Cat. 14 On the Bank of the Seine, Bennecourt, 1868

A Popular Destination

On the Bank of the Seine, Bennecourt is the only surviving work from Claude Monet’s two-month stay outside Paris with Camille Doncieux and their infant son in 1868.2 They were pensionnaires at the Dumont auberge, located in Gloton, the riverbank hamlet of Bennecourt.3 Émile Zola had recently vacationed there with Paul Cézanne and other artists and had given Monet a glowing report.4 The modest rent and the description of the solicitous Mme Dumont must have appealed to Monet, whose financial situation in this period was precarious.5

Scholars have generally assumed that Zola’s enthusiastic recommendation was the impetus for Monet’s trip to Gloton that spring. But Zola was not the only figure in Monet’s circle who had discovered the charms of the area. It was a favored setting of the painter Charles-François Daubigny, a crucial early advocate of Monet’s who facilitated the inclusion of Boats Coming out of the Port of Le Havre (location unknown [W89]) in the 1868 Salon, which opened in May.6 Daubigny had begun his career painting landscapes in the forest of Fontainebleau; by the 1850s he was specializing in plein air river scenes, which he painted from a small boat that he had outfitted as a floating studio and nicknamed “Le Botin” (or little box).7 Several of Daubigny’s ambitious canvases from the late 1850s to the early 1860s feature Gloton’s riverfront rowhouses from the viewpoint of the Seine (see, e.g., fig. 14.1).

Bennecourt and Gloton were halfway between Rouen and Paris, reachable by way of Bonnières-sur-Seine, which was on the Paris–Le Havre railroad line, departing from the Saint-Lazare station. The easy accessibility by train surely was another factor in Monet’s choice of vacation destination. Upon arrival at Bonnières-sur-Seine one took a chain ferry to the Grande Île, one of the many islets that dotted this elbow of the Seine, and from there over to Bennecourt and Gloton on the opposite bank.8 The Masterpiece (L'oeuvre), Zola’s novel of the failed artist Charles Lantier, has a description of the riverscape of Bennecourt, whose yellow houses straggle along the river bank.”9 Neighboring Gloton’s shore was bisected by the descente du bac (see fig. 14.2), the wide path at which the ferry (bac) docked that one could follow up to the street.10 Daubigny depicted these very elements in River Scene (Le bac à Gloton) (fig. 14.3), which shows Gloton on the left, and the wooded riverbank of the Grande Île on the right, linked by the descente du bac and the ferry seen in the middle ground.

Monet had hitherto produced only a few river scenes, and his treatment in On the Bank of the Seine, Bennecourt was in stark contrast to the beaches of Normandy he had painted the previous summer, with their local fishermen and fashionably dressed tourists (see, e.g., The Beach at Sainte-Adresse [cat. 13] [W92]).11 He may well have had Daubigny and, in particular, paintings like The Village of Gloton (fig. 14.1) in mind when he chose as a subject the very view recently depicted by Daubigny. Although Monet’s scene seems compressed when compared with Daubigny’s expansive vista, topographical details are still distinguishable. Monet channeled his viewpoint through Camille, who sits on the shady Grande Île looking toward the descente du bac and the imposing facade of Mme Dumont’s auberge, which the viewer perceives only as a watery reflection.12

Painting as Biography

The sketchy, unresolved surface of the center left of On the Bank of the Seine, Bennecourt has generated much debate and many interpretations. Monet laid in the composition in thinly painted zones to indicate the Gloton embankment, bifurcated by the descente du bac (see Technical Report). The X-ray image indicates that Monet blocked in the river and elements of the sky and landscape before the foreground figure and tree trunks were included (fig. 14.4). The X-ray also shows that the grassy bank was extended over the water between the two trees and behind and under part of Camille’s back, then roughly painted out with bright blue. At that time or soon thereafter, Monet added one or possibly two figures, fitting them on the bank of the Grande Île in a very unorthodox way. The final composition is Daubigny-esque in its location only, with similar compositional details. The light, textural brushwork, compression of space, and prominent placement of Camille speak to Monet’s new painterly vocabulary, resulting in an updating of Daubigny’s picturesque riverbank view.

Far from hidden, Monet’s compositional adjustments are visible to the naked eye. Although difficult to read, pentimenti are clearly discernible in the water to the right of Camille. Mary Mathews Gedo has advanced an interpretation that at some point the Monets’ ten-month-old son, Jean, was in the picture, positioned in his mother’s lap, facing her with outstretched arms and holding a toy in his left hand.13 In Gedo’s scenario, a fluffy white dog was on Camille’s lap as well, which she suggests could have been the same dog Monet depicted being held by Camille in 1866 (fig. 14.5).14 Gedo reasons that the complications of posing an infant may have occasioned his removal.15 Whether the repainted area on Camille’s lap (fig. 14.6) is a small dog or a baby remains in question, as does the significance of what appears to be another figure just to the right of Camille, indeed, almost occupying the same space. Monet chose not to scrape out or paint over this second figure completely, instead leaving tantalizingly telling bits of flesh color visible on the surface.

Although Gedo identifies the pentimenti to the right of Camille as a small child, recent findings indicate that they are possibly that of a second adult. The head floating next to Camille’s in the X-ray (fig. 14.7) is too large for a ten-month-old, suggesting that the painted-over figure is another adult, possibly wearing a bonnet-like hat. It is also possible that this second figure held a small baby with a bonnet, or a doll, whose face is indicated by the flesh tones discernible within the blue of the water (fig. 14.8).

Absent other drawings or preparatory sketches,16 we can surmise that Monet repainted as his ideas evolved, allowing traces of former arrangements to show through and sometimes integrating them into the revised imagery. Technical imaging of the work offers glimpses of the artist’s process, although it does not reveal definitively the figures that were included in intermediate stages.

The Figure of Camille: New Observations

This trip to Gloton was the first time Camille had left Paris since the birth of Jean in August 1867. Here she is a tourist gazing out at the Seine. She is at once subject and staffage—personally significant to the artist but also a functional guidepost used to direct the viewer’s attention across the water.17 Despite her pictorial importance, she is messily handled with a wet-on-wet paint application, a result of the artist working through several compositional ideas. Her blue-and-white-striped bodice includes breaks through which one can see the blue of the river that was laid in first (fig. 14.9). Also intruding are dashes of dark green, remnants of either the earlier extended grassy bank or overhanging leaves (fig. 14.10). The streaks of blue in her dress appear at times accidental, but in some instances Monet deliberately worked them into the final composition, giving their random presence a new visual purpose.

Monet’s treatment of Camille’s face, silhouetted against the water, is even more radical than his depiction of her figure. Scholars have suggested that it appears unfinished, raising the possibility that the artist abandoned his work on the canvas and that the signature and date are later additions.18 Added during a later session, her head covers the reflection of the auberge in the river (fig. 14.11). The unfinished quality of her face is in part due to a brushstroke that leaves her with a fuzzy chin line (fig. 14.12); the two columns of strokes made to highlight the back of her neck (fig. 14.13) add to the unusual way in which Camille’s face in profile is captured. The left, lighter-colored strokes in particular—which are thickly applied over the hairline and over the collar of her bodice—look more like a ribbon, an accessory to her hatless hair that has little to do with her actual neckline. This further accentuates the blockiness of her profile, which, in concert with the exaggeratedly large, pink-red ear, gives her a monkey-like quality.19 Seen in an extremely foreshortened profile, she subverts the viewer’s anticipated pleasure of contemplating a female figure in reverie at the water’s edge.20

On the Other Shore (Gloton)

Complementing, indeed bookending, Camille as urban visitor are the two fashionable females on the opposite bank. The one wearing a pink hat is turned in profile to face a sketch pad or small easel (fig. 14.14 and fig. 14.15). The white splotch to her left has been identified as a white dog, although what should be the corresponding reflection in the river is a rather indistinguishable white splash of paint that may instead represent a tablecloth or receptacle.21 Both women wear voluminous garments composed of horizontal bands of color, which may have been intended to suggest the decorative flounces and the crinoline style still popular in 1868.22 In the figure at right in particular, the horizontal white stroke has been applied ragged wet-on-wet into the gray; the effect is that of an apron-like tulle overskirt, with a bottom edge accentuated by a fine white filigree (fig. 14.16).23

To the left of this pair of fashionable women, Monet played with the paradigms of city and country, modern and traditional, leisure and work. Browns and whites suggest cows drinking (fig. 14.17), a nod, perhaps, to Daubigny’s paintings at Gloton, especially the 1859 River Scene (Le bac à Gloton) (fig. 14.3).24 Short, vertical brushstrokes of blue identify the cowherdess, her plain, monochrome garment contrasting with the hats and trimmed dresses of the seated amateurs de l’art. In addition to the cows and cowherdess, Monet includes one of the more picturesque aspects of the site—the bac, or ferry. It is the small, irregularly shaped, ocher-colored object at the far left, partially eclipsed by the overhanging trees and moored to a rust-and-blue form, which is as illegible as the reflections in the river. Easier to discern is a female passenger, seated facing the back of the boat, whose blue dress with pink hat and triangular shawl indicates that she shares the same high social status as the woman sketching on the opposite bank and suggests that she is a tourist crossing from the Grande Île over to Gloton.

Signing Off

Much attention has been paid to whether On the Bank of the Seine, Bennecourt was a finished work or one that was abandoned and later signed and dated. Some scholars have concluded from the wet-over-dry addition of the signature and date and the summarily and boldly abbreviated treatment of grass and wildflowers (fig. 14.18) that the picture was reworked and signed later.25 In Women in the Garden (fig. 14.19) from the previous summer one sees a similar large-scale signature and shorthand treatment of the grass and wildflowers.26 It is thought that the Chicago painting was not exhibited until 1889, when Monet included it in the Monet-Rodin exhibition held at Galerie Georges Petit, but this does not necessarily indicate that he reworked or even returned to the canvas.27 Rather than a composition left incomplete, On the Bank of the Seine, Bennecourt, with its complex and sometimes unsettling surface, seems to have been the result of initial decisions and later changes of course, suggesting not careful premeditation but instead an organic working method.

