Monet Paintings and Drawings at the Art Institute of Chicago

Technical Report

Technical Summary

Claude Monet’s Waterloo Bridge, Gray Weather was painted on a [glossary:pre-primed], no. 30 landscape ([glossary:paysage]) standard-size [glossary:canvas]. There is a 30 P stamp on the back of the [glossary:stretcher]. The painting is unlined and retains its original stretcher. A [glossary:warp-thread match] was detected with Monet’s Vetheuil (1901; 1933.447 [W1643]) (cat. 42), suggesting that the fabric for these paintings came from the same [glossary:bolt] of material.2 The off-white [glossary:ground] consists of two layers. The composition is dominated by bluish-gray tones with touches of local color applied in the foreground to define some of the forms. The brushwork is open, consisting mainly of a buildup of individual strokes. For the most part, the paint is relatively thinly applied, with the surface texture coming mainly from the canvas [glossary:weave] and a few low-relief brush marks. Changes in the spacing and angle of the arches of the bridge, as well as a change in the position of one or two of the smokestacks, indicate that the composition was initially painted from a significantly different perspective, one in which the bridge would have cut across the canvas at a sharper angle.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. 38.1).4

Signature

Signed and dated: Claude Monet 1900 (lower left, in blue paint5) (fig. 38.2). Some of the underlying brushstrokes were still wet when the signature and date were applied (fig. 38.3).

Structure and Technique

Support

Canvas

Flax (commonly known as linen).6

Standard format

The dimensions correspond closely to a no. 30 landscape (paysage) standard-size canvas (65 × 92 cm) (see Manufacturer’s supplier’s marks).7

Weave

[glossary:Plain weave]. Average [glossary:thread count] (standard deviation): 17.0V (0.6) × 19.8H (0.5) threads/cm; the horizontal threads were determined to correspond to the [glossary:warp] and the vertical threads to the [glossary:weft].8 A warp-thread match was found with Monet’s Vetheuil (1901; 1933.447 [W1643]) (cat. 42).9

Canvas characteristics

There is mild, fairly regular [glossary:cusping] along all four edges of the canvas.

Stretching

Current stretching: The painting appears to retain its original stretching with iron tacks10 spaced approximately 5.5–7 cm apart.11 The cusping pattern appears to correspond to the placement of the original tacks. An additional set of copper tacks has been added more recently, in between the original tacks. On each tacking edge, there are two pairs of empty holes, each accompanied by numbers handwritten in black marker, starting from 1 on the bottom edge, running clockwise to 8 on the right edge (there is only one hole at 5 but the second hole may have been used for one of the copper tacks). The purpose of these holes is uncertain but may relate to framing.

Original stretching: See above.

Stretcher/strainer

Current stretcher: The painting appears to retain its original stretcher (fig. 38.4). It is a five-membered wooden stretcher with a vertical [glossary:crossbar], [glossary:mortise and tenon joints, and ten [glossary:keys]. Dimensions: outer depth, 2.0 cm; inner depth, approx. 1.8 cm; stretcher-bar width, 6.5 cm; crossbar width, 6.0 cm; crossbar depth, 1.2 cm.

Original stretcher: See above.

Manufacturer’s/supplier’s marks

Stamp on stretcher back: 30 P (fig. 38.5).12

Preparatory Layers

Sizing

Not determined (probably glue).13

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. There are many bubble holes in the ground layer (fig. 38.6). [glossary:Cross-sectional analysis] indicates that the ground consists of two layers; this is consistent in samples from both the tacking edge and the picture plane (fig. 38.7, fig. 38.8). The lower layer ranges from approximately 5 to 40 µm in thickness. The upper layer ranges from approximately 20 to 130 µm in thickness.

Color

The ground is off-white, with some dark and red or brown particles visible under magnification.

Materials/composition

Analysis indicates that the lower layer contains calcium carbonate (chalk) with traces of silicates and possible calcium sulfate. The upper layer contains lead white and calcium carbonate (chalk) with traces of alumina, silica, and silicates.14 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

Technical examination has revealed that some major alterations were made to the bridge and the two prominent smokestacks on the right side of the painting. The changes suggest that the artist initially painted the scene from a different perspective. The [glossary:X-ray] shows that the arches of the bridge were originally offset from their final placement and were also more closely spaced (fig. 38.9). The texture of the underlying strokes remains evident on the surface of the painting, especially when viewed in raking light (fig. 38.10). Where paint from the earlier composition is visible on the surface, it appears to be off-white or light in color, with the blues and greens of the final bridge and water painted directly on top (fig. 38.11). The tallest smokestack was initially painted further to the right (fig. 38.12). Under magnification, some pale-bluish-gray paint, which seems to be related to the painted-out smokestack, can be seen through breaks in the upper brushwork (fig. 38.13). A dense, [glossary:radio-opaque] area to the right of the broader, slightly shorter stack to the left may indicate that it was also initially painted further to the right. If this was the case, the two stacks would have originally been positioned closer to one another. Some dark-blue paint was observed below the surface in this area (fig. 38.14). These changes indicate that the scene was originally painted from a sharper angle, with the near side of the bridge beginning closer to the lower-left corner of the canvas and the far side ending close to or slightly above its position in the final painting. The orientation of some underlying brushstrokes at the lower-left corner, just visible at the edge of the [glossary:transmitted-infrared] image, could indicate that part of an additional arch was originally included at the left side of the bridge in the initial composition (fig. 38.15). A few areas of radio-opaque brushwork along the distant cityscape, which appear similar to the puffs of smoke visible on the surface, seem to suggest that the artist made some changes to the smoke clouds as this area was built up (fig. 38.16), but it is unclear whether the painted-out “clouds” were associated with the earlier composition or the final painting.

