the final digits of the date; the 901 was then reinforced with a slightly thicker pale-pink paint (fig. 43.4). The underlying paint layers were dry when the signature and date were applied, except for some of the blue and purple strokes added along the bottom edge, which were picked up by the signature (fig. 43.5). These strokes may represent final touches added by the artist just before signing the painting.[77]125
Fig. 43.2
Detail of Monet’s Vétheuil (1901) showing the signature. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.1161.
Fig. 43.3
Photomicrograph of the signature of Monet’s Vétheuil (1901) showing different paint mixtures used in different brushstrokes. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.1161.
Fig. 43.4
Photomicrograph of the signature of Monet’s Vétheuil (1901) showing that Monet reinforced the date using a slightly different paint mixture. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.1161.
Fig. 43.5
Photomicrograph of the signature of Monet’s Vétheuil (1901) showing some wet-in-wet paint application. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.1161.
Structure and Technique
Support
Canvas
Flax (commonly known as linen).[78]126
Standard format
The original dimensions were approximately 89 × 92 cm. This slightly wider than square format does not correspond to a standard size; both dimensions, however, correspond to standard stretcher-bar lengths.[79]127
Weave
Plain weave. Average thread count (standard deviation): 17.8V (0.8) × 20.0H (0.6) threads/cm; the horizontal threads were determined to correspond to the warp and the vertical threads to the weft.[80] No weave matches were detected with other Monet paintings analyzed.[81]128
Canvas characteristics
There is mild cusping on all four sides of the canvas; this is slightly more pronounced along the bottom.129
Stretching
Current stretching: Dates to 1974 conservation treatment (see Conservation History). Copper tacks spaced 6–8 cm apart.130
Original stretching: Tack holes spaced approximately 6–8 cm apart. Additional holes interspersed between these were likely added later for reinforcement. The cusping appears to correspond to the placement of the original tacks.131
Stretcher/strainer
Current stretcher: ICA spring stretcher. Depth: 2.8 cm.132
Original stretcher: Discarded. The pre-1974-treatment stretcher may have been the original stretcher. It was documented as Buck type 2, six-membered, including horizontal and vertical crossbars, with keyable mortise and tenon joints and a beveled back face. The report gives the following dimensions: overall height, 92.5 cm; overall width, 89.0 cm; stretcher members: outside depth, 2.0 cm; width, 6.6 cm; inside depth, 1.8 cm; distance from canvas position, 1.0 cm; length of mortise, 6.6 cm.[82]133
Manufacturer’s/supplier’s marks
None observed in current examination or documented in previous examinations.134
Preparatory Layers
Sizing
Not determined (probably glue).[83]135
Ground application/texture
The ground extends to the edges of all four tacking margins, indicating that the canvas was cut from a larger piece of primed fabric, which was probably commercially prepared. Cross-sectional analysis indicates that the ground consists of two layers. The lower layer ranges from approximately 2 to 60 µm in thickness. The upper layer measures approximately 5 to 85 µm in thickness (fig. 43.6, fig. 43.7).[84]136
Fig. 43.6
Photomicrograph of a cross section of the ground and canvas layers of Monet’s Vétheuil (1901). Original magnification: 100×. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.1161.
Fig. 43.7
Backscattered electron (BSE) image of a cross section of the ground layers of Monet’s Vétheuil (1901) showing two layers of distinct composition. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.1161.
Color
Only the upper ground layer is visible when the painting surface is examined microscopically. It is off-white with some dark and possibly red or brown particles visible under magnification, as well as some larger white clusters (fig. 43.8)137
Fig. 43.8
Photomicrograph of the right edge of Monet’s Vétheuil (1901) showing the ground layer. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.1161.
Materials/composition
Analysis indicates that the lower layer contains calcium carbonate (chalk)[85] with traces of silica and silicates.[86] The upper layer contains lead white and calcium carbonate (chalk)[87] with traces of iron oxide, alumina, silica, and silicates.[88] Binder: Oil (estimated).138
Compositional Planning/Underdrawing/Painted Sketch
Extent/character
No underdrawing was observed with infrared reflectography (IRR) or microscopic examination.139
Paint Layer
Application/technique and artist’s revisions
The artist worked up the composition as a whole, moving back and forth between the different areas of the composition with no apparent revisions or changes as the painting progressed. The work was built up using a network of open brushstrokes that leaves small areas of the ground layer exposed throughout (fig. 43.9). The initial lay-in of the composition was executed with lightly applied brushstrokes using a relatively dry brush, such that the paint was deposited mainly on the peaks of the canvas weave. These areas, where the canvas texture is particularly noticeable, remain evident through the open brushwork (fig. 43.10). The vertical canvas threads appear quite prominent on the surface of the painting. In some places, this is due to random thick threads, but in other areas, the vertical threads are often emphasized by horizontal brushstrokes that caused paint to build up in the ridges along the edges of the threads (fig. 43.11). In a few areas, localized abrasion of the first thin paint layers was observed. It is unclear whether this was part of the artist’s process (i.e., intentional scraping or wiping of the paint surface) or whether it was an accident of handling, but it seems to have occurred during the painting process as subsequent paint strokes pass over the abraded areas (fig. 43.12). In the upper paint layers, some areas of thicker paint application have a slightly flattened or pressed appearance, which appears to have occurred while the paint was still slightly soft (fig. 43.13).140
Figs. 43.9–43.13
Fig. 43.9
Detail of the upper-right corner of Monet’s Vétheuil (1901) showing open brushwork and small areas of exposed ground. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.1161.
Fig. 43.10
Detail of the hill in Monet’s Vétheuil (1901) showing thinly-applied paint that accentuates the texture of the canvas weave. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.1161.
Fig. 43.11
Detail of the water in Monet’s Vétheuil (1901) showing prominent vertical canvas threads. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.1161.
Fig. 43.12
Detail of the hill in Monet’s Vétheuil (1901) showing some abrasion to the earlier paint layers. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.1161.
Fig. 43.13
Detail of the sky in Monet’s Vétheuil (1901) showing areas of thick paint application that were slightly flattened when still soft. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.1161.
The surface texture of the painting includes crisp brushmarks from underlying layers, as well as thick, textural strokes and low impasto applied to the surface (fig. 43.14). While much of the surface paint layers consist of wet-in-wet applications, many of the textural strokes from the underlying layers were already surface dry when the painting was built up, indicating that the work was carried out in more than one session (fig. 43.15). The hill consists of a buildup of long directional strokes of different colors, lightly dragged across the surface of the canvas (fig. 43.16). The buildings were often delineated with a few thick, textural strokes that leave the very thin, light-handed application of the underpainting visible (fig. 43.17). In the reflected townscape, the artist laid in several long vertical strokes of textural and low-impasto paint in lighter tones of yellow and orange to denote the reflections of the buildings. These strokes appear to have been set up when the short, horizontal touches of red and purple of the water were applied on top (fig. 43.18). Overall, the palette consists of warm tones: pinks, purples, reds, oranges, and yellows for the buildings that reflect the setting sun, as well as for the reflections of the buildings and landscape in the water. The sky and water are composed of warm tones of yellowish-green and blue with some purple hues, both warm and cool. The overall tonal range is quite narrow, with little contrast between darks and lights, which helps to convey the diffuse light of the scene. The loose brushwork and subtle color transitions used in the work cause forms to blur into one another, without distinct borders, for example, between the horizon and the sky (fig. 43.19), the shoreline and the river (fig. 43.20), and the reflection and the water (fig. 43.21). The transition from one building to another is often made simply by a change in the direction of the brushstrokes or a slight shift in hue; the edges of the rooftops often remain quite sketchy (fig. 43.22). The houses and foliage on the far right of the canvas consist of an almost indistinguishable swirl of brushstrokes (fig. 43.23).[89]141
Figs. 43.14–43.23
Fig. 43.14
Detail of a building in Monet’s Vétheuil (1901) showing the texture of the brushwork. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.1161.
Fig. 43.15
Detail of a building in Monet’s Vétheuil (1901) showing the buildup of the brushwork. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.1161.
Fig. 43.16
Detail of the hill in Monet’s Vétheuil (1901) showing the buildup of the brushwork. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.1161.
Fig. 43.17
Detail of a building in Monet’s Vétheuil (1901) showing the buildup of the brushwork. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.1161.
Fig. 43.18
Raking-light detail of the reflected buildings in Monet’s Vétheuil (1901) showing the buildup of the brushwork. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.1161.
Fig. 43.19
Detail of the horizon in Monet’s Vétheuil (1901) showing the subtle transition from the land to the sky. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.1161.
Fig. 43.20
Detail of the shoreline in Monet’s Vétheuil (1901) showing the subtle transition from the land to the water. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.1161.
Fig. 43.21
Detail of the water in Monet’s Vétheuil (1901) showing the diffuse boundary between the reflected buildings and the water. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.1161.
