Cat. 24. Rocks at Port-Goulphar, Belle-Ile, 1886
Navigation Title:
Cat. 24 Rocks at Port-Goulphar, Belle-Île, 1886
Catalogue #: 24 Active: Yes Tombstone:Cat. 24
Rocks at Port-Goulphar, Belle-Île1
1886
Oil on canvas; 66 × 81.8 cm (26 ×32 3/16 in.)
Signed and dated: Claude Monet 86 (lower right, in light orange-brown paint)
The Art Institute of Chicago, gift of Mr. and Mrs. Chauncey B. Borland, 1964.210
An Isolated Destination
After spending the spring of 1886 working in Holland and the summer painting at home in Giverny, Claude Monet experienced a very different environment that fall on the remote island of Belle-Île off the coast of Brittany. His decision to travel to this rugged terrain may have been influenced by the novelist Octave Mirbeau, who had a country house on the nearby island of Noirmoutier; that year Monet had joined Mirbeau’s literary group in Paris, the Bons Cosaques (Jolly Cossacks). Fellow member and friend Pierre-Auguste Renoir had recently painted Breton landscapes, which may also have played a role in the choice.2 That same year Monet’s friend and patron Georges Charpentier published an account by the writer Gustave Flaubert of an 1847 trip to Brittany, which contained impressions of Belle-Île that could have piqued Monet’s interest in that specific destination.3
Belle-Île was famous for its fantastic grottoes, cliffs, and aiguilles (or needles; pointed triangular rock formations also referred to as pyramids). Sparsely dotted with hamlets, Belle-Île had little tourist trade, which likely increased its appeal for Monet. In August the artist was making plans for a trip to Belle-Île, and with a stipend of 2,200 francs from his dealer Paul Durand-Ruel, he left a month later.4 Monet intended to stay two weeks, but his campaign, as usual, became more complicated, and only at the end of November did he return, via a visit to Mirbeau in Noirmoutier, with some forty canvases for reworking at home.5
Terrible Belle-Île
On September 12 Monet arrived at the town of Le Palais, a fishing port located on the eastern side of the island, and checked into the Hôtel de France.6 The following day Monet recounts to his companion, Alice Hoschedé, that he explored the island and saw beautiful things; however, he complained that Le Palais was “a real town,” too far from these locations that he had just discovered.7 Within days of his arrival on Belle-Île, Monet moved to Kervilahouen, a village of only ten houses on the other side of the island that was closer to the picturesque inlets scattered along the western side of the island, such as Port-Goulphar, an inlet studded with breathtaking rock formations (fig. 24.1).8 Monet rented a room in a modest house for four francs a day, which included meals of mostly eggs, fish, and lobster.9 As at Étretat the previous year, he roamed the cliffs and promontories, seeking out the most dramatic views. Instead of the beach with its evidence of human activity, however, at Belle-Île Monet focused on the ocean-ravaged rocks at Port-Goulphar, Port-Coton, and Port-Domois and the smaller outlying formations. Monet would treat these aspects of the Belle-Île coast in paintings that can be organized thematically into several subgroups, including ones depicting the Port-Coton pyramids (e.g., fig. 24.2 [W1084]), and the Lion Rock (e.g., fig. 24.3 [W1090]).10
The decision to travel to Belle-Île was a radical departure for the artist, who when not working at home in Giverny stayed in relative comfort, as at the beachfront hotel at Étretat. Arguably the most physically challenging destination to date for Monet, the island was a desolate location. Monet struggled particularly with the tumultuous weather, which required him to hire a porter—the former lobsterman Hippolyte Guillaume, known as Poly (fig. 24.4).11 And yet the painterly potential of this unspoiled coastline fascinated the artist. In his letters to his dealers, friends, and Alice, he refers to Belle-Île as “sinister, diabolical, but superb”12 and “very beautiful but very savage;”13 admitting to his dealer “I am enthusiastic for this sinister land and precisely because it takes me out of what I am in the habit of doing.”14
The Trio of Rocks at Port-Goulphar
The Art Institute’s painting is one of three versions anchored by the massive rock formations making up the Port-Goulphar (see fig. 24.5 [W1093] and fig. 24.6 [W1094]).15 In mid-October the island endured a weeklong tempest, documented by Monet in his correspondence. It is probable that he began the Port-Goulphar trio early in the month, prior to the storm. Depicting seemingly rare moments of reasonably calm seas, they show a range of weather conditions—sunny in Coming into the Port-Goulphar, Belle-Île (fig. 24.5), partly cloudy in Port-Goulphar, Belle-Île (fig. 24.6) and overcast in the Chicago picture.16 Of these three canvases, the Art Institute work is the only one that crops out the two flanking rocks, which are present at the bottom of the other two compositions. In a modern photograph that shows the approximate view that Monet chose for the Art Institute’s version (fig. 24.7), the cliffs that run along the outer edge of the Port-Domois are contiguous with the horizon. In another modern view of the inlet (fig. 24.8), comparable to the view seen in Port-Goulphar, Belle-Île, the signal station at Talut at the upper left is visible in the distance.17 Both Coming into the Port-Goulphar, Belle-Île and Port-Goulphar, Belle-Île are painted from spots similar to those seen in the modern photographs, but employ a lower vantage point, so that part of the cliffs at the horizon line on the right are obscured from sight. From the higher elevation of Rocks at Port-Goulphar, the modern photographs show that the signal station would have been visible at the upper left, but here it has been omitted, evidence of Monet’s “editing” for pictorial reasons.18 Further, from this elevated view, the border of cliffs and the horizon are exactly aligned with each other. The rocks in the middle ground seem closer to us yet the cliffs at the edge of Port-Domois are still visible in the background. The outer edge of the Port-Domois provides a decorative border on the horizon that counter balances the bulky masses of these rocks in the middle ground.