Microscopic examination of the painting surface indicates that a warm, off-white toning layer covers broad areas of the canvas in the area underneath the water and the bridge.15 The long, horizontal strokes in the underpainting of the sky seem to consist of a similar warm, off-white layer (fig. 38.17). The brushstrokes of this underlayer continue underneath the two most prominent smokestacks.

In the final composition, the work was painted using relatively loose, open brushwork and mostly thin applications of paint. Overall, the surface of the painting is quite flat, and includes little impasto or thickly textured brushwork; however, variations in surface are created through a combination of thin strokes that leave the texture of the canvas weave prominent (fig. 38.18); low-relief brush marks (fig. 38.19) (including those related to the earlier composition); areas of smooth, more fluid paint application (fig. 38.20); and light strokes that catch the high points of the dry brushstrokes underneath (fig. 38.21).

The palette consists predominantly of various gray hues, with only individual touches of more intense color—mainly blues and greens—used in the foreground to help delineate details like the traffic on the bridge and the ripples in the water. Often, these more intensely colored strokes were final additions to the painting; for example, the deep-green horizontal dashes in the water (fig. 38.22). At the upper-right and lower-right corners, a few strokes of warm pink and orange suggest light from the sun just outside of the frame (fig. 38.23). There is little actual blending of brushwork on the canvas. Even the structures in the distance, which visually blur into one another, consist of individual strokes and touches, although using a more monochromatic range of colors (fig. 38.24). Only a few areas, such as the vehicles on the bridge, involve some localized [glossary:wet-in-wet paint] application (fig. 38.25). Some areas of flattened paint around the edges suggest that the work may have been framed when the paint was still soft.

Painting tools

Brushes, including 1.0 cm width, flat ferrule (based on width and shape of brushstrokes). A few brush hairs are embedded in the paint layers.

Palette

[glossary:XRF] analysis indicates the presence of the following [glossary:pigments]: lead white, vermilion, viridian, cobalt blue, and cobalt violet.16

Binding Media

Oil (estimated).17

Surface Finish

Varnish layer/media

The painting was cleaned in 1987 and left unvarnished; however, there appears to be a fair amount of discolored [glossary:varnish] residue and dirt embedded in the recesses of the paint texture throughout the surface. This is especially evident in the fine “line” that runs around the edges, just inside the frame [glossary:rebate] area. Microscopically, these residues are very dark and they affect the overall tonality of the work. It also seems that the varnish was only thinned in some areas, or selectively removed, resulting in an uneven surface of variable gloss (see Conservation History).

Conservation History

A note in the conservation file indicates that the painting may have been cleaned in 1968/69.18

In 1987, surface grime and yellowed varnish were removed.19

Condition Summary

The painting is in excellent condition. It is unlined and appears to retain its original stretcher and tacking. The canvas is stable and remains relatively flexible. The stretcher is keyed out slightly. The tension is good and there are no planar deformations. The paint layer is secure with only a couple of small losses near the edges and minor abrasion in the frame rebate area. There is a general network of very fine cracks that are visible microscopically. Slightly more pronounced cracks are visible in areas where the paint is thicker or more built up in layers. There are also [glossary:stretcher-bar cracks], which are most pronounced along the vertical members. There is an area of scattered brown accretions at lower center, which appear to be old, as well as a few localized, resinous accretions on the left side. Traces of gold from the frame are visible near the edges. There are four marks, possibly executed in pencil, which extend from the [glossary:foldover] onto the picture plane, on the right and bottom sides.20 Their origin and purpose are unknown. A heavily discolored, natural-resin varnish and thick surface grime and nicotine were removed in 1987, and the painting was left unvarnished. The surface is currently rather uneven, with residual varnish remaining in some areas and older, dark varnish residues and dirt embedded in the recesses of the paint texture throughout the work. This seems to make the painting darker and patchier than it should appear. Cotton fibers are embedded in the residual varnish in places.
Kimberley Muir

Frame

Current frame: The frame is not original to the picture. It is a French, late-seventeenth–early-eighteenth-century, Louis IV, ogee frame with carved anthemion corner cartouches and fleur-de-lis center cartouches linked by foliate scrollwork and centered shells on a quadrillage bed, sanded frieze, and ogee leaf-tip-and-tongue sight molding. The original gilded surface has been entirely compromised by an overpainted décapé-like finish. It is painted overall with a whitened, raw umber base with highlights in red and scattered passages of silver leaf. The carved oak molding is mitered and joined with angled dovetails. The impression of hardware marks from the original forged hanging plate remain on the back of the top frame molding. The molding, from perimeter to interior, is ovolo with carved dentil; scotia side; ogee face with carved anthemion corner cartouches and fleur-de-lis center cartouches, linked by foliate scrollwork and centered shells on a quadrillage bed; sanded frieze; and ogee carved with leaf-tip-and-tongue on the sight molding (fig. 38.26).21
Kirk Vuillemot