Technical Report

Technical Summary

Claude Monet’s Vétheuil was executed on a [glossary:pre-primed], non-standard-size linen [glossary:canvas]. The off-white [glossary:ground] consists of two layers. The painting was built up using a relatively open network of brushstrokes that leaves the ground layer and canvas texture visible throughout. There are no apparent changes to the composition, which was built up directly from the initial [glossary:lay-in]. Areas where the canvas [glossary:weave] remains prominent, combined with the low-relief texture of underlying brushwork and surface strokes of low [glossary:impasto], contribute varied texture to the paint surface. The work was carried out in more than one session and incorporates both [glossary:wet-over-dry] and [glossary:wet-in-wet] paint application. The generally warm [glossary:palette] and narrow tonal range used by the artist impart an overall warm, rose-colored tonality to the work. There are areas of localized abrasion and slightly flattened or pressed paint, which occurred while the painting was in progress, but it is difficult to say whether they are related to the artist’s working process or whether they were accidental occurrences. A few minor damages—tiny gouges and paint losses that occurred when the paint was still soft—were restored using a zinc white–containing paint. The [glossary:retouching] is difficult to distinguish from the original paint in some places and appears to have been applied early on.2

Multilayer Interactive Image Viewer

The multilayer interactive image viewer is designed to facilitate the viewer’s exploration and comparison of the technical images (fig. 43.1).3

Signature

Signed and dated: Claude Monet 1901 (lower left corner, in pale-pink paint4) (fig. 43.2). The signature was started using a deeper-purple paint; the artist then went over the l a second time with a pale pink paint, which was used for the remainder of the signature and date (fig. 43.3). This paint becomes very faint in the final digits of the date; the 901 was then reinforced with a slightly thicker pale-pink paint (fig. 43.4). The underlying paint layers were dry when the signature and date were applied, except for some of the blue and purple strokes added along the bottom edge, which were picked up by the signature (fig. 43.5). These strokes may represent final touches added by the artist just before signing the painting.5

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 does not correspond to a standard size; both dimensions, however, correspond to standard stretcher-bar lengths.7

Weave

[glossary:Plain weave]. Average [glossary:thread count] (standard deviation): 17.8V (0.8) × 20.0H (0.6) threads/cm; the horizontal threads were determined to correspond to the [glossary:warp] and the vertical threads to the [glossary:weft].8 No weave matches were detected with other Monet paintings analyzed.9

Canvas characteristics

There is mild [glossary:cusping] on all four sides of the canvas; this is slightly more pronounced along the bottom.

Stretching

Current stretching: Dates to 1974 conservation treatment (see Conservation History). Copper tacks spaced 6–8 cm apart.

Original stretching: Tack holes spaced approximately 6–8 cm apart. Additional holes interspersed between these were likely added later for reinforcement. The cusping appears to correspond to the placement of the original tacks.

Stretcher/strainer

Current stretcher: [glossary:ICA spring stretcher]. Depth: 2.8 cm.

Original stretcher: Discarded. The pre-1974-treatment [glossary:stretcher] may have been the original stretcher. It was documented as Buck type 2, six-membered, including horizontal and vertical crossbars, with keyable [glossary:mortise and tenon joints] and a beveled back face. The report gives the following dimensions: overall height, 92.5 cm; overall width, 89.0 cm; stretcher members: outside depth, 2.0 cm; width, 6.6 cm; inside depth, 1.8 cm; distance from canvas position, 1.0 cm; length of mortise, 6.6 cm.10

Manufacturer’s/supplier’s marks

None observed in current examination or documented in previous examinations.

Preparatory Layers

Sizing

Not determined (probably glue).11

Ground application/texture

The ground extends to the edges of all four [glossary:tacking margins], indicating that the canvas was cut from a larger piece of primed fabric, which was probably commercially prepared. [glossary:Cross-sectional analysis] indicates that the ground consists of two layers. The lower layer ranges from approximately 2 to 60 µm in thickness. The upper layer measures approximately 5 to 85 µm in thickness (fig. 43.6, fig. 43.7).12

Color

Only the upper ground layer is visible when the painting surface is examined microscopically. It is off-white with some dark and possibly red or brown particles visible under magnification, as well as some larger white clusters (fig. 43.8).

