Monet Paintings and Drawings at the Art Institute of Chicago

Technical Report

Technical Summary

Claude Monet’s Boats on the Beach at Étretat was painted on a [glossary:pre-primed], no. 25 portrait ([glossary:figure]) standard-size linen [glossary:canvas]. The [glossary:ground] is off-white and consists of a single layer. There is a stamp from the [glossary:color merchant] Vieille & Troisgros on the back of the original canvas. The work is largely composed of a thick buildup of vigorous brushwork, some of which is related to changes made to the composition in the painting process. The stone building and the caloges3 were planned from early on and are painted directly over the ground layer; however, major revisions were made to the fishing boats on the beach. It appears that the two boats on the left side were originally painted into the composition and then covered by the water; the boats seen in the final painting were added, mostly [glossary:wet-in-wet], over the thick lead white–rich paint of the waves. It seems that the artist wiped or scraped away some of the earlier paint, but traces of the rigging from the first boats remain visible. The two right-hand boats were incorporated into the composition early on; waves were subsequently painted over a significant portion of the left side of each boat, with elements of the final boats painted on top of the water. Some more-intense colors, which seem to be related to the earlier boats, are visible on the surface through breaks in the brushwork. A second winch may have originally been included to the left of the existing winch on the midright side of the painting, and a second figure was added later in the same area. Some slight adjustments were made to the position of the barrels in the foreground. The signature was applied after the painting had already been varnished.4

Multilayer Interactive Image Viewer

The multilayer interactive image viewer is designed to facilitate the viewer’s exploration and comparison of the technical images (fig. 22.1).5

Signature

Signature/Stamp

Signed: Claude Monet (lower right corner, in red-brown paint6) (fig. 22.2). The underlying paint layers were dry when the signature was applied. In addition, in some areas, the signature appears to lie on top of remnants of yellowed [glossary:varnish] (fig. 22.3) and to bridge cracks formed in the underlying paint layer (fig. 22.4). This indicates that the signature was applied after some cracks had already formed in the painting and after the painting had been varnished. Compared with an archival black-and-white photograph (dated 1922) (fig. 22.5), it appears that some of the signature paint may have been removed in a previous cleaning (see Conservation History).7

Structure and Technique

Support

Canvas

Flax (commonly known as linen).8

Standard format

The original dimensions were approximately 65 × 81.5 cm. This corresponds closely to a no. 25 portrait (figure) standard-size canvas (81 × 65 cm), turned horizontally.9

Weave

[glossary:Plain weave]. Average [glossary:thread count] (standard deviation): 26.8H (0.8) × 28.8V (0.7) threads/cm.10 The vertical threads were determined to correspond to the [glossary:warp] and the horizontal threads to the [glossary:weft]. No [glossary:weave match] was found with other Monet paintings analyzed for this project.

Canvas characteristics

There is moderate, relatively even [glossary:cusping] on the top, bottom, and left edges. The cusping is slightly more pronounced and irregular along the right edge.11

Stretching

Current stretching: Dates to 1962 conservation treatment (see Conservation History). The canvas is attached with copper tacks spaced approximately 6–8 cm apart.

Original stretching: It was not possible to observe all of the original [glossary:tacking edges] because of fabric strips adhered to the edges on all sides.

Stretcher/strainer

Current stretcher: Four-membered [glossary:ICA spring stretcher]. Depth: 3.5 cm.

Original stretcher: Discarded. The pre-1962-treatment [glossary:stretcher] may have been the original stretcher. The 1962 examination report states that the previous stretcher was five membered, including a vertical [glossary:crossbar], with mortised joints and [glossary:keys].12 Depth: Not documented.

Manufacturer’s/supplier’s marks

A supplier’s stamp on the original canvas back was transcribed before the painting was lined in 1962 (see Conservation History) (text within palette-shaped frame)13: H. VIELLE [sic] E TROISGROS S[. . .] / 35 RUE RAVEL [sic] [. . .] / PARIS / COULEURS FINES / TOILES PANNEAUX14(fig. 22.6)

Preparatory Layers

Sizing

Not determined (probably glue).15

Ground application/texture

There is a single, relatively thin ground layer that extends to the edges of the top, bottom, and left sides but appears to stop approximately 0.4 cm short of the right edge (fig. 22.7).16 This indicates that the canvas was cut from a larger roll of primed fabric on three sides; the right edge probably corresponds to the original edge of the roll that was attached to the priming frame. The canvas was probably commercially prepared. The ground ranges from approximately 20 to 125 µm in thickness (fig. 22.8).17

Color

Off-white; under magnification, some dark particles were visible (fig. 22.9).

