Monet Paintings and Drawings at the Art Institute of Chicago

Technical Report

Technical Summary

Claude Monet’s Waterloo Bridge, Sunlight Effect was executed on a [glossary:pre-primed], no. 40 seascape ([glossary:marine]) standard-size linen [glossary:canvas]. A stamp, transcribed from the back of the original canvas, indicates that the canvas was purchased in London from the French supplier Lechertier Barbe Ltd. The off-white [glossary:ground] consists of two layers. The work appears to have been carried out in several sessions. There are no apparent alterations to the composition; because the painting was rather thickly built up in large areas, however, it is difficult to interpret the underlying paint layers. The paint surface consists of low-relief texture, often coming from earlier brushstrokes beneath the surface. The handling of the brushwork creates a somewhat uniform surface across much of the sky and the water. The bridge and the skyline were reduced to their basic forms; the only details depicted were the columns of the bridge and the crossing traffic. These elements were sketchily rendered with a few quick strokes, but they were painted with more intense colors—including bright yellow and orange—than in the rest of the painting.1227

Multilayer Interactive Image Viewer

The multilayer interactive image viewer is designed to facilitate the viewer’s exploration and comparison of the technical images (fig. 1).1228

Signature

Signed and dated: Claude Monet 1903 (lower right corner, in blue paint1229) (fig. 2). The underlying paint layers were dry when the painting was signed.

Structure and Technique

Support

Canvas

Flax (commonly known as linen).1230

Standard format

The original dimensions were approximately 65 × 100 cm. This corresponds to a no. 40 seascape (marine) standard-size canvas.1231

Weave

[glossary:Plain weave]. Average [glossary:thread count] (standard deviation): 14.8V (0.3) × 14.8H (0.4) threads/cm; the vertical threads were determined to correspond to the [glossary:warp] and the horizontal threads to the [glossary:weft].1232 No weave matches were found with other Monet paintings analyzed for this project.

Canvas characteristics

There is moderate [glossary:cusping] on the left and right edges of the canvas, and slight cusping along the top and bottom edges.

Stretching

Current stretching: Dates to 1991 conservation treatment (see Conservation History); copper tacks spaced 5–9 cm apart.

Original stretching: Most tack holes spaced approximately 10–11 cm apart. The cusping appears to correspond to the placement of the original tack holes on all sides. There are a few additional holes on the top and bottom edges. These probably relate to tacks added later to reinforce the edges.

Stretcher/strainer

Current stretcher: [glossary:ICA spring stretcher]; dates to 1964 conservation treatment (see Conservation History). Depth: 2.5 cm.

Original stretcher: Discarded. The pre-1964-treatment [glossary:stretcher] was probably the original stretcher. A 1959 examination report describes it as a five-membered, keyable stretcher with a vertical [glossary:crossbar]. Depth: Not documented. Based on a second crease in the [glossary:tacking margins], presumably where excess canvas was folded over the back edge of the stretcher, the original stretcher depth was approximately 2 cm.

Manufacturer’s/supplier’s marks

Although a stamp on the back of the original canvas (now obscured by the [glossary:lining] canvas was transcribed as “Barber London, S.W.” (fig. 3), the canvas was probably purchased from Lechertier Barbe Ltd. in London.1233

Preparatory Layers

Sizing

Not determined (probably glue).1234

Ground application/texture

The ground layer extends to the edges of the top, bottom, and right tacking margins, indicating that the canvas was cut from a larger piece of primed fabric on those edges. Unprimed canvas is visible along the left tacking edge; because of the presence of paper strips adhered to the edges, however, it is difficult to determine whether the ground originally stopped short of this edge or whether the ground has come away with the paper in the areas where the canvas is exposed (fig. 4). The canvas was probably commercially prepared. Analysis indicates that the ground consists of two layers. The lower layer ranges from approximately 20 to 90 µm in thickness. The upper layer ranges from approximately 15 to 65 µm in thickness (fig. 15.64).

Color

When the painting is observed under a microscope, it can be seen that the ground has an off-white tone (fig. 5). [glossary:Cross-sectional analysis] indicates that the lower layer is more toned, containing black, red, and brown pigment particles (fig. 15.64).

Materials/composition

Analysis indicates that the lower layer contains lead white and calcium carbonate (chalk) with traces of barium sulfate, silica, silicates, bone black, iron oxide brown, and a zinc compound. The upper layer contains lead white with minor amounts of calcium carbonate (chalk) and traces of barium sulfate, silica, silicates, and a zinc compound.1235 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 work was built up directly from the initial [glossary:lay-in] with no apparent alterations to the composition as the painting progressed. The paint layers, however, are quite thickly built up—the [glossary:X-ray] shows dense paint application over much of the surface, especially in the area of the bridge and the water (fig. 6)—making it difficult to discern even the final compositional forms in the X-ray, far less any changes that may have occurred in earlier paint layers. The ground layer is completely covered by the buildup of paint, remaining visible only near the edges of the canvas (fig. 8).

The composition is dominated by pale-blue and pale-violet tones. The paint application consists largely of touches of discrete color, often built up over more broadly applied underlayers of pale bluish-gray in a somewhat sketchy manner with very little articulation of detail, creating a uniformity over the surface of the water and the sky. Architectural forms, such as the distant smokestacks and the columns and arches of the bridge, are cursorily indicated using slightly more-intense blue paint (fig. 9, fig. 10). In general, there are no distinct edges to these elements, causing them to visually dissolve into adjacent areas of the painting. The sunlight, coming from beyond the right edge of the painting, illuminates the side of the bridge, highlighting it and the traffic that travels along the top. The vehicles are executed using a few quick brushstrokes (fig. 7, fig. 12.12, fig. 12.13), with low [glossary:impasto] daubs of bright orange, red, and white—among the most brilliant color used in the painting—added as final touches (fig. 17.71, fig. 15.32).