Painting as Legacy

Monet’s stay in Gloton came to a peremptory end on June 26 when, as he wrote to Bazille, he was “thrown out of the inn,” “naked as a worm.”28 Leaving Camille and Jean with Mme Dumont, he returned to his family and patrons in Le Havre.29 The canvas sustained damages that appear to be quite old and may indicate Mme Dumont’s hasty return of the painting along with the artist’s belongings or perhaps Monet’s own careless handling of this work after his summer residence was unexpectedly cut short.30 The relatively crude manner in which the work was repaired—a tear in the upper left (fig. 14.20) and a puncture to the right of Camille (fig. 14.21) were mended with lead white paint or adhesive—could be an indication that the restorations were done by Monet himself.31

Although sometimes viewed as a discrete experiment, a mere overture to the more transformative work Monet accomplished with Pierre-Auguste Renoir the following summer at La Grenoullière, On the Banks of the Seine, Bennecourt should be considered an immediate forerunner to those works that were concerned with reflective surfaces. Not only did Monet update the elements of river scenes explored by Daubigny, but this picture also marks the first experimentations with inverted water reflections and shadows cast by overhanging leaves, motifs that would dominate the Mornings on the Seine series (see cat. 36 [W1475]) and the later Water Lily series (see cat. 44 [W1889]).32

After considering the alterations Monet made to On the Bank of the Seine, Bennecourt, one may conclude that the composition began as an unpeopled riverscape before the artist reshaped it into a genre painting, now part biography, whose full meaning is painted out but is allowed to linger as flashes of underpainting. Monet staked his painterly claim on this island in the Seine, using the figure of Camille not only to lead our eye across the water but perhaps also as a stand-in for himself. Monet’s struggle with the principal figures of this composition, which as shown were either altered or painted out, may suggest his own ambivalence toward his personal situation at the time. For, it was near Bennecourt where he housed his family temporarily and where he no doubt keenly felt the pressures of fatherhood (although unable to keep his household together when faced with eviction); he set out to describe the view from the other bank, using the diaphanous but critically important figure of Camille. This is a portrait of a place, revised and messily resolved through Monet’s artistic lens.
Gloria Groom

Technical Report

Technical Summary

Claude Monet’s On the Bank of the Seine, Bennecourt was painted on a pre-primed, no. 40 portrait (figure), standard-size linen canvas. A stamp from the color merchant Deforge[-Carpentier]33 was documented on the back of the original canvas before lining. The off-white ground consists of a single layer. A few charcoal particles were observed microscopically in the water on the right side of the painting, which could be related to underdrawing, but insufficient material was observed to draw any conclusions about its nature or extent. The painting was carried out in several sessions and includes some major revisions to the composition, most significantly the painting out of a figure to the immediate right of the female figure. What is perhaps the face of the painted-out figure remains partially visible through the artist’s roughly-applied overpaint. The two figures appear to have been painted within a relatively short time span, and may even have coexisted within the composition at some point. Both figures were added to the work later in the painting process on top of the landscape. The tiny figures and animals on the opposite side of the river were also added later. Other changes made to the landscape include some forms on the hilltop on the right side that were subsequently covered by the sky and alterations to the foreground riverbank in the area of the female figure. It seems that some parts of the reflection in the river capture the landscape and sky at earlier painting stages, resulting in some apparent discrepancies between what is depicted in the actual landscape and what is reflected in the water. There are several old damages to the canvas and paint layers, and repairs and retouching in these areas may date to early in the painting’s history.34

Multilayer Interactive Image Viewer

The multilayer interactive image viewer is designed to facilitate the viewer’s exploration and comparison of the technical images (fig. 14.22).35

Signature

Signed and dated: Cl Monet 1868 (lower left, dark reddish-brown paint) (fig. 14.23).36 The signature and date contain similar pigments but are mixed in different proportions, as evidenced by their slightly different hues when viewed under magnification; they also exhibit a slightly different fluorescence from one another under UV, ultraviolet light (fig. 14.24).37 Both were applied when the underlying paint was dry.

Structure and Technique

Support

Canvas

Flax (commonly known as linen).38

Standard Format

The original dimensions were approximately 81 × 100 cm. This corresponds to a no. 40 portrait (figure) standard-size canvas, turned horizontally.39

Weave

Plain weave. Average thread count (standard deviation): 28.7V (1.3) × 30.3H (0.8) threads/cm. It was determined that the horizontal threads correspond to the warp and the vertical threads to the weft.40 No weave matches were found with other Monet paintings analyzed for this project.

Canvas characteristics

There is mild cusping on the left and right sides, with more pronounced cusping along the top and especially along the bottom edge.

Stretching

Current stretching: Dates to 1973 conservation treatment (see Conservation History). Copper tacks spaced approximately 6–7 cm apart. It appears that the canvas was stretched slightly larger than its original dimensions, with approximately 0.5 cm of unpainted tacking margin visible on the left, right, and top edges.

Original stretching: Tack holes spaced approximately 5–7 cm apart.

Stretcher/strainer

Current: Four-membered ICA spring stretcher. Depth: 2.5 cm.

Original: Discarded. An undated pre-1973-treatment report indicates that the previous stretcher consisted of six members, including horizontal and vertical crossbars, with mortise and tenon joints and keys. The report gives the following dimensions: overall, 82 × 100 cm; outside depth, 2 cm; inside depth, 2 cm; width, 6.5 cm.41

Manufacturer’s/supplier’s marks

There is a supplier’s stamp on the back of the original canvas, which was photographed before the painting was lined in 1973 (see Conservation History): “DEFORGE . . . / COULEURS FINES / ET TOILES à PEINDRE / [Boulevard] Montmartre, 8 / PARIS / Atelier Rue Legendre . . . Batignolles”(fig. 14.25, fig. 14.26).42

Preparatory Layers

Sizing

Not determined (probably glue).43

Ground application/texture

The ground extends to the edges of the top, left, and right tacking margins but appears to stop short of the bottom edge (fig. 14.27).44 This indicates that the canvas was cut from a larger piece of primed fabric on the top, left, and right sides; the bottom edge probably corresponds to the edge of the larger roll of canvas that was attached to the frame during priming. The canvas was probably commercially prepared. The ground consists of a single layer that ranges from approximately 15 to 80 µm in thickness (fig. 14.28).

Color

The ground layer is off-white.

Materials/composition

Analysis indicates that the ground contains lead white with minor amounts of iron oxide red and yellow, and traces of bone black, alumina, calcium-based white, barium sulfate, and silicates.45

Compositional Planning/Underdrawing/Painted Sketch

Extent/character

No evidence of underdrawing was detected with infrared reflectography; however, a few localized areas of black particulate matter were observed microscopically in the water, on the right side of the painting (fig. 14.29). It is uncertain whether this material is related to preparatory drawing. In some areas, the black particles seem to lie on top of the paint layer and may have been picked up by the brush in the process of painting (fig. 14.30).

Medium/technique

Charcoal.46

Revisions

If the material is related to preparatory drawing, the amount observed on the surface of the painting is insufficient to draw any conclusions about the extent of the underdrawing or any revisions to the original compositional plan.

Paint Layer

Application/technique and artist’s revisions

Most of the landscape was built up in broad, relatively flat planes of color. In some areas, the paint was quite thinly applied, especially at the junctures of forms, where the ground layer remains partially exposed (fig. 14.31). It appears that the composition was laid in with thin layers of more subdued tones than those used in the final painting; for example, dull greens and earth tones are observed throughout the landscape (fig. 14.32, fig. 14.33). The underpainting of the sky varies from warm cream to pinkish-gray and continues underneath the foliage to the left edge of the painting. The brush-marked texture of this underlayer remains visible at breaks in the brushwork and through some of the thin layers of paint applied on top (fig. 14.34). The streaky, more radio-opaque forms visible in the upper-left corner seem to correspond to this underlayer (fig. 14.35).47 Most of the foreground bank was quickly brushed in using dilute green paint; further buildup in this area was mostly limited to the touches of white and yellow flowers (fig. 14.36). The painting was carried out in several sessions and includes both wet-over-dry and wet-in-wet paint application at various stages. The landscape was well established before any of the figures or animals were added. The female figure in the foreground, as well as the figures and animals on the other side of the river, were painted on top of the landscape, in some cases, when the brushstrokes from the landscape were already surface dry (fig. 14.37, fig. 14.38).

Several compositional changes have been made to the painting, and some areas were never fully resolved by the artist. This makes it somewhat challenging to reconstruct the evolution of the work. It is clear, even to the unaided eye, however, that another figure was originally included in the composition immediately to the right of the female figure. This figure was subsequently painted out, but elements of what may be the head and face remain partially visible on the surface (fig. 14.39). The brushwork outlining the head, which is rather thick and suggestive of a hat or a bonnet, and the flesh-toned paint of the face can be seen through the thin layers of artist’s overpaint applied on top (fig. 14.40). One interpretation of this pentimento is that the figure is a child who stands on the female figure’s lap, facing out toward the viewer.48 There are two other localized areas of flesh-colored paint, partially visible underneath the gray, artist’s overpaint further down in the composition (fig. 14.41, fig. 14.42, fig. 14.43). These areas have been interpreted as the right hand of the woman grasping the right hand of the child (on the left side) and the outstretched left hand of the child (on the right side).49 The recent technical examination offers an alternative interpretation for consideration, namely, that the painted-out figure is an adult female, who sits facing the viewer (fig. 14.44). The scale of the head and the facial features (which seem to be indicated by localized areas of deep-red paint partially visible on the surface) (fig. 14.45) may be more in keeping with an adult figure than a child. The radio-opaque, lead white–rich strokes, which are visible in the X-ray below the head and continue down to the edge of the grassy bank, seem to be related to the body of the painted-out figure (fig. 14.46). The upper part of this white brushwork was roughly covered by the artist while the lower area was incorporated into the final painting and has sometimes been interpreted as a dog perched on the female figure’s lap.50 Further examination of the X-ray reveals another form just below the painted-out head. It is tempting to read this as the head of an infant child or a doll wearing a bonnet (possibly cradled in the lap of the painted-out figure)—and, in fact, one of the small areas of flesh-toned paint corresponds to where the face of this child or doll would be located (fig. 14.47)—but this is more speculative (fig. 14.48).