The Chicago painting’s canvas bears the stamp of the [glossary:color merchant] Vieille & Troisgros19 (fig. 24.9) and was found to have a warp-thread match with paintings from his previous Normandy campaign at Étretat (cat. 21 and cat. 23) indicating that Rocks at Port-Goulphar also came from the same bolt of raw canvas. Monet began his work at Belle-Île with four canvases; by October 11 he was repainting the unsuccessful canvases (“mauvaises toiles”) and waiting on "fresh” canvases that he had ordered from Troisgros Frères to be shipped to him.20 This new batch presumably would have borne the new Troisgros Frères [glossary:canvas stamp] rather than the now out-of-date Vieille & Troisgros stamp.21
The Belle-Île group was likely conceived in Monet’s usual manner: finding, framing, and sketching in front of his motif, reworking the same canvas during the same or a later session, and making final assessments and retouches in his studio. For the Art Institute’s composition, on the other hand, Monet seems to have abbreviated his usual working process, painting more directly with minimal reworking. See, for example, the early delineation of the rocks, whose borders of exposed ground can be detected with the unaided eye (fig. 24.10). These masses, as well as the sky and water zones, were then filled in with a variety of brushstrokes worked [glossary:wet-on-wet] and in many areas only thinly applied (fig. 24.11). The horizon—interrupted by the top of the line of cliffs, which are delineated by a dark purple paint—was also asserted from the beginning (fig. 24.12). In comparison to the vertical Port-Goulphar, Belle-Île (fig. 24.6), dated 1887, whose elaborately variegated brushwork for the rocks and water suggests a greater degree of reworking, the changes to Rocks at Port-Goulphar seem minimal. The reddish-brown base of the cliff at the far left foreground has been extended slightly into the water. In addition, a few of the brighter strokes that were painted over already dried paint, notably the blue strokes under the signature (fig. 24.13), speak to additional painting session, possibly upon his return to his Giverny studio.22
Success of the “Series”
These paintings of monumental and isolated rocks surrounded by water but devoid of human, animal, and even plant life were a personal, emotional response to the motif, an approach Monet would further develop in his series paintings of the 1890s (see cats. 27–32). In the context of Monet’s struggle with the elements while out on the cliffs of Belle-Île, his repeated use of the term “terrible” takes on a connotation different than the “terrible” sublime in nature sought by artists in the late eighteenth century. For Monet it indicated a powerful psychic force, both awesome and exhausting.23 Mirbeau, who came to visit Monet while he was working at Port-Goulphar, noted in a letter to Rodin that “[the Belle-Île paintings] will be a new aspect of his talent: a terrible and formidable Monet, unknown until now. But his works will please the common public less than ever.”24 On the contrary the art dealers Durand-Ruel, Theo van Gogh (representing Boussod & Valadon) and Georges Petit all believed the opposite and clamored to acquire the paintings as soon as Monet would allow them to leave his studio in 1887. In the spring of 1887, Monet exhibited at Georges Petit’s 6e Exposition internationale de peinture et de sculpture. Out of the twelve works by Monet listed in the catalogue, ten were from the Belle-Île campaign (including the portrait of his porter, Poly [fig. 24.4]).25 The Art Institute’s painting was not among those exhibited in 1887, but its closest cognate, Coming into the Port-Goulphar, Belle-Île (fig. 24.5), was both shown and purchased in 1887 by Petit and was no doubt the image the journalist Gustave Geffroy had in mind when he described the rocks as “Pachyderms with thick crusts.”26
The two months at Belle-Île were physically and artistically arduous. And even now, as Denise Delouche has made clear in her comparison of Monet’s painting to the topography of Belle-Île, the cliffs and summits remain inaccessible except by foot and, even then, dangerous.27 Comparing his works on the coastal cliffs of Antibes, a four-month campaign he would begin in January 1888, Monet noted the differences “After Belle-Île the terrible, it will be the tender: here there is only blue, pink, and gold, but what difficulty, good God!”28
Gloria Groom
Technical Report
Technical Summary
Claude Monet’s Rocks at Port-Goulphar, Belle-Île was painted on a [glossary:pre-primed], no. 25 portrait ([glossary:figure]) standard-size linen [glossary:canvas]. There is a stamp from the [glossary:color merchant] Vieille & Troisgros on the back of the original canvas. A [glossary:warp-thread match] was detected with two other Monet paintings in the Art Institute’s collection: Étretat: The Beach and the Falaise d’Amont (1885; 1964.204 [W1012]) (cat. 21) and The Departure of the Boats, Étretat (1885; 1922.428 [W1025]) (cat. 22), suggesting that the fabric for these paintings came from the same [glossary:bolt] of material.29 The [glossary:ground] consists of a single, off-white layer. The work was directly painted with very little deviation from the initial [glossary:lay-in] of the composition, which appears to have been rather cursory. The placement of the rocks was delineated with light brushstrokes. Broadly applied, thin applications of dull-brown and dull-purplish-gray paint were used to lay-in the dark, shadowed areas of the rocks. In the sky there is an intermittent pale-gray underlayer. An open network of thicker, impasted strokes was applied first in the water, imparting much of the texture there. In all areas of the composition, however, the brushwork remains open, with small areas of exposed ground remaining visible at the surface. The artist worked up each major element of the composition separately, often leaving a border of exposed ground around the edges of the forms, but working back and forth between the different elements and building up the composition as a whole. The surface brushwork consists largely of [glossary:wet-in-wet] paint application, suggesting a fairly rapid buildup of the painting. Technical examination detected one minor modification to the composition: the extension of the reddish-brown base of the front left rock farther into the water.30
Multilayer Interactive Image Viewer
The multilayer interactive image viewer is designed to facilitate the viewer’s exploration and comparison of the technical images (fig. 24.14).31
Signature
Signed and dated: Claude Monet 86 (lower right corner, in light orange-brown paint32) (fig. 24.15, fig. 24.16). Some of the underlying paint was still wet when the painting was signed, specifically the thicker, light-bluish-gray strokes near the bottom edge (fig. 24.17). This could suggest that the bluish-gray strokes were added later to the painting, as final touches, just before the artist signed the work.33
Structure and Technique
Support
Canvas
Flax (commonly known as linen).34
Standard format
The original dimensions were approximately 65 × 81 cm, which corresponds to a no. 25 portrait (figure) standard-size canvas, turned horizontally.35
Weave
[glossary:Plain weave]; average [glossary:thread count] (standard deviation): 26.1H (0.8) × 28.7V (0.8) threads/cm.36 The vertical threads were determined to correspond to the [glossary:warp] and the horizontal threads to the [glossary:weft]. A warp-thread match was found with Étretat: The Beach and the Falaise d’Amont (1885; 1964.204 [W1012]) (cat. 22) and The Departure of the Boats, Étretat (1885; 1922.428 [W1025]) (cat. 23).37
Canvas characteristics
Moderate, fairly even [glossary:cusping] is present around all four edges; the cusping is slightly stronger along the left and right edges. There are a number of irregularities (i.e., thicker threads and nubs) scattered throughout the canvas.
Stretching
Current stretching: Dates to 1974 treatment (see Conservation History). Copper tacks spaced 6–8 cm apart.
Original stretching: Tack holes, spaced 5.5–8 cm apart, correspond to the cusping pattern (fig. 24.18). An additional series of small pinholes, spaced at fairly regular intervals, was observed around the edges of the painting in the area of the original foldovers (5–6 holes on each side) (fig. 24.19). It is difficult to tell when the holes were made because of subsequent abrasion around the edges; in addition, the open holes are filled with wax-resin adhesive applied during the 1974 lining (see Conservation History), while other holes have been filled and retouched. The origin and purpose of these holes is not known.
Stretcher/strainer
Current stretcher: [glossary:ICA spring stretcher]. Current stretcher depth: 2.7 cm.
Original stretcher: Discarded. The pre-1974-treatment [glossary:stretcher] may have been the original stretcher. An undated report on file records that that stretcher was five membered with a vertical [glossary:crossbar] and [glossary:mortise and tenon joints]. The report gives the following dimensions: overall, 65.5 × 81.7 cm; outside depth, 2 cm; stretcher-bar width, 7 cm; inside depth, 2.5 cm; distance from canvas position, 0.5 cm; and length of mortise, 7 cm.38
Manufacturer’s/supplier’s marks
Prior to lining, a tracing was made of a supplier’s stamp on the original canvas back. Text within palette-shaped frame: H. VIEILLE E. TROISGROS / [. . .] RUE DE [. . .] / PARIS / COULEURS [. . .] / TOILES PANEAUX [sic] (fig. 24.20). The original canvas back is now obscured by the [glossary:lining] canvas, but traces of the stamp were visible when the painting was imaged using transmitted-infrared light (fig. 24.21).
Preparatory Layers
Sizing
Not determined (probably glue).39
Ground application/texture
The ground layer 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. It consists of a single layer that ranges from approximately 10 to 100 µm in thickness (fig. 24.22). Several bubble holes were observed where the ground is exposed on the painting surface.
Color
The ground is off-white. Under the microscope, a few dark and possibly red particles were visible (fig. 24.23).
