Cat. 29. Stacks of Wheat (Sunset, Snow Effect), 1890/91

Cat. 29  Stacks of Wheat (Sunset, Snow Effect), 1890/91

Cat. 29

Stacks of Wheat (Sunset, Snow Effect)1
1890/912
Oil on canvas; 65.3 × 100.4 cm (25 11/16 × 39 1/2 in.)
Signed and dated: Claude Monet 91 (lower right, name in reddish-brown paint, date in greenish-brown paint)
The Art Institute of Chicago, Potter Palmer Collection, 1922.431

Technical Report

Technical Summary

Claude Monet’s Stacks of Wheat (Sunset, Snow Effect) was painted on a [glossary:pre-primed], no. 40 seascape ([glossary:marine]) standard-size linen [glossary:canvas]. The [glossary:ground] consists of a single, off-white layer. A stamp from the [glossary:color merchant] Troisgros Frères was documented on the back of the original [glossary:stretcher]. A [glossary:warp-thread match] was detected with seven other Monet paintings from the Art Institute’s collection: The Petite Creuse River (cat. 25 [W1231], inv. 1922.432), Stacks of Wheat (End of Summer) (cat. 27 [W1269], inv. 1985.1103), Stacks of Wheat (End of Day, Autumn) (cat. 28 [W1270], inv.), Stack of Wheat (Thaw, Sunset) (cat. 32 [W1284], inv. 1983.166), Sandvika, Norway (cat. 34 [W1397], inv. 1961.790), Branch of the Seine near Giverny (Mist) (cat. 36 [W1475], inv. 1933.1156), and Water Lily Pond (cat. 37 [W1628], inv. 1933.441), suggesting that the fabric for these paintings came from the same bolt of material.3 The painting is densely built up from a light-toned [glossary:underpainting] that laid out the main forms of the composition. In the process of painting, the artist made a significant change to the placement of the two stacks. At an earlier stage, the stacks appear to have been of a size comparable to those depicted in the final painting but were placed much further apart, closer to the left and right edges of the canvas. The horizon line also appears to have been painted in a significantly lower position in the earlier image. Some of the brushwork related to the earlier painting remains visible on the surface. The date, 91, appears to have been applied later and in a different color from the signature, after some pink brushstrokes added to the bottom right corner covered the original date.

Multilayer Interactive Image Viewer

The multilayer interactive image viewer is designed to facilitate the viewer’s exploration and comparison of the technical images (fig. 29.1).4

Signature

Signed and dated: Claude Monet 91 (lower right, name in reddish-brown paint, date in greenish-brown paint)5 (fig. 29.2, fig. 29.3, fig. 29.4). The signature is executed in a reddish-brown paint and was applied when the underlying paint was dry. The date, on the other hand, consists of a dull, greenish-brown paint mixture and appears to have been added later, [glossary:wet-in-wet], over a layer of pale-pink paint that was applied just to the corner area and that appears to cover an earlier date similar in color to the signature (fig. 29.5).6

Structure and Technique

Support

Canvas

Flax (commonly known as linen).7

Standard format

The original dimensions were approximately 65 × 100 cm, which corresponds to a no. 40 seascape (marine) standard-size [glossary:stretcher].8

Weave

[glossary:Plain weave]. Average [glossary:thread count] (standard deviation): 23.3V (0.5) × 22.2H (0.7) threads/cm. The vertical threads were determined to correspond to the [glossary:warp] and the horizontal threads to the [glossary:weft].9 A warp-thread match was determined with seven other Monet paintings in the Art Institute’s collection: The Petite Creuse River (cat. 25 [W1231], inv. 1922.432), Stacks of Wheat (End of Summer) (cat. 27 [W1269], inv. 1985.1103), Stacks of Wheat (End of Day, Autumn) (cat. 28 [W1270], inv. 1933.444), Stack of Wheat (Thaw, Sunset) (cat. 32 [W1284], inv. 1983.166), Sandvika, Norway (cat. 34 [W1397], inv. 1961.790), Branch of the Seine near Giverny (Mist) (cat. 36 [W1475], inv. 1933.1156), and Water Lily Pond (cat. 37 [W1628], inv. 1933.441).10

Canvas characteristics

There is mild [glossary:cusping] along the top and bottom edges, slightly more pronounced cusping on the left edge, and stronger and more irregular cusping along the right edge.

Stretching

Current stretching: Dates to the 1992 treatment (see Conservation History); copper tacks spaced approximately 2–5 cm apart. The painting appears to have been mounted on the stretcher slightly askew. Additional holes on all sides probably relate to the aluminum strip molding applied in 1959 (see Conservation History).

Original stretching: Tack holes, spaced approximately 6–8 cm apart, correspond to cusping in the canvas. A second series of tack holes is spaced more irregularly, approximately 5–10 cm apart, and does not align with the cusping pattern.11

Stretcher/strainer

Current stretcher: Five-membered wood stretcher with vertical [glossary:crossbar] and keyable [glossary:mortise and tenon joints], dating to the 1992 treatment (see Conservation History). Depth: 3 cm.

Original stretcher: Discarded. The pre-1968-treatment stretcher may have been the original stretcher.12 A diagram in the 1959 examination report indicates that the stretcher consisted of five members including a vertical crossbar, with keyable, butt-ended joints.13 Depth: Based on the presence of a crease in the tacking margin, presumably where excess fabric was folded over the back edge of the original stretcher, the depth was approximately 1.5 cm.