In general, the paint seems to have had a rather viscous consistency, especially earlier layers that retain the crisp marks of the brush application (fig. 17.72). In fact, much of the low-relief surface texture is due to underlying brushstrokes whose texture remains evident even though the colors have been covered by subsequent brushwork (fig. 15.34). There is some [glossary:wet-on-wet] paint application but virtually no working or blending together of brushstrokes on the canvas. For the most part, the upper paint layers were built up in a network of individual strokes, carried out in several sessions, which allowed earlier layers to become surface dry before additional layers were applied on top. In a few places, broader, more-fluid paint applications were used; these sometimes allow the texture from beneath to show through and other times impart a relatively smooth, flat surface (fig. 15.58). In some areas of the painting, the artist likely worked back into the still-soft paint, either lightly scraping or wiping the surface to expose underlying layers in discrete areas.1236 This is particularly evident in the cloud of pale-pink smoke in the left background of the composition (fig. 15.36). Here, some of the thinly applied pinkish paint has been lightly removed from the high points of the surface, revealing pale-greenish-gray layers from underneath (fig. 15.33).1237 A few final touches, such as the bright-blue and pale-orange-red strokes in the sky, were lightly dragged across the surface (fig. 15.37, fig. 15.38).

Small inclusions underneath the paint surface, seen occasionally throughout the water and in the sky, have the appearance of dried paint, possibly picked up on the brush from the artists’ palette (fig. 15.39). Ridges in the paint, seen in places on all four sides, were probably caused by framing of the work before the paint layers were dry (e.g. fig. 15.40).

Painting tools

Brushes, including 0.5, 0.7, 1.0 and 1.5 cm width (based on width and shape of brushstrokes). Several brush hairs are embedded in the paint layers.

Palette

Analysis indicates the presence of the following [glossary:pigments]: lead white, cadmium yellow, vermilion, red lake, viridian, cobalt blue, ultramarine blue, and cobalt violet.1238

Binding Media

Oil (estimated).1239

Surface Finish

Varnish layer/media

The painting has an even, slightly glossy, [glossary:synthetic varnish] layer. The 1959 examination report indicates that the painting was unvarnished at that time; this may have been the original surface.1240

Conservation History

In 1959, the back of the canvas was vacuumed, three missing [glossary:keys] were replaced, the corners of the canvas were restretched, the stretcher was keyed out slightly, and losses at the lower left and lower right corners were consolidated with wax-resin adhesive. Surface grime was removed, and a spray coat of L44/46 (Lucite: butyl methacrylate) was applied.1241

In 1964, the [glossary:varnish] and [glossary:retouching] applied in 1959 were removed. The canvas was wax-resin lined and restretched onto a new ICA spring stretcher. A spray coat of polyvinyl acetate (PVA) AYAA was applied. Losses were inpainted. A final spray coat of AYAA was applied.1242

In 1999, an area on the back of the stretcher, where the original canvas had delaminated from the lining canvas, was readhered using a tacking iron. The lining canvas was then readhered to the stretcher back.1243

Condition Summary

The painting is in good condition. The canvas is wax-resin lined and stretched taut and in plane on an ICA spring stretcher. There is some deterioration of the canvas, and abrasion and loss of the ground layer, on the [glossary:tacking edges]. There are old paper and adhesive residues on the tacking edges. Ridges in the paint layers seen along all four edges are probably related to framing when the paint was still soft. There are localized damages in the paint layer around the lower left and lower right corners,1244 and small losses along some of the original foldovers. Associated retouching in these areas is slightly mismatched but unobtrusive. Thin layers of retouching are especially noticeable along the right edge, where more of the ground layer from the original tacking edge was incorporated into the picture plane when the painting was restretched after lining; this is mostly concealed by the frame. Microscopic examination revealed some traces of old retouching in the pale-pink smoke cloud on the left side of the sky. Cracking is minimal and where present is very fine; where it is visible to the naked eye, cracking is concentrated in areas where the paint is thickly layered, for example, on the left side of the bridge and left of the central tower. The painting has an even, semiglossy, synthetic varnish layer.
Kimberley Muir

Frame

The current frame appears to be original to the painting. It is a French (Parisian), early-twentieth-century, Durand-Ruel, Régence Revival, ogee frame with cast foliate and center cartouches with cabochon centers on a quadrillage bed, leaf-tip-and-shell sight molding, and an independent fillet liner. The frame has both water and oil gilding. Ornament on the ogee face and sight molding have been selectively burnished; the liner has been left matte. Red bole was used on the perimeter molding, the ogee face and ornament, the sight molding, and the scotia sides. Red-orange bole was used on the sanded frieze and bordering fillets. The frame has an overall raw umber tone, on top of which casein or gouache gray washes and dark flecking were applied. The glued poplar substrate is mitered and nailed. Half-lap corner and center braces were glued and nailed between the perimeter and interior back edge boards. This frame illustrates the original Durand-Ruel construction. Over this wood molding a cast plaster face was applied. At a later date a partial back frame was attached with screws. The molding, from perimeter to interior, is fillet with stylized, running undulating bands with rhomboid center punches; scotia side; ogee face with a cast quadrillage bed and center and corner foliate and floral cartouches with cabochon centers on a double-lined diamond bed with punched centers; fillet; sanded front frieze; fillet; ogee with stylized leaf-tip-and-shell sight molding; and an independent fillet liner with cove sight (fig. 15.41).1245
Kirk Vuillemot