Materials/composition
Analysis indicates that the ground layer contains lead white and calcium carbonate (chalk) with traces of bone black, iron oxide, alumina, silica, and silicates.40 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 appears to have been executed relatively rapidly, with no significant alterations in the composition from how it was initially laid in. The brushwork is fairly open, with small areas of exposed ground visible throughout the composition, and consists largely of wet-in-wet paint applications. The work, however, was probably carried out in more than one session, since the [glossary:underpainting] and the thick strokes of impasto in the water appear to have been dry when the upper paint layers were built up. The main compositional features—the rocks, sky and pools of water—were built up separately with only minimal overlap along some of the edges as the painting was worked up (fig. 24.24). A border of exposed ground often remains visible at the junctures of these forms. This is particularly evident along the horizon and around the pools of water (fig. 24.25). Where the rocks overlap one another, on the other hand, there are no distinct borders between them.The artist built up the composition as a whole, working back and forth between the different areas with some wet-in-wet overlapping of strokes at the edges of some forms.
The composition was broadly mapped out to delineate the placement of the rocks; however, the lay-in appears to have been rather cursory, without the use of an overall underpainting. Along the horizon, the rocks seem to have been outlined using a relatively dry brush. This is evident, for example, along the tops of the background rocks at the far left and center, where a thinly applied stroke of dark purplish paint, deposited mainly on the high points of the canvas, seems to be related to the earliest lay-in, marking the upper edges of these landforms (fig. 24.26, fig. 24.27). The surrounding sky and water were brought up to these outlining strokes, and then the rocks were built up (fig. 24.28). In some areas, such as the plateaus at the top of the central rock, the artist used thicker, more textural brushstrokes to lay in the basic forms (fig. 24.29). The foreground rocks consist of a relatively open network of brushstrokes, with areas of exposed ground between strokes, especially on the sunlit faces (fig. 24.30). In some places, near the edges, the rocks look like they were blocked in with flat, dull-brown and purple-gray tones. The distant rocks and shadowed rock on the right side have more continuous underlayers, in the form of thin applications of dull-purple and dull-green, which are incorporated into the final painting (fig. 24.31). Only one minor adjustment was observed in the painting: the base of the left foreground rock was extended further to the right. A closer view shows that the reddish-brown paint from the rock was added on top of the water (fig. 24.32).
The sky appears to have been built up in a single wet-in-wet session after the initial lay-in. As observed in other areas of the painting, the lay-in—visible here and there, mainly near the horizon, as a thin, brush-marked, pale-gray layer—seems to have been very summary, with areas of ground left exposed throughout the sky, especially near the upper right corner (fig. 24.33). The brushwork consists of discrete strokes of yellow, blue, pink, and green, mixed with varying amounts of white paint, all worked wet-in-wet (fig. 24.34). There are also a few thicker brushstrokes of lead white–rich impasto, (fig. 24.35). The blue calligraphic strokes (right of center) were also applied on top of wet paint (fig. 24.36).
The water was laid in with a series of long, horizontal and diagonal textural strokes of pale-purplish-gray paint, which can be seen in the [glossary:X-ray] (fig. 24.37). The lighter areas where the sky is reflected also seem to have been indicated in this underlayer (fig. 24.38). The shorter strokes and touches of more intense blues, greens, and purples of the water were applied over top when the underlying strokes were already dry (fig. 24.39). The pale-purplish-gray underpainting strokes and the ground layer remain exposed in places, especially in the sunlit areas of the water, creating the effect of light flickering off the surface. Some of the white areas are also the result of daubs of lead white–rich strokes applied on top. Overall, the [glossary:palette] consists of fairly subdued or earth-toned colors, but the artist applied localized touches of relatively pure paint from the tube that is quite brilliant, especially when viewed under magnification. These are often some of the final touches to the painting and can be seen in the bright blues and greens in the water (fig. 24.40, fig. 24.41, fig. 24.42), as well as the occasional touch of bright red in the rocks. The area of water just below the horizon was applied in three or four broad horizontal strokes, with a few additional shorter strokes filling in the edges. A lightly applied, dull-greenish-blue, dry-brush stroke was applied over the dried paint of the water to emphasize the horizon (fig. 24.43).
There are a few small, localized areas of deep-blue and deep-green paint in the sky, close to the top edge, near the center and on the left side, which appear to be unintentional accretions (fig. 24.44).41 When viewed microscopically, these marks appear to be partially covered by paint from the sky, suggesting that they were acquired while the work was being painted. They could be accidents from handling or related to paint transfer from an easel cleat or transporting device.
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 layers.
Palette
Analysis indicates the presence of the following [glossary:pigments]: lead white, cadmium yellow, chrome yellow, vermilion, red lake, emerald green, viridian, cobalt blue, and ultramarine blue.42 [glossary:UV fluorescence] of areas of reddish-brown paint in the rocks and reflections suggests the liberal use of red lake.43
Binding media
Oil (estimated).44
Surface Finish
Varnish layer/media
The painting has a [glossary:synthetic varnish], which imparts a variable surface sheen—glossy in some areas and matte in others—depending on the qualities of the paint application. During the 1974 treatment, a discolored [glossary:varnish] was removed; the origin of this varnish was not documented (see Conservation History)
Conservation History
In 1974, 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. Minimal [glossary:inpainting] was carried out. A layer of methacrylate resin L-46 was applied, followed by a final layer of AYAA.45
Condition Summary
The painting is in good condition. The canvas is wax-resin lined and stretched flat and taut on an ICA spring stretcher. The new stretcher was slightly larger than the original; as a result a border of unpainted ground from the original tacking margin is visible around the edges of the painting. [glossary:Retouching] was applied to the edges to tone out the exposed ground, especially along the top edge. There is general wear and abrasion of the ground layer, as well as old paper and glue residues, on all tacking margins. The paint layer is in good condition, with only a few very small losses near the edges. Some moating and flattening of thicker impasto was observed, likely the result of the lining process. There is minimal cracking, limited mainly to thicker areas of paint application, with some localized [glossary:drying cracks] in areas of more fluid paint application. There are several brush hairs embedded in the paint layers. Starch-paste residues from the lining procedure are visible microscopically in the recesses of the more textural brushwork. The painting has a saturating synthetic resin varnish that is glossy in some areas and matte in others, depending on the qualities of the underlying paint.
Kimberley Muir
Frame
The current frame (installed by 1975) is not original to the painting.46 It is a French (Provençal), late-seventeenth–early-eighteenth-century, Louis XIV, scotia frame with carved corner foliate and center foliate-and-shell cartouches on a diamond bed with outer dentil, sanded frieze, and leaf-tip sight molding. It is water gilded over red bole on gesso with the ornament selectively burnished. The gilding is heavily rubbed; this and toning washes of umber and gray casein probably date to the pairing of the frame with the painting. The carved oak moldings are mitered and joined with angled dovetails. The original back of the frame has been planed flat, removing all construction history and provenance. A back frame has been glued to the back, and the back and interior of the frame have been overpainted. The molding, from perimeter to interior, is ovolo with carved dentil; scotia side; scotia face with corner foliate and center foliate-and-shell cartouches; fillet; sanded frieze; and ogee leaf-tip sight molding (fig. 24.45).47
Kirk Vuillemot
Provenance
Sold by the artist to Durand-Ruel, Paris, Dec. 21, 1892, for 4,500 francs.48
Sold by Durand-Ruel, Paris, to Durand-Ruel, New York, Dec. 19, 1895 or Jan. 4, 1896.49
Sold by Durand-Ruel, New York, to Mrs. John Jay (Harriet Blair) Borland, Chicago, Mar. 6, 1897, for $2,000.50
By descent from Mrs. John Jay (Harriet Blair) Borland (died 1933), Chicago, to her son Chauncey Blair Borland, Chicago.