Materials/composition

Analysis indicates that the ground contains primarily lead white and calcium carbonate (chalk), with traces of bone black, iron oxide with associated silicates, alumina, aluminum silicate, and silica.18 Both the lead white and the chalk exhibit particles and clusters of various sizes (fig. 22.10). Binder: [glossary:Oil] (estimated).

Compositional Planning/Underdrawing/Painted Sketch

Extent/character

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

Paint Layer

Application/technique and artist’s revisions

The work was densely painted with thick, vigorous brushwork, particularly throughout the water and the beach. The paint surface, with its rough brushwork and rather cursory treatment of forms, would perhaps seem to suggest a rapid execution, but the work was, in fact, carried out in multiple sessions and involved several revisions to the composition as the work progressed. Small areas of exposed ground are visible in places, for example, in between the individual strokes of the stone wall on the right and along the edges of some of the other compositional forms (fig. 22.11); but, on the whole, the work consists of thick, relatively continuous paint, making it difficult to observe the earliest layers and the precise sequence of painting. The presence of brushwork unrelated to the final composition and small glimpses of anomalous colors below the surface, as well as the appearance of the work in the [glossary:X-ray], however, indicate that the painting was heavily worked up and significantly revised in areas.

The stone building and caloges19 were planned from early on, laid in directly on top of the ground layer, and executed largely wet-in-wet with no evidence of any major modifications (fig. 22.12). Significant changes, however, were made to the beached boats in the middle ground. The heaviest reworking involved the two boats on the left side of the composition. These boats appear to have been included in the painting from early on; they were subsequently covered, however, by the thick paint of the water and the beach. In the final painting, the two boats were added on top, seemingly in a similar position to the earlier painting (fig. 22.13). Magnified views of the two boats on the left show that, for the most part, they were painted on top of the waves when the waves were still wet (fig. 22.14). Because of the density of the paint in this area, it is difficult to ascertain much about the earlier painting of the boats. Open [glossary:drying cracks] in the dark-purple paint of the boat on the far left, for example, reveal only the pale-blue paint from the intermediate layer of water underneath (fig. 22.15). However, the transmitted infrared image seems to suggest that both boats were originally somewhat larger or were pulled up further on the shore (fig. 22.16). In addition, traces of the rigging of both boats from the earlier painting stage remain visible to the unaided eye, positioned, in both cases, just to the right of the masts of the boats as painted in the final composition. There is evidence that the artist scraped or wiped away some of the soft paint of the earlier layers, resulting in a relatively smooth, flat paint surface (fig. 22.17). In these areas, only traces of the individual strokes related to the rigging remain. Some subsequent brushstrokes from the water partially cover the earlier rigging—microscopic glimpses through breaks in the water often reveal the more colorful paint layers beneath (fig. 22.18)—but it seems like traces of the earlier painting would have always remained visible upon close observation and that the artist was not overly concerned with concealing every trace of the earlier painting. In this area of the painting, in both the final composition and the earlier layers, it seems that there was a considerable amount of working back and forth between the boats and the water. For example, near the upper-left corner, just to the right of the upper portion of the main mast of the red boat, among the two roughly parallel fragments from the earlier rigging, the vertical stroke on the right was applied wet-in-wet into the water, whereas the stroke on the left was painted when the water was already dry (fig. 22.19). Similarly, single strokes from the final rigging were drawn through both wet and dry areas of paint from the water (fig. 22.20), indicating that, even within a fairly localized area, some strokes of the water were already dry while others were freshly applied when the rigging was added. There are some strong horizontal ridges near the left edge, visible in the X-ray and [glossary:raking light] image, which may also be related to the earlier composition (possibly an earlier position of the left boat or the initial [glossary:lay-in] of the water) (fig. 22.21). It is difficult to characterize precisely what changes were made in this part of the painting, but it seems that the two boats on the left were incorporated into the composition early on. They were then obliterated by a combination of scraping or wiping and painting the waves on top, before the final boats were executed.20