Fig. 43.22
Detail of the buildings in Monet’s Vétheuil (1901) showing the loosely defined forms. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.1161.
Fig. 43.23
Detail of the village in Monet’s Vétheuil (1901) showing the loosely defined forms. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.1161.
There are several small damages in the paint layer that appear to be old. They are scattered throughout the sky, the right side of the hill, the buildings on the left, and the reflection (near center). These damages, when there is associated paint loss, are visible as dark spots in the X-ray and, under UV light, retouching applied to the losses exhibits the bright greenish-yellow fluorescence of the zinc white used in the paint mixture (see Palette) (fig. 43.24). Under magnification, the original paint in these areas appears to have been gouged when it was still soft and therefore must have occurred relatively early in the painting’s lifetime. Localized retouching consists, for the most part, of a generic pale-green paint that does not always match the adjacent original paint (fig. 43.25, fig. 43.26).[90] The retouching appears to be old and is intimately connected with the original paint. In one place, near the peak of the roof of the building second from left, the retouching is well matched and difficult to distinguish from the original paint (fig. 43.27). This may indicate that the retouching was carried out very early on, and the possibility that Monet retouched the painting himself cannot be ruled out.142
Fig. 43.24
Ultraviolet-light, natural-light, and X-ray details of Monet’s Vétheuil (1901) showing old restorations. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.1161.
Fig. 43.25
Detail of the sky in Monet’s Vétheuil (1901) showing localized greenish-gray retouching. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.1161.
Fig. 43.26
Photomicrograph of the sky in Monet’s Vétheuil (1901) showing greenish-gray retouching. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.1161.
Fig. 43.27
Photomicrograph of a building in Monet’s Vétheuil (1901) showing a small area of retouching. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.1161.
Painting tools
Brushes, including 1.0, 1.5, and 2 cm width, flat ferrule (based on width and shape of brushstrokes).143
Palette
Analysis indicates the presence of the following pigments: lead white, cadmium yellow, chrome yellow, vermilion, red lake, viridian, cobalt blue, ultramarine blue, and cobalt violet.[91] The presence of a pinkish-orange fluorescence under UV light indicates that the artist used red lake throughout the landscape and in the signature.[92] Areas of retouching, which exhibit a bright-greenish-yellow fluorescence under UV light, were found to contain zinc white, and sometimes traces of barium sulfate and an iron oxide–containing pigment.[93]144
Binding media
Oil (estimated).[94]145
Surface Finish
Varnish layer/media
The painting has an even, synthetic varnish (see Conservation History). The surface is relatively matte, with subtle variations depending on the qualities of the underlying paint. The 1974 treatment report states that the painting previously had a discolored and yellowed, soft resin varnish. Its origin is unknown.146
Conservation History
The pre-1974-treatment-notes state that “cleavage and flaking were present in the past and were treated locally with wax adhesive. In order to hide this treatment a piece of canvas had been placed behind the original canvas to hide the wax stains in the original canvas.”[95]147
In 1974, a yellowed varnish layer was removed. The canvas added to the back of the original canvas in a previous treatment was removed, and the original canvas was wax-resin lined. The painting was restretched on a new ICA spring stretcher. A layer of polyvinyl acetate (PVA) AYAA was applied. Inpainting was carried out. A layer of methacrylate resin L-46 was applied, followed by a final layer of AYAA.[96]148
Condition Summary
The painting is wax-resin lined and is stretched taut and in plane on an ICA spring stretcher. The ground layer exhibits a fine cracking pattern that follows the weave of the canvas. There is significant ground loss on the tacking edges. The paint layer is in good condition overall. There are a few small damages that appear to have occurred when the paint was still soft. Localized retouching associated with these damages is sometimes difficult to distinguish from the original paint and was probably added early on. It was found to contain zinc white paint. In some places, the retouching is mismatched. More recent retouching was applied almost continuously around the edges. There is some slight flattening of the impasto in localized areas, probably the result of the lining process. Cracking is minimal, and where present, it is mainly visible only under magnification. The painting has an even, synthetic varnish coating. Starch-paste adhesive residues from the lining procedure are visible microscopically on the surface of the painting. There are also some yellowed, natural-resin varnish residues in the recesses of the paint texture.
Kimberley Muir149
Frame
Current frame (installed in 1991): The frame is not original to the painting. It is an American reproduction of a Louis XIII convex frame with carved alternating acanthus-leaf and flower running motif and acanthus-leaf miters, plain hollow, carved ribbon ornament and cove at the sight. The frame is water gilded over yellow-brown bole on gesso. The hollow is burnished with selective burnishing on the carved ornament. The gold has been heavily rubbed overall and toned with thin oil paint washes, casein washes, and dark flecking. The carved basswood moldings are mitered and nailed. The molding, from perimeter to interior, is ogee carved with flower and tongue; scotia side; convex face carved with alternating acanthus-leaf and flower running motif and acanthus-leaf miters; fillet; plain hollow; fillet; torus with carved ribbon; and cove at the sight (fig. 43.28).[97]150
Fig. 43.28
Monet’s Vétheuil (1901) in its current frame. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.1161.
Previous frame (installed by 1975; removed 1991): The work was previously housed in an American, mid-twentieth-century, L-shaped, narrow frame with a gilded face on a mahogany molding with exposed splines at the miters. The frame may be a design by James L. Speyer (fig. 43.29).151
Fig. 43.29
Monet’s Vétheuil (1901) in a previous frame, installed in Paintings by Monet, Art Institute of Chicago, Mar. 15–May 11, 1975. Institutional Archives, Art Institute of Chicago.
Previous frame: Sometime between 1956 and 1962 (based on an approximate date photograph [fig. 43.30]), the work was mounted together with the Art Institute’s other version of Vétheuil in a painted shadow box. The paintings’ stretchers were mounted to the back panel of the frame with the edges of the canvas exposed. This frame was probably only utilized during this installation.152
Fig. 43.30
Monet’s Vétheuil (1901) in a previous frame, gallery installation, 1956/62. Institutional Archives, Art Institute of Chicago.
Kirk Vuillemot153
Possibly Paris, Bernheim-Jeune, Oeuvres récentes de Camille Pissarro et nouvelle série de Claude Monet, Feb. 20–28, 1902, no cat. no.[103]160
Paris, Bernheim-Jeune, Oeuvres de Claude Monet, 1894–1905, Mar. 1906, no cat. no.[104]161
Barcelona, V exposición internacional de bellas artes é industrias Artisticas, Apr.–July 1907, cat. 13, under the heading Francia, as Sol poniente en Vetheuil. 25,000 francs.[105]162
Paris, Galeries Durand-Ruel, Exposition de Paysages par Claude Monet et Renoir, May 18–June 6, 1908, cat. 21, as Vétheuil au soleil couchant—1901.[106]163
Art Association of Montreal, Exposition d’art français, Jan.–Feb. 1909, cat. 241, as Vétheuil au soleil couchant.—Vétheuil by sunset.[107]164
Paris, Galeries Durand-Ruel, Tableaux par Monet, C. Pissarro, Renoir et Sisley, June 1–25, 1910, cat. 6, as Vétheuil au soleil couchant. 1901.[108]165
Leipzig, Leipziger Kunstverein, Französische Kunst der 18., 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts, Oct.–Nov. 1910, cat. 109.[109]166
Paris, Manzi, Joyant & Cie, Exposition d’art moderne, June 5–July 6, 1912, cat. 138, as Vétheuil (1901).[110]167
Zurich, Zürcher Kunsthaus, Ausstellung französischer Kunst: Bildhauerei, Malerei, Griffelkunst, Kunstgerwerbe, Feb. 16–Mar. 26, 1913, cat. 164, as Sonnenuntergang, Vétheuil, 30,000 francs.[111]168
Paris, Galeries Durand-Ruel, Tableaux par Claude Monet, Mar. 2–28, 1914, cat. 34, as Vétheuil, soleil couchant. 1901.[112]169
Art Institute of Chicago, “A Century of Progress”: Loan Exhibition of Paintings and Sculpture for 1934, June 1–Oct. 31, 1934, cat. 223.[113]170
University of Chicago, Lexington Hall, Feb. 25–Mar. 11, 1955, no cat.[114]171
University of Chicago, College of Humanities, Feb. 27–Mar. 16, 1956, no cat.[115]172
Art Institute of Chicago, The Paintings of Claude Monet, Apr. 1–June 15, 1957, no cat. no.[116]173
Art Institute of Chicago, Paintings by Monet, Mar. 15–May 11, 1975, cat. 104 (ill.). (fig. 43.31)174
Fig. 43.31
Installation of Monet’s Vétheuil (1901) in Paintings by Monet, Art Institute of Chicago, Mar. 15–May 11, 1975. Institutional Archives, Art Institute of Chicago.