Both the painted-out figure and the final female figure were painted on top of the landscape, the water, and the reflections of the buildings. In some places, the paint from the landscape was still wet. For example, the gray stroke on the left edge of the painted-out head was dragged through the still-soft paint of the corner of the reflected building and the foliage from the layers underneath (fig. 14.49). Similarly, the edge of the final female figure’s right shoulder appears to be wet-in-wet with the pale-blue-gray paint layer of the water (fig. 14.50). The buildings and foliage reflected in the water continue underneath the edge of this figure’s head (fig. 14.51) and are visible microscopically through drying cracks and tiny gaps in her hair (fig. 14.11); the hair appears to have been painted wet-on-wet with the thick white strokes of the building’s reflection at the upper front and back of the head (fig. 14.52). It is evident, through the open brushwork of the blue-striped dress, which becomes increasingly sketchy below the figure’s waist, that her body was also painted over the water, grass, and foliage (fig. 14.53). In the area of the water to the left of the figure’s back, dark-green paint is sandwiched between layers of blue from the water. This seems to indicate that at one point the grassy bank was extended further out over the water on the left side of the painting (fig. 14.54, fig. 14.55).51 In the area between the two tree trunks, the grass itself, including one of the yellow flowers continues underneath the upper blue layer where the water was extended over the grass. Some of the dark-green paint from the earlier shoreline can still be seen through the open brushwork of the woman’s dress (fig. 14.55). In this area, the green paint appears to have been applied wet-in-wet over a pale-blue layer, presumably the first painting of the river. The brighter-blue layer applied on top was added when the underlying greenery was dry. This bright-blue paint from the water continues under the figure’s back, where it stands in for the blue stripes of the dress in places (fig. 14.56). The blue paint looks like it was still slightly wet in places when the dress was painted. The skirt was painted on top of the grass and some of the yellow flowers (the two at waist level), while the two lower flowers were added on top of the skirt (fig. 14.57). The pale-green patch of grass and yellow flowers left of the figure were also added later; there is some wet-in-wet mixing with the pale gray of the edge of the skirt. The bright white strokes to the right of the woman (sometimes interpreted as a dog),52 appear to have originally been part of the painted-out figure. The white brushwork was also applied over the brighter blue of the water and some of the dark-green and brown paint (applied wet-in-wet on top of the water) that appears to be related to a branch or vine (or reflection of such) that continues on either side of the white form (fig. 14.58). The small flesh-tone area just above the white strokes appears to lie on top of the white paint (fig. 14.59). The other flesh-colored paint stroke, further to the left, seems to have been picked up by the edge of the striped dress, suggesting that it was still wet when the dress was painted (fig. 14.60). All of these observations seem to indicate that both the final female figure and the painted-out figure were painted on top of the landscape after some changes to the shoreline had been made. Furthermore, since both figures show evidence of some wet-in-wet mixing with the landscape, they were probably painted within a short time span of one another, if not contemporaneously, suggesting that they may have coexisted in the composition at some point. It seems that the rowboat in the foreground also may not have been included in the composition from the beginning. The back part of the boat was painted on top of the first layers of the water, and the front half was added over a thin green wash that may correspond to the original lay-in of the riverbank (fig. 14.61). The grass where it overlaps the boat and the bright-blue patch of water to the right of the boat were added last in this area.

The fact that the paint used to cover the figure does not disturb the ridges of the underlying brushmarks, as well as the presence of several small areas of interlayer cleavage between the two painting campaigns (fig. 14.62), suggests that the figure was at least surface dry when the artist painted it out. The gray paint that covers the torso only overlaps the final female figure along the edge of her right arm but it seems that the paint from her dress was also dry at this point (fig. 14.63). The gray overpaint appears to have been painted up to the lower right flesh-toned area; the “flesh” area was then obscured by the thick, grayish-white stroke (fig. 14.64). Although it cannot be ruled out that the artist’s overpaint has been thinned or compromised in past cleanings, it does seem that Monet was not overly concerned with completely concealing all traces of the earlier figure and that its presence was always visible to some extent.

A few other more minor changes to the composition were observed. It appears that early in the painting, forms related to the sky, the tree foliage, and the river were laid in underneath the two tree trunks, suggesting that these compositional elements were blocked in on the left side before the tree trunks were added. However, the painting could not have been very far developed when the trunks were incorporated, as they remain relatively radio-transparent and the river and village were largely built up around them (fig. 14.65). In front of the houses near the right edge, a few other painted-out forms are visible in the transmitted IR and X-ray images. These may be related to additional windows and greenery that were later painted out (fig. 14.66); for example, a painted-out area of green can be seen, microscopically, to the left of the shrub that is in front of the white house at the far right, perhaps suggesting that more shrubbery was planned there (fig. 14.67). Further revisions appear to have been made to the sky in the upper right corner of the painting. Brushwork unrelated to the final composition is revealed with the aid of infrared and [glossary:transmitted infrared imaging] (fig. 14.68). It is unclear what this earlier brushwork depicted but it seems like the warm, terracotta color of the underlayer of the hill continues underneath the sky. In the upper right corner, this warm-toned layer continues in a broad band all the way to the top of the canvas (fig. 14.69), and interestingly, in the final painting, the reflection of the sky in the river seems disrupted in this area, as though a form was being reflected there. The pale, brush-marked underpainting that initially covered most of the sky also seems to stop when it reaches this area in the upper right corner, suggesting that some form was blocked into the corner early on (fig. 14.70). The warm-toned paint of the pentimento is also visible in a small area further to the left, where there is a gap in the blue paint of the sky (fig. 14.71). This small peak also seems to have been incorporated into the reflection, suggesting that the sky was reworked after the reflection was painted. In fact, there seem to be several discrepancies between the village and its reflection; for example, more of the green hillside but not all of the buildings are included in the reflection. Furthermore, the hillside seems out of scale with the reflection of the large white building to the left. This could suggest that the reflection represents an earlier stage of the composition.

Several damages appear to have occurred early in the painting’s history. There is a large, L-shaped tear, which was repaired and filled early on using a lead white–rich paint or adhesive. This shows up as a radio-opaque area in the X-ray (fig. 14.72). Another damage, possibly a small puncture in the canvas, just to the right of the painted-out figure, was treated in a similar way. The repair creates a roughly circular form on the surface of the painting (fig. 14.73, fig. 14.74).53 It is unclear when or by whom the repairs were carried out, however, it cannot be ruled out, that Monet himself may have had a hand in them. In any case, the nature of the retouching in the larger tear area, which is more dense and solid than the rest of the foliage, raises the question of whether the foliage was originally painted this densely. The X-ray indicates that the buildings on the far shore were painted in some detail right up to the tree trunk (fig. 14.75). It seems questionable that Monet would have developed the buildings to this degree, only to obscure them with the dense foliage. In fact, this runs counter to the technique he used to depict glimpses of sky peeking through the foliage: rather than painting broad strokes of blue sky, then adding the foliage on top, localized touches of blue were applied over the initial lay-in of the foliage, with additional leaves built up over that (fig. 14.76). Other signs of damage include gouges in the soft paint, particularly in the lower center area (fig. 14.77, fig. 14.78).

Painting tools

Brushes, including 1–2 cm width, flat ferrule (based on width and shape of brushstrokes).

Palette

Analysis indicates the presence of the following pigments: lead white, bone black, chrome yellow, yellow, red, and brown iron oxides including burnt sienna, vermilion, red lake, emerald green, viridian, cobalt blue, and ultramarine blue.54 Relatively large white clumps are visible microscopically throughout the paint surface, imparting a distinct bumpy surface (fig. 14.79). This may be associated with the lead white paint used by the artist. UV fluorescence suggests the use of red lake in the signature and date.55

Binding media

Oil (estimated).56

Surface Finish

Varnish layer/media

The painting has a relatively matte, synthetic varnish, which was applied in 1973. In the 1973 treatment, a yellowed, natural-resin varnish was removed. The application of the natural-resin varnish is not documented but must postdate the 1959 varnish removal (see Conservation History).

Conservation History

Undocumented restorations associated with damages in the canvas (an L-shaped tear in the upper left quadrant and a possible puncture at lower center (see Condition Summary) appear to be quite old. These areas were repaired using a lead white–containing material, probably applied from the front and the back of the canvas, to act as a consolidant for the tear and serve as a fill material for the retouching. The repairs were carried out before the aqueous lining that is documented as early as 195757 and was removed in the 1973 treatment (see below).