Materials/composition

Analysis indicates that the lower layer contains calcium carbonate (chalk)13 with traces of silica and silicates.14 The upper layer contains lead white and calcium carbonate (chalk)15 with traces of iron oxide, alumina, silica, and silicates.16 Binder: [glossary:Oil] (estimated).

Compositional Planning/Underdrawing/Painted Sketch

Extent/character

No [glossary:underdrawing] was observed with [glossary:infrared reflectography] (IRR) or microscopic examination.

Paint Layer

Application/technique and artist’s revisions

The artist worked up the composition as a whole, moving back and forth between the different areas of the composition with no apparent revisions or changes as the painting progressed. The work was built up using a network of open brushstrokes that leaves small areas of the ground layer exposed throughout (fig. 43.9). The initial lay-in of the composition was executed with lightly applied brushstrokes using a relatively dry brush, such that the paint was deposited mainly on the peaks of the canvas weave. These areas, where the canvas texture is particularly noticeable, remain evident through the open brushwork (fig. 43.10). The vertical canvas threads appear quite prominent on the surface of the painting. In some places, this is due to random thick threads, but in other areas, the vertical threads are often emphasized by horizontal brushstrokes that caused paint to build up in the ridges along the edges of the threads (fig. 43.11). In a few areas, localized abrasion of the first thin paint layers was observed. It is unclear whether this was part of the artist’s process (i.e., intentional scraping or wiping of the paint surface) or whether it was an accident of handling, but it seems to have occurred during the painting process as subsequent paint strokes pass over the abraded areas (fig. 43.12). In the upper paint layers, some areas of thicker paint application have a slightly flattened or pressed appearance, which appears to have occurred while the paint was still slightly soft (fig. 43.13).

The surface texture of the painting includes crisp brushmarks from underlying layers, as well as thick, textural strokes and low impasto applied to the surface (fig. 43.14). While much of the surface paint layers consist of wet-in-wet applications, many of the textural strokes from the underlying layers were already surface dry when the painting was built up, indicating that the work was carried out in more than one session (fig. 43.15). The hill consists of a buildup of long directional strokes of different colors, lightly dragged across the surface of the canvas (fig. 43.16). The buildings were often delineated with a few thick, textural strokes that leave the very thin, light-handed application of the underpainting visible (fig. 43.17). In the reflected townscape, the artist laid in several long vertical strokes of textural and low-impasto paint in lighter tones of yellow and orange to denote the reflections of the buildings. These strokes appear to have been set up when the short, horizontal touches of red and purple of the water were applied on top (fig. 43.18). Overall, the palette consists of warm tones: pinks, purples, reds, oranges, and yellows for the buildings that reflect the setting sun, as well as for the reflections of the buildings and landscape in the water. The sky and water are composed of warm tones of yellowish-green and blue with some purple hues, both warm and cool. The overall tonal range is quite narrow, with little contrast between darks and lights, which helps to convey the diffuse light of the scene. The loose brushwork and subtle color transitions used in the work cause forms to blur into one another, without distinct borders, for example, between the horizon and the sky (fig. 43.19), the shoreline and the river (fig. 43.20), and the reflection and the water (fig. 43.21). The transition from one building to another is often made simply by a change in the direction of the brushstrokes or a slight shift in hue; the edges of the rooftops often remain quite sketchy (fig. 43.22). The houses and foliage on the far right of the canvas consist of an almost indistinguishable swirl of brushstrokes (fig. 43.23).17

There are several small damages in the paint layer that appear to be old. They are scattered throughout the sky, the right side of the hill, the buildings on the left, and the reflection (near center). These damages, when there is associated paint loss, are visible as dark spots in the [glossary:X-ray] and, under [glossary:UV] light, retouching applied to the losses exhibits the bright greenish-yellow [glossary:fluorescence] of the zinc white used in the paint mixture (Palette) (fig. 43.24). Under magnification, the original paint in these areas appears to have been gouged when it was still soft and therefore must have occurred relatively early in the painting’s lifetime. Localized retouching consists, for the most part, of a generic pale-green paint that does not always match the adjacent original paint (fig. 43.25, fig. 43.26).18 The retouching appears to be old and is intimately connected with the original paint. In one place, near the peak of the roof of the building second from left, the retouching is well matched and difficult to distinguish from the original paint (fig. 43.27). This may indicate that the retouching was carried out very early on, and the possibility that Monet retouched the painting himself cannot be ruled out.