Albi, Musée Toulouse-Lautrec, Trésors impressionnistes du Musée de Chicago, June 27–Aug. 31, 1980, cat. 14 (ill.).175
Art Institute of Chicago, Claude Monet, 1840–1926, July 22–Nov. 26, 1995, cat. 116 (ill.).176
Edinburgh, Royal Scottish Academy, Monet: The Seine and the Sea, 1878–1883, Aug. 6–Oct. 26, 2003, cat. 77 (ill.).177
Fort Worth, Tex., Kimbell Art Museum, The Impressionists: Master Paintings from the Art Institute of Chicago, June 29–Nov. 2, 2008, cat. 83 (ill.).178
Documentation from the Durand-Ruel Archives
Inventory number
Stock Durand-Ruel Paris 10004, Durand-Ruel, Paris stock book 1901–13[128]222
Inventory number
Stock Durand-Ruel Paris 8051, Durand-Ruel, Paris stock book 1901–13[129]223
Photograph number
Durand-Ruel Paris Photo 5414[130]224
Other Documents
Fig. 43.32
Labels and Inscriptions
Pre-1980
Label
Location: pre-1974-treatment stretcher (discarded); preserved in conservation file
Method: handwritten script
Content: Monet no 10004 / Vétheuil, soleil / couchant, 1901. (fig. 43.33)226
Fig. 43.33
Label
Location: pre-1974-treatment stretcher (discarded); preserved in conservation file
Method: printed paper with stamped number
Content: 5960 (fig. 43.34)227
Fig. 43.34
Label
Location: pre-1974-treatment stretcher (discarded); preserved in conservation file
Method: printed paper with stamped number
Content: 12, 298 (fig. 43.35)228
Fig. 43.35
Label
Location: stretcher
Method: printed label
Content: I. C. A. SPRING STRETCHERS / OBERLIN, OHIO 44074[132] (fig. 43.36)229
Fig. 43.36
Number
Location: lining canvas
Method: handwritten script
Content: 1933.1161[133] (fig. 43.37)230
Fig. 43.37
Post-1980
Label
Location: backing board
Method: printed label with typewritten script
Content: THE ART INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO / artist Claude Monet / title Vetheuil, 1901 / medium oil on canvas / credit / acc# / 1933.1161 / LZ-341-001 1M 1/90 (Rev. 1/90) (fig. 43.38)231
Fig. 43.38
Examination and Analysis Techniques
X-radiography
Westinghouse X-ray unit, scanned on Epson Expressions 10000XL flatbed scanner. Scans digitally composited by Robert G. Erdmann, University of Arizona.232
Infrared Reflectography
Fujifilm S5 Pro with X-Nite 1000B/2 mm filter (1.0–1.1 µm); Inframetrics Infracam with 1.5–1.73 µm filter.233
Transmitted Infrared
Fujifilm S5 Pro with X-Nite 1000B/2 mm filter (1.0–1.1 µm).234
Visible Light
Natural-light, raking-light, and transmitted-light overalls and macrophotography: Fujifilm S5 Pro with X-NiteCC1 filter.235
Ultraviolet
Fujifilm S5 Pro with X-NiteCC1 filter and Kodak Wratten 2E filter.236
High-Resolution Visible Light (and Ultraviolet)
Sinar P3 camera with Sinarback eVolution 75H (B+W 486 UV IR cut MRC filter, X-NiteCC1 filter, and Kodak Wratten 2E filter).237
Microscopy and Photomicrographs
Sample and cross-sectional analysis using a Zeiss Axioplan2 research microscope equipped with reflected light/UV fluorescence and a Zeiss AxioCam MRc5 digital camera. Types of illumination used: darkfield, differential interference contrast (DIC), and UV. In situ photomicrographs with a Wild Heerbrugg M7A StereoZoom Microscope fitted with an Olympus DP71 microscope digital camera.238
X-ray Fluorescence Spectroscopy (XRF)
Several spots on the painting were analyzed in situ with a Bruker/Keymaster TRACeR III-V with rhodium tube.239
Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM)
Zeiss Universal research microscope.240
Scanning Electron Microscopy/Energy-Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy (SEM/EDX)
Cross sections analyzed after carbon coating with a Hitachi S-3400N-II VP-SEM with an Oxford EDS and a Hitachi solid-state BSE detector. Analysis was performed at the Northwestern University Atomic and Nanoscale Characterization Experimental (NUANCE) Center, Electron Probe Instrumentation Center (EPIC) facility.241
Automated Thread Counting
Thread count and weave information were determined by Thread Count Automation Project software.[134]242
Image Registration Software
Overlay images registered using a novel image-based algorithm developed by Damon M. Conover (GW), John K. Delaney (GW, NGA), and Murray H. Loew (GW) of the George Washington University’s School of Engineering and Applied Science and the National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.[135]243
Image Inventory
The image inventory compiles records of all known images of the artwork on file in the Conservation Department, the Imaging Department, and the Department of Medieval to Modern European Painting and Sculpture at the Art Institute of Chicago (fig. 43.39).244
| Location/Negative # | Format | Purpose | Date | Lighting, Notes |
| C12223 | B&W negative | 1934 | ||
| C34703 | B&W negative | July 1, 1969 | ||
| Conservation | 8 × 10 B&W negative | Pretreatment | Dec. 20, 1973 | Normal, overall |
| Conservation | 8 × 10 B&W negative | Pretreatment | Dec. 20, 1973 | Ultraviolet, overall |
| C39216 | B&W negative | Posttreatment | Jan. 28, 1974 | Normal, overall |
| C39217 | 8 × 10 CT | Jan. 28, 1974 | ||
| E09098 | Jan. 2, 1986 | Normal, overall | ||
| G28498 | Digital | Mar. 11, 2008 | Normal, overall | |
| G28499 | Digital | Mar. 11, 2008 | Normal, detail: village | |
| G28500 | Digital | Mar. 11, 2008 | Normal, detail: reflection | |
| 132279 | Digital | Loan exam | Nov. 2008 | Annotated image E09098 |
| Conservation | Digital | OSCI | Apr. 11, 2011 | Detail images and scans of verso, labels (6 total) |
| Conservation | Digital | OSCI | Apr. 12, 2011 | Normal, overall |
| Conservation | Digital | OSCI | Apr. 12, 2011 | Infrared (Fuji, 1000B/2 mm filter), overall (2 total) |
| Conservation | Digital | OSCI | Apr. 12, 2011 | Raking light, overall (2 total) |
| Conservation | Digital | OSCI | Apr. 12, 2011 | Ultraviolet, overall (2 total) |
| Conservation | Digital | OSCI | Apr. 12, 2011 | X-ray films scanned/digitally composited, overall |
| Conservation | Digital | OSCI | Apr. 15, 2011 | Transmitted light, overall |
| Conservation | Digital | OSCI | Apr. 15, 2011 | Transmitted infrared (Fuji, 1000B/2 mm filter), overall (2 total) |
| Conservation | Digital | OSCI | Apr. 19, 2011 | Photomicrographs of surface (12 total) |
| Conservation | Digital | OSCI | Apr. 20, 2011 | Macro details (18 total) |
| G40229–G40253 | Digital | OSCI | Apr. 2, 2012 | Sections (25 total) |
| G39490 | Digital | OSCI | Apr. 3, 2012 | Normal, overall; composite of G40229–G40253 |
| G39492 | Digital | OSCI | Apr. 4, 2012 | Normal, frame only |
| G39491 | Digital | OSCI | Apr. 10, 2012 | Ultraviolet, overall |
| G40390–G40414 | Digital | Apr. 10, 2012 | Sections (25 total) |
- Vétheuil (W1643) corresponds to Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vol. 4, Nos. 1596–1983 et les grandes décorations (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), pp. 739–40, cat. 1643 (ill.). The Art Institute currently uses a title that is based on research conducted by Ann Dumas in 1990; see curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago. The painting had the following titles during the lifetime of the artist:
Feb. 15, 1902: Vétheuil, effet rose (Boussod, Valadon & Cie, Paris, stock book 15, 1901–1918. The Goupil & Cie/Boussod, Valadon & Cie stock books are located at the Getty Research Institute’s Research Library, Special Collections, Los Angeles; the stock books have been digitized and are available on the Getty Research Institute’s website. Photocopy of this page in curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago).
Mar. 22, 1922:Vétheuil (Hôtel Drouot, Catalogue des tableaux modernes, dessins et pastels par Bunburry, Constantin Guys, Lautrec, Manet, Marquet, C. Pissarro, Manzana Pissarro, Odilon Redon, Renoir; Oeuvres importantes de Claude Monet; Formant la collection de M. Alfred Savoir et dont la vente aux enchères publiques aura lieu à Paris, sale cat. [Hôtel Drouot, Mar. 22, 1922], lot 16 [ill.]).
Mar. 27, 1922: Vétheuil (Durand-Ruel, New York, deposit book for 1908–25 [no. 12664]; see Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 5, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago).
