Technical Summary

Pierre-Auguste Renoir’s Lunch at the Restaurant Fournaise (The Rowers’ Lunch) was painted in several wet-in-wet campaigns and contains a number of compositional changes. The artist began with a commercially primed, standard portrait no. 15 canvas turned on its side, onto which he likely added a selective preparatory layer covering specific parts of the compositional area.1 This selective layer incorporates added oil medium and a warmer hue, which allowed for minimum absorption of subsequent paint layers and provided a warm background off of which the artist could play the cool colors of the background and water.

There are significant compositional changes in the left half of the composition. X-ray and raking-light images suggest that, in an earlier version of the painting, there was a figure situated in the space between the two individuals who appear at left in the final composition. Summary underdrawing lines in a dry medium may be related to this figure’s head; additional lines seem to indicate the left side of the trellis opening and the outer curve of the far-left visible figure’s leg; the nature of these lines, however, is rather intermittent and haphazard. It seems the left side of the original composition featured only this single figure painted in profile. Heavy brushwork under the far-left visible figure suggests additional changes before the artist executed the forward-facing male figure.

There are also some minor and partially developed alterations to the right side of the canvas. In the X-ray, a curvilinear form beginning just to the right of the figure and continuing through the torso and a second form just below it may suggest elements of the back of a chair. As these elements were abandoned in their early stages, it is unclear how this placement would have affected the posture of the male figure.

The artist used alimited palette,and many of the hues were mixed on the surface of the painting rather than on the artist’s palette. Instead of carefully blending mixtures and dabbing them onto the surface, the artist appears to have dipped his brush in two or more colors and applied them directly to the canvas, where they exist almost side-by-side; elsewhere, the artist applied a new color into a still-wet stroke to create this effect. The structure of the paint layers suggests that the painting was probably executed in a limited number of sessions, with each wet-in-wet layer allowed to dry before the next layer was applied. The brushwork ranges from heavily blended and smooth to thick impasto, and the heaviest texture is generally reserved for the lower half of the composition. Various small dabs and details, including the highlights on the bottles in the foreground and the small flowers above the figures’ heads, appear to be the final steps of the process.

Signature

Signature/stamp

Signed: Renoir. (lower left, in warm black paint).2 (MIC 1, MIC 10 signature details)

Structure and Technique

Support

Canvas

Flax, commonly known as linen.3

Standard format

The original size of the canvas was approximately 54 × 64.7 cm, according to 1971 pretreatment measurements.4 This probably corresponds to a no. 15 portrait (figure) standard size (65 × 54 cm), turned horizontally.5

Weave

Plain weave. Average thread count (standard deviation): (22.0)V (0.9) × (23.9)H (0.8) threads/cm. The horizontal threads were determined to correspond to the warp and the vertical threads to the weft.6

Canvas characteristics

The canvas has very mild scalloping around the edges, especially at the left, corresponding to the placement of the original tacks.

Stretching

Current stretching: When the painting was lined in 1971, the original dimensions were slightly increased on all sides (see Conservation History).

Original stretching: Based on scalloping visible in the X-ray, the original tacks were placed 5–6 cm apart.

Stretcher/strainer

Current stretcher: Four-member ICA redwood spring stretcher. Depth: 2.6 cm.

Original stretcher: Five-member keyable stretcher with vertical crossbar. Depth: approximately 1.8 cm.7 (image: Ren 22.437 71PT VRS)

Manufacturer’s/supplier’s marks

Stamp

Location: original canvas (covered by lining)

Method: stamp

Content: M_DEFORGE CARPENTIER S^r / COULEURS FINES / ET TOILES [á] PEINDRE / 6 Rue Halevy 6 / PARIS / [. . .] Rue Legendre, 62 [. . .]8 (images: Ren 22.437 VRS stamp, Ren 22.437 71PT VRS, TRNS IR)

Preparatory Layers

Sizing

Not determined (probably glue)9

Ground application/texture

The canvas was prepared with commercially applied priming that extends to the edges of the tacking margins. This commercial priming appears to be a single layer, is rather thin and porous, and does not completely fill the weave.

It appears Renoir added a selective layer to parts of the composition, especially visible in the upper half of the composition.10 This selective preparatory layer is thicker, smoother, and more medium-rich than the commercial ground; it leaves some of the canvas texture visible. The outer perimeter of this layer has a soft edge, suggesting it was applied with a brush; however, the overall texture of this layer is very smooth with no discernable brushstrokes. (images: MIC2)

Color

The color of the commercially applied ground layer appears to be off-white, but it is difficult to determine.While from the surface there is no microscopic evidence of additional pigment particles in this layer, analysis indicates the presence of a small amount of an iron-containing pigment, such as iron oxide red or yellow. This commercial layer is slightly porous and has darkened due to the combined effects of accumulated grime and the saturation of the wax-resin lining material (see Condition Summary and Conservation History). Because of this discoloration, it is difficult to determine what effect this limited amount of colored pigment would have had on the overall tone of this layer.