Manufacturer’s/supplier’s marks

The 1959 examination report records that there was a stamp on the back of the pre-1968-treatment stretcher (discarded): TROT [sic] . . . (?)OS FRÈRES / 35 Rue Victor Massé / Panneaux etc (fig. 29.6).14

Preparatory Layers

Sizing

In [glossary:UV] light, evidence of a light blue [glossary:fluorescence] between the canvas and the ground suggests the presence of an organic layer, possibly glue [glossary:sizing] (fig. 29.7).15

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. The ground consists of a single layer and ranges from approximately 15 to 80 µm in thickness (fig. 29.8).

Color

The ground is off-white, with some dark particles visible under magnification (fig. 29.9).

Materials/composition

Analysis indicates the presence of the following components: lead white and calcium carbonate (chalk), with traces of bone black, iron oxide, alumina, silica, and various silicates.16 [glossary: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 revision

Most of the landscape and the left side of the sky were executed in similarly soft shades of blue and pink, sometimes mixed to form pale-purple hues. These colors appear throughout these areas, but in general, pink was used for the reflections in the snow and a slightly more intense blue to denote the shadows. The artist worked in a fairly narrow tonal range, such that the transition from foreground to middle ground to sky is almost indistinguishable and the buildings in the distance are barely discernible. The stacks come into sharper focus through the use of more intensely colored strokes of blue and reddish-brown paint. The most intense color—shades of bright yellow, orange, and salmon pink (fig. 29.10)—were reserved for the evening sky. The paint layer is fairly continuous, with very little exposed ground visible at the surface. The dense buildup of paint is evident in both the transmitted light and [glossary:X-ray] images (fig. 29.11). Where a few small glimpses are afforded, there appears to be a light-toned underpainting that covers most of the ground layer. This often consists of pale shades of gray (fig. 29.12) or, underneath the stacks, subdued greens and pinkish browns (fig. 29.13, fig. 29.14). The brush-marked texture of this underpainting often remains visible on the surface of the painting.

The brushwork is relatively uniform over the surface. Brush marks are visible, but they are low relief and smoothed out in places, with very little [glossary:impasto]. The paint consistency ranges from quite fluid, exhibiting a smooth, settled surface with some swirling together of unmixed colors (fig. 29.15), to stiffer, more-bodied paint that holds the ridges of the brush marks (fig. 29.16).17 The painting combines areas of wet-in-wet mixing and [glossary:wet-over-dry] brushwork. In some areas, the artist used a scumbling technique in which he layered opaque, slightly more intense color on top of a lighter paint layer. This is apparent in the orange area of the sky, where deep orange-red paint was applied wet-over-dry with a small brush (2.0–3.0 mm in width), using short strokes that allow the pale orange layer underneath to show through (fig. 29.17). A similar effect was observed in the bluish-gray hill near the left edge (fig. 29.18). The light dragging of the upper paint layers here and throughout the painting emphasizes the texture of the underlying layers. This is particularly apparent in the areas of compositional changes (discussed below).

Technical examination has revealed a major compositional change in the placement of the two stacks. As is evident in both the X-ray and [glossary:transmitted-infrared] images, earlier in the painting process the stacks were positioned much farther apart (fig. 29.19). Although the sizes of both the large and the small stack seem comparable to those in the final painting, their outer edges were much closer to the left and right sides of the canvas, which would have left quite a large empty space in the middle of the composition.18 Brushstrokes from the earlier stacks, particularly the thicker strokes that delineate the edges, remain visible on the surface, especially when the painting is viewed in raking light (fig. 29.20). It is difficult to say how far these stacks were developed or whether they were painted in a different [glossary:palette], since the paint applied on top is mostly continuous. In a few small areas of the large painted-out stack, however, some green paint was observed below the surface (fig. 29.21). A similar green area was detected below the pink and blue paint of the landscape at the left edge of the painting (fig. 29.22), perhaps providing evidence that the artist started the painting using a different color scheme. The artist may also have adjusted the position of the horizon line. There are some strong, roughly horizontal, curving brushstrokes above and below the current horizon, on the left and right sides of the painting. These are more clearly visible in the X-ray, which shows similar brushstrokes continuing throughout the sky. Based on this evidence, it seems that the horizon line may have originally been significantly lower, possibly with the peak of the large painted-out stack rising slightly above it (fig. 29.23).

A band of disturbed paint—caused by something having been pressed onto and then pulled away from the paint surface when it was still wet, drawing up low peaks—occurred along the bottom edge. The band is approximately 45 cm long and is positioned roughly in the middle of the canvas (29 cm from the left edge and 27 cm from the right edge) (fig. 29.24). This impression in the wet paint may have been caused by an easel cleat or transporting device. Subsequent brushstrokes were applied on top when the peaks of paint were dry, indicating that the disturbance to the wet paint occurred at some point during the execution of the work. A few inclusions, possibly of plant matter, were observed embedded in the paint layer, near the bottom-right corner (fig. 29.25).19

Painting tools

Brushes including 0.3, 1.0, and 1.5 cm width, flat ferrule (based on width and shape of brushstrokes). There are several brush hairs embedded in the paint surface.