Apr. 22, 1922: Vétheuil (Durand-Ruel, New York, stock book for 1908–25 [no. 4742]; see Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 5, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago).
Nov. 29, 1922: Vetheuil (Brooklyn Museum, Paintings by Contemporary English and French Painters, exh. cat. [Brooklyn Museum, 1922], cat. 179; confirmed by Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 5, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago).
Mar. 1, 1923: Vetheuil, 1901 (Minneapolis Institute of Arts, An Exhibition of French Impressionist Paintings, exh. cat. [Minneapolis Institute of Arts, 1923], cat. 22).
Jan. 6, 1925: Vetheuil (Union League Club of New York, Exhibition of Paintings by Modern French Masters, exh. cat. [Bartlett Orr, 1925], cat. 16; according to Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vol. 4, Nos. 1596–1983 et les grandes décorations [Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996], pp. 739–40, cat. 1643 [ill.]; 1018).
Sept. 29, 1926: Vetheuil (Durand-Ruel New York stock book for 1926–48 [no. 4742]; see Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 5, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago). - Vétheuil (W1645) corresponds to Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné, vol. 4, Nos. 1596–1983 et les grandes décorations (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), pp. 740–41, cat. 1645 (ill.). The Art Institute currently uses a title that is based on research conducted by Ann Dumas in 1990; see curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago. The painting had the following titles during the lifetime of the artist:
Dec. 8, 1905: Vétheuil au soleil couchant, 1901 (Durand-Ruel, Paris, stock book for 1901–13 [no. 8051]; see Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 5, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago).
Apr. 1907: Sol Poniente en Vetheuil. 25,000 frs. (Ayuntamiento de Barcelona, V exposición internacional de bellas artes é industrias artisticas: Catálogo ilustrado, exh. cat. [Henrich, 1907], p. 53, cat. 13; as confirmed by Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 5, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago).
May 18, 1908: Vétheuil au soleil couchant—1901 (Galeries Durand-Ruel, Paris, Exposition de Paysages par Claude Monet et Renoir, May 18–June 6, 1908, cat. 21; as confirmed by Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 5, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago).
Jan. 1909: Vétheuil au soleil couchant.—Vétheuil by sunset (Art Association of Montreal, Exposition d’Art Français, exh. cat. [Henri Guiton, 1909], p. 32, cat. 241; according to Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné, vol. 4, Nos. 1596–1983 et les grandes décorations [Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996], pp. 740–41, cat. 1645 [ill.]).
June 1, 1910: Vétheuil au soleil couchant. 1901 (Galeries Durand-Ruel, Tableaux par Monet, C. Pissarro, Renoir et Sisley, exh. cat. [Galeries Durand-Ruel 1910], p. 3, cat. 6; as confirmed by Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 5, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago).
June 5, 1912 Vétheuil (1901): (Manzi, Joyant and Cie, Exposition d’Art Moderne, exh. cat. [Manzi, Joyant and Cie, 1912], cat. 138; according to Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné, vol. 4, Nos. 1596–1983 et les grandes décorations [Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996], pp. 740–41, cat. 1645 [ill.]).
Nov. 8, 1911: Vétheuil au soleil couchant, 1901 (Durand-Ruel, Paris, stock book for 1901–13 [no. 8051]; see Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 5, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago).
Apr. 18, 1912: Vétheuil au soleil couchant, 1901 (Durand-Ruel,Paris, stock book for 1901–13 [no. 10004]; see Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 5, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago).
Feb. 13, 1913: Sonnenuntergang, Vétheuil, 30,000 francs (Zürcher Kunsthaus, Ausstellung französischer Kunst: Bildhauerei, Malerei, Griffelkunst, Kunstgerwerbe, exh. cat. [Fritz Amberger, 1913], p. 28, cat. 164; as confirmed by Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 5, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago).
Mar. 2, 1914: Vétheuil, soleil couchant. 1901 (Galeries Durand-Ruel, Tableaux par Claude Monet, exh. cat. [Galeries Durand-Ruel/Imprimerie de l’Art, 1914], cat. 34; as confirmed by Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 5, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago).
July 31, 1914: Vétheuil, soleil couchant. 1901 (Durand-Ruel, Paris, stock book for 1901–13 [no. 10004]; see Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 5, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago). - Contextual information for Monet’s 1901 Vétheuil trip appears in Paul Hayes Tucker, with George T. M. Shackelford and MaryAnne Stevens, Monet in the 20th Century, exh. cat. (Royal Academy of Arts, London/Museum of Fine Arts, Boston/Yale University Press, 1998); as well as in the chronology in Charles F. Stuckey, with the assistance of Sophia Shaw, Claude Monet, 1840–1926, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago/Thames & Hudson, 1995).
- Paul Hayes Tucker, “The Revolution in the Garden: Monet in the Twentieth Century,” in Paul Hayes Tucker, with George T. M. Shackelford and Mary Anne Stevens, Monet in the 20th Century, exh. cat. (Royal Academy of Arts, London/Museum of Fine Arts, Boston/Yale University Press, 1998), pp. 38–39.
- Paul Hayes Tucker, “The Revolution in the Garden: Monet in the Twentieth Century,” in Paul Hayes Tucker, with George T. M. Shackelford and Mary Anne Stevens, Monet in the 20th Century, exh. cat. (Royal Academy of Arts, London/Museum of Fine Arts, Boston/Yale University Press, 1998), p. 38.
- Richard Thomson, “Vétheuil in Pink Light (Effet rose), 1901” and “Vétheuil, Sunset, 1901,” in Michael Clarke and Richard Thomson, Monet: The Seine and the Sea, 1878–1883, exh. cat. (National Galleries of Scotland, 2003), p. 152.
- “Impossible de travailler à l’atelier vu la chaleur, et dehors. C’est une année de perdue. Je n’aspire qu’après la pluie et même le froid, alors je pourrai me remettre à la besogne.” Monet to Paul Durand-Ruel, July 19, 1901, original French in Daniel Wildenstein, Claude Monet: Biographie et catalogue raisonné, vol. 4 (Bibliothèque des Arts, 1985), p. 359, letter 1639. Translation by the author.
- John House, “Monet: The Last Impressionist?” in Paul Hayes Tucker, with George T. M. Shackelford and Mary Anne Stevens, Monet in the 20th Century, exh. cat. (Royal Academy of Arts, London/Museum of Fine Arts, Boston/Yale University Press, 1998), p. 9.
- Charles F. Stuckey, with the assistance of Sophia Shaw, Claude Monet, 1840–1926, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago/Thames & Hudson, 1995), p. 204. For more on Monet’s Vétheuil experience from the period 1878–81, see, for example, Annette Dixon, Carole McNamara, and Charles Stuckey, Monet at Vétheuil: The Turning Point, exh. cat. (University of Michigan Museum of Art, 1998); and Anne L. Cowe, “Impressions of the Riverside Village: Monet and Sisley at Vétheuil and Saint-Mammès” and Adrian Lewis, “Reading Monet’s Garden at Vétheuil (1881) Radically,” both in Frances Fowle, ed., Monet and French Landscape: Vétheuil and Normandy (National Galleries of Scotland/Visual Arts Research Institute, Edinburgh, 2006), pp. 16–29; 31–69. The number preceded by a W refers to the Monet catalogue raisonné; see Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vols. 1–4 (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996).
- The number preceded by a W refers to the Monet catalogue raisonné; see Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vols. 1–4 (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996).
- The number preceded by a W refers to the Monet catalogue raisonné; see Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vols. 1–4 (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996).
- Paul Hayes Tucker, “The Revolution in the Garden: Monet in the Twentieth Century,” in Paul Hayes Tucker, with George T. M. Shackelford and MaryAnne Stevens, Monet in the 20th Century, exh. cat. (Royal Academy of Arts, London/Museum of Fine Arts, Boston/Yale University Press, 1998), pp. 38–39.
- The exception to this is Barge on the Seine at Vétheuil (1901; private collection [W1647]), which includes a barge and two smaller boats. This painting, however, is not signed; the fact that it bears a studio stamp rather than a signature suggests that Monet never considered this painting finished. The number preceded by a W refers to the Monet catalogue raisonné; see Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vols. 1–4 (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996).
- In her psychoanalytical treatment of Monet, Mary Gedo has recently argued that the 1901 expansion and redesign of Monet’s pond, in conjunction with his trip to Vétheuil, “was integrally connected with the death of Camille [Monet’s first wife],” and perhaps was a response to Monet’s “often negligent treatment of her during the final months of life.” Gedo further argued that “Monet’s preoccupation with watery reflections sprang from his reaction to his mother’s death and his ensuing fantasy that he would float forever in the form of a buoy on the surface of the mother/sea … the water garden, then, would function as his own symbolic tomb, as well as that of his beloved dead women—his mother, Aunt Lecadre, Camille, and eventually Alice.” See Mary Mathews Gedo, Monet and His Muse: Camille Monet in the Artist’s Life (University of Chicago Press, 2010), pp. 220, 222–24.