Given by Mr. and Mrs. Chauncey B. Borland, Chicago, to the Art Institute of Chicago, beginning in 1964.51
Exhibitions:Exhibition History
Musée de Ghent, 36e exposition des beaux-arts, Sept. 1–Oct. 28, 1895, no cat. no.52
Boston, Copley Society, Loan Collection of Paintings by Claude Monet and Eleven Sculptures by Auguste Rodin, Mar. 1905, cat. 75, as Belle-Isle. 1886. Lent by Mrs. John Jay Borland.
Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago Collectors: An Exhibition Sponsored by the Men’s Council of the Art Institute, Sept. 20–Oct. 27, 1963, no cat. no. (ill.).
Art Institute of Chicago, Masterpieces from Private Collections in Chicago, July 12–Aug. 31, 1969, no cat. no.
Art Institute of Chicago, Paintings by Monet, Mar. 15–May 11, 1975, cat. 71 (ill.). (fig. 24.46)
Fort Worth, Tex., Kimbell Art Museum, The Impressionists: Master Paintings from the Art Institute of Chicago, June 29–Nov. 2, 2008, cat. 49 (ill.).
Selected References:Selected References
Copley Society, Loan Collection of Paintings by Claude Monet and Eleven Sculptures by August Rodin, exh. cat. (Copley Society, 1905), p. 24, cat. 75.
Raymond Régamey, “La formation de Claude Monet,” Gazette des beaux-arts 5, 15 (Feb. 1927), p. 77 (ill.).
Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago Collectors: An Exhibition Sponsored by the Men’s Council of the Art Institute, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago, [1963]), pp. 3; 17, pl. 6.
Art Institute of Chicago, Annual Report, 1963–64 (Art Institute of Chicago, [1964]), p. 19.
Art Institute of Chicago, Masterpieces from Private Collections in Chicago, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago, [1969]), n. pag.
Grace Seiberling, “The Evolution of an Impressionist,” in Paintings by Monet, ed. Susan Wise, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago, 1975), pp. 30, 32.
Susan Wise, ed., Paintings by Monet, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago, 1975), p. 128, cat. 71 (ill.).
Daniel Wildenstein, Claude Monet: Biographie et catalogue raisonné, vol. 2, Peintures, 1882–1886 (Bibliothèque des Arts, 1979), pp. 200; 201, cat. 1095.
Daniel Wildenstein, Claude Monet: Biographie et catalogue raisonné, vol. 3, Peintures, 1887–1898 (Bibliothèque des Arts, 1979), p. 269, letters 1172 and 1173.
Denise Delouche, “Monet et Belle-Ile en 1886,” Bulletin des amis du Musée de Rennes 4 (1980), pp. 48, fig. 34; 54, n. 28.
Charles F. Stuckey, ed., Monet: A Retrospective (Hugh Lauter Levin, 1985), p. 214, pl. 86.
Art Institute of Chicago, Treasures of 19th- and 20th-Century Painting: The Art Institute of Chicago, with an introduction by James N. Wood (Art Institute of Chicago/Abbeville, 1993), p. 103 (ill.).
Denise Delouche, Monet à Belle-Ile (Chasse-Marée/ArMen, 1992), pp. 51, 53, 54–55 (ill.).
Andrew Forge, Monet, Artists in Focus (Art Institute of Chicago, 1995), pp. 37–39; 83, pl. 12, 107.
Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vol. 3, Nos. 969–1595 (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), pp. 415, cat. 1095 (ill.); 416.
Sotheby’s, New York, Impressionist and Modern Art, Part I, sale cat. (Sotheby’s, Nov. 16, 1998), p. 52, fig. 2.
Vivian Russell, Monet’s Landscapes (Frances Lincoln, 2000), pp. 66 (ill.), 160.
Gloria Groom and Douglas Druick, with the assistance of Dorota Chudzicka and Jill Shaw, The Impressionists: Master Paintings from the Art Institute of Chicago, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago/Kimbell Art Museum, 2008), pp. 81; 109, cat. 49 (ill.). Simultaneously published as Gloria Groom and Douglas Druick, with the assistance of Dorota Chudzicka and Jill Shaw, The Age of Impressionism at the Art Institute of Chicago (Art Institute of Chicago/Yale University Press, 2008), pp. 81; 109, cat. 49 (ill.).53
Félicie de Maupeou, “Monet peint par ses livres,” in Claire Maingon and Félicie de Maupeou, La bibliothèque de Monet, under the direction of Ségolène Le Men, exh. cat. (Citadelles & Mazenod, 2013), pp. 46-47 (ill.).
Other Documentation:Other Documentation
Documentation from the Durand-Ruel Archives
Inventory number
Stock Durand-Ruel Paris 2542
Paris Stock Book 1891–190154
Inventory number
Stock Durand-Ruel New York 1515
New York Stock Book 1894–190555
Photograph number
Photo Durand-Ruel Paris 59256
Other Documents
Label (fig. 24.47)57
Labels and Inscriptions
Undated
Label
Location: pre-1974-treatment stretcher (discarded); preserved in conservation file
Method: printed label with handwritten script
Content: DURAND-RUEL / PARIS, 16, Rue Laffi[tte] / NEW-YORK, 315, Fifth avenue / Monet No 2542 / Belle Ile / c[or e?]sss. (fig. 24.48)
Label
Location: stretcher
Method: printed label with handwritten text and green ink stamp
Content: THE ART INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO / CHICAGO ILLINOIS 60603, U.S.A. / To Monet, Claude / Rocks at Belle Isle / 1964.210
Stamp: Inventory—1980–1981 (fig. 24.49)
Label
Location: [glossary:backing board]
Method: printed label
Content: THE ART INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO / ARTIST: Claude Monet / TITLE: Rocks at Port-Goulphar, Belle-Ile (1886) / MEDIUM: Oil on canvas / CREDIT: Gift of Mr. / Mrs. Chauncey B. Borland / ACC.#: 1964.210 (fig. 24.50)
Number
Location: frame
Method: handwritten text
Content: 1964.210 (fig. 24.51)
Number
Location: lining canvas
Method: handwritten text
Content: 64.210 (fig. 24.52)
Pre-1980
Stamp
Location: original canvas; tracing in conservation file
Method: undocumented, text within palette-shaped frame
Content: H. VIEILLE E. TROISGROS / [. . .] RUE DE [. . .] / PARIS / COULEURS [. . .] / TOILES PANEAUX [sic] (fig. 24.53, fig. 24.54)
Label
Location: stretcher
Method: printed label
Content: I. C. A. SPRING STRETCHERS / OBERLIN, OHIO 4407458 (fig. 24.55)
Examination and Analysis Techniques
X-radiography
Westinghouse X-ray unit, scanned on Epson Expressions 10000XL flatbed scanner. Scans digitally composited by Robert G. Erdmann, University of Arizona.
Infrared Reflectography
Fujifilm S5 Pro with X-Nite 1000B/2 mm filter (1.0–1.1 µm); Inframetrics Infracam with 1.5–1.73 µm filter.
Transmitted Infrared
Fujifilm S5 Pro with X-Nite 1000B/2 mm filter (1.0–1.1 µm).
Visible Light
Natural-light, raking-light, and transmitted-light overalls and macrophotography: Fujifilm S5 Pro with X-NiteCC1 filter.
Ultraviolet
Fujifilm S5 Pro with X-NiteCC1 filter and Kodak Wratten 2E filter.