In 1959, discolored (extremely yellowish-gray) varnish was removed.58

In 1973, discolored surface films and overpaint were removed (fig. 14.80). The aqueous lining was removed, along with excess lead white paint on both sides of the tear. The painting was wax-resin lined and stretched on to a new ICA spring stretcher. A coating of polyvinyl acetate (PVA) AYAA was applied and inpainting was carried out. A coating of methacrylate resin L46 was applied, followed by a final coating of PVA AYAA.59

Condition Summary

The painting is in good condition overall but suffers from old damages and restorations. The canvas is wax-resin lined and stretched on an ICA spring stretcher. The spring stretcher is slightly larger than the original stretcher, resulting in a border of unpainted ground from the tacking margins around the edges. There is an L-shaped tear in the canvas, in the upper-left quadrant, in the area of dense foliage above the figure’s head. It measures approximately 19 cm in the horizontal direction and 4 cm in the vertical direction. There is another damage in the foreground, just to the left of the back end of the rowboat, which appears to be a puncture in the canvas. Both areas of damage were somewhat crudely repaired with a lead white–containing material. The repairs appear to be quite old and were carried out at least before the aqueous lining, which was first documented in 1957. Other small damages in the paint were observed in the area of the painted-out figure and appear to have occurred when the artist’s “overpaint” was still soft. Retouching associated with these damages is slightly mismatched. There is extensive retouching around all of the edges associated with the border of exposed ground mentioned above. Other localized areas of retouching are scattered throughout the painting. There is a concentrated area of retouching in the upper right corner; its purpose may have been to conceal the warm-brown underlayer in that area, which may have become more noticeable over time. There are a few tiny, localized areas of interlayer cleavage between the artist’s “overpaint” and the painted-out figure. These areas are secure. There are some areas of crushed impasto, likely the result of pressure from the lining treatments. There are some fine age cracks visible throughout the painting and a fairly extensive network of fine drying cracks in the dark green and brown paint of the trees and the sitter’s head. The surface is coated with a synthetic varnish, which has a relatively matte finish.
Kimberley Muir

Frame

Current frame (2008): The frame is not original to the painting. It is a French, mid-nineteenth-century, reverse-ogee frame with composition acanthus-leaf miters, a hollowed frieze, and a composition beaded sight molding. The frame is water gilded over red bole on gesso and composition ornament. The torus and hollow are burnished; the rest of the gilding was left matte and retains its original glue size. There is casein overpaint on the sides of the frame. The fruitwood molding is mitered with angled dovetailed splines. The molding, from perimeter to interior, is fillet; torus (three-quarter round) with a step; reverse ogee with composition acanthus-leaf ornament at the miter; fillet; hollow; fillet; frieze with beaded composition ornament; and cove sight (fig. 14.81).60

Previous frame (removed 2008): The work was previously housed in an American (New York), mid-twentieth-century reproduction of an Italian Baroque frame with a bolection profile with spiral-leaf outer molding and a centered laurel-leaf sight molding. The frame has a white-gold distressed finish and an independent liner with a beveled sight (fig. 14.82).61

Previous frame: Sometime between 1956 and 1962, the work was housed in a painted shadow box. The painting’s stretcher was mounted to the back panel of the frame with the edges of the canvas exposed. The frame was probably only utilized during this installation (fig. 14.83).62
Kirk Vuillemot

Selected References

Galerie Georges Petit, Claude Monet—A. Rodin, exh. cat. (Imp. de l’Art, 1889), p. 28, cat. 7.74

Copley Society, Boston, Loan Collection of Paintings by Claude Monet and Eleven Sculptures by August Rodin, exh. cat. (Copley Society, 1905), p. 25, cat. 78.

Art Institute of Chicago, Paintings from the Collection of Mrs. Potter Palmer, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago, 1910), cat. 40 or cat. 41.

Art Institute of Chicago, Annual Report (Art Institute of Chicago, 1921), (ill.).

Art Institute of Chicago, “Library Notes,” Bulletin of the Art Institute of Chicago 15, 5 (Sept.–Oct. 1921), p. 160 (ill.).

Art Institute of Chicago, “Accessions and Loans,” Bulletin of the Art Institute of Chicago 16, 3 (May 1922), p. 47.

Art Institute of Chicago, Handbook of Sculpture, Architecture, and Paintings, pt. 2, Paintings (Art Institute of Chicago, 1922), p. 68, cat. 831.75

Art Institute of Chicago, “The Potter Palmer Collection of Paintings,” Bulletin of the Art Institute of Chicago 16, 3 (May 1922), p. 38.

Art Institute of Chicago, A Guide to the Paintings in the Permanent Collection (Art Institute of Chicago, 1925), pp. 62 (ill.); 146, cat. 831.76

M. C., “Monets in the Art Institute,” Bulletin of the Art Institute of Chicago 19, 2 (Feb. 1925), pp. 18 (ill.), 19.

Art Institute of Chicago, Catalogue of “A Century of Progress”: Exhibition of Paintings and Sculpture; Lent from American Collections, ed. Daniel Catton Rich, 3rd ed., exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago, 1933), pp. 43, cat. 291; pl. 54/cat. 291.

Daniel Catton Rich, “Französische Impressionisten im Art Institute zu Chicago,” Pantheon: Monatsschrift für freunde und sammler der kunst 11, 3 (Mar. 1933), p. 77. Translated by C. C. H. Drechsel as “French Impressionists in the Art Institute of Chicago,” Pantheon/Cicerone (Mar. 1933), p. 18.

Art Institute of Chicago, “The Century of Progress Exhibition of the Fine Arts,” Bulletin of the Art Institute of Chicago 27, 4 (Apr. –May, 1933), p. 65.

C.[larence] J.[oseph] Bulliet, Art Masterpieces in a Century of Progress Fine Arts Exhibition at the Art Institute of Chicago, vol. 2 (Chicago Daily News/North-Mariano, 1933), no. 83 (ill.).

Daniel Catton Rich, “The Exhibition of French Art: ‘Art Institute’ of Chicago,” Formes 33 (1933), (ill.).

Art Institute of Chicago, Catalogue of “A Century of Progress”: Exhibition of Paintings and Sculpture, 1934, ed. Daniel Catton Rich, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago, 1934), p. 36, cat. 208.

Art Institute of Chicago, A Brief Illustrated Guide to the Collections (Art Institute of Chicago, 1935), p. 28 (ill.).77

René Brimo, L’évolution du goût aux États-Unis, d’après l’histoire des collections (James Fortune, 1938), p. 159.

Lionello Venturi, Les archives de l’impressionnisme: Lettres de Renoir, Monet, Pissarro, Sisley et autres; Mémoires de Paul Durand-Ruel; Documents, vol. 1 (Durand-Ruel, 1939), p. 23.

Sheldon Cheney, The Story of Modern Art (Viking, 1941), p. 181 (ill.).

Ernst Scheyer, “Jean Frédéric Bazille–the Beginnings of Impressionism, 1862–1870,” Art Quarterly 5, 2 (Spring 1942), pp. 123, fig. 2; 125–26.

Frederick A. Sweet, “Potter Palmer and the Painting Department,” Bulletin of the Art Institute of Chicago 37, 6 (Nov. 1943), p. 86 (ill.).

John Rewald, The History of Impressionism (Museum of Modern Art, New York/Simon & Schuster, 1946), p. 188 (ill.).

Oscar Reuterswärd, Monet: En konstnärshistorik (Bonniers, 1948), p. 283.

Lionello Venturi, Impressionisti e Simbolisti: Da Manet a Lautrec . . . (Del Turco, 1950), pp. 56; fig. 50. Translated by Francis Steegmuller as Impressionists and Symbolists: Manet, Degas, Monet, Pissarro, Sisley, Renoir, Cezanne, Seurat, Gauguin, van Gogh, Toulouse-Lautrec (Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1950), pp. 56; fig. 50.

Art Institute of Chicago, “Homage to Claude Monet,” Art Institute of Chicago Quarterly 51, 2 (Apr. 1, 1957), p. 26 (ill.).

Art Institute of Chicago, “Catalogue,” Art Institute of Chicago Quarterly 51, 2 (Apr. 1, 1957), p. 33.

Arts Council of Great Britain, Edinburgh International Festival 1957, Claude Monet: An Exhibition of Paintings, exh. cat. (Royal Scottish Academy, [1957]), pp. 42, cat. 13; pl. 16e.

William N. Eisendrath, Jr., “Water Lilies by Claude Monet,” Bulletin of the City Art Museum of St. Louis 42, 2 (1957), p. 16.

Edith Weigle, “The Wonderful World of Art,” Chicago Daily Tribune, May 26, 1957, p. E2 (ill.).

William C. Seitz, Claude Monet (Abrams, 1960), pp. 23, 78–79 (ill.).

Art Institute of Chicago, Paintings in the Art Institute of Chicago: A Catalogue of the Picture Collection (Art Institute of Chicago, 1961), p. 318.78

Wildenstein and Co., Masterpieces: Loan Exhibition of Paintings and Drawings; A Memorial Exhibition for Adele R. Levy, Benefit of the Citizens’ Committee for Children of New York, Inc., exh. cat. (Wildenstein, 1961), p. 50, cat. 40 (ill.).

Yvon Taillandier, Monet, trans. A. P. H. Hamilton (Crown [1963]), p. 26 (ill.).79

Rodolphe Walter, “Emile Zola et Claude Monet,” Les cahiers naturalistes 26 (1964), pp. 52–53.

Frederick A. Sweet, “Great Chicago Collectors,” Apollo 84 (Sept. 1966), pp. 192, fig. 9; 194.

Joel Isaacson, “The Early Paintings of Claude Monet” (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Berkeley, 1967), pp. xii; 186–88; 197; 201; 205; 206; pl. 64.

Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Impressions (International Art Book [Lausanne], 1967), p. 26.

Rodolphe Walter, “Critique d’art et vérité: Émile Zola en 1868,” Gazette des beaux-arts 73 (Apr. 1969), pp. 227; 228, fig. 2; 229; 230.

Rodolphe Walter, “Emile Zola à Bennecourt en 1868: Les vacances d’un chroniqueur,” Les cahiers naturalistes 37 (1969), p. 30.

Charles C. Cunningham and Satoshi Takahashi, Shikago Bijutsukan [Art Institute of Chicago], Museums of the World 32 (Kodansha, 1970), pp. 54, cat. 40 (ill.); 160.

William Gaunt, The Impressionists (Thames & Hudson, 1970), pp. 78–79, pl. 12; 288.80

John Maxon, The Art Institute of Chicago (Abrams, 1970), pp. 11, 81 (ill.), 284.81

Gerald Needham, “The Paintings of Claude Monet, 1859–1878” (Ph.D. diss., New York University, 1971), pp. 176–79; 197; 198; 201; fig. 51.