Palette

Analysis indicates the presence of the following [glossary:pigments]: lead white, cadmium yellow, chrome yellow, vermilion, red lake, viridian, cobalt blue, and ultramarine blue.20 [glossary:UV fluorescence] suggests the use of red lake throughout the landscape.21

Binding media

Oil (estimated).22

Surface Finish

Varnish layer/media

The painting was cleaned in 1992 and left unvarnished. It has a subtly variable surface—matte in some areas, low sheen in others—depending on the qualities of the paint. It is noted in the conservation file that the painting was cleaned and varnished in 1922.23 Its surface finish prior to this treatment was not documented (see Conservation History).

Conservation History

The painting was cleaned and varnished in 1922.24

In 1954 the stretcher was keyed out to ameliorate slackening of the canvas.25

Around 1959 the painting was surface cleaned with wax emulsions and backed with resin-coated paper board, and aluminum strip molding was attached along the edges.26

In 1968 a “very heavy, yellowed” [glossary:varnish] was removed. The canvas was wax-resin lined and mounted on a new [glossary:ICA spring stretcher]. A layer of polyvinyl acetate (PVA) AYAA was applied. Minor [glossary:inpainting] was carried out. A layer of methacrylate resin L-46 was applied, followed by a final layer of AYAA.27

In 1992 the [glossary:wax-resin lining] was removed. The canvas was edge lined and mounted on a new keyable wood stretcher with a loose [glossary:lining]. The [glossary:synthetic varnish] layers were removed, and the painting was left unvarnished.28

Condition Summary

The painting is in good condition. The canvas is edge lined and loose lined with a panel insert. There are no planar deformations. Moderate cracking, abrasion, and small losses are present in the paint and ground layers around all of the edges, with some short splits in the canvas at the foldovers and holes at the corners. The paint layer is in excellent condition, with only a few tiny flake losses. There is minimal [glossary:retouching], mostly at the top, left, and right edges. There is an overall network of fine cracks. Cracking is more extensive in the sky, but is visible mostly only under magnification. [glossary:Stretcher-bar cracks] are visible in the area of the original vertical crossbar. A few anomalous brown and gray paint strokes near the bottom left corner have the appearance of smudges or accretions but are probably original to the painting, since they appear to be wet-in-wet with the surrounding paint. There is some flattening of the paint and embedded wood fibers and debris in the frame rebate area, which appears to be due to framing when the paint was still soft. Several brush hairs are embedded in the paint surface. There are some light scratches and gouges in the blue paint at the bottom left corner and also to the right of the large stack, which occurred when the paint was still soft. The painting is currently unvarnished and has a natural matte finish with slight variations in gloss depending on the qualities of the paint. Some yellowed, [glossary:natural-resin varnish] residues and starch-paste residues from previous treatments are visible microscopically in the recesses of the paint texture. In places, these residues scatter the light and impart a whitish, milky appearance at certain angles. There are traces of gold paint in the frame rebate area.
Kimberley Muir

Frame

Current frame (installed in 1995): The frame is not original to the painting. It is a reproduction of a Louis XIII convex frame with carved acanthus leaves divided by an undulating ribbon, inner guilloche ornament bordered by hollows, and leaf-tip sight edge (Paul Mitchell Ltd., London 1995). The frame is water gilded over red bole on gesso. The hollows are burnished while the ornament is selectively burnished. The gilding is toned with thin washes of oil paint and glue [glossary:size]. The carved jelutong-wood molding is mitered and joined with dovetail splines. The molding, from perimeter to interior, is quirked ogee cyma recta; convex face with carved acanthus leaves divided by an undulating ribbon; fillet with rocked recutting; hollow; guilloche bordered by rocked recutting; hollow; torus with carved leaf tips; and cove sight (fig. 29.26).29

Previous frame (a note on a 1969 loan request states the work “was re-framed in 1968 August”; removed 1995): The work was previously housed in an American mid-twentieth-century reproduction of a Louis XVI, gilt, architrave frame with ribbon-and-reel and bead-and-bobbin ornament (APF Inc., New York) (fig. 29.27, fig. 29.28).30
Kirk Vuillemot

Provenance

Sold by the artist to Durand-Ruel, Paris, July 20, 1891, for 3,200 francs.31

Sold by Durand-Ruel, Paris, to Durand-Ruel, New York, Oct. 30, 1891.32

Sold by Durand-Ruel, New York, to Potter Palmer, Chicago, Feb. 29, 1892, for $13,000.33

By descent from Potter Palmer (died 1902), Chicago, to the Palmer family.34

Given by the Palmer family to the Art Institute of Chicago, 1922.