- Monet to Alice Monet, Mar. 2, 1901, quoted in Richard Kendall, Monet by Himself: Paintings, Drawings, Pastels, Letters (Macdonald Orbis 1989), p. 192; original French in Daniel Wildenstein, Claude Monet: Biographie et catalogue raisonné, vol. 4, Peintures, 1899–1926 (Bibliothèque des Arts, 1985), p. 355, letter 1611.
- “J’ai entrepris une série de Vues de Vétheuil, que je pensais pouvoir faire rapidement et qui m’a pris tout l’été, de sorte que toutes les autres choses sont restées en route.” Monet to Paul Durand-Ruel, Oct. 19, 1901, original French in Daniel Wildenstein, Claude Monet: Biographie et catalogue raisonné, vol. 4, Peintures, 1899–1926 (Bibliothèque des Arts, 1985), p. 359, letter 1644. Translated by the author.
- “Enfin, je vais m’occuper la semaine prochaine de terminer quelques-unes des anciennes choses que vous avez choisies et vous les enverrai d’ici peu.” Monet to Paul Durand-Ruel, Oct. 19, 1901, original French in Daniel Wildenstein, Claude Monet: Biographie et catalogue raisonné, vol. 4, Peintures, 1899–1926 (Bibliothèque des Arts, 1985), p. 359, letter 1644. Translation by the author.
- Paul Hayes Tucker, “The Revolution in the Garden: Monet in the Twentieth Century,” in Paul Hayes Tucker, with George T. M. Shackelford and Mary Anne Stevens, Monet in the 20th Century, exh. cat. (Royal Academy of Arts, London/Museum of Fine Arts, Boston/Yale University Press, 1998), p. 28.
- Monet was working on some of the Vétheuil paintings at the last minute before the exhibition, however. As he announced in contemporaneous letters, some of the canvases were not yet completely dry. See Monet to Bernheim-Jeune, Jan. 31, 1902, original French in Daniel Wildenstein, Claude Monet: Biographie et catalogue raisonné, vol. 4, Peintures, 1899–1926 (Bibliothèque des Arts, 1985), p. 359, letter 1649c.
- For further discussion, see Kimberley Muir, Inge Fiedler, Don H. Johnson, and Robert Erdmann, “Thread Count, Weave, and Ground Analysis of Claude Monet’s Vieille & Troisgros/Troisgros Frères canvases in the Art Institute of Chicago,” in Painting Techniques: History, Materials and Studio Practice (Rijksmuseum, forthcoming). The numbers preceded by a W refer to the Monet catalogue raisonné; see Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vols. 1–4 (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996).
- For an overview of the materials and methods of Claude Monet’s paintings in the Art Institute of Chicago, see Kimberley Muir, Inge Fiedler, Don H. Johnson, and Robert G. Erdmann, “An In-depth Study of the Materials and Technique of Paintings by Claude Monet from the Art Institute of Chicago,” ICOM-CC 17th Triennial Meeting Preprints, Melbourne, Sept. 15–19, 2014 (forthcoming).
- Using the toolbar at the bottom right, any two images of the painting may be selected for comparison by clicking the layers icon to the right of the slider bar. The slider bar may be moved to transition back and forth between the two chosen images. The jagged line icon brings up a list of available annotations, or colored lines that show the significant features visible in each image, which may be turned on or off in any combination. For example, the red annotation lines, associated with the natural-light image, trace some of the painting’s key compositional features. When overlaid onto a technical image (X-ray, raking light, UV, etc.), the red outlines help the viewer to better observe how features in the technical image relate to or diverge from the painting as seen with the naked eye. (When annotations are turned on, a legend appears in the upper right showing each color and its associated image type.) The circular arrow icon returns the image to the default settings (natural light, full-image view, natural-light [red] annotation on). The four-arrow icon toggles between the view of the image in the page and a full-screen view of the image. In the upper right corner, the vertical slider bar may be moved to zoom into or out of the image; different parts of the image can be accessed by clicking and dragging within the image itself. The icon in the upper left corner opens a small view of the full image, within which a red box indicates the portion of the overall image being viewed when zooming is enabled.
- XRF analysis, in conjunction with microscopic examination of the painting surface, indicates that the paint mixture includes lead white, vermilion, and viridian. See Kimberley Muir, “Mon_Vetheuil_33_447_XRF_Results,” Apr. 21, 2011, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.
- Flax was confirmed by microscopic cross-sectional fiber identification; see Inge Fiedler, “1933_447_Monet_analtyical_report,” June 9, 2014, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.
- See, for example, the chart of standard sizes available from Bourgeois Aîné in 1888, reproduced in David Bomford, Jo Kirby, John Leighton, and Ashok Roy, Art in the Making: Impressionism, exh. cat. (National Gallery, London/Yale University Press, 1990), p. 46, fig. 31. The original dimensions of the painting were based on a visual estimate of the original foldovers.
- Thread count and weave information determined by Thread Count Automation Project software; see Don H. Johnson and Robert G. Erdmann, “Thread Count Report: Claude Monet, Vétheuil (W1643/1933.447),” Dec. 2011.
- This suggests that the canvases for the two paintings were cut from the same bolt of fabric. See Don H. Johnson, “Weave Match Report: W1557, W1643,” Apr. 2011. For further discussion, see Kimberley Muir, Inge Fiedler, Don H. Johnson, and Robert Erdmann, “Thread Count, Weave, and Ground Analysis of Claude Monet’s Vieille & Troisgros/Troisgros Frères canvases in the Art Institute of Chicago,” in Painting Techniques: History, Materials and Studio Practice (Rijksmuseum, forthcoming). The number preceded by a W refers to the Monet catalogue raisonné; see Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vols. 1–4 (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996).
- The construction, patina, and labels (see Labels and Inscriptions) suggest that the stretcher may have been original or was added early in the painting’s lifetime.
- See examination record of auxiliary support, n.d., on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.
- The presence of a sizing layer is difficult to determine from cross sections due to previous conservation treatments, including wax-resin lining.
- Microfossils were identified by PLM and SEM/EDX. See Inge Fiedler, “1933_447_Monet_analytical_report,” June 9, 2014.
- Traces of magnesium, aluminum, and silicon were detected in association with the calcium particles and are believed to be impurities often associated with the chalk. The ground composition was analyzed using SEM/EDX, PLM, and XRF. See Inge Fiedler, “1933_447_Monet_analytical_report,” June 9, 2014; Inge Fiedler, “1933_447_Monet_PLM_results,” Oct. 15, 2013; Kimberley Muir, “Mon_Vetheuil_33_447_XRF_Results,” Apr. 21, 2011, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.
- The pigments were identified by the following methods: lead white, cadmium yellow, viridian, vermilion, cobalt blue, cobalt violet (PLM, XRF); chrome yellow, red lake, ultramarine blue (PLM). XRF analysis detected cobalt and arsenic in areas of purple paint, indicating that the cobalt violet is a cobalt arsenate. PLM analysis highlighted the presence of pale-red and deeper-red particles of red lake, suggesting that two different types may be present. Paint scraping samples taken in 1977 were reexamined by PLM in 2013. Analysis was carried out on selected areas and may not include all pigments present in the painting. For more detailed results and conditions used, see Inge Fiedler, “1933_447_Monet_analytical_report,” June 9, 2014; Inge Fiedler, “1933_447_Monet_PLM_results,” Oct, 15, 2013; Kimberley Muir, “Mon_Vetheuil_33_447_XRF_Results,” Apr. 21, 2011, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.
- Identifying the specific type of lake used only by its fluorescence under UV is difficult, as many factors, including the type of substrate, binders, varnishes, and admixtures with other pigments, can ultimately affect the perceived color of the fluorescence. Some types of madder and purpurin lake pigments have been reported to fluoresce orange, but other lakes, such as lacs, may fluoresce as well. The characteristics of red lakes, including their fluorescence under UV, are discussed in Helmut Schweppe and John Winter, “Madder and Alizarin,” in Artists’ Pigments: A Handbook of Their History and Characteristics, ed. Elisabeth West FitzHugh, vol. 3 (National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., 1997), pp. 124–26. See also Ruth Johnston-Feller, Color Science in the Examination of Museum Objects: Nondestructive Procedures (Getty Conservation Institute, 2001), p. 207.
- The binding medium was not analyzed. The estimation of an oil medium is based on visual examination, as well as on knowledge of Monet’s technique and published analyses of Monet paintings in other collections. See, for example, David Bomford, Jo Kirby, John Leighton, and Ashok Roy, Art in the Making: Impressionism, exh. cat. (National Gallery, London/Yale University Press, 1990), pp. 72–75.
- See Alfred Jakstas, treatment report, Mar. 4, 1974, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.
- Kirk Vuillemot, “Monet Frame Descriptions Final,” Dec. 3, 2013, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.
