Technical Report

Technical Summary

Claude Monet’s Vétheuil was executed on a pre-primed, non-standard-size linen canvas. A warp-thread match was detected with Waterloo Bridge, Gray Weather (1900; 1984.1173 [W1557]) (cat. 38), suggesting that the fabric for these paintings came from the same bolt of material.2 The ground consists of a single, off-white layer. A light-toned, brushmarked underpainting layer was broadly applied in the sky and the foreground area of the water. The central area of the painting (the landscape, the village, and the reflections), on the other hand, were painted directly on top of the ground layer, which remains exposed in small areas through breaks in the open network of brushstrokes. For the most part, the paint was relatively thinly applied, often lightly dragged across the surface in strokes that accentuate the texture of the underlying canvas weave. Slightly thicker, brushmarked strokes define the features of the hillside and daubs of impasto were used for the light-colored walls of the buildings and their reflections, creating a varied surface texture. The work includes both wet-on-wet and wet-over-dry paint applications, applied in discrete touches of color with very little blending on the canvas. A few minor changes were made to some of the buildings in the foreground of the village, which seem to be related to slight shifts in position or changes in size.3

Multilayer Interactive Image Viewer

The multilayer interactive image viewer is designed to facilitate the viewer’s exploration and comparison of the technical images (fig. 42.1).4

Signature

Signed and dated: Claude Monet 1901 (lower left corner, in orange-red paint5) (fig. 42.2). Traces of similar paint to the left of the C suggest that the signature was initially started in a slightly lower position and closer to the left edge. It also appears that the final C was started with a paler orange paint, then gone over with the deeper orange that was used for the rest of the signature and date (fig. 42.3). The underlying paint layers were dry when the painting was signed and dated.

Structure and Technique

Support

Canvas

Flax (commonly known as linen).6

Standard format

The original dimensions were approximately 89 × 92 cm. This slightly wider than square format is not a standard size; both dimensions, however, correspond to standard stretcher-bar lengths.7

Weave

Plain weave. Average thread count (standard deviation): 16.8V (0.7) × 19.9H (0.6) threads/cm; the horizontal threads were determined to correspond to the warp and the vertical threads to the weft.8 A warp-thread match was found with Waterloo Bridge, Gray Weather (1900; 1984.1173 [W1557]) (cat. 38).9

Canvas characteristics

There is mild, fairly even cusping along all four edges. The cusping pattern appears to correspond to the placement of the original tacks.

Stretching

Current stretching: Dates to 1973–74 conservation treatment (see Conservation History); copper tacks spaced 7–10 cm apart.

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

Stretcher/strainer

Current stretcher: ICA spring stretcher. Depth: 2.7 cm.

Original stretcher: The pre-1973/74-treatment stretcher may have been the original stretcher.10 An undated report in the conservation file describes the previous stretcher as a Buck type 2, six-membered, including horizontal and vertical crossbars, with keyable mortise and tenon joints and beveled at the back. The report gives the following dimensions: overall, 89.5 × 93 cm; outside depth, 1.7 cm; width, 6.5 cm; inside depth, 1.6 cm; distance from canvas position, 0.5 cm; length of mortise, 6.5 cm11 (fig. 42.4).

Manufacturer’s/supplier’s marks

None observed in current examination or documented in previous examinations.

Preparatory Layers

Sizing

Not determined (probably glue).12

Ground application/texture

The ground layer extends to the edges of all four tacking margins, indicating that the canvas was cut from a larger piece of primed fabric, which was probably commercially prepared. Cross-sectional analysis indicates that the ground consists of a single layer that ranges from approximately 30 to 100 µm in thickness (fig. 42.5). 

Color

The ground is off-white, with some dark and possibly red or brown particles visible under magnification (fig. 42.6).

Materials/composition

Analysis indicates that the ground contains lead white and calcium carbonate (chalk)13 with traces of iron oxide, silica, and silicates.14 Binder: oil (estimated).

Compositional Planning/Underdrawing/Painted Sketch

Extent/character

No underdrawing was observed with infrared reflectography (IRR) or microscopic examination.

Paint Layer

Application/technique and artist’s revisions

The village, landscape, and reflections in the water were all painted directly on top of the ground, whereas a relatively thick, textured underpainting was applied in the area of the sky and the foreground water. This selectively applied underlayer appears light in color and mostly covers the ground. It is evident when the work is viewed in transmitted light, which reveals that the painting is more translucent in the central area and more thickly built up in the top and bottom sections (fig. 42.7). The broadly applied, sweeping strokes of the underpainting in the sky and the water are visible in the X-ray (fig. 42.8), and the texture of these brushstrokes remains evident on the paint surface through the thinner, more flatly applied layers painted on top (fig. 42.9, fig. 42.10). Where the underpainting is visible through breaks and abrasion in the upper paint layers, it ranges in color from off-white to pale blue (fig. 42.11, fig. 42.12). The crisp ridges of the underlying brushstrokes were not disturbed by the subsequent buildup of paint, suggesting that there was some passage of time between the application of the underpainting and the upper paint layers (fig. 42.13).