Exhibition History

Paris, Galeries Durand-Ruel, Exposition d’oeuvres récentes de Claude Monet, May 1891, cat. 13, as Meules. (Coucher du soleil; effet de neige.).35

Boston, Copley Society, Loan Collection of Paintings by Claude Monet and Eleven Sculptures by Auguste Rodin, Mar. 1905, cat. 84, as Meules. Effet de Neige, Soleil Couchant. 1891. Lent by Mrs. Potter Palmer.36

Art Institute of Chicago, Paintings from the Collection of Mrs. Potter Palmer, May 10–Nov., 1910, cat. 36, as Haystacks in winter.37

Poughkeepsie (N.Y.), Vassar College, Art Department Picture of the Month, series 1 (circuit exhibition, organized by the American Federation of Arts), Nov. 1954;38 possibly La Jolla (Calif.) Art Center, Dec. 1954;39 Charleston, S.C., Gibbes Art Gallery, Jan. 1955;40 Columbus (Ga.) Museum of Arts and Crafts, Feb. 1955;41 possibly Seattle, Charles and Emma Frye Free Public Art Museum, Mar. 1955;42 Louisville, Ky., J. B. Speed Art Museum, Apr. 1955;43 Berea (Ky.), Berea College of Art Department, May 1955.44

Park Forest (Ill.) Art Center, Mar. 25–Apr. 22, 1956, no cat.45

Art Institute of Chicago, The Paintings of Claude Monet, Apr. 1–June 15, 1957, no cat. no.46

New York, Museum of Modern Art, Claude Monet: Seasons and Moments, Mar. 9–May 15, 1960, cat. 52; Los Angeles County Museum, June 14–Aug. 7, 1960.

Buffalo. N.Y., Albright-Knox Art Gallery, Color and Field, 1890–1970, Sept. 15–Nov. 1, 1970, cat. 14 (ill.); Dayton (Ohio) Art Institute, Nov. 20, 1970–Jan. 10, 1971; Cleveland Museum of Art, Feb. 4–March 28, 1971.

Art Institute of Chicago, Paintings by Monet, Mar. 15–May 11, 1975, cat. 87 (ill.) (fig. 29.29).47 

New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Monet’s Years at Giverny: Beyond Impressionism, Apr. 19–July 9, 1978, cat. 13 (ill.); Saint Louis Art Museum, Aug. 1–Oct. 8, 1978.

Los Angeles County Museum of Art, A Day in the Country: Impressionism and the French Landscape, June 28–Sept. 16, 1984, cat. 112 (ill.); Art Institute of Chicago, Oct. 23, 1984–Jan. 6, 1985; Paris, Galeries Nationales d’Exposition du Grand Palais, as L’impressionnisme et le paysage français, Feb. 4–Apr. 22, 1985.48

Art Institute of Chicago, The Art of the Edge: European Frames, 1300–1900, Oct. 17–Dec. 14, 1986, not in cat.49

Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, Monet in the ’90s: The Series Paintings, Feb. 7–Apr. 29, 1990, cat. 22 (ill.); Art Institute of Chicago, May 19–Aug. 12, 1990; London, Royal Academy of Arts, Sept. 7–Dec. 9, 1990.

Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago’s Dream, a World’s Treasure: The Art Institute of Chicago, 1893–1993, Nov. 1, 1993–Jan. 9, 1994, no cat. no. (ill.).50

Art Institute of Chicago, Claude Monet, 1840–1926, July 22–Nov. 26, 1995, cat. 96 (ill.). (fig. 29.30)

Washington, D.C., Phillips Collection, Impressionists in Winter: Effets de Neige, Sept. 19, 1998–Jan. 3, 1999, cat. 26 (ill.); San Francisco, Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco at the Center for the Arts at Yerba Buena Gardens, Jan. 30–May 2, 1999 (Washington only).

Hamburg, Hamburger Kunsthalle, Monets Vermächtnis: Serie—Ordnung und Obsession, Sept. 28, 2001–Jan. 6, 2002, no cat. no. (ill.).51

Baltimore, Walters Art Museum, Déjà Vu? Revealing Repetition in French Masterpieces, Oct. 7, 2007–Jan. 1, 2008, cat. 58 (ill.); Phoenix Art Museum, Jan. 20–May 4, 2008.52

Fort Worth, Tex., Kimbell Museum of Art, The Impressionists: Master Paintings from the Art Institute of Chicago, June 29–Nov. 2, 2008, cat. 77 (ill.).

Selected References

Galeries Durand-Ruel, Paris, Exposition Claude Monet, exh. cat. (Galeries Durand-Ruel, 1891), p. 16, cat. 13.

“Claude Monet Exhibit Opens,” Boston Post, Mar. 15, 1905.

Copley Society, Loan Collection of Paintings by Claude Monet and Eleven Sculptures by August Rodin, exh. cat. (Copley Society, 1905), p. 26, cat 84.

Art Institute of Chicago, Paintings from the Collection of Mrs. Potter Palmer, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago, 1910), cat. 36.

Art Institute of Chicago, “Accessions and Loans,” Bulletin of the Art Institute of Chicago 16, 3 (May, 1922), p. 47.

M.C., “Monets in the Art Institute,” Bulletin of the Art Institute of Chicago 19, 2 (Feb. 1925), p. 20.

Art Institute of Chicago, A Guide to the Paintings in the Permanent Collection (Art Institute of Chicago, 1925), p. 146, cat. 835.

Art Institute of Chicago, The Art Institute of Chicago Handbook of Sculpture, Architecture, Paintings and Drawings (Chicago, 1932), p. 164, cat. 22.431.

Oscar Reuterswärd, Monet: En konstnärshistorik (Bonniers, 1948), p. 286.

American Federation of Arts, Picture of the Month: A Special Program Offered by the American Federation of Arts, exh. brochure (American Federation of Arts, 1954), pp. 1, cat. 4; 4 (ill.).

“Claude Monet Painting to be Shown at Gibbes Art Gallery,” News and Courier, Charleston, S. C., Sunday Morning, Dec. 26, 1954, p. Ten–B (ill.).