High-Resolution Visible Light (and Ultraviolet)
Sinar P3 camera with Sinarback eVolution 75H (B+W 486 UV/IR cut MRC filter, X-NiteCC1 filter, and Kodak Wratten 2E filter).
Microscopy and Photomicrographs
Sample and [glossary:cross-sectional analysis] using a Zeiss Axioplan2 research microscope equipped with reflected light/UV fluorescence and a Zeiss AxioCam MRc5 digital camera. Types of illumination used: [glossary:darkfield], differential interference contrast ([glossary:DIC]), and UV. In situ photomicrographs with a Wild Heerbrugg M7A StereoZoom microscope fitted with an Olympus DP71 microscope digital camera.
X-ray Fluorescence Spectroscopy (XRF)
Several spots on the painting were analyzed in situ with a Bruker/Keymaster TRACeR III-V with rhodium tube.
Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM)
Zeiss Universal research microscope.
Scanning Electron Microscopy/Energy-Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy (SEM/EDX)
[glossary:Cross sections] analyzed after carbon coating with a Hitachi S-3400N-II VP-SEM with an Oxford EDS and a Hitachi solid-state [glossary:BSE] detector. Analysis was performed at the Northwestern University Atomic and Nanoscale Characterization Experimental (NUANCE) Center, Electron Probe Instrumentation Center (EPIC) facility.
Automated Thread Counting
Thread count and [glossary:weave] information were determined by Thread Count Automation Project software.59
Image Registration Software
Overlay images registered using a novel image-based algorithm developed by Damon M. Conover (GW), John K. Delaney (GW, NGA), and Murray H. Loew (GW) of the George Washington University’s School of Engineering and Applied Science and the National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.60
Image Inventory
The image inventory compiles records of all known images of the artwork on file in the Conservation Department, the Imaging Department, and the Department of Medieval to Modern European Painting and Sculpture at the Art Institute of Chicago (fig. 24.56).
Footnotes:For further discussion, see Kimberley Muir, Inge Fiedler, Don H. Johnson, and Robert Erdmann, “Thread Count, Weave, and Ground Analysis of Claude Monet’s Vieille & Troisgros/Troisgros Frères canvases in the Art Institute of Chicago,” in Painting Techniques: History, Materials and Studio Practice (Rijksmuseum, forthcoming). The numbers preceded by a W refer to the Monet catalogue raisonné; see Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vols. 1–4 (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996).
Using the toolbar at the bottom right, any two images of the painting may be selected for comparison by clicking the layers icon to the right of the slider bar. The slider bar may be moved to transition back and forth between the two chosen images. The jagged line icon brings up a list of available annotations, or colored lines that show the significant features visible in each image, which may be turned on or off in any combination. For example, the red annotation lines, associated with the natural-light image, trace some of the painting’s key compositional features. When overlaid onto a technical image ([glossary:X-ray], [glossary:raking light], [glossary:UV], etc.), the red outlines help the viewer to better observe how features in the technical image relate to or diverge from the painting as seen with the naked eye. (When annotations are turned on, a legend appears in the upper right showing each color and its associated image type.) The circular arrow icon returns the image to the default settings (natural light, full-image view, natural-light [red] annotation on). The four-arrow icon toggles between the view of the image in the page and a full-screen view of the image. In the upper right corner, the vertical slider bar may be moved to zoom into or out of the image; different parts of the image can be accessed by clicking and dragging within the image itself. The icon in the upper left corner opens a small view of the full image, within which a red box indicates the portion of the overall image being viewed when zooming is enabled.
[glossary:XRF] analysis, in conjunction with microscopic examination of the painting surface, indicates that the signature contains vermilion, viridian, and red lake; iron oxides may also be present. See Kimberley Muir, “Mon_Rocks_64_210_XRF_Results,” Nov. 8, 2010, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.
As observed in several other Monet paintings in the Art Institute collection, the corners and edges of his canvases were often left in a somewhat sketchy state with areas of exposed ground. Monet often added a few strokes to the edges just before signing the work. As his stepson J.-P. Hoschedé noted, Monet “signed his pictures and painted the edges of his canvases which he tended not to paint right up to their margins.” Quoted in John House, Monet: Nature into Art (Yale University Press, 1988), p. 171.
Flax was confirmed by microscopic cross-sectional fiber identification. See Inge Fiedler, “1964_210_Monet_Analytical_Report,” June 12, 2014, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.
See, for example, chart of standard sizes available from Bourgeois Aîné in 1888, reproduced in David Bomford, Jo Kirby, John Leighton, and Ashok Roy, Art in the Making: Impressionism (National Gallery, London/Yale University Press, 1990), p. 46, fig. 31. The original dimensions were based on a visual estimate of the original foldovers. Small discrepancies between the measured dimensions and standard sizes may be a result of this approximation, as well as other factors such as restretching of the painting on a new [glossary:stretcher] after [glossary:lining].
[glossary:Thread count] and [glossary:weave] information determined by Thread Count Automation Project software; see Don H. Johnson and Robert G. Erdmann, “Thread Count Report: Claude Monet, Rocks at Port-Goulphar, Belle-Île (W1095/1964.210),” Oct. 2011.
This suggests that the canvases for the three paintings were cut from the same [glossary:bolt] of fabric. See Don H. Johnson, “Weave Match Report: Claude Monet, W1012, 1025, 1095,” Apr. 2011. For further discussion, see Kimberley Muir, Inge Fiedler, Don H. Johnson, and Robert Erdmann, “Thread Count, Weave, and Ground Analysis of Claude Monet’s Vieille & Troisgros/Troisgros Frères canvases in the Art Institute of Chicago,” in Painting Techniques: History, Materials and Studio Practice (Rijksmuseum, forthcoming). The numbers preceded by a W refer to the Monet catalogue raisonné; see Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vols. 1–4 (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996).
See examination record of auxiliary support, n.d., on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.
The presence of a [glossary:sizing] layer is difficult to determine from [glossary:cross sections] due to previous conservation treatments, including [glossary:wax-resin lining].
Traces of magnesium, aluminum, and silicon were detected in association with the calcium particles and are believed to be impurities often associated with the chalk. The [glossary:ground] composition was analyzed using [glossary:SEM/EDX] and [glossary:XRF]. For more detailed results and conditions used, see Inge Fiedler, “1964_210_Monet_analytical_report,” June 12, 2014; and Kimberley Muir, “Mon_Rocks_64_210_XRF_Results,” Nov. 8, 2010, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.
The paint occurs consistently at approximately 2 cm from the top edge of the [glossary:canvas].
The [glossary:pigments] were identified by the following methods: lead white, cadmium yellow, vermilion, emerald green, viridian, cobalt blue ([glossary:PLM], [glossary:XRF]); chrome yellow, red lake, ultramarine blue (PLM). Analysis was carried out on selected areas and may not include all pigments present in the painting. Paint scraping samples taken in 1974 were reexamined by PLM in 2013. For more detailed results and conditions used, see Inge Fiedler, “1964_210_Monet_analytical_report,” June 12, 2014; Inge Fiedler, “Monet_1964_210_PLM_results,” Nov. 27, 2013; Kimberley Muir, “Mon_Rocks_64_210_XRF_Results,” Nov. 8, 2010, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.