Luigina Rossi Bortolatto, L’opera completa di Claude Monet: 1870–1889, Classici dell’arte 63 (Rizzoli, 1972), pp. 89, cat. 23 (ill.); 90.

Pierre Courthion, Impressionism, trans. John Shepley (Abrams, 1972), p. 14 (ill.).

Art Institute of Chicago, “Lecturer’s Choice,” Bulletin of the Art Institute of Chicago 67, 4 (Jul.–Aug. 1973), p. 11.

Kermit Swiler Champa, Studies in Early Impressionism (Yale University Press, 1973), pp. 25; 27; 28; 59; 63, fig. 30.

Daniel Wildenstein, Claude Monet: Biographie et catalogue raisonné, vol. 1, Peintures, 1840–1881 (Bibliothèque des Arts, 1974), pp. 39; 168; 169, cat. 110 (ill.); 447, pièce justificative 65.

Grace Seiberling, “The Evolution of an Impressionist,” in Paintings by Monet, ed. Susan Wise, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago, 1975), pp. 24, 25–26.

Susan Wise, ed., Paintings by Monet, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago, 1975), p. 71, cat. 17 (ill.).

Alice Bellony-Rewald, The Lost World of the Impressionists (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1976), pp. 90–91 (ill.).

Art Institute of Chicago, 100 Masterpieces (Art Institute of Chicago, 1978), pp. 20; 91, fig. 49.

J. Patrice Marandel and François Daulte, Frédéric Bazille and Early Impressionism, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago, 1978), pp. 74; 138–39, cat. 71 (ill.).

Roger Terry Dunn, “The Monet-Rodin Exhibition at the Galerie Georges Petit in 1889” (Ph.D. diss., Northwestern University, 1978), p. 246.

Joel Isaacson, Claude Monet: Observation and Reflection (Phaidon/Dutton, 1978), pp. 8; 17; 18; 19; 72, pl. 24 (detail); 73, pl. 25; 197; 200; 211.

J. Patrice Marandel, The Art Institute of Chicago: Favorite Impressionist Paintings (Crown, 1979), pp. 54–55 (ill.).

Sophie Monneret, L’impressionnisme et son époque: Dictionnaire international illustré, vol. 1 (Denoël, 1979), p. 247 (ill.).

Daniel Wildenstein, Claude Monet: Biographie et catalogue raisonné, vol. 3, Peintures, 1887–1898 (Bibliothèque des Arts, 1979), pp. 21, n. 825; 249, letter 986.

Hélène Adhémar, Anne Distel, and Sylvie Gache, Hommage à Claude Monet (1840–1926), exh. cat. (Réunion des Musées Nationaux, 1980), pp. 84–86, cat. 18 (ill.).

Diane Kelder, The Great Book of French Impressionism (Abbeville, 1980), pp. 194 (ill.), 437.82

Diane Kelder, The Great Book of French Impressionism, Tiny Folios (Abbeville, 1980), p. 114, pl. 6.

Musée Toulouse-Lautrec and Art Institute of Chicago, Trésors impressionnistes du Musée de Chicago, exh. cat. (Musée Toulouse-Lautrec, 1980), pp. 12, no. 10 (ill.); 67.

Art Institute of Chicago, Pocketguide to the Art Institute of Chicago (Art Institute of Chicago, 1983), pp. 24, fig. 26; 62.83

Robert Gordon and Andrew Forge, Monet (Abrams, 1983), pp. 73, 74, 75 (ill.), 76–77.

John Russell, “Monet as a Vital Link to the Future,” New York Times, Dec. 4, 1983, p. H33 (ill.).

Andrea P. A. Belloli, ed., A Day in the Country: Impressionism and the French Landscape, exh. cat. (Los Angeles County Museum of Art, 1984), pp. 50–51 (detail), 365.

Scott Schaefer, “Rivers, Roads, and Trains,” in A Day in the Country: Impressionism and the French Landscape, ed. Andrea P. A. Belloli, exh. cat. (Los Angeles County Museum of Art, 1984), pp. 154; 156, no. 47; 158.

Charles F. Stuckey, “Monet’s Art and the Act of Vision,” in Aspects of Monet: A Symposium on the Artist’s Life and Times, ed. John Rewald and Frances Weitzenhoffer (Abrams, 1984), pp. 106 (detail); 115, fig. 51; 116.

Art Institute of Chicago, Seibu Museum of Art, Kyoto Municipal Museum of Art, and Fukuoka Art Museum, eds., Shikago bijutsukan insho-ha ten [The Impressionist tradition: Masterpieces from the Art Institute of Chicago], trans. Akihiko Inoue, Hideo Namba, Heisaku Harada, and Yoko Maeda, exh. cat. (Nihon Nippon Television Network, 1985), pp. 16; 52, cat. 18 (ill.); 53 (detail); 138–39, cat. 18 (ill.).

Réunion des Musées Nationaux, L’impressionnisme et le paysage français, exh. cat. (Réunion des Musées Nationaux, 1985), front cover (detail), pp. 2 (detail), 4.

Scott Schaefer, “Rivières, routes et chemins de fer,” in Réunion des Musées Nationaux, L’impressionnisme et le paysage français, exh. cat. (Réunion des Musées Nationaux, 1985), pp. 155–56, no. 52 (ill.).

Charles F. Stuckey, ed., Monet: A Retrospective (Hugh Lauter Levin, 1985), p. 46, pl. 14.

Daniel Wildenstein, Claude Monet: Biographie et catalogue raisonné, vol. 4, Peintures, 1899–1926 (Bibliothèque des Arts, 1985), p. 44, n. 412.

Art Institute of Chicago, “Museum News,” Mosaic (Jan.–Feb. 1986), p. 11 (ill.).

National Gallery of Scotland, Lighting Up the Landscape: French Impressionism and Its Origins, exh. cat. (National Galleries of Scotland, 1986), front cover (detail), back cover (ill.); p. 72, cat. 86.

Richard R. Brettell, French Impressionists (Art Institute of Chicago/Abrams, 1987), pp. 10 (detail), 11, 13 (ill.), 118.

Douglas Skeggs, River of Light: Monet’s Impressions of the Seine (Victor Gollancz, 1987), pp. 50 (ill.), 51–54, 68, 150.

Art Institute of Chicago, Master Paintings in the Art Institute of Chicago, selected by James N. Wood and Katharine C. Lee (Art Institute of Chicago/New York Graphic Society/Little, Brown, 1988), pp. 8, 54 (ill.), 167.

Michel Péricard, in collaboration with Laure Blanchet, Les peintres et les Yvelines (Sogemo, 1988), pp. 17 (ill.), 140 (detail), 141.

Rodolphe Walter, “Aux sources de l’impressionnisme: Bennecourt,” L’oeil 393 (Apr. 1988), pp. 33–34, fig. 7; 35–36.

Francesco Arcangeli, Monet (Nuova Alfa, 1989), pp. 42–43; 96, fig. 22; 154.

Don Buschlen and Lawrence Kreisman, Gantner: A Life in the Country (Gantner: La vie à la campagne), with an introduction by Barrie Mowatt, trans. Carole Clement (Buschlen-Mowatt Gallery, 1989), pp. 49 (ill.), 204.

Michael Howard, Monet (Brompton, 1989), pp. 33, 52–53 (ill.).

Musée Rodin, Claude Monet-Auguste Rodin: Centenaire de l’exposition de 1889, exh. cat. (Musée Rodin, 1989), pp. 54, 74 (ill.).

Ronald R. Bernier, “Depiction and Criticism: Aspects of Monet’s Art 1874–1895” (Ph.D. diss., Essex University, 1990), pp. 96–103; 106; 108; 115; 302; fig. 15.

David Bomford, Jo Kirby, John Leighton, and Ashok Roy, Art in the Making: Impressionism (National Gallery, London/Yale University Press, 1990), pp. 122; 123, pl. 82.

Margaret Carroll, “Chicago’s Debt: Art Institute Owes Much to 1890s Patrons,” Chicago Tribune, July 15, 1990, p. 4 (ill).

Jean Paul Crespelle, Guide de la France impressionniste: Sites, musées, promenades, Les guides visuels (Hazan, 1990), cover (ill.); p. 51 (ill.).

Rodolphe Rapetti, Monet (Anaya/Giorgio Mondadori, 1990), p. 26, pl. 6. Translated by Richard Crevier as Monet, Masters’ Gallery (Arch Cape/Outlet Book, 1990), p. 26, pl. 6.

Karin Sagner-Düchting, Claude Monet, 1840–1926: Ein Fest für die Augen (Benedikt Taschen, 1990), pp. 38, 42 (ill.), 45, 47. Translated by Karen Williams as Claude Monet, 1840–1926: A Feast for the Eyes, trans. (Taschen, 2004), pp. 38, 42 (ill.), 45, 47.

Michael Clarke, Corot and the Art of Landscape (British Museum Press, 1991), pp. 107, ill. 103; 110.

Charles F. Stuckey, French Painting (Hugh Lauter Levin/Macmillan, 1991), p. 141 (ill.).

Sophie Fourny-Dargère, Monet, Profils de l’art (Chêne, 1992), pp. 47, fig. 5 (detail), fig. 6; 156.

Mary Anne Stevens, “Villeneuve-la-Garenne,” in Alfred Sisley, ed. Mary Anne Stevens, exh. cat. (Royal Academy of Arts, London/Musée d’Orsay/Walters Art Gallery/Yale University Press, 1992), p. 112.

Russell Ash, The Impressionists’ River: Views of the Seine (Universe, 1992), pp. 8; 14–15 (ill.).

Scott Reyburn, Monet (Medici Society, 1992), p. 8 (ill.).

Virginia Spate, Claude Monet: Life and Work (Rizzoli/Thames & Hudson, 1992), pp. 52–53; 54; 59; 63, ill. 64; 83; 88; 138; 186–87; 191; 339.