“April Picture of the Month,” J. B. Speed Art Museum Bulletin 16, 4 (Apr. 1955), p. 6 (ill.).

Art Institute of Chicago, “Catalogue,” Art Institute of Chicago Quarterly 51, 2 (Apr. 1, 1957), p. 33.

William C. Seitz, Claude Monet: Seasons and Moments, exh. cat. (Museum of Modern Art, New York/Los Angeles County Museum of Art/Doubleday, 1960), p. 61, cat. 52.

Art Institute of Chicago, Paintings in the Art Institute of Chicago: A Catalogue of the Picture Collection (Art Institute of Chicago, 1961), p. 320.

John Coplans, Serial Imagery, exh. cat. (Pasadena Art Museum, 1968), pp. 23, fig. 2c; 27.

Priscilla Colt, introduction to Color and Field, 1890–1970, exh. cat. (Albright-Knox Art Gallery/Dayton Art Institute/Cleveland Museum of Art, 1970), p. 16.

Albright-Knox Art Gallery, Dayton Art Institute, and Cleveland Museum of Art, Color and Field, 1890–1970, exh. cat. (Albright-Knox Art Gallery/Dayton Art Institute/Cleveland Museum of Art, 1970), p. 31, cat. 14 (ill.).

Grace Seiberling, “The Evolution of an Impressionist,” in Paintings by Monet, ed. Susan Wise, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago, 1975), pp. 32, 33.

Susan Wise, ed., Paintings by Monet, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago, 1975), p. 144, cat. 87 (ill.).

Taft Museum, Best of Fifty, exh. cat. (Taft Museum, 1977), pp. 62–63 (ill.).

Metropolitan Museum of Art, Monet’s Years at Giverny: Beyond Impressionism, exh. cat. (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 1978), pp. 56, cat. 13 (ill.); 156.

Daniel Wildenstein, “Monet’s Giverny,” Metropolitan Museum of Art, Monet’s Years at Giverny: Beyond Impressionism, exh. cat. (Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1978), p. 21.

Daniel Wildenstein, Claude Monet: Biographie et catalogue raisonné, vol. 3, Peintures, 1887–1898 (Bibliothèque des Arts, 1979), pp. 38; 42, n. 1032; 140; 141, cat. 1278 (ill.).

Richard R. Brettell, “Monet’s Haystacks Reconsidered,” Art Institute of Chicago Museum Studies 11, 1 (Fall 1984), pp. 6; 7; 8–9, pl. 3; 14; 18, fig. 13 (ill.); 19.

Andrea P. A. Belloli, ed., A Day in the Country: Impressionism and the French Landscape, exh. cat. (Los Angeles County Museum of Art, 1984), p. 365.

Richard R. Brettell, “The Fields of France,” in A Day in the Country: Impressionism and the French Landscape, ed. Andrea P. A. Belloli, exh. cat. (Los Angeles County Museum of Art, 1984), pp. 246; 260–61; 271, no. 112 (ill.).

Richard R. Brettell, “La campagne française,” in Réunion des Musées Nationaux, L’impressionnisme et le paysage français, exh. cat. (Réunion des Musées Nationaux, 1985), pp. 261; 282–291. no. 112 (ill.).

Richard R. Brettell, Post-Impressionists (Art Institute of Chicago/Abrams, 1987), pp. 34–35 (detail), 37 (ill.), 118.

Paul Hayes Tucker, Monet in the ’90s: The Series Paintings, exh. cat. (Museum of Fine Arts, Boston/Yale University Press, 1989), cover (detail); pp. 3; 77; 80; 84–85, pl. 26 (overall and detail); 296, cat. 22.

John Sallis, “Monet’s Grainstacks: Shades of Time,” Tema Celeste 30 (Mar.–Apr. 1991), pp. 63; 65; 66 (ill.); 67.

Virginia Spate, Claude Monet: Life and Work (Rizzoli/Thames & Hudson, 1992), pp. 213; 215, ill. 231.

Neil Harris, Chicago’s Dream, a World’s Treasure: The Art Institute of Chicago, 1893–1993, ed. Teri J. Edelstein, afterword by James N. Wood, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago, 1993), p. 31 (ill.).

William Mullen, “Art Institute Exhibit Hails Benefactors,” Chicago Tribune (Nov. 2, 1993), p. 1 (ill.).

George Keyes, “Claude Monet’s Grainstack, Sun in the Mist,” Arts 16, no. 12 (Dec. 1993), p. 7 (ill.).

Andrew Forge, Monet, Artists in Focus (Art Institute of Chicago, 1995), pp. 44; 47 (detail); 49; 88, pl. 17; 108.

Karin Hellandsjø, ed., Monet i Norge/Monet en Norvege/Monet in Norway, exh. cat. (Rogaland Kunstmuseum/Musée Rodin, 1995), pp. 49, 57 (ill.).

Charles F. Stuckey, with the assistance of Sophia Shaw, Claude Monet, 1840–1926, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago/Thames & Hudson, 1995), pp. 117, cat. 96 (ill.); 220; 237.

Daniel Wildenstein, Monet, or The Triumph of Impressionism, cat. rais., vol. 1 (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), pp. 268–69, cat. 1278 (detail); 275.

Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vol. 3, Nos. 969–1595 (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), pp. 489; 492, cat. 1278 (ill.); 500.