Similar observations were made about the two boats on the right side of the composition, including brushstrokes unrelated to the final composition and the partial removal of the initial rigging. The X-ray indicates that these boats were incorporated early on, based on their relative radio-transparency; they too were painted over, in areas, however, with thick, white paint from the waves, mainly along the left side of each boat (fig. 22.22). Paint colors, seemingly unrelated to the final composition, are visible through breaks in the upper paint layers. Bright-yellow paint, visually similar to that used for the final yellow band of the boat farthest to the right, is visible from underlying layers around the base of this boat (fig. 22.23), and in the area of the beach between the two boats. Further down in the beach, dark-brown and purple paint is visible through breaks in the upper paint layers (around the winch), possibly indicating features unrelated to the surface composition (fig. 22.24). It seems that originally a second winch might have been included just to the left of the winch in the final painting. This was then roughly painted over when the earlier paint was dry (fig. 22.25).

Other more minor modifications include the addition of a second figure between the winch and the stone building (fig. 22.24). The rust-colored paint used in this area to define what could be two figures was applied when the underlying paint was already dry; the left figure was laid in earlier, however, with strokes of deep-red and deep-blue paint. The placement of the barrels in the foreground between the two caloges was also changed slightly (fig. 22.26).21

Painting tools

Brushes, including 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5 cm width, flat ferrule (based on width and shape of brushstrokes). Several brush hairs are embedded in the paint surface.

Palette

Analysis indicates the presence of the following [glossary:pigments]: lead white, cadmium yellow, vermilion, red lake, viridian, emerald green, cobalt blue, and ultramarine blue.22 [glossary:UV fluorescence] indicates that red lake was used throughout the painting.23

Binding media

Oil (estimated).24

Surface Finish

Varnish layer/media

A spray coat of polyvinyl acetate (PVA) AYAA was applied in 1962 (see Conservation History). The surface coating is evenly applied and appears slightly glossy in some passages. Residues of an older, yellowed, [glossary:natural-resin varnish] are visible in the recesses of the paint texture. It is not known when the natural-resin varnish was applied but it was documented as being extremely discolored in 1957.25

Conservation History

In 1962, discolored varnish was removed. The canvas was wax-resin lined and stretched on a new ICA spring stretcher. A spray coat of polyvinyl acetate (PVA) AYAA was applied. [glossary:Inpainting] was carried out.26

Condition Summary

The painting is in good condition. The canvas is wax-resin lined and stretched taut on an ICA spring stretcher. The paint and ground layers are secure. There is some flattened paint and depressions made near the edges when the paint was still soft, which are possibly related to framing or transport of the work early on. There is also some minor abrasion and mild gouges or scratches around the edges of the painting in the frame rebate area. There are several brush hairs embedded in the paint surface. There is a general network of fine cracks, with more pronounced cracking visible in the thicker, lead white–rich passages. Localized areas of drying cracks are also present, for example, in the darker paint layers of the boats. Under magnification, residues of old [glossary:retouching] are visible on many of the wider-aperture drying cracks. There are yellowed [glossary:varnish] residues in the recesses of the paint texture and underneath the signature; this latter condition suggests that the painting was signed after the work was varnished. The signature appears to have been compromised in earlier cleanings. There are some cotton fibers and facing tissue residues adhered to the surface of the painting. Fabric strips have been applied to the tacking edges with a thick white adhesive or paint.
Kimberley Muir

Frame

The current frame (from at least 1975) is not original to the painting. It is an Italian, nineteenth-century, Salvator Rosa, scotia frame with applied composition ornament of acanthus leaf on the outside edge, laurel and berry above the scotia, and an acanthus-leaf-and-tongue sight molding. The frame is water gilded over yellow bole on gesso and composition. The convex top molding is burnished; all other areas are left matte. The frame retains its original glue [glossary:size]. The frame is made of poplar, with applied mitered back, front, and sight moldings on a half-lapped cassetta base. The molding, from perimeter to interior, is ogee with acanthus-leaf composition ornament; scotia side; convex face with treacle back edge; ovolo laurel-and-berry composition ornament; scotia (hollow); ogee with acanthus-leaf-and-tongue composition ornament; and originally a fillet (the fillet edge has been reduced back to the edge of the applied ornament). The independent fillet liner with cove sight is a later addition (fig. 22.27).27
Kirk Vuillemot