Marianne Alphant, Claude Monet: Une vie dans le paysage (Hazan, 1993), pp. 192, 194, 355, 650.

Art Institute of Chicago, Treasures of 19th- and 20th-Century Painting: The Art Institute of Chicago, with an introduction by James N. Wood (Art Institute of Chicago/Abbeville, 1993), p. 51 (ill.).

Valérie Bajou, Frédéric Bazille, 1841–1870 (Edisud, 1993), pp. 60; 164, ill. 90; 171.

Alexis Gregory, Families of Fortune: Life in the Gilded Age (Rizzoli, 1993), p. 157 (ill.).

Christoph Heinrich, Claude Monet, 1840–1926 (Benedikt Taschen, 1993), pp. 22 (ill.), 29, 94.

John Sillevis, et al., Licht, lucht en water: De verloren idylle van het riviergezicht, exh. cat. (Waanders Uitgevers Zwolle/Noordbrabants Museum’s-Hertogenbosch, 1993), pp. 29, fig. 16; 31.

Jean-Paul Crespelle, Monet, rev. ed. (Studio Editions, 1994), p. 13.

Steven Z. Levine, Monet, Narcissus, and Self-Reflection: The Modernist Myth of the Self (University of Chicago Press, 1994), pp. fig. 62; 114; 116; 125.

Henri Loyrette and Gary Tinterow, Impressionnisme: Les origines, 1859–1869, exh. cat. (Réunion des Musées Nationaux, 1994), pp. 297; 433, cat. 141/ill. 181.

Nancy Nunhead, Claude Monet (Barnes & Noble/Brompton, 1994), pp. 36–37 (ill.).

Gary Tinterow, “Figures dans un paysage,” in Henri Loyrette and Gary Tinterow, Impressionnisme: Les origines, 1859–1869, exh. cat. (Réunion des Musées Nationaux, 1994), p. 144, ill. 181/cat. 141.

Gary Tinterow, “Figures in a Landscape,” in Gary Tinterow and Henri Loyrette, Origins of Impressionism, exh. cat. (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York/Abrams, 1994), p. 144, fig. 181/cat. 141.

Gary Tinterow and Henri Loyrette, Origins of Impressionism, exh. cat. (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York/Abrams, 1994), pp. 297; 436, cat. 141/fig. 181.

Alexandra Bonfante-Warren, Country Life, Celebrations in Art (MetroBooks, 1995), (ill.).

Andrew Forge, Monet, Artists in Focus (Art Institute of Chicago, 1995), pp. 13; 15 (detail); 16–17; 36; 65; 74, pl. 3; 106.

Charles F. Stuckey, with the assistance of Sophia Shaw, Claude Monet, 1840–1926, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago/Thames & Hudson, 1995), pp. 37, cat. 15 (ill.); 193; 218; 237; 242.

Genpei Akasegawa, Akasegawa Genpei no inshōha tanken 96 (Winter 1996), p. 30 (ill.).

Eliza E. Rathbone, Katherine Rothkopf, Richard R. Brettell, and Charles S. Moffett, Impressionists on the Seine: A Celebration of Renoir’s “Luncheon of the Boating Party,” exh. cat. (Phillips Collection/Counterpoint, 1996), pp. 159, pl. 1 (ill.); 255.

Eliza E. Rathbone, “Renoir’s “Luncheon in the Boating Party”: Tradition and the New,” in Eliza E. Rathbone, Katherine Rothkopf, Richard R. Brettell, and Charles S. Moffett, Impressionists on the Seine: A Celebration of Renoir’s “Luncheon of the Boating Party,” exh. cat. (Phillips Collection/Counterpoint, 1996), p. 17.

Katherine Rothkopf, “From Argenteuil to Bougival: Life and Leisure on the Seine, 1868–1882,” in Eliza E. Rathbone, Katherine Rothkopf, Richard R. Brettell, and Charles S. Moffett, Impressionists on the Seine: A Celebration of Renoir’s “Luncheon of the Boating Party,” exh. cat. (Phillips Collection/Counterpoint, 1996), p. 64.

John Russell, “Renoir’s Paradise, and Those Who Loved It,” New York Times, Sept. 29, 1996, p. H39 (ill.).

Daniel Wildenstein, Monet, or The Triumph of Impressionism, cat. rais., vol. 1 (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), pp. 68 (ill.), 70.

Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vol. 2, Nos. 1–968 (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), p. 56, cat. 110 (ill.).

Art Institute of Chicago, Pocketguide, selected by James N. Wood (Art Institute of Chicago, 1997), p. 16, no. 24 (ill.).

Carla Rachman, Monet (Phaidon, 1997), pp. 76–77, fig. 51; 78; 80; 81; 152.

Meyer Schapiro, Impressionism: Reflections and Perceptions (Braziller, 1997), pp. 56; 57, fig. 12a, fig. 12b (detail); 58; 70–71; 251–53.

Genpei Akasegawa, The Impressionists, in Japanese (Kodansha, 1998), front cover (details); p. 1 (details), 3 (ill.), 4–5 (ill.).

Kermit Swiler Champa, “A Complicated Codependence,” in Monet and Bazille: A Collaboration, ed. David A. Brenneman, exh. cat. (High Museum of Art/Abrams, 1998), p. 91, fig. 51.

Charlotte Gere and Marina Vaizey, Great Women Collectors (Philip Wilson/Abrams, 1999), pp. 132, 133.

Henri Mitterand, Zola: Vol. 1 (1840–1871) (Fayard, 1999), p. 522.

Art Institute of Chicago, Master Paintings in the Art Institute of Chicago, selected by James N. Wood (Art Institute of Chicago/Hudson Hills, 1999), p. 54 (ill.).

Richard R. Brettell, Modern Art, 1851–1929: Capitalism and Representation (Oxford University Press, 1999), pp. 17; 181–82, fig. 116; 183.

Art Institute of Chicago, Impressionism and Post-Impressionism in the Art Institute of Chicago, selected by James N. Wood (Art Institute of Chicago/Hudson Hills, 2000), p. 33 (ill.).

Asano Haruo and Nakamori Yoshimune, Sezannu to sono jidai [Cezanne and his time], Library of World Art and Artistic Theory 7 (Toshindo, 2000), pp. 40; 41, fig. 32.

Richard R. Brettell, Impression: Painting Quickly in France, 1860–1890, exh. cat. (Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute/Yale University Press, 2000), pp. 112, fig. 66; 113.

Ivan Olson, The Arts and Critical Thinking in American Education (Bergin & Garvey, 2000), pp. 16; ill. 2.1.

Belinda Thomson, Impressionism: Origins, Practice, Reception (Thames & Hudson, 2000), pp. 97, ill. 90; 98; 266.

Charles Stuckey, “Monet e la Senna,” in Monet: I luoghi della pittura, ed. Marco Goldin, exh. cat. (Linea d’Ombra, 2001), p. 52 (ill.).

Richard R. Brettell, From Monet to Van Gogh: A History of Impressionism, vol. 1 (Teaching Co., 2002), pp. 63, 74, 173.

Sylvie Patin, L’impressionisme (Bibliothèque des Arts, 2002), pp. 32; 33, no. 20 (ill.); 294.

Debra N. Mancoff, Monet: Nature into Art (Publications International, 2003), pp. 22 (ill.).

Marco Goldin, ed., Monet, la Senna, le ninfee: Il grande fiume e il nuovo secolo, exh. cat. (Linea d’Ombra, 2004), p. 310.

Dorothee Hansen, “Monet und Camille: Biographie einer Beziehung,” in Monet und Camille: Frauenportraits im Impressionismus, ed. Dorothee Hansen and Wulf Herzogenrath, exh. cat. (Kunsthalle Bremen/Hirmer, 2005), pp. 25 (ill.), 28.

Dorothee Hansen and Wulf Herzogenrath, eds., Monet und Camille: Frauenportraits im Impressionismus, exh. cat. (Kunsthalle Bremen/Hirmer, 2005), pp. 78–79, cat. 10 (ill.); 90; 128; 187, cat. 10 (ill.). Translated by John Southard, Holly Richardson, and Elizabeth Volk as Monet and Camille: Portraits of Women in Impressionism (Kunsthalle Bremen, 2005), pp. 25–26, cat. 10 (ill.); 32; 50.

Birgit Zeidler, Claude Monet: Life and Work, trans. Paul Aston in association with Goodfellow & Egan (Könemann, 2005), p. 30 (ill.).84

Christopher Riopelle, “Rowers at Argenteuil, about 1873–4,” in Renoir Landscapes 1865–1883, ed. Colin B. Bailey and Christopher Riopelle, exh. cat (National Gallery, London, 2007), p. 142.

Eric M. Zafran, “Monet in America,” in Wildenstein and Co., Claude Monet (1840–1926): A Tribute to Daniel Wildenstein and Katia Granoff, exh. cat. (Wildenstein and Co., 2007), p. 112.

Ruth Butler, Hidden in the Shadow of the Master: The Model-Wives of Cézanne, Monet, and Rodin (Yale University Press, 2008), pp. 138, 139 (ill.).

Jeanne-Marie David, “Une étude de la signature de Claude Monet,” Zeitschrift für Kunsttechnologie und Konservierung 22, 2 (2008), front cover (ill.); pp. 303; 304, fig. 8.

Gloria Groom and Douglas Druick, with the assistance of Dorota Chudzicka and Jill Shaw, The Impressionists: Master Paintings from the Art Institute of Chicago, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago/Kimbell Art Museum, 2008), pp. 13 (ill.); 48–49, cat. 13 (ill.); 111. Simultaneously published as Gloria Groom and Douglas Druick, with the assistance of Dorota Chudzicka and Jill Shaw, The Age of Impressionism at the Art Institute of Chicago (Art Institute of Chicago/Yale University Press, 2008), pp. 13 (ill.); 48–49, cat. 13 (ill.); 111.85

Stéphane Lambert, L’adieu au paysage: Les Nymphéas de Claude Monet (Éd. de la Différence, 2008), pp. 21, fig. 5; 63; 119.