Carla Rachman, Monet (Phaidon, 1997), pp. 244; 245, fig. 157; 251.

Charles S. Moffett, “Effet de Neige: ‘Claude Monet and a Few Others…,’” in Charles S. Moffett, Eliza E. Rathbone, Katherine Rothkopf, and Joel Isaacson, Impressionists in Winter: Effets de neige, exh. cat. (Phillips Collection/Philip Wilson, 1998), pp. 20, 22.

Charles S. Moffett, Eliza E. Rathbone, Katherine Rothkopf, and Joel Isaacson, Impressionists in Winter: Effets de neige, exh. cat. (Phillips Collection/Philip Wilson, 1998), pp. 79; 211, cat. 26 (ill.).

Eliza E. Rathbone, “Road by Saint-Siméon Farm in Winter,” in Charles S. Moffett, Eliza E. Rathbone, Katherine Rothkopf, and Joel Isaacson, Impressionists in Winter: Effets de neige, exh. cat. (Phillips Collection/Philip Wilson Publishers, 1998), p. 82.

Katherine Rothkopf, “Rue Eugène Moussoir at Moret: Winter,” in Charles S. Moffett, Eliza E. Rathbone, Katherine Rothkopf, and Joel Isaacson, Impressionists in Winter: Effets de neige, exh. cat. (Phillips Collection/Philip Wilson, 1998), p. 188.

Katherine Rothkopf, “Stacks of Wheat (Snow Effect, Overcast Day); Stack of Wheat; Grainstacks: Snow Effect; Stacks of Wheat (Sunset, Snow Effect),” in Charles S. Moffett, Eliza E. Rathbone, Katherine Rothkopf, and Joel Isaacson, Impressionists in Winter: Effets de neige, exh. cat. (Phillips Collection/Philip Wilson, 1998), pp. 120; 122; 125, cat. 26 (ill.).

John Sallis, La mirada de las cosas: El arte como provocación (Universidad de Los Andes, 1998), pp. [6], fig. 6; 47, fig. 6; 115.

John Sallis, Shades—of Painting at the Limit (Indiana University Press, 1998), pl. 5; 26, note 13; 37, note 32; 47–48; 54.

James Henry Rubin, Impressionism, Art and Ideas (Phaidon, 1999), pp. 348; 351 fig. 224.

Carolyn Bailey Gill, ed., Time and the Image (Manchester University Press, 2000), cover (detail); pp. ix; pl. 1.

John Sallis, “Time and Image,” in Time and the Image, ed. Carolyn Bailey Gill (Manchester University Press, 2000), p. 20.

Art Institute of Chicago, Impressionism and Post-Impressionism in the Art Institute of Chicago, selected by James N. Wood (Art Institute of Chicago/Hudson Hills, 2000), p. 134 (ill.).

Gottfried Boehm, “‘Work’ and ‘Series’: Problems in Modern Conceptions of Pictorial Structure Since Monet,” in Monet and Modernism, ed. Karin Sagner-Düchting, exh. cat. (Prestel, 2001), p. 161 (ill.).

Annabelle Görgen, “‘Die Unschuld des Auges’: Serielle Wiederholung und die Suche nach den Ursprüngen,” in Monets Vermächtnis: Serie—Ordnung und Obsession, ed. Christoph Heinrich, exh. cat. (Hamburger Kunsthalle/Hatje Cantz, 2001), p. 45.

Christoph Heinrich, “Une série d’effets différents: Monets ‘Getreideschober’ als Hülle für das Licht, die Zeit, das Universum—und ‘die märchenhafte Kraft und Pracht der Malerei,’” in Monets Vermächtnis: Serie—Ordnung und Obsession, ed. Christoph Heinrich, exh. cat. (Hamburger Kunsthalle/Hatje Cantz, 2001), p. 17.

Christoph Heinrich, ed., Monets Vermächtnis: Serie—Ordnung und Obsession, exh. cat. (Hamburger Kunsthalle/Hatje Cantz, 2001), pp. 63 (ill.), 183.

Richard R. Brettell, From Monet to Van Gogh: A History of Impressionism, vol. 2 (Teaching Co., 2002), pp. 161, 166, 183.

Birgit Zeidler, Claude Monet: Life and Work, trans. by Paul Aston in association with Goodfellow & Egan (Könemann, 2005), p. 69 (ill.).53

Eik Kahng, ed. The Repeating Image: Multiples in French Painting from David to Matisse, exh. cat. (Walters Art Museum/Yale University Press, 2007), p. 196, cat. 58 (ill.).

Charles F. Stuckey, “The Predications and Implications of Monet’s Series,” in The Repeating Image: Multiples in French Painting from David to Matisse, ed. Eik Kahng, exh. cat. (Walters Art Museum/Yale University Press, 2007), pp. 85; 86, fig. 1; 88.

Eric M. Zafran, “Monet in America,” in Wildenstein and Co., Claude Monet (1840–1926): A Tribute to Daniel Wildenstein and Katia Granoff, exh. cat. (Wildenstein, 2007), p. 112; 143, fig. 62b.

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. 13; 22; 103; 108; 156; 158, cat. 77 (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. 13; 22; 103; 108; 156; 158, cat. 77 (ill.).54

Jon Kear, The Treasures of the Impressionists (Andre Deutsch/Carlton, 2008), pp. 51 (ill.), 72.