- Kirk Vuillemot, “Monet Frame Descriptions Final,” Dec. 3, 2013, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.
- According to Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vol. 4, Nos. 1596–1983 et les grandes décorations (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), pp. 739–40, cat. 1643 (ill.). This transaction is recorded in Boussod, Valadon & Cie, Paris, stock book 15, 1901–18 (as Vétheuil, effet rose) and includes a price code “INXZ,” decoded by the Getty Research Institute’s online database as 8,000 francs. The Goupil & Cie/Boussod, Valadon & Cie Stock Books are located at the Getty Research Institute’s Research Library, Special Collections, Los Angeles; the stock books have been digitized and are available on the Getty Research Institute’s website. Photocopy of this page in curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago. According to Wildenstein, in 1902, Monet sold two Vétheuil paintings to Boussod and Valadon for 16,000 francs. See Daniel Wildenstein, Monet, or The Triumph of Impressionism, cat. rais., vol. 1 (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), p. 361.
- According to Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vol. 4, Nos. 1596–1983 et les grandes décorations (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), pp. 739–40, cat. 1643 (ill.). This transaction is recorded in Boussod, Valadon & Cie, Paris, stock book 15, 1901–18 (as Vétheuil, effet rose) and includes a price code “PNNXZ,” decoded by the Getty Research Institute’s online database as 10,000 francs. The Goupil & Cie/Boussod, Valadon & Cie Stock Books are located at the Getty Research Institute’s Research Library, Special Collections, Los Angeles; the stock books have been digitized and are available on the Getty Research Institute’s website. Photocopy of this page in curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.
- See Hôtel Drouot, Catalogue des tableaux modernes, dessins et pastels par Bunburry, Constantin Guys, Lautrec, Manet, Marquet, C. Pissarro, Manzana Pissarro, Odilon Redon, Renoir; Oeuvres importantes de Claude Monet; Formant la collection de M. Alfred Savoir et dont la vente aux enchères publiques aura lieu à Paris, sale cat. (Hôtel Drouot, Mar. 22, 1922), lot 16 (ill.), as Vétheuil.
- See Hôtel Drouot, Catalogue des tableaux modernes, dessins et pastels par Bunburry, Constantin Guys, Lautrec, Manet, Marquet, C. Pissarro, Manzana Pissarro, Odilon Redon, Renoir; Oeuvres importantes de Claude Monet; Formant la collection de M. Alfred Savoir et dont la vente aux enchères publiques aura lieu à Paris, sale cat. (Hôtel Drouot, Mar. 22, 1922), lot 16 (ill.), as Vétheuil. The transaction is recorded in the Durand-Ruel, New York, deposit book for 1908–25 (no. 12664, as Vétheuil, 1901): “Purchased by DR Paris on 27 March 1922 at the Savoir Sale (Hôtel Drouot, Paris) for 5 000 F, and sent on deposit to DR New York / DR New York deposit no. 12664; photo 9709,” as confirmed by Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 5, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.
- The transaction is recorded in the Durand-Ruel, New York, deposit book for 1908–25 (no. 12664, as Vétheuil, 1901): “Purchased by DR Paris on 27 March 1922 at the Savoir Sale (Hôtel Drouot, Paris) for 5 000 F, and sent on deposit to DR New York / DR New York deposit no. 12664; photo 9709,” and in the Durand-Ruel, New York, stock book for 1908–25 (no. 4742, as Vétheuil, 1901): “Purchased by DR New York on 22 April 1922 / Stock DR New York no. 4742.” As confirmed by Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 5, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.
- The transaction is recorded in the Durand-Ruel, New York, stock book for 1908–25 (no. 4742, as Vétheuil, 1901): “Purchased by DR New York on 22 April 1922 / Stock DR New York no. 4742,” as confirmed byPaul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 5, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.
- The transaction is recorded in the Durand-Ruel New York stock book for 1926–48 (no. 4742, as Vétheuil, 1901): “Sold to Mrs. L.L. Coburn on 29 September 1926 for $ 10 000,” as confirmed by Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 5, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.
- According to Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vol. 4, Nos. 1596–1983 et les grandes décorations (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), pp. 739–40, cat. 1643 (ill.); 1018.
- This information was confirmed by the Durand-Ruel Archives from “DR New York ‘Remis en dépôt’ Book 1914–1923;” see Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 5, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.
- The exhibition was originally scheduled for March 1–31, 1923, but an annotated version of the catalogue in the library of the Minneapolis Institute of Arts indicates that the exhibition was extended to April 30, 1923.
- It is not known why the painting was sent to the Rhode Island School of Design (RISD): “on loan from DR New York … to the Rhode Island School of Design, Providence from 22 May 1923 until 13 October 1923. We don’t know if these loans were done for exhibitions; from DR New York ‘Remis en dépôt’ Book 1914–1923.” Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 5, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago. This information has been corroborated by Maureen O’Brien, Curator of Painting and Sculpture, and Erika Namaka, Assistant Registrar, at the Museum of Art, Rhode Island School of Design; they have supplied archival documents that show that the painting was sent to RISD by Durand-Ruel, New York, and arrived on May 29, 1923 (RISD inv. no. 044.23); the painting was returned to Durand-Ruel, New York, by RISD on October 9, 1923. It is unknown whether this painting was on loan for exhibition or for purchase consideration.
- According to Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vol. 4, Nos. 1596–1983 et les grandes décorations (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), pp. 739–40, cat. 1643 (ill.); 1018.
- According to Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vol. 4, Nos. 1596–1983 et les grandes décorations (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), pp. 739–40, cat. 1643 (ill.), with supplemental information provided by the Mattatuck Museum. See e-mail correspondence from Christian Gonzales, Archivist, Mattatuck Museum, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Oct. 8, 2013, in curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.
- The exhibition catalogue lists the dates as June 1–November 1, 1934, but newspaper articles confirm that the exhibition closed on October 31. See “Fair Art Exhibition Closes Forever at 5:30 This Afternoon,” Chicago Daily Tribune, Oct. 31, 1934, p. 2; and “Shippers Start Dismantling Art Exhibition Today,” Chicago Daily Tribune, Nov. 1, 1934, p. 3.
- According to shipping out order A2550, on file in Institutional Archives, Art Institute of Chicago; and receipt of object 13906, on file in Museum Registration, Art Institute of Chicago. The shipping out order records that the painting was on loan for study purposes March 1–20, 1954.
- According to Art Institute’s Museum Registration Department Artists Sheets; and receipt of object 14807, on file in Museum Registration, Art Institute of Chicago.
- The exhibition catalogue is printed in Art Institute of Chicago, “Catalogue,” Art Institute of Chicago Quarterly 51, 2 (Apr. 1, 1957), pp. 33–34. Under “Exhibitions” in the same issue, the exhibition dates were listed as April 1–30 (p. 36); however, the show was extended until June 15. See Edith Weigle, “The Wonderful World of Art,” Chicago Daily Tribune, May 26, 1957, p. E2, for an exhibition review and reference to the extension of the length of the show. The April 1957 issue of the Art Institute of Chicago Quarterly was largely dedicated to the Monet works in the Art Institute’s collection. The exhibition marked the first time the Art Institute’s thirty Monet paintings were shown together in the museum.
- According to Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vol. 4, Nos. 1596–1983 et les grandes décorations (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), pp. 739–40, cat. 1643 (ill.); 1018.
- According to Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vol. 4, Nos. 1596–1983 et les grandes décorations (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), pp. 739–40, cat. 1643 (ill.); 1018.
- According to Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vol. 4, Nos. 1596–1983 et les grandes décorations (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), pp. 739–40, cat. 1643 (ill.); 1018.
- According to Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vol. 4, Nos. 1596–1983 et les grandes décorations (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), pp. 739–40, cat. 1643 (ill.); 1018.
- According to Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vol. 4, Nos. 1596–1983 et les grandes décorations (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), pp. 739–40, cat. 1643 (ill.); 1018.
- According to Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vol. 4, Nos. 1596–1983 et les grandes décorations (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), pp. 739–40, cat. 1643 (ill.); 1018.
- According to Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vol. 4, Nos. 1596–1983 et les grandes décorations (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), pp. 739–40, cat. 1643 (ill.); 1018.
- Reprinted in Art Institute of Chicago, Paintings in the Art Institute of Chicago: A Catalogue of the Picture Collection (Art Institute of Chicago, 1968), p. 321.
- The latter was republished as Gloria Groom and Douglas Druick, with the assistance of Dorota Chudzicka and Jill Shaw, The Age of French Impressionism: Masterpieces from the Art Institute of Chicago, rev. and expanded ed. (Art Institute of Chicago/Yale University Press, 2010; repr. 2013), pp. 6 (detail); 177; 178, cat. 95 (ill.); 179; 183.
- See Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 20, 2013. Curatorial Object File, Art Institute of Chicago.
- See Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 20, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.
- See Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 20, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.
- This label was located on the pre-1973/4-treatment stretcher (discarded); preserved in conservation file, Art Institute of Chicago.