The buildings and landscape, and their reflections, were built up using relatively open brushwork that leaves small patches of exposed ground visible throughout. The hillside consists of long, directional strokes of discrete color applied wet-on-wet with little blending of the strokes (fig. 42.14). In the execution of the hill, the earliest brushwork—likely associated with the initial lay-in—was lightly applied, often just hitting the peaks of the canvas weave; the surface was then built up using a more loaded brush that left thicker ridges of paint, as well as some final strokes, lightly applied, that skip across the surface revealing colors from underneath (fig. 42.15). Along the horizon, the artist moved back and forth between the sky and the landscape. For example, basic indications of the trees and church steeple were made over the textured underpainting of the sky; the purples and blues of the sky were then brought down around these features, with thicker strokes used to build up the foliage and the steeple, which was applied last, on top of the sky (fig. 42.16, fig. 42.17). Magnification reveals that some areas of foliage were composed from an array of superimposed strokes of discrete, often vivid, color (fig. 42.18). The general forms of the architecture were indicated with some very light, cursory brushwork. The landscape passes underneath the edges of the buildings, which indicates that it was built up, for the most part, before the buildings were developed (fig. 42.19, fig. 42.20). The buildings were often articulated using a combination of light, sketchy brushstrokes (such as the vermilion strokes used to delineate the rooftops) juxtaposed with thick, impasted, lead white–rich strokes (mainly for the light-colored walls) (fig. 42.21, fig. 42.22). Final details, such as the windows of the tall, thin, yellow building on the left side, were added wet-in-wet (fig. 42.23). The area occupied by the reflection was mapped out early on: both the underpainting and the blue and purple tones of the water stop roughly at the border between the water and the reflection. The ground layer remains visible through the open brushwork of the reflection (fig. 42.24). The forms reflected in the water were built up in a network of individual, short, mainly horizontal strokes (fig. 42.25).

Minor alterations were made to some of the buildings in the foreground of the village. On the right side, in the area of the blue-roofed house and the red-roofed one to the immediate left, there are two roughly square shapes and a strong horizontal stroke between them that are visible from beneath the surface (fig. 42.26). The thick, directional strokes of these underlying forms are visible in the X-ray (fig. 42.27), and their texture remains evident on the surface of the painting, particularly when viewed in raking light. The paint appears to be off-white in color. The underlying brushwork may constitute part of the early lay-in of the composition and thus indicate slight shifts in position or size between the initial planning of the houses and the painting of them. In the building on the far left, the X-ray seems to indicate the presence of a second pitched roof to the right of the one visible in the final composition. This was subsequently painted over (fig. 42.28).

The vertical canvas threads are sometimes more pronounced, probably the result of the sweeping horizontal strokes of the paint buildup, which emphasize the canvas texture in that direction. Areas of paint around the edges of the composition appear slightly flattened, as if the work was framed when the paint was still soft.

Painting tools

Brushes, including 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 cm width, flat ferrule (based on width and shape of brushstrokes); a broader 2.0 cm wide brush was used for the underpainting in the sky and water. A few brush hairs are embedded in the paint layer.

Palette

Analysis indicates the presence of the following pigments: lead white, cadmium yellow, chrome yellow, vermilion, red lake, viridian, ultramarine blue, cobalt blue, and cobalt violet.15 UV fluorescence of some of the red strokes suggests the presence of red lake throughout the landscape.16

Binding media

Oil (estimated).17

Surface Finish

Varnish layer/media

The painting has a thin, even, synthetic varnish that was applied in 1974 (see Conservation History). The surface is relatively matte with subtle variations in surface sheen depending on the qualities of the underlying paint. The 1974 treatment report states that the painting previously had a discolored, yellowed, soft resin varnish; its origin is unknown.

Conservation History

In 1973–74, a discolored surface film was removed. The canvas was wax-resin lined and restretched on an ICA spring stretcher. A layer of polyvinyl acetate (PVA) AYAA was applied. Inpainting was carried out. A layer of methacrylate resin L-46 was applied, followed by a final layer of AYAA.18

Condition Summary

Overall, the painting is in very good condition. It is wax-resin lined and the canvas is stretched taut on an ICA spring stretcher. There are no planar deformations. There is some wear around the edges of the canvas and a small hole at the upper right corner. There is a moderate amount of cracking and small losses in the ground layer on the tacking edges. There is some slight flattening of impastoed paint, which is probably related to the lining procedure. Minor retouching around the edges is related to abrasion and tiny losses, especially at the top and the lower left edges. There are wax-resin residues from the lining adhesive around the edges. There is a significant amount of starch-paste residue from the facing used during the lining process embedded in the recesses of the paint texture. This is mainly visible only under magnification, but has a subtle effect on the painting where it is more concentrated, scattering the light by causing those areas to look lighter. The synthetic varnish coating has an even, relatively matte surface that varies slightly according to the surface qualities of the underlying paint.
Kimberley Muir

Frame

Current frame (installed in 1991): The frame is not original to the painting. It is an American reproduction of a Louis XIII torus frame with carved centered flowers on a laurel-and-berry garland with acanthus-leaf miters, plain hollow, and carved ribbon ornament and cove at the sight (APF, Inc., New York, 1991). The frame is water gilded over brown bole on gesso. The hollow is burnished with selective burnishing on the carved ornament. The gold has been heavily rubbed overall and toned with thin oil paint washes, casein washes, and dark flecking. The carved basswood moldings are mitered and nailed. The molding, from perimeter to interior, is cushion-shaped dentil molding; torus with carved centered flowers on a laurel-and-berry garland with acanthus-leaf miters; fillet; hollow; fillet; torus with carved ribbon; and cove at the sight (fig. 42.29).19

Previous frame (installed by 1975, removed 1991): The work was previously housed in an American, mid-twentieth-century, L-shaped narrow frame with a gilded face on a mahogany molding with exposed splines at the miters. The frame may be a design by James L. Speyer (fig. 42.30).

Previous frame: Sometime between 1956 and 1962 (based on an approximate date of an archival photograph (fig. 42.31), the work was mounted together with the Art Institute’s other version of Vétheuil in a painted shadow box. The paintings’ stretchers were mounted to the back panel of the frame with the edges of the canvas exposed. This frame was probably only utilized during this installation.20
Kirk Vuillemot