Timothy A. Long, Bertha Honoré Palmer (Chicago Historical Society, 2009), p. 21 (ill.).

American Federation of Arts, AFA: A Century in the Arts (American Federation of Arts, 2010), p. 38 (ill.).

Laura Meixner, “‘Gambling with Bread’: Monet, Speculation, and the Marketplace,” Modernism/Modernity 17, 1 (Jan. 2010), p. 178, fig. 2.

Hervé Descottes, with Cecilia E. Ramos, Architectural Lighting: Designing with Light and Space (Princeton Architectural Press, 2011), p. 46, fig. 3.10.

Other Documentation

Archival Documentation from the Durand-Ruel Archives

Inventory number
Stock Durand-Ruel Paris 1075
Durand-Ruel, Paris, stock book 1891–190155

Inventory number
Stock Durand-Ruel New York 847
Durand-Ruel, New York, stock book 1888–9356

Photograph number
Photo Durand-Ruel Paris 22057

Other Documents

Label58 (fig. 29.31)

Label59 (fig. 29.32)

Labels and Inscriptions

Undated

Label
Location: previous Masonite-type [glossary:backing board] (discarded); transcription in conservation file
Method: unknown
Content: SL78.19.3 / Monet at Giverny / Art Institute of Chicago (fig. 29.33)

Label
Location: previous Masonite-type backing board (discarded); transcription in conservation file
Method: unknown
Content: 13 / Art Institute of Chicago (fig. 29.34)

Inscription
Location: previous frame; transcription in conservation file
Method: handwritten
Content: cat. # 14 (fig. 29.35)

Labels
Location: conservation file (large Art Institute label taped to brown paper with two smaller labels adhered to large label); original location not documented
1. Method: printed label with typewritten script
Content: FROM / THE ART INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO / CHICAGO 3, ILLINOIS, U.S.A. / To / “Haystack, Setting Sun” / by Claude Monet / 22.431
2. Method: printed label with typewritten script
Content: Museum of Modern Art / LOAN / 60.90 / AIC
3. Method: printed label with handwritten script
Content: LOS ANGELES COUNTY MUSEUM / EXPOSITION PARK / LOS ANGELES 7, CALIFORNIA / S.O. No. 60-301N / Box No. 26 (fig. 29.36)

Pre-1980

Stamp
Location: pre-1968-treatment stretcher (discarded), transcription in conservation file
Method: unknown
Content: TROT [sic] . . . (?)OS FRÈRES / 35 Rue Victor Massé / Panneaux etc60 (fig. 29.37)

Label
Location: pre-1968-treatment stretcher (discarded), preserved in conservation file
Method: printed label with handwritten script
Content: DURAND-RUEL / PARIS, 16, Rue Laffitte / NEW YORK, 315 Fifth Avenue / Monet No 847 / “Meules - Effet de / Neige. Soleil couchant” / mrss (fig. 29.31)

Label
Location: pre-1968-treatment stretcher (discarded), preserved in conservation file
Method: printed label with handwritten script
Content: DURAND-RUEL / PARIS, 16, Rue Laffitte / NEW-YORK 297, Fifth avenue / Monet N^o 1075 [from transcription in conservation file] / meules soleil / couchant [. . .sss?] (fig. 29.32)

Label
Location: pre-1968-treatment stretcher (discarded), preserved in conservation file
Method: printed label with handwritten script
Content: [. . .] 00 / Please, if [possible, state] when and where picture has / been exhibited. [blank] / Signed, / Mrs Potter Palmer / By / F A Bryden / Date, 3/4-5 [?]61 (fig. 29.38)

Label
Location: previous Masonite-type backing board (discarded); transcription in conservation file
Method: unknown
Content: The Taft Museum / Cincinnati 2, Ohio / Packing Box 23 (fig. 29.39)

Label
Location: previous Masonite-type backing board (discarded); transcription in conservation file
Method: unknown
Content: Albright-Knox Gallery / 88:70 / Color & Field / 87 (fig. 29.40)

Post-1980

Label
Location: backing board
Method: printed label with typewritten script
Content: THE ART INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO / artist Monet, Claude / title Stacks of Wheat, Sunset Snow Effect / medium oil on canvas / credit Potter Palmer Collection / acc. # 1922.431 / LZ-341-001 1M 1/90 (Rev. 1/90) (fig. 29.41)

Label
Location: backing board
Method: printed label with typewritten script
Content: Museum of Fine Arts / Boston, MA 02115 / W. 1278 GRAINSTACK / Art I., Chicago (fig. 29.42)

Label
Location: backing board
Method: printed label
Content: MONET IN THE ’90S: / THE SERIES PAINTINGS / Museum of Fine Arts, Boston / Feb 7–Apr 29, 1990 / Art Institute of Chicago / May 19–Aug 12, 1990 / Royal Academy, London / Sep 7–Dec 9, 1990 / CAT# : 22 W: 1278 / TITLE: Grainstacks (Sunset: snow effect) / LENDER: The Art Institute of Chicago (fig. 29.43)

Label
Location: backing board
Method: printed label
Content: The Art Institute of Chicago / “Claude Monet: 1840–1926” / July 14, 1995–November 26, 1995 / Catalog: 96 / Wheatstacks (Sunset, Sun Effect) / Meules, effet de neige, soleil couchant / The Art Institute of Chicago, Potter Palmer Collection / (1922.431) (fig. 29.44)

Label
Location: backing board
Method: printed label with handwritten script
Content: Panel Insert / Installation Date / 9.24.2007 (fig. 29.45)

Label
Location: backing board
Method: printed label with handwritten script
Content: Panel Insert / Installation Date / 9.24.2007 (fig. 29.46)

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

Goodrich/Sensors Unlimited SU640SDV-1.7RT with J filter (1.5–1.7 µm); Inframetrics Infracam with 1.5–1.73 µm filter; and FujifilmS5 Pro with X-Nite 1000B/2 mm filter (1.0–1.1 µm).