Painting tools

Brushes, including 1.0, 1.5 and 2 cm width, flat ferrule (based on width and shape of brushstrokes).

Palette

Analysis indicates the presence of the following [glossary:pigments]: lead white, cadmium yellow, chrome yellow, vermilion, red lake, viridian, cobalt blue, ultramarine blue, and cobalt violet.19 The presence of a pinkish-orange fluorescence indicates that the artist used red lake throughout the landscape and in the signature.20 Areas of retouching, which exhibit a bright-greenish-yellow fluorescence under UV light, were found to contain zinc white, and sometimes traces of barium sulfate and an iron oxide–containing pigment.21

Binding media

Oil (estimated).22

Surface Finish

Varnish layer/media

The painting has an even, [glossary:synthetic varnish] (see Conservation History). The surface is relatively matte, with subtle variations depending on the qualities of the underlying paint. The 1974 treatment report states that the painting previously had a discolored and yellowed, soft resin [glossary:varnish]. Its origin is unknown.

Conservation History

The pre-1974-treatment-notes state that “cleavage and flaking were present in the past and were treated locally with wax adhesive. In order to hide this treatment a piece of canvas had been placed behind the original canvas to hide the wax stains in the original canvas.”23

In 1974, a yellowed varnish layer was removed. The canvas added to the back of the original canvas in a previous treatment was removed, and the original canvas was wax-resin lined. The painting was restretched on a new ICA spring stretcher. A layer of polyvinyl acetate (PVA) AYAA was applied. [glossary:Inpainting] was carried out. A layer of methacrylate resin L-46 was applied, followed by a final layer of AYAA.24

Condition Summary

The painting is wax-resin lined and is stretched taut and in plane on an ICA spring stretcher. The ground layer exhibits a fine cracking pattern that follows the weave of the canvas. There is significant ground loss on the [glossary:tacking edges]. The paint layer is in good condition overall. There are a few small damages that appear to have occurred when the paint was still soft. Localized retouching associated with these damages is sometimes difficult to distinguish from the original paint and was probably added early on. It was found to contain zinc white paint. In some places, the retouching is mismatched. More recent retouching was applied almost continuously around the edges. There is some slight flattening of the impasto in localized areas, probably the result of the [glossary:lining] process. Cracking is minimal, and where present, it is mainly visible only under magnification. The painting has an even, synthetic varnish coating. Starch-paste adhesive residues from the lining procedure are visible microscopically on the surface of the painting. There are also some yellowed, [glossary:natural-resin varnish] residues in the recesses of the paint texture.
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 convex frame with carved alternating acanthus-leaf and flower running motif and acanthus-leaf miters, plain hollow, carved ribbon ornament and cove at the sight. The frame is water gilded over yellow-brown bole on gesso. The hollow is burnished with selective burnishing on the carved ornament. The gold has been heavily rubbed overall and toned with thin oil paint washes, casein washes, and dark flecking. The carved basswood moldings are mitered and nailed. The molding, from perimeter to interior, is ogee carved with flower and tongue; scotia side; convex face carved with alternating acanthus-leaf and flower running motif and acanthus-leaf miters; fillet; plain hollow; fillet; torus with carved ribbon; and cove at the sight (fig. 43.28).25

Previous frame (installed by 1975; removed 1991): The work was previously housed in an American, mid-twentieth-century, L-shaped, narrow frame with a gilded face on a mahogany molding with exposed splines at the miters. The frame may be a design by James L. Speyer (fig. 43.29).

Previous frame: Sometime between 1956 and 1962 (based on an approximate date photograph (fig. 43.30), the work was mounted together with the Art Institute’s other version of Vétheuil in a painted shadow box. The paintings’ stretchers were mounted to the back panel of the frame with the edges of the canvas exposed. This frame was probably only utilized during this installation.
Kirk Vuillemot