Identifying the specific type of lake used only by its [glossary:fluorescence] under [glossary:UV] is difficult, as many factors, including the type of substrate, binders, varnishes, and admixtures with other [glossary:pigments], can ultimately affect the perceived color of the fluorescence. Some types of madder and purpurin [glossary:lake pigments] have been reported to fluoresce orange, but other lakes, such as lacs, may fluoresce as well. The characteristics of red lakes, including their fluorescence under UV, are discussed in Helmut Schweppe and John Winter, “Madder and Alizarin,” in Artists’ Pigments: A Handbook of Their History and Characteristics, ed. Elisabeth West FitzHugh, vol. 3 (National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., 1997), pp. 124–26. See also Ruth Johnston-Feller, Color Science in the Examination of Museum Objects: Nondestructive Procedures (Getty Conservation Institute, 2001), p. 207.
The [glossary:binding medium] was not analyzed. The estimation of an [glossary:oil] medium is based on visual examination, as well as on knowledge of Monet’s technique and published analyses of Monet paintings in other collections. See, for example, David Bomford, Jo Kirby, John Leighton, and Ashok Roy, Art in the Making: Impressionism, exh. cat. (National Gallery, London/Yale University Press, 1990), pp. 72–75.
See Alfred Jakstas, treatment report, Aug. 20, 1974, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.
Kirk Vuillemot, “Monet Frame Descriptions Final,” Dec. 3, 2013, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.
A note in the conservation file indicates that the painting received a new frame for the August Collector’s Show, May 30, 1969. See Alfred Jakstas, treatment report, Aug. 20, 1974, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.
The [glossary:stretcher] dates to the 1974 conservation treatment (see Conservation History).
See Don H. Johnson, C. Richard Johnson, Jr., Andrew G. Klein, William A. Sethares, H. Lee, and Ella Hendriks, “A Thread Counting Algorithm for Art Forensics,” 2009 IEEE Thirteenth Digital Signal Processing and Fifth IEEE Signal Processing Education Workshop (IEEE, 2009), pp. 679–84; doi:10.1109/DSP.2009.4786009.
See Damon M. Conover, John K. Delaney, Paola Ricciardi, and Murray H. Loew, “Towards Automatic Registration of Technical Images of Works of Art,” in Computer Vision and Image Analysis of Art II, ed. David G. Stork, James Coddington, and Anna Bentkowska-Kafel, Proc. SPIE 7869 (SPIE/IS&T, 2011), doi:10.1117/12.872634.
Charles F. Stuckey, with the assistance of Sophia Shaw, Claude Monet, 1840–1926, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago/Thames & Hudson, 1995), p. 213, citing Daniel Wildenstein, Claude Monet: Biographie et catalogue raisonné, vol. 2, Peintures, 1882–1886 (Bibliothèque des Arts, 1979), pp. 50; 275, letters 676–678; 277, letter 690; 278, letter 699. Wildenstein quotes a letter in Lionello Venturi, Les archives de l’impressionnisme: Lettres de Renoir, Monet, Pissarro, Sisley et autres; Mémoires de Paul Durand-Ruel; Documents, vol. 1 (Durand-Ruel, 1939), p. 136, that Renoir sent to Durand-Ruel in August 1886 from Saint-Briac, which included the postscript, “J’ai écrit à Monet pour lui signaler des choses superbes pour lui” (I wrote to Monet to tell him about the beautiful things for him).
See Gustave Flaubert, Par les champs et par les grèves (voyage en Bretagne), accompagné de mélanges et fragments inédits (Charpentier, 1886). While Port-Goulphar is not specifically mentioned, Flaubert talks about a trip to the rocks and his descent from a cliff down to the beach; he describes: “les rochers, étendant à l'infini leurs sombres masses de verdure, faisaient succéder de l’un à l’autre leurs têtes inégales qui grandissaient en se multipliant comme des fantômes noirs sortant de dessous terre” (the rocks, endlessly stretching their dark masses of greenery, followed one after another with their uneven tops, which grew while multiplying themselves like black ghosts emerging from beneath the soil). Gustave Flaubert, Par les champs et par les grèves (voyage en Bretagne), accompagné de mélanges et fragments inédits (Charpentier, 1886), p. 127; translated in Robert Gordon and Andrew Forge, Monet (Abrams, 1983), p. 113. Monet owned a copy of Par les champs et par les grèves, according to an inventory prepared by Félicie de Maupeou, in collaboration with Pâquerette Le Men, “Les livres de la bibliothèque de Monet à Giverny,” under the direction of Ségolène Le Men, La bibliothèque de Monet, exh. cat. (Citadelles & Mazenod, 2013), p. 244. The possible influence of Flaubert’s account of Brittany on Monet’s painting campaign is first cited in Denise Delouche, “Monet et Belle-Ile en 1886,” Bulletin des amis du Musée de Rennes 4 (1980), p. 28. See also Steven Z. Levine, “Seascapes of the Sublime: Vernet, Monet, and the Oceanic Feeling,” New Literary History 16, 2 (1985), pp. 377–78. Flaubert’s Par les champs et par les grèves was first published in its entirety in 1885 by A. Quantin in Oeuvres complètes de Flaubert and then republished separately by Charpentier.
See Daniel Wildenstein, Claude Monet: Biographie et catalogue raisonné, vol. 2, Peintures, 1882–1886 (Bibliothèque des Arts, 1979), p. 275, letters 676–79.
Charles F. Stuckey, with the assistance of Sophia Shaw, Claude Monet, 1840–1926, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago/Thames & Hudson, 1995), pp. 213–14, citing Daniel Wildenstein, Claude Monet: Biographie et catalogue raisonné, vol. 2, Peintures, 1882–1886 (Bibliothèque des Arts, 1979), pp. 275, letters 676–678 and 684; 276, letter 685; 277, letter 690; 278, letter 699.
Daniel Wildenstein, Monet, or The Triumph of Impressionism, cat. rais., vol. 1 (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), p. 222. At this time a steamboat connected Port Maria in Quiberon to Belle-Île. See Karl Baedeker, Northern France, from Belgium and the English Channel to the Loire, excluding Paris and Its Environs, Handbook for Travellers (Karl Baedeker, 1889), p. 233, which mentions that a steamboat left from Port Maria twice a day for Belle-Île-en-Mer, a ten-mile journey taking one hour.
See Daniel Wildenstein, Monet, or The Triumph of Impressionism, cat. rais., vol. 1 (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), p. 222; and Wildenstein, Claude Monet: Biographie et catalogue raisonné, vol. 2, Peintures, 1882–1886 (Bibliothèque des Arts, 1979), p. 276, letter 685.
Charles F. Stuckey, with the assistance of Sophia Shaw, Claude Monet, 1840–1926, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago/Thames & Hudson, 1995),p. 213, citing Daniel Wildenstein, Claude Monet: Biographie et catalogue raisonné, vol. 2, Peintures, 1882–1886 (Bibliothèque des Arts, 1979), pp. 50–52; 276, letters 686–87. Belle-Île was famous for inlets. These indentations, referred to as ports, cut into the cliff face. Gustave Geffroy noted that “Each of these indentations . . . is given the name of port in the language of the Island. Yet very few are actually used to harbor boats. Only Port-Goulphar . . . offers the necessary depth and safety.” See Gustave Geffroy, Pays d’ouest, ed. Eugéne Fasquelle (Charpentier, 1897), p. 254, translated in Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vol. 3, Nos. 969–1595 (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), p. 414.
See Daniel Wildenstein, Claude Monet: Biographie et catalogue raisonné, vol. 2, Peintures, 1882–1886 (Bibliothèque des Arts, 1979), p. 276, letter 686. Monet mentioned to Alice that he has the house mostly to himself, except for the mice and rats that scurry around. Monet to Alice Hoschedé, Sept. 17, 1886 (original French on p. 276, letter 687). See also Daniel Wildenstein, Monet, or The Triumph of Impressionism, cat. rais., vol. 1 (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), pp. 222–24.