The selective preparatory layer is slightly tinted to appear warm beige, and dark particles are visible microscopically in this layer. In some areas, largely in the upper portions of the background, this layer was left exposed by the artist to provide a warm contrast to the cool tones of the river. (image: MAC 1 detail of upper left exposed ground—also shows artist’s use of canvas texture, MAC 8 tinted ground)

Materials/composition

The commercial ground is predominantly lead white with a significant amount of barium sulfate. There are also small amounts of iron oxide red or yellow, iron-containing aluminum silicates, silica and calcium-based whites, and trace amounts of bone black.11

The selective layer is also predominantly lead white with iron oxide red or yellow and barium- and calcium-containing compounds. Stereomicroscopic examination of this layer suggests the presence of black or dark-brown particles.12

Compositional Planning/Underdrawing/Painted Sketch

Extent/character

Infrared examination reveals very summary contour outlines that may relate to compositional elements left of center, including the possible outline of a head (visible in the X-ray) located between the two currently visible figures (see Paint Layer and Technical Summary); the continuation of the vertical line that forms the left side of the trellis opening; and a faint, curved line near the bottom left corner that relates to the outer contour of the far-left figure’s leg.13 (images: full Infrared, detail IR of lower left)

Medium/technique

Dry media (chalk or charcoal?). (images: IR media detail 2)

Revisions

No compositional changes noted in drawing stage, see Paint Layer.

Paint Layer

Application/technique and artist’s revision

It seems that Renoir began this composition with the figures, bringing up the background colors around them after they were painted and subsequent to any major compositional changes. This is especially evident in the female figure, painted in relatively radio-transparentpigments easily penetrated by the X-ray. X-radiography also indicates that landscape elements do not pass under the female figure’s head, and brushstrokes come up to and abruptly end around the figures, creating a kind of halo effect. (image: overlay or dtl LL overlay) The table at center seems to be one of the earliest compositional elements, with the figures and much of the background brought in around it.

There is evidence that Renoir made significant changes to this composition. Thick, directional brushwork visible at the lower left of the canvas does not match the final composition, suggesting that there are possible pentimenti in this area; these changes are clarified in raking light and X-radiography.(image: MAC 16 pentimenti, left) The X-ray documents what appears to be a profile and head (perhaps corresponding with some of the underdrawing lines) situated between the two currently visible figures in the left half of the composition. The right arm of the figure in profile appears to extend to the table, along a line similar to that of the currently visible female figure. The thickness of the added paint layers in this area obscures the original colors of the underlying composition, making a clear identification difficult. Cross-sectional analysis in this area indicates the original figure’s costume toward the bottom was a light bluish-white with areas of reddish and purple highlights, similar in tone to the seated figure at the right, but with greater impasto.14 (cross section: #1245) The composition appears to have featured only two figures in this early stage: one at the right and one at the left (in profile). Examination of the left side of the painting in raking light calls attention to a ridge of paint that echoes the curved line of this figure’s back (though it is further to the left). This may indicate movement of the original figure further to the left or an adjustment to the position of the visible figure at the far left. Raking light also suggests that the artist painted out original compositional choices at the far left in thick, short diagonal brushstrokes before he executed the almost forward-facing head of the figure in the final composition. (image: MAC 5 far L figure head) The bulk of this original figure, however, does not appear painted out but merely covered in the process of executing the two visible figures.

Raking light and X-radiography suggest that elements on the right side of the canvas may also have been altered. A horizontal curvilinear form beginning just right of the figure and passing in front of his torso, with a smaller horizontal element below it, suggests a change in the position of the chair. It is unclear how the placement of the chair would have affected the posture of the figure, and these elements appear to have been abandoned in their early stages. (image XR dtl and visible OVR) In visible light as well as in the X-ray, it appears that the angle of the right arm of this figure was also changed. The elbow was raised and the forearm made narrower in the finishing paint layers; however, the original position of the elbow is still visible on the surface. The exact placement of the figure’s left arm and hand also appear slightly adjusted. Downward directional strokes through the torso as well as the thick strokes of background and underpainting across and around and head may hint at further changes to this figure’s posture. (images: MAC 14 R figure’s hand, MAC 4 arm)

In the top half of the composition, the background, the initial layers of the water, and the shoreline were painted first. The outline of the trellis opening was established next, followed by the boats and rowers, and finally the trellis and climbing foliage; each layer was allowed to dry before the subsequent elements were executed. The artist developed the water with heavy, textured brushstrokes and added color throughout the process (generally before the trellis lattice and climbing foliage); however, the initial layers seem relatively thin in most areas, passing under various compositional elements in the upper half. (image: MAC 15 water painted first)