- This label was located on the pre-1973/4-treatment stretcher (discarded); preserved in conservation file, Art Institute of Chicago.
- This inscription was on the pre-1973/4-treatment stretcher (discarded); see 1973 photograph in conservation file, Art Institute of Chicago.
- The stretcher dates to the 1973–74 conservation treatment.
- See Don H. Johnson, C. Richard Johnson, Jr., Andrew G. Klein, William A. Sethares, H. Lee, and Ella Hendriks, “A Thread Counting Algorithm for Art Forensics,” 2009 IEEE Thirteenth Digital Signal Processing and Fifth IEEE Signal Processing Education Workshop (IEEE, 2009), pp. 679–84; doi:10.1109/DSP.2009.4786009.
- See Damon M. Conover, John K. Delaney, Paola Ricciardi, and Murray H. Loew, “Towards automatic registration of technical images of works of art,” in Computer Vision and Image Analysis of Art II, ed. David G. Stork, James Coddington, and Anna Bentkowska-Kafel, Proc. SPIE 7869 (SPIE/IS&T, 2011), doi:10.1117/12.872634.
- For an overview of the materials and methods of Claude Monet’s paintings in the Art Institute of Chicago, see Kimberley Muir, Inge Fiedler, Don H. Johnson, and Robert G. Erdmann, “An In-depth Study of the Materials and Technique of Paintings by Claude Monet from the Art Institute of Chicago,” ICOM-CC 17th Triennial Meeting Preprints, Melbourne, Sept. 15–19, 2014 (forthcoming).
- Using the toolbar at the bottom right, any two images of the painting may be selected for comparison by clicking the layers icon to the right of the slider bar. The slider bar may be moved to transition back and forth between the two chosen images. The jagged line icon brings up a list of available annotations, or colored lines that show the significant features visible in each image, which may be turned on or off in any combination. For example, the red annotation lines, associated with the natural-light image, trace some of the painting’s key compositional features. When overlaid onto a technical image (X-ray, raking light, UV, etc.), the red outlines help the viewer to better observe how features in the technical image relate to or diverge from the painting as seen with the naked eye. (When annotations are turned on, a legend appears in the upper right showing each color and its associated image type.) The circular arrow icon returns the image to the default settings (natural light, full-image view, natural-light [red] annotation on). The four-arrow icon toggles between the view of the image in the page and a full-screen view of the image. In the upper right corner, the vertical slider bar may be moved to zoom into or out of the image; different parts of the image can be accessed by clicking and dragging within the image itself. The icon in the upper left corner opens a small view of the full image, within which a red box indicates the portion of the overall image being viewed when zooming is enabled.
- XRF analysis, in conjunction with microscopic and UV examination of the painting surface, indicates that the paint mixture includes lead white, cobalt violet, vermilion, and red lake. See Kimberley Muir, “Mon_Vetheuil_33_1161_XRF_Results,” Apr. 22, 2011, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.
- As observed in several other Monet paintings in the Art Institute collection, the corners and edges of his canvases were often left in a somewhat sketchy state with areas of exposed ground. Monet often added a few strokes to the edges just before signing the work. As his stepson J.-P. Hoschedé noted, Monet “signed his pictures and painted the edges of his canvases which he tended not to paint right up to their margins.” Quoted in John House, Monet: Nature into Art (Yale University Press, 1988), p. 171.
- Flax was confirmed by microscopic cross-sectional fiber identification; see Inge Fiedler, “1933_1161_Monet_analytical_report,” June 11, 2014, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.
- See, for example, the chart of standard sizes available from Bourgeois Aîné in 1888, reproduced in David Bomford, Jo Kirby, John Leighton, and Ashok Roy, Art in the Making: Impressionism, exh. cat. (National Gallery, London/Yale University Press, 1990), p. 46, fig. 31. The original dimensions of the painting were based on a visual estimate of the original foldovers.
- Thread count and weave information determined by Thread Count Automation Project software; see Don H. Johnson and Robert G. Erdmann, “Thread Count Report: Claude Monet, Vétheuil, 1901(W1645/1933.1161),” Dec. 2011.
- The canvas does, however, show a thread-count match with Vétheuil (1901; 1933.447 [W1643]) (cat. 42) and Waterloo Bridge, Gray Weather (1900; 1984.1173 [W1557]) (cat. 38); a warp-thread match was determined between these latter two paintings, but no warp or weft overlap was detected with this painting. The numbers preceded by a W refer to the Monet catalogue raisonné; see Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonnéWerkverzeichnis, vols. 1–4 (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996).
- See examination record of auxiliary support, n.d., on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.
- The presence of a sizing layer is difficult to determine from cross sections due to previous conservation treatments, including wax-resin lining.
- See Inge Fiedler, “1933_1161_Monet_analytical_report,” June 11, 2014, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.
- Microfossils were identified by PLM and SEM/EDX. See Inge Fiedler, “1933_1161_Monet_analytical_report,” June 11, 2014, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.
- Traces of magnesium, aluminum, and silicon were detected in association with the calcium particles and are believed to be impurities often associated with the chalk. Traces of iron detected in the chalk layer may be associated with the chalk or the silicates. The ground composition was analyzed using SEM/EDX, PLM, and XRF. See Inge Fiedler, “1933_1161_Monet_analytical_report,” June 11, 2014; Inge Fiedler, “1933_1161_Monet_PLM_results,” Oct. 15, 2013; Kimberley Muir, “Mon_Vetheuil_33_1161_XRF_Results,” Apr. 22, 2011, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.
- Microfossils were identified by PLM and SEM/EDX. See Inge Fiedler, “1933_1161_Monet_analytical_report,” June 11, 2014, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.
- The ground composition was analyzed using SEM/EDX and XRF. See Inge Fiedler, “1933_1161_Monet_analytical_report,” date; and Kimberley Muir, “Mon_Vetheuil_33_1161_XRF_Results,” Apr. 22, 2011, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.
- These observations are particularly apparent when one compares this painting with Vétheuil (1901; 1933.447 [W1643]) (cat. 42), which depicts the brighter, crisper light of an earlier time of day, and where individual forms are more distinct. The two paintings are very similarly composed, but the perspectives are slightly different. In this painting, the viewpoint is slightly elevated, looking down on the village, whereas in the other Vétheuil picture, the village is slightly higher on the canvas. In addition, the foreground buildings on the right side are also painted at different angles.
- This could have been a general toning layer. It is possible that subsequent layers of retouching were removed in previous cleanings.
- The pigments were identified by the following methods: lead white, cadmium yellow, vermilion, viridian, cobalt blue, cobalt violet (PLM, XRF); chrome yellow, red lake, ultramarine blue (PLM). XRF analysis detected cobalt and arsenic in areas of purple paint, indicating that the cobalt violet is a cobalt arsenate. PLM analysis highlighted the presence of pale-red and deeper-red particles of red lake, suggesting that two different types may be present. Paint scraping samples taken in 1977 were reexamined by PLM in 2013. Analysis was carried out on selected areas and may not include all pigments present in the painting. For more detailed results and conditions used, see Inge Fiedler, “1933_1161_Monet_analytical_report,” June 11, 2014; Inge Fiedler, “1933_1161_Monet_PLM_results,” Oct. 15, 2013; Kimberley Muir, “Mon_Vetheuil_33_1161_XRF_Results,” Apr. 22, 2011, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.
- Identifying the specific type of lake used only by its fluorescence under UV is difficult, as many factors, including the type of substrate, binders, varnishes, and admixtures with other pigments, can ultimately affect the perceived color of the fluorescence. Some types of madder and purpurin lake pigments have been reported to fluoresce orange, but other lakes, such as lacs, may fluoresce as well. The characteristics of red lakes, including their fluorescence under UV, are discussed in Helmut Schweppe and John Winter, “Madder and Alizarin,” in Artists’ Pigments: A Handbook of Their History and Characteristics, ed. Elisabeth West FitzHugh, vol. 3 (National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., 1997), pp. 124–26. See also Ruth Johnston-Feller, Color Science in the Examination of Museum Objects: Nondestructive Procedures (Getty Conservation Institute, 2001), p. 207.
- The retouching material was analyzed by XRF, see Kimberley Muir, “Mon_Vetheuil_33_1161_XRF_Results,” Apr. 22, 2011, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.
- The binding medium was not analyzed. The estimation of an oil medium is based on visual examination, as well as on knowledge of Monet’s technique and published analyses of Monet paintings in other collections. See, for example, David Bomford, Jo Kirby, John Leighton, and Ashok Roy, Art in the Making: Impressionism, exh. cat. (National Gallery, London/Yale University Press, 1990), pp. 72–75.
- See Alfred Jakstas, treatment report, Mar. 4, 1974, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.
- See Alfred Jakstas, treatment report, Mar. 4, 1974, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.