Denis Rouart, “Appearances and Reflections,” in Denis Rouart and Jean-Dominique Rey, Monet, Water Lilies: The Complete Series, with a cat. rais. by Julie Rouart, trans. David Radzinowicz (Flammarion/Rizzoli, 2008), pp. 22, 38, 48. Simultaneously revised and published in French as Denis Rouart and Jean-Dominique Rey, with a cat. rais. by Julie Rouart, Monet, les nymphéas (Flammarion, 2008).

James H. Rubin, Impressionism and the Modern Landscape: Productivity, Technology, and Urbanization from Manet to Van Gogh (University of California Press, 2008), p. 136.86

Charles Stuckey, “Monet et la vision immediate (Monet and the Act of Vision),” in Musée Marmottan Monet, Monet, l’oeil impressionniste (Monet, the Impressionist’s eye),” exh. cat. (Musée Marmottan Monet, 2008), pp. 37; 38, fig. 2; 39–40.

Jay A. Clarke, Becoming Edvard Munch: Influence, Anxiety, and Myth, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago/Yale University Press, 2009), pp. 14; 15, fig. 4; 203 (ill.); 226, cat. 126.

Renée Grimaud, 50 ans d’expositions au Grand Palais, Galeries nationales (Réunion des Musées Nationaux, 2009), p. 104 (detail).

Susie Hodge, Monet: His Life and Works in 500 Images (Lorenz, 2009), p. 110 (ill.).

David Clarke, Water and Art: A Cross-Cultural Study of Water as Subject and Medium in Modern and Contemporary Artistic Practice (Reaktion, 2010), pp. 87; 88, ill.. 32; 89.

Michael H. Duffy, The Influence of Charles-François Daubigny (1817–1878) on French Plein-Air Landscape Painting: Rustic Portrayals of Everyday Life in the Work of a Forerunner to Impressionism, with a preface by Fronia E. Wissman (Edwin Mellen, 2010), p. 111.

Stephen F. Eisenman, “Frédéric Bazille, View of a Village,” in From Corot to Monet: The Ecology of Impressionism, ed. Stephen F. Eisenman, exh. cat. (Skira/Rizzoli, 2010), p. 210.

Mary Mathews Gedo, Monet and His Muse: Camille Monet in the Artist’s Life (University of Chicago Press, 2010), pp. 48; 76; 77, fig. 5.1; 78–79; 80, fig. 5.2, fig. 5.3; 81, fig. 5.4, fig. 5.5, fig. 5.6, fig. 5.7; 82, fig. 5.8, fig. 5.9; 83–85; 95–96; 98; 102; 104; 182; 219–20; 251, n.17; 259, n. 9.

Ségolène Le Men, Monet (Citadelles & Mazenod, 2010), pp. 122; 124–25, ill. 100.

Jane Mayo Roos, Auguste Rodin (Phaidon, 2010), p. 6, fig. 2.

Charles F. Stuckey, “Jean-Baptiste Camille Corot, Ville-d’Avray: the Birch,” in From Corot to Monet: The Ecology of Impressionism, ed. Stephen F. Eisenman, exh. cat. (Skira/Rizzoli, 2010), p. 146.

William Rubin, A Curator’s Quest: Building the Collection of Painting and Sculpture of the Museum of Modern Art, 1967–1988 (Overlook Duckworth, 2011), pp. 537, fig. 4.2; 538; 548.

Lynne D. Ambrosini, “Mirrored Waters: Reflections on Monet and His Predecessors,” in Monet in Giverny: Landscapes of Reflection, ed. Benedict Leca, exh. cat. (Cincinnati Art Museum, 2012), pp. 53, fig. 8; 54.

Christopher Lloyd, “Coastal Adventures, Riparian Pleasures: The Impressionists and Boating,” in Christopher Lloyd, Daniel Charles, and Phillip Dennis Cate, Impressionists on the Water, with a contribution by Giles Chardeau, exh. cat. (Fine Arts Museum of San Francisco/Skira Rizzoli, 2013), pp. 15; ill. 8.

On the Bank of the Seine, Bennecourt (W110) corresponds to Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vol. 2, Nos. 1–968 (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), p. 56, cat. 110 (ill.). The Art Institute currently uses the title that was given to the painting when it was exhibited at the exhibition Claude Monet—A. Rodin, held June 21–August 1889 at Galerie Georges Petit. The painting had the following titles during the lifetime of the artist:

Before June 21, 1889: Village de Bonnières (the notebooks of Léon Clapisson. See Anne Distel, “Appendix II: The Notebooks of Léon Clapisson,” in Colin B. Bailey, with the assistance of John B. Collins, Renoir’s Portraits: Impressions of an Age, exh. cat. [National Gallery of Canada/Yale University Press, 1997], p. 352).

June 21, 1889: Au bord de l’eau; Bennecourt. 1868. (Galerie Georges Petit, Claude Monet—A. Rodin, exh. cat. [Imp. de l’Art, 1889], p. 28, cat. 7).

Apr. 21, 1892: Argenteuil (Durand-Ruel, Paris, stock book for 1891 [no. 2127]; see Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Oct. 5, 2010, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago).

May 18, 1892 Argenteuil (Durand-Ruel, Paris, stock book for 1891 [no. 2127]; see Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Oct. 5, 2010, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago).

Mar. 1905: Argenteuil. 1868. (Copley Society, Loan Collection of Paintings by Claude Monet and Eleven Sculptures by August Rodin, exh. cat. [Copley Society of Boston, 1905], p. 25, cat. 78).

May 10, 1910: Belle Isle, Sunshine (cat. 40) or The River (cat. 41) (Art Institute of Chicago, Paintings from the Collection of Mrs. Potter Palmer, exh. cat. [Art Institute of Chicago, 1910], cat. 40 or cat. 41).

This was unusual for Monet, who regularly enjoyed prolific output. He did intend to paint on this vacation, evidenced by the fact that he traveled there with at least two canvases likely purchased in Paris. The stamp of what is likely the Parisian color merchant Deforge-Carpentier was documented on the back of the original canvas (see Technical Report). The only other work Monet is known to have painted during his eight-week stay is a study of Bonnières-sur-Seine (lost or location unknown [W111]), mentioned in Mary Mathews Gedo, in collaboration with William Conger, “Ariadne on the Grande Île,” in Gedo, Monet and His Muse: Camille Monet in the Artist’s Life (University of Chicago Press, 2010), p. 82. 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).

While Monet’s Boats Coming out of the Port of Le Havre (location unknown [W89]) was included in the Salon of 1868, it was largely criticized. Monet’s other submission to the salon that year, The Jetty at Le Havre (private collection [W109]), was rejected. Daubigny, in his “Mon salon: Le jury,” was the only Salon juror to publish a review of the show that mentioned Monet favorably. Zola remembers that Daubigny’s review, “lutté contre certains de ses collègues, au nom de la vérité et de la justice.” Émile Zola, Salons, quoted in Rodolphe Walter, “Cézanne à Bennecourt en 1866,” Gazette des beaux-arts (Feb. 1962), p. 104. For more on Daubigny’s advocacy for Monet’s seascapes, see Michael H. Duffy, The Influence of Charles-François Daubigny (1817–1878) on French Plein-Air Landscape Painting: Rustic Portrayals of Everyday Life in the Work of a Forerunner to Impressionism, preface by Fronia E. Wissman (Mellen, 2010), p. 78. 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).

Charles Stuckey also mentions the possibility of a white dog; see Charles F. Stuckey, “Monet et la vision immediate (Monet and the Act of Vision),” in Musée Marmottan Monet, Monet, l’oeil impressionniste/Monet, the Impressionist’s Eye, exh. cat. (Musée Marmottan Monet/Hazan, 2008), p. 39. Stuckey later suggests that the painting is “unfinished” and that the direction in which the composition was heading was possibly too “Corot-esque.” See Stuckey, “Jean-Baptiste Camille Corot, Ville-d’Avray: The Birch,” in From Corot to Monet: The Ecology of Impressionism, ed. Stephen F. Eisenman, exh. cat. (Skira/Rizzoli, 2010), p. 146. See also Gary Tinterow, “Figures in a Landscape,” in Gary Tinterow and Henri Loyrette, Origins of Impressionism, exh. cat. (Metropolitan Museum of Art/Abrams, 1994), p. 144.

“At some point, Monet resolved this rather confused situation by retaining the dog while removing Jean’s image.” Mary Mathews Gedo in collaboration with William Conger, “Ariadne on the Grande Île,” in Monet and His Muse: Camille Monet in the Artist’s Life (University of Chicago Press, 2010), p. 79. Gedo cites a fascinating episode in Émile Zola’s The Masterpiece (L’oeuvre), in which Charles Lantier attempts to pose his infant son in his mother’s arms but finally gives up, admitting, “Children aren’t made for that sort of thing.” Translated in Mary Mathews Gedo in collaboration with William Conger, “Ariadne on the Grande Île,” in Monet and His Muse: Camille Monet in the Artist’s Life (University of Chicago Press, 2010), p. 84. For the original French passage, see Émile Zola, L’oeuvre (G. Charpentier, 1886), pp. 199–200: “Un jour que Jacques sanglotait, en refusant de tenir la pose, Christine dit doucement: ‘Mon ami, tu le fatigues, ce pauvre mignon,’ Alors, Claude s'emporta, plein de remords. ‘Tiens! c’est vrai, je suis stupide, avec ma peinture! . . . Les enfants, ce n'est pas fait pour ça.’”

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.