Overall, the paint is largely applied wet-in-wet over a few campaigns, each of which was allowed to dry between sessions. Most of the colors were mixed directly on the canvas rather than on the artist’s palette. At times, the artist dipped his brush into two or three separate colors before applying a stroke on the canvas, and swirls of unmixed paint can be seen throughout the work. (images: MAC 10 chair – wet-in-wet; MIC 6 yellow, green and blue)

The soft edges of the objects and figures—at times defined as much by the texture of the brushstroke, a physical ridge of paint, as by the color shift itself—indicate that Renoir used a soft brush. It is also noteworthy that the artist used medium-rich toning layers, sometimes called glazes. Renoir’s glazes seem limited to the woman in the dark-blue dress, for which he layered translucent, oil-rich dark reds and greens over an opaque blue and white mixture to add tonal nuance and a sense of volume, incorporating pure blue, red lake, yellow, and perhaps black. This smoothness is countered by heavy brushwork elsewhere and the artist’s manipulation of the canvas texture. Despite the smoother texture offered by a thick preparation, the artist accentuates the weave texture in many areas, dragging a loaded brush across the surface and catching only the thread tops. (image (pick one): MAC 3 glazes , MAC 17 waist glaze, or MAC 12 shoulder)

Painting tools

Brushes, mostly soft to medium, flat and round, with strokes up to 1 cm wide.

Palette

Analysis indicates the presence of the following pigments:15 lead white, cobalt blue,16 chrome yellow, viridian, emerald green, vermilion, two red lakes and possibly chrome orange.17

Stereomicroscopic examination of the surface suggests the presence of black.

Ultraviolet examination indicates that the artist used fluorescing red lake in areas of the female figure’s costume and chair, and mixed with other colors in the signature and flesh tones, based on the observation of a characteristic salmon fluorescence.18 Cross-sectional analysis indicates Renoir used a second nonfluorescing red lake in select areas of the composition.19 (images: MAC 2 flowers. MIC 9 flesh tone and/or MIC 5 red)

Binding media

Oil (estimated).20

Surface Finish

Varnish layer/media

A natural resin varnish was removed and replaced with the current synthetic varnish in 1971. Pretreatment photographs of the verso indicate that the natural resin varnish had penetrated cracks in the paint layer and stained the back of the canvas. (image: ren 22.437 PT VRS) This suggests that either the natural resin varnish was applied after the painting had aged, or the work was cleaned in the past, causing partially dissolved varnish and solvent to stain the canvas (see Conservation History). There are residues of the earlier natural resin varnish around the areas of impasto. Because the paint is medium-rich and the artist-applied ground is nonporous, the current varnish probably has had minimal impact on the overall tonality of the painting. The thin synthetic surface coating only slightly saturates the painting, adds more gloss and emphasizes the overall texture of the work.

Conservation History

The painting’s condition was first documented in 1921, when it was noted that the darks were cracking.21 In 1971 the painting was cleaned, restretched, lined, and revarnished.22 The 1971 pretreatment condition notes indicate that the work was stretched on a five-member stretcher and had brittle fabric and a discolored varnish. Before the lining, grime and the natural resin varnish were removed with solvents, while additional overpaint on the right figure’s pants was removed mechanically. The lining process included facing the work with starch paste, followed by wax-resin lining to a new piece of linen. The painting was restretched on a redwood ICA spring stretcher slightly larger than the composition, leaving a small, unpainted border around the perimeter. The changes to the dimensions are as follows: in the pretreatment report, the work measured 21 5/16 ´ 25 1/2 in., while in the post-treatment report it was listed as 21 5/8 ´ 25 7/8 in. After restretching and removing the facing, the painting was given three coats of synthetic varnish (an isolating layer of polyvinyl acetate [PVA] AYAA, followed by methacrylate resin L-46, and finally AYAA) and retouched.

Condition Summary

The work is in good condition. It is lined with wax resin and attached to a four-member spring stretcher with tacks. The wax resin has saturated the commercial ground, and in conjunction with accumulated grime, has altered the ground color from white to taupe, while the heat and pressure of this process slightly increased the textural presence of the weave. Due to the thickness of the selective ground and subsequent paint layers, the overall tonality of the painting does not appear affected. Some areas of thinner paint, areas of exposed commercial priming, and thinner areas of artist-applied ground were slightly pushed into the canvas by the pressure and heat of the lining process (microcracking is visible under the microscope). The original tacking margins were flattened when the painting was lined, and much abrasion is present around the original edges of the work. Some of this abrasion, as well as other mild abrasion throughout the work, is likely a result of the prelining cleaning. The restretching increased the dimensions on all sides, leaving a small almost one-quarter-inch unpainted border around the edges of the composition. The paint layer is in very good condition, with few areas of cracking and localized minor losses. Pronounced cracking is limited to the dark blue dress of the female figure at the left, where the artist apparently employed medium-rich glazes. The work has a glossy synthetic varnish, and minor residues of discolored natural resin varnish are present around areas of impasto.