The Belle-Île campaign included thirty-eight paintings, which Monet “elaborated on the spot and later back home at Giverny.” See Steven Z. Levine, “Seascapes of the Sublime: Vernet, Monet, and the Oceanic Feeling,” New Literary History 16, 2 (1985), p. 378. According to Charles Stuckey, Monet returned to Giverny with around forty paintings; see Charles F. Stuckey, with the assistance of Sophia Shaw, Claude Monet, 1840–1926, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago/Thames & Hudson, 1995), p. 214. The number preceded by a W refers to the Monet catalogue raisonné; see Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vols. 1–4 (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996).
There are differing opinions on the assistance Monet received while at Belle-Île. Monet first mentions hiring an old sailor in a letter dated September 22 (letter 691), but two days later mentioned that he was now without a porter (Sept. 24, letter 692). A few weeks later, Monet again describes a porter (Oct. 12, letter 710) and mentions Poly by name in a letter dated October 17 (letter 714). See Daniel Wildenstein, Claude Monet: Biographie et catalogue raisonné, vol. 2, Peintures, 1882–1886 (Bibliothèque des Arts, 1979), pp. 277, letters 691 and 692; 280, letter 710; 281–82, letter 714. According to Charles Stuckey, this indicates that Monet worked with two different porters: the porter mentioned at the end of September quit, after which Monet hired a second porter, Poly; see Charles F. Stuckey, with the assistance of Sophia Shaw, Claude Monet, 1840–1926, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago/Thames & Hudson, 1995), p. 213. On the other hand, Wildenstein argues that the description Monet uses in the September 22 letter matches the general way Monet describes Poly, which suggests that Monet hired Poly at the end of September. Monet saying that he had no porter meant that Poly had only temporarily left his employ, but as the letters suggest, Poly returned. See Daniel Wildenstein, Claude Monet: Biographie et catalogue raisonné, vol. 2, Peintures, 1882–1886 (Bibliothèque des Arts, 1979), pp. 52–55. For more on Hippolyte (Poly) Guillaume, see Daniel Wildenstein, Monet, or The Triumph of Impressionism, cat. rais., vol. 1 (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), pp. 222–27.
Monet to Alice Hoschedé, Sept. 14, 1886, translated in Steven Z. Levine, Monet, Narcissus, and Self-Reflection: The Modernist Myth of the Self (University of Chicago Press, 1994), p. 62; original French in Daniel Wildenstein, Claude Monet: Biographie et catalogue raisonné, vol. 2, Peintures, 1882–1886 (Bibliothèque des Arts, 1979), p. 276, letter 686.
Monet to Durand-Ruel, Sept. 25, 1886, translated in Steven Z. Levine, Monet, Narcissus, and Self-Reflection: The Modernist Myth of the Self (University of Chicago Press, 1994), p. 62; original French in Daniel Wildenstein, Claude Monet: Biographie et catalogue raisonné, vol. 2, Peintures, 1882–1886 (Bibliothèque des Arts, 1979), p. 277, letter 694.
Monet to Durand-Ruel, Oct. 28, 1886, translated in Steven Z. Levine, Monet, Narcissus, and Self-Reflection: The Modernist Myth of the Self (University of Chicago Press, 1994), p. 62; original French in Daniel Wildenstein, Claude Monet: Biographie et catalogue raisonné, vol. 2, Peintures, 1882–1886 (Bibliothèque des Arts, 1979), p. 284, letter 727.
The number preceded by a W refers to the Monet catalogue raisonné; see Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vols. 1–4 (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996).
For more on Monet’s complaints about the unpredictable, but usually bad, weather, see Steven Z. Levine, Monet, Narcissus, and Self-Reflection: The Modernist Myth of the Self (University of Chicago Press, 1994), pp. 61–73.
See Gustave Geffroy, Pays d’ouest, ed. Eugéne Fasquelle (Charpentier, 1897), p. 254, translated in Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vol. 3, Nos. 969–1595 (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), p. 421, who says, when describing the location of Port-Domois, that mentions the signal station: “Right at the southern end, between Port-Goulphar and the Talus signal, the sea has dug itself a deep entrance.” See also Lieutenants George M. Totten and Seaton Schroeder, Bay of Biscay (Government Printing Office, 1876), pp. 338–39, who describe the Talus signal station as a yellow structure that signaled ships at sea.
Monet may have had in mind Japanese prints when he conceived this birds-eye view of the rocks. Denise Delouche makes several comparisons between Japanese prints and Monet’s views of Belle-Île; see Denise Delouche, Monet à Belle-Île (Palantines, 2006), pp. 74–75. The most striking comparison is between Utagawa Hiroshige’s Satsuma Province: Bô Bay, The Two-Sword Rocks (1856), a print owned by Monet, with his own views of the needles of Port-Coton. In addition, one of the Belle-Île paintings, Lion Rock, Rocks at Belle-Île, was later acquired, along with Young Girl in the Garden at Giverny (private collection [W1207]) by Tadamasa Hayashi, a dealer of Japanese prints, in exchange for prints by Kitagawa Utamaro, Hosoda Eishi, and Utagawa Hiroshige, underscoring the artist’s interest and indeed the value he placed on these for his own collection. For more on Tadamasa Hayashi and Monet’s collection of Japanese prints, see Geneviève Aitken and Marianne Delafond, La collection d’estampes japonaises de Claude Monet à Giverny (Maison de Monet, 1980), pp. 21–22. The number preceded by a W refers to the Monet catalogue raisonné; see Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vols. 1–4 (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996).
Vieille & Troisgros were in operation from 1879 to 1883. See Stéphanie Constantin, “The Barbizon Painters: A Guide to Their Suppliers,” Studies in Conservation 46, 1 (2001), p. 63. I am grateful to Kimberley Muir, Assistant Research Conservator in the Department of Conservation, for bringing this article to my attention.
In a letter to Alice Hoschedé that Wildenstein dates October 11, Monet mentions that he is waiting for the canvases he requested from Troisgros: “L’après-midi, j'ai repeint sur de mauvaises toiles du début; mais, pour faire d'heureuses pochades, il faut des toiles pures et j’attends avec impatience celles que j’ai demandées à Troisgros” (In the afternoon, I painted over poor early paintings; but to make acceptable sketches, I need fresh canvases and I am anxiously awaiting those that I ordered from Troisgros). On October 13, Monet wrote to Alice that he had begun working because he had received the canvases he ordered. Daniel Wildenstein, Claude Monet: Biographie et catalogue raisonné, vol. 2, Peintures, 1882–1886 (Bibliothèque des Arts, 1979), pp. 280–81, letters 708 and 711.
Vieille retired by 1884, and the business was renamed Troisgros Frères. See Stéphanie Constantin, “The Barbizon Painters: A Guide to Their Suppliers,” Studies in Conservation 46, 1 (2001), pp. 53, 63. I am grateful to Kimberley Muir, Assistant Research Conservator in the Department of Conservation, for bringing this article to my attention.