- Kirk Vuillemot, “Monet Frame Descriptions Final,” Dec. 3, 2013, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.
- The transaction is recorded in the Durand-Ruel, Paris, stock book for 1901–13 (no. 8051, as Vétheuil au soleil couchant, 1901): “Purchased from Monet by DR Paris on 8 December 1905 for 12 000 F / Stock DR Paris no. 8051; photo no. 5414,” as confirmed by Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 5, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.
- The transaction is recorded in the Durand-Ruel, Paris, stock book for 1901–13 (no. 8051, as Vétheuil au soleil couchant, 1901): “Sold to Mulle de Jaegher on 8 November 1911 for 20 000 F,” as confirmed by Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 5, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago. See also Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné, vol. 4, Nos. 1596–1983 et les grandes décorations (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), pp. 740–41, cat. 1645 (ill.). See also Durand-Ruel to P. Mulle de Jaegher, dated Nov. 8, 1911, excerpted in Daniel Wildenstein, Claude Monet: Biographie et catalogue raisonné, vol. 4, Peintures, 1899–1926 (Bibliothèque des Arts, 1985), p. 429, piéce justificative 236.
- According to Durand-Ruel, Paris, stock book for 1901–13 (no. 10004, as Vétheuil au soleil couchant, 1901): “Purchased by [sic] from Bernheim-Jeune by DR Paris on 18 April 1912 for 16 000 F; Stock DR Paris no. 10004,” as confirmed by Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 5, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago. See also Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné, vol. 4, Nos. 1596–1983 et les grandes décorations (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), pp. 740–41, cat. 1645 (ill.).
- The transaction is recorded in the Durand-Ruel, Paris, stock book for 1901–13 (no. 10004, as Vétheuil au soleil couchant, 1901): “Purchased by [sic] from Bernheim-Jeune by DR Paris on 18 April 1912 for 16 000 F; Stock DR Paris no. 10004,” as confirmed by Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 5, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.
- The shipment is recorded in the Durand-Ruel, Paris, stock book for 1901–13 (no. 10004, as Vétheuil au soleil couchant, 1901): “sent to DR New York for Ryerson on 31 July 1914 (no price on our book),” as confirmed by Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 5, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago. See also Durand-Ruel to Martin A Ryerson, dated Aug. 20, 1914, which describes a shipment sent to Mr. Ryerson; excerpted in Daniel Wildenstein, Claude Monet: Biographie et catalogue raisonné, vol. 4, Peintures, 1899–1926 (Bibliothèque des Arts, 1985), p. 430, piéce justificative 267. According to Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné, vol. 4, Nos. 1596–1893 et les grandes decorations (Taschen/Wildenstein, 1996), pp. 740–41, cat. 1645 (ill.), Mr. Ryerson acquired the painting in 1914. This painting was on loan from Martin A. Ryerson to the Art Institute of Chicago, intermittently, by 1921, according to Museum Registration department artists sheets, on file in Museum Registration, Art Institute of Chicago.
- According to Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vol. 4, Nos. 1596–1983 et les grandes décorations (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), pp. 740–41, cat. 1645 (ill.); 1018.
- According to Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vol. 4, Nos. 1596–1983 et les grandes décorations (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), pp. 740–41, cat. 1645 (ill.); 1019.
- This information was confirmed by the Durand-Ruel Archives “from Brouillard at 13 March 1907;” see Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 5, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago. See also Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vol. 4, Nos. 1596–1983 et les grandes décorations (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), pp. 740–41, cat. 1645 (ill.); 1019.
- Confirmed by Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 5, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.
- According to Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vol. 4, Nos. 1596–1983 et les grandes décorations (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), pp. 740–41, cat. 1645 (ill.).
- This information was confirmed by the Durand-Ruel Archives; see Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 5, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.
- This information was confirmed by the Durand-Ruel Archives: “from Brouillard at 11 July 1910;” see Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 5, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.
- According to Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vol. 4, Nos. 1596–1983 et les grandes décorations (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), pp. 740–41, cat. 1645 (ill.). According to Arsène Alexandre, “Exposition d’Art Moderne á Hotel de la Revue ‘Les Arts,’” Les arts 128 (Aug. 1912), p. 1, the exhibition was held in June–July 1912.
- This information was confirmed by the Durand-Ruel Archives “from Remis en dépôt 1908-1925;” see Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 5, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.
- Confirmed by Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 5, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago. The catalogue suggests that the painting is for sale; see Galeries Durand-Ruel, Tableaux par Claude Monet, exh. cat. (Galeries Durand-Ruel/Imprimerie de l’Art, 1914), cat. 34.
- The exhibition catalogue lists the dates as June 1–November 1, 1934, but newspaper articles confirm that the exhibition closed on October 31. See “Fair Art Exhibition Closes Forever at 5:30 This Afternoon,” Chicago Daily Tribune, Oct. 31, 1934, p. 2; and “Shippers Start Dismantling Art Exhibition Today,” Chicago Daily Tribune, Nov. 1, 1934, p. 3.
- According to receipt of objects 14474, and Museum Registrar’s department artists sheets, on file in Museum Registration, Art Institute of Chicago.
- According to receipt of objects 14807, and Museum Registrar’s department artists sheets, on file in Museum Registration, Art Institute of Chicago.
- The exhibition catalogue is printed in Art Institute of Chicago, “Catalogue,” Art Institute of Chicago Quarterly 51, 2 (Apr. 1, 1957), pp. 33–34. Under “Exhibitions” in the same issue, the exhibition dates were listed as April 1–30 (p. 36); however, the show was extended until June 15. See Edith Weigle, “The Wonderful World of Art,” Chicago Daily Tribune, May 26, 1957, p. E2, for an exhibition review and reference to the extension of the length of the show. The April 1957 issue of the Art Institute of Chicago Quarterly was largely dedicated to the Monet works in the Art Institute’s collection. The exhibition marked the first time the Art Institute’s thirty Monet paintings were shown together in the museum.
- According to Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vol. 4, Nos. 1596–1983 et les grandes décorations (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), pp. 740–41, cat. 1645 (ill.).
- According to Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vol. 4, Nos. 1596–1983 et les grandes décorations (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), pp. 740–41, cat. 1645 (ill.).
- According to Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vol. 4, Nos. 1596–1983 et les grandes décorations (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), pp. 740–41, cat. 1645 (ill.).
- According to Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vol. 4, Nos. 1596–1983 et les grandes décorations (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), pp. 740–41, cat. 1645 (ill.).
- Confirmed by Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 5, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.
- According to Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vol. 4, Nos. 1596–1983 et les grandes décorations (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), pp. 740–41, cat. 1645 (ill.).
- According to Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vol. 4, Nos. 1596–1983 et les grandes décorations (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), pp. 740–41, cat. 1645 (ill.).
- According to Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vol. 4, Nos. 1596–1983 et les grandes décorations (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), pp. 740–41, cat. 1645 (ill.).
- Confirmed by Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 5, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago. The catalogue suggests that the painting is for sale.
- Reprinted in Art Institute of Chicago, A Guide to the Paintings in the Permanent Collection (Art Institute of Chicago, 1932), p. 186, cat. 716.14.
- The latter was republished as Gloria Groom and Douglas Druick, with the assistance of Dorota Chudzicka and Jill Shaw, The Age of French Impressionism: Masterpieces from the Art Institute of Chicago rev. and expanded ed. (Art Institute of Chicago/Yale University Press, 2010; repr. 2013), pp. 177; 178; 179, cat. 96 (ill.); 183.
- See Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 20, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.
- See Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 20, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.
- See Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 20, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.
- The location of this label was on the pre-1974-treatment stretcher (discarded); preserved in conservation file, Art Institute of Chicago.
- The stretcher dates to the 1974 conservation treatment (see Conservation History).
- The painting was lined in 1974 (see Conservation History).
- See Don H. Johnson, C. Richard Johnson, Jr., Andrew G. Klein, William A. Sethares, H. Lee, and Ella Hendriks, “A Thread Counting Algorithm for Art Forensics,” 2009 IEEE Thirteenth Digital Signal Processing and Fifth IEEE Signal Processing Education Workshop (IEEE, 2009), pp. 679–84; doi:10.1109/DSP.2009.4786009.
- See Damon M. Conover, John K. Delaney, Paola Ricciardi, and Murray H. Loew, “Towards Automatic Registration of Technical Images of Works of Art,” in Computer Vision and Image Analysis of Art II, ed. David G. Stork, James Coddington, and Anna Bentkowska-Kafel, Proc. SPIE 7869 (SPIE/IS&T, 2011), doi:10.1117/12.872634.
Entry by Jill Shaw; Technical Report by Kirk Vuillemot and Kimberley Muir, “Cats. 42–43 Vétheuil, 1901,” in Monet Paintings and Drawings at the Art Institute of Chicago, ed. Gloria Groom and Jill Shaw, rev. ed. (2014; repr., Art Institute of Chicago, 2026), https://doi.org/10.53269/9780865592698/29.