The pigments were identified by the following methods: lead white, bone black, chrome yellow, iron oxides including burnt sienna, vermilion, emerald green, viridian, cobalt blue (SEM/EDX, PLM, XRF); red lake, ultramarine blue (PLM). 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 1976 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, “1922_427_Monet_analytical_report,” May 14, 2014; Inge Fiedler, "1922_427_Monet_PLM_results," Oct. 18, 2013; Kimberley Muir, “Mon_Bennecourt_22_427_XRF_Results,” Feb. 11, 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 ultraviolet light, 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 painting was lent by Clapisson to the exhibition Claude Monet; A. Rodin at Galerie Georges Petit, June 21–Sept. 21, 1889, as Au bord de l’eau; Bennecourt; see Galerie Georges Petit, Claude Monet; A. Rodin, exh. cat. (Imp. de l’Art, 1889), p. 28, cat. 7. Reprinted in Theodore Reff, ed., Miscellaneous Group Exhibitions, Modern Art in Paris 34 (Garland, 1981), n.pag. According to Anne Distel, the painting can be identified as Village de Bonnières in Clapisson’s notebooks. The price he paid is listed in the notebooks, but it is not known from whom he purchased the painting. See Anne Distel, “Appendix II: The Notebooks of Léon Clapisson,” in Colin B. Bailey, with the assistance of John B. Collins, Renoir’s Portraits: Impressions of an Age, exh. cat. (National Gallery of Canada/Yale University Press, 1997), p. 352. While Clapisson did not record the date of purchase, Distel further suggests that—based on the dates associated with each notebook, and how Clapisson recorded purchases in each book—the painting was possibly purchased between 1879 and 1882. See Anne Distel to the Art Institute of Chicago, Sept. 3, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.

This exhibition catalogue was reprinted in Theodore Reff, ed., Miscellaneous Group Exhibitions, Modern Art in Paris 34 (Garland, 1981), n.pag. The dates of this exhibition are unclear. Musée Rodin, Claude Monet—Auguste Rodin: Centenaire de l’exposition de 1889, exh. cat. (Musée Rodin, 1989), p. 19, reports that the exhibition was held from June 21 to August 1889. In Roger Terry Dunn, “The Monet-Rodin Exhibition at the Galerie Georges Petit in 1889” (Ph.D. diss., Northwestern University, 1978), pp. 74–76, Dunn found evidence that the exhibition lasted for three months. The dates used in the present catalogue reflect Dunn’s research; these dates are also used in Charles F. Stuckey, with the assistance of Sophia Shaw, Claude Monet, 1840–1926, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago/Thames & Hudson, 1995), p. 218.

Location/Negative #	Format	Purpose	Date	Lighting, Notes
S1653		Posttreatment	Unknown	Cleaned
M7518		Posttreatment	Unknown	Cleaned
C1200a	Negative		Unknown
C24924		Midtreatment	Unknown	Normal, overall; after cleaning
Conservation	B&W print	Midtreatment	Unknown	Normal, overall; “photo taken with filter”; before inpainting
Conservation	35 mm color slide		Unknown	Raking light, overall; partially cleaned
Conservation	35 mm color slide	Posttreatment	Unknown	Normal, overall
Curatorial	8 × 10 B&W print		Unknown	"Partly cleaned—raking light"
Conservation 590066	8 × 10 B&W negative	Midtreatment	Nov. 6, 1959	Normal, overall; partially cleaned
Conservation 590067	8 × 10 B&W negative	Midtreatment	Nov. 6, 1959	Raking light, overall; partially cleaned
Conservation	X-ray	Midtreatment	Nov. 17, 1959	Overall, edges cut
Conservation 600005	8 × 10 B&W negative	Posttreatment	Jan. 26, 1960	Normal, overall
Conservation	8 × 10 B&W negative	Pretreatment	Aug. 27, 1973	Normal, overall
Conservation	8 × 10 B&W negative	Pretreatment	Aug. 27, 1973	Ultraviolet, overall
Conservation	X-ray	Research	Sept. 3, 1973	Overall, edges cut
Conservation	8 × 10 B&W negative	Midtreatment	Sept. 18, 1973	Normal, verso; off stretcher, before lining
Conservation	4 × 5 B&W negative	Midtreatment	Sept. 18, 1973	Infrared, verso, detail: canvas stamp before lining
Conservation	4 × 5 B&W negative	Midtreatment	Sept. 27, 1973	Infrared, overall
C39036			Oct. 29, 1973	Normal, overall; after second cleaning
E10368			Sept. 1989?	Normal, overall
E21007	4 × 5 CT	Research	c. 1990	X-ray composite, detail: lower left corner
E20622	4 × 5 CT	Research	Apr. 17, 1990	X-ray composite
Conservation	35 mm color slide	Research	May 1990	X-ray composite (2 slides)
Conservation C21007	35 mm color slide (B&W print)	Research	May 1990	X-ray composite, detail: lower left corner (2 slides)
Conservation	35 mm color slide		Dec. 1990	Normal, overall, framed
Conservation	35 mm color slide		Dec. 1990	Normal, details (6 slides)
Conservation	35 mm color slide		Apr. 1991	Normal, details (2 slides)
Conservation	X-ray	Research	June 29, 1998	Overall, edges cut
D12568	35 mm color slide	Research	July 9, 1998	X-ray
D12569	35 mm color slide	Research	July 21, 1998	X-ray
G29960	Digital	Research	Sept. 11, 2008	X-ray composite
128949	Digital	Exhibition	Nov. 2008	Annotated conservation image E10368
Conservation	Digital	OSCI	Oct. 13, 2009	Normal, overall
Conservation	Digital	OSCI	Oct. 13, 2009	Raking light, overall (4 total)
Conservation	Digital	OSCI	Oct. 13, 2009	Ultraviolet, overall
Conservation	Digital	OSCI	Oct. 13, 2009	Infrared (Fuji, 1000B/2 mm filter), overall
Conservation	Digital	OSCI	Oct. 13, 2009	Macro details (22 total)
Conservation	Digital	OSCI	Oct. 13, 2009	Infrared (Inframetrics, 1.5–1.73 µm filter), overall
Conservation	Digital	OSCI	Oct. 13, 2009	X-ray films scanned/digitally composited, overall
Conservation	Digital	OSCI	Oct. 19–30, 2009	Photomicrographs of surface (60 total)
G32628	Digital	OSCI	Nov. 6, 2009	Normal, overall
G32629	Digital	OSCI	Nov. 6, 2009	Normal, frame only
G32630	Digital	OSCI	Nov. 6, 2009	Painting and frame (composite of G32628 and G32629)
G32631	Digital	OSCI	Nov. 6, 2009	Ultraviolet, overall
G32632	Digital	OSCI	Nov. 6, 2009	Normal, detail: signature
G32651	Digital	OSCI	Nov. 9, 2009	Normal, detail: upper right corner
G32652	Digital	OSCI	Nov. 9, 2009	Normal, detail: upper right corner
G32653	Digital	OSCI	Nov. 9, 2009	Normal, detail: figure
G32654	Digital	OSCI	Nov. 9, 2009	Normal, detail: signature
G32655	Digital	OSCI	Nov. 9, 2009	Normal, detail: head
G32656	Digital	OSCI	Nov. 9, 2009	Normal, detail: back and skirt
G32657	Digital	OSCI	Nov. 9, 2009	Normal, detail: hat
G32658	Digital	OSCI	Nov. 9, 2009	Normal, detail: water in area ofpentimenti
Conservation	Digital	OSCI	Dec. 3, 2009	Detail images of verso, labels (11 total)
Conservation	Digital	OSCI	Aug. 22, 2011	Infrared (Surface Optics modified near-infrared hyperspectral camera, 0.96–1.73 µm), overall
Conservation	Digital	OSCI	Aug. 23, 2011	Transmitted light, overall
Conservation	Digital	OSCI	Aug. 23, 2011	Transmitted light, detail
Conservation	Digital	OSCI	Aug. 23, 2011	Transmitted infrared (Fuji, 1000B/2 mm filter), overall (3 total)
Conservation	Digital	OSCI	Aug. 23, 2011	Transmitted infrared (Fuji, 1000B/2 mm filter), detail (2 total)
G39175	Digital	OSCI	Jan. 23, 2012	Normal, overall; composite of G39295–G39324
G39176	Digital	OSCI	Jan. 24, 2012	Ultraviolet, overall
Conservation	Digital	OSCI	Jan. 25–27, 2012	Photomicrographs of surface (13 total)
Conservation	Digital	OSCI	Jan. 26, 2012	Infrared (Goodrich, 1.5–1.7 µm filter), overall
G39295–G39324	Digital	OSCI	Jan. 26, 2012	Sections (30 total)
G39410	Digital	OSCI	Jan. 26, 2012	Normal, frame only

Cat. 14

A Popular Destination

Painting as Biography

The Figure of Camille: New Observations

On the Other Shore (Gloton)

Signing Off

Painting as Legacy

Technical Report

Technical Summary

Multilayer Interactive Image Viewer

Signature

Structure and Technique

Support

Canvas

Standard Format

Weave

Canvas characteristics

Stretching

Stretcher/strainer

Manufacturer’s/supplier’s marks

Preparatory Layers

Sizing

Ground application/texture

Color

Materials/composition

Compositional Planning/Underdrawing/Painted Sketch

Extent/character

Medium/technique

Revisions

Paint Layer

Application/technique and artist’s revisions

Painting tools

Palette

Binding media

Surface Finish

Varnish layer/media

Conservation History

Condition Summary

Frame

Provenance

Exhibition History

Selected References

Other Documentation

Documentation from the Durand-Ruel Archives

Other Documents

Labels and Inscriptions

Undated

Pre-1980

Post-1980

Examination and Analysis Techniques

X-radiography

Infrared Reflectography

Transmitted Infrared

Visible Light

Ultraviolet

High-Resolution Visible Light (and Ultraviolet)

Microscopy and Photomicrographs

X-ray Fluorescence Spectroscopy (XRF)

Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM)

Scanning Electron Microscopy/Energy-Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy (SEM/EDX)

Automated Thread Counting

Image Registration Software

Image Inventory