See Technical Report. Throughout his Belle-Île campaign, Monet continually reworked his compositions. For this reason, he refused to send any of the works to his dealer, claiming that he needed to reassess the effect of the group back in his Giverny studio. See Charles F. Stuckey, with the assistance of Sophia Shaw, Claude Monet, 1840–1926, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago/Thames & Hudson, 1995), p. 214. In a letter to Durand-Ruel dated November 9, Monet says that “Nothing is finished and you know very well that I can’t really judge what I’ve done until I look over it again at home . . . I’ll have a lot to do once I get back to Giverny.” Translated in Richard Kendall, ed., Monet by Himself: Paintings, Drawings, Pastels, Letters, trans. Bridget Strevens Romer (Macdonald Orbis, 1989), p. 122; in Daniel Wildenstein, Claude Monet: Biographie et catalogue raisonné, vol. 2, Peintures, 1882–1886 (Bibliothèque des Arts, 1979), pp. 287–88, letter 741.
For Monet this is the word most associated with Belle-Île and one that he repeats in his letters to his companion Alice but also to his friends, as a more personal response encompassing both terror and fatigue—the two senses of the word provided by Larousse (1886): “Terrible adj. (lat. terribilis; de terrere, épouvanter). Qui cause de la terreur. Fig. Étrange, extraordinaire: vent, bruit terrible; importun, fatigant: c’est un terrible homme.” Pierre Larousse, Nouveau dictionnaire de la langue française, quatre dictionnaires en un seul, 66th ed., illustrated and enlarged (Larousse & Boyer Réunies, 1886), p. 753. Out of the at least seventy-six letters sent by Monet during his time in Belle-Île, twenty-three of them include the word “terrible(s)” or “terriblement.” Most often it is used to complain about the terrible weather. However, Monet also uses “terrible” to describe the sea, the rocks, and the countryside in a letter to Alice: “Je trouve le pays superbe, même en dehors de ses terribles rochers et de la mer sauvage” (I find the country beautiful, even apart from its terrible rocks and wild sea); in a letter to Gustave Caillebotte: “un amoncellement de rochers terrible et une mer invraisemblable de couleurs” (a mass of terrible rocks and an implausible sea of colors); and in a letter to Berthe Morisot: “Je suis ici depuis près de deux mois, un pays terrible, sinistre, mais très beaux, qui m’vait peu séduit au premier moment, mais l'océan est si beau que je me suis embarqué dans une quantité d'études et plus je vais, plus je suis émerveillé; mais quel terrible temps!” (I have been here almost two months, a terrible country, sinister, but very beautiful, which had little seduced me at first, but the ocean is so beautiful that I embarked on a number of studies and the more I go, the more I am amazed, but what terrible weather!). See Daniel Wildenstein, Claude Monet: Biographie et catalogue raisonné, vol. 2, Peintures, 1882–1886 (Bibliothèque des Arts, 1979), pp. 277, letter 692; 280, letter 709; 286, letter 733.
“Ce sera une face nouvelle de son talent: un Monet terrible, formidable, qu’on ne connaissait pas encore. Mais ses oeuvres plairont moins que jamais aux bourgeois,” in Octave Mirbeau, Correspondance avec Auguste Rodin, ed. Pierre Michel and Jean-François Nivet (Lérot, 1988), p. 59; translated in Charles F. Stuckey, with the assistance of Sophia Shaw, Claude Monet, 1840–1926, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago/Thames & Hudson, 1995), p. 214.
The Art Institute’s Arrival of the Normandy Train, Gare Saint-Lazare (cat. 16) and Bordighera (cat. 20) were also exhibited at the 6e exposition internationale de peinture et de sculpture but were not included in the catalogue (“hors catalogue”).
Gustave Geffroy, “Salon de 1887. Hors du salon: Claude Monet,” La justice, pt. 2 (June 2, 1887), p. 1, translated by Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vol. 3, Nos. 969–1595 (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), p. 414. Geffroy, perhaps channeling Monet’s own language, uses Monet’s favorite term to introduce his own discussion of the Belle-Île paintings exhibited at the 6e Exposition internationale de peinture et de sculpture: “Pour la premiere fois, la terrible mer de là-bas a trouvé son historien” (For the first time, the terrible sea out there has found its historian), see Gustave Geffroy, “Salon de 1887. Hors du salon: Claude Monet,” La justice, pt. 2 (June 2, 1887), p. 1.
Denise Delouche, Monet à Belle-Île (Palantines, 2006), p. 67.
“Après Belle-Ile terrible, ça va être du tendre; ce n’est ici que du bleu, du rose et de l’or, mais quelle difficulté, bon Dieu!” Monet to Duret, Mar. 10, 1888, translated in Steven Z. Levine, Monet, Narcissus, and Self-Reflection: The Modernist Myth of the Self (University of Chicago Press, 1994), p. 76; original French in Daniel Wildenstein, Claude Monet: Biographie et catalogue raisonné, vol. 3, Peintures, 1887–1898 (Bibliothèque des Arts, 1979), p. 232, letter 855.
Rocks at Port-Goulphar, Belle-Île (W1095) corresponds to Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vol. 3, Nos. 969–1595 (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), pp. 415, cat. 1095 (ill.); 416. The Art Institute currently uses the title that resulted from the research for the 1995 exhibition Claude Monet, 1840–1926. See curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago. The painting had the following titles during the lifetime of the artist:
Jan. 4, 1896: Belle Isle (Durand-Ruel, New York, stock book 1894–1905 [no. 1515]; see Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 5, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago).
Mar. 1905: Belle-Isle. 1886. (Copley Society, Loan Collection of Paintings by Claude Monet and Eleven Sculptures by August Rodin, exh. cat. [Copley Society, 1905], p. 24, cat. 75).
The transaction is recorded in the Durand-Ruel, Paris, stock book for 1891–1901 (no. 2542): “Purchased from Monet by DR Paris on 21 December 1892, for 4 500 F / Stock no. 2542, photo no. 592,” as confirmed by Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 5, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.
The Paris and New York Durand-Ruel stock books record different dates for the sale. The Paris stock book for 1891–1901 (no. 2542) states: “Sold to DR New York (stock 2542) on 19 December 1895.” The New York stock book for 1894–1905 (no. 1515, as Belle Isle) states: “Purchased by DR New York on 4 January 1896 as Belle Isle / Stock NY no.1515.” As confirmed by Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 5, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.
The transaction is recorded in the Durand-Ruel, New York, stock book for 1894–1905 (no. 1515): “Sold (stock 1515) to Mrs J. J. Borland on 6 March 1897 for $ 2 000,” as confirmed by Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 5, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.
The painting was given to the Art Institute of Chicago in undivided fractional interests beginning in 1964. The Art Institute received the final fractional interest for one hundred percent ownership in 1973.
See Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 5, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.
See Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 5, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.
See Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 5, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.
The label was located on the pre-1974 treatment [glossary:stretcher] (discarded); preserved in conservation file, Art Institute of Chicago.
According to the Durand-Ruel Archives, this exhibition was recorded in their book of daily gallery activity; Durand-Ruel, Brouillard, July 20, 1895. See Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 5, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago. For the exhibition dates, see Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vol. 4, Nos. 1596–1983 et les grandes décorations (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), p. 1017.
The latter was republished as Gloria Groom and Douglas Druick, with the assistance of Dorota Chudzicka and Jill Shaw, The Age of French Impressionism: Masterpieces from the Art Institute of Chicago, rev. and expanded ed. (Art Institute of Chicago/Yale University Press, 2010; repr. 2013), pp. 87; 120, cat. 59 (ill.).
For an overview of the materials and methods of Claude Monet’s paintings in the Art Institute of Chicago, see Kimberley Muir, Inge Fiedler, Don H. Johnson, and Robert G. Erdmann, “An In-depth Study of the Materials and Technique of Paintings by Claude Monet from the Art Institute of Chicago,” ICOM-CC 17th Triennial Meeting Preprints, Melbourne, Sept. 15–19, 2014 (forthcoming).