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

FujifilmS5 Pro with X-NiteCC1 filter and Kodak Wratten 2E filter.

High-Resolution Visible Light (and Ultraviolet)

Sinar P3 camera with Sinarback eVolution 75 H (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 Axioplan 2 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 VPSEM with an Oxford EDS and a Hitachi solid-state [glossary:BSE] detector. Analysis was performed at the Northwestern University Atomic and Nanoscale Characterization Experimental Center (NUANCE), Electron Probe Instrumentation Center (EPIC) facility.

Automated Thread Counting

[glossary:Thread count] and weave information were determined by Thread Count Automation Project software.62

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.63

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. 29.47).

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:PLM] and [glossary:XRF] analysis indicate that the reddish-brown paint mixture contains vermilion, red lake, ultramarine blue, lead white, cadmium yellow, and viridian; and that the greenish-brown paint mixture contains lead white, vermilion, red lake, cobalt blue, ultramarine blue, cadmium yellow, and viridian. Other [glossary:pigments] may also be present. See Inge Fiedler, “1922_431_Monet_PLM_results,” Dec. 17, 2013; and Kimberley Muir, “Mon_Stacks_22_431_XRF_Results,” Aug. 9, 2011, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

The first number of the earlier date looks like a 9; the second number is more obscured, but could be a 1. The repainting of the date could have been a function of Monet “finishing” the corner rather than making any kind of deliberate change to the original date. As observed in several other Monet paintings examined for this project, the corners and edges of his canvases were often left in a more sketchy state, with areas of ground left exposed. John House, Monet: Nature into Art (Yale University Press, 1988), p. 171, notes that “Monet’s stepson J.-P. Hoschedé . . . insisted on several occasions that, in the studio, ‘[Monet] signed his pictures and painted the edges of his canvases which he tended not to paint right up to their margins.’”

Flax was confirmed by microscopic cross-sectional fiber identification. See Inge Fiedler, “1922_431_Monet_analytical_report,” Dec. 19, 2013, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

See, for example, the 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, exh. cat. (National Gallery, London/Yale University Press, 1990), p. 46, fig. 31. The original dimensions of the painting were based on a visual estimate of the original foldovers.

[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 Stacks of Wheat (Sunset, Snow Effect) (W1278/1922.431),” Nov. 2011.

This suggests that these canvases were cut from the same [glossary:bolt] of fabric. See Don H. Johnson, “Weave Match Report: Claude Monet, W1231, W1269, W1270, W1278, W1284, W1397, W1475, W1628,” 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).

The presence of early dealer labels (including Durand-Ruel) on the previous [glossary:stretcher] suggests that the stretcher may have been original or was added very early in the painting’s lifetime (see Labels and Inscriptions).

See Anton Konrad, examination report, Nov. 9, 1959, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

See notes on back of Anton Konrad, examination report, Nov. 9, 1959, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago. The stamp is undoubtedly from the [glossary:color merchant] Troisgros Frères, which operated at this address in 1888–99, according to Stéphanie Constantin, “The Barbizon Painters: A Guide to Their Suppliers,” Studies in Conservation 46, 1 (2001), pp. 49–67. Given that stamps from Troisgros Frères and its predecessor Vieille & Troisgros were documented on the back of the [glossary:canvas] of several other Art Institute Monet paintings, and in the absence of any photodocumentation, it should perhaps be questioned whether this stamp was actually on the [glossary:stretcher], or whether it may have been on the canvas, the distinction not having been made when it was transcribed along with the labels from the [glossary:stretcher]. The canvas was lined in 1968 (see Conservation History); no evidence of a [glossary:canvas stamp] was observed when the painting was viewed with transmitted light.

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, “1922_431_Monet_analytical_report,” Dec. 19, 2013; Inge Fiedler, "1922_431_Monet_PLM_results," Dec. 17, 2013; Kimberley Muir, “Mon_Stacks_22_431_XRF_Results,” Aug. 9, 2011, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

This variation in paint consistency suggests that Monet was modifying his paints by adding extra medium to achieve different degrees of fluidity. Bubble holes were observed throughout the paint layers, which can be related to mixing of the paints, for example, when incorporating medium or solvent. This hypothesis was not investigated scientifically.

This earlier arrangement may have been somewhat similar to the composition of Stacks of Wheat (End of Day, Autumn) (1890/91; 1933.444 [W1270]), which was also painted on a no. 40 seascape ([glossary:marine]) canvas. 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).

This perhaps provides tangible evidence of Monet having worked on the painting outdoors. Similar plant matter was also observed embedded in the paint layers of Poppy Field, Giverny (1891; 1922.4465 [W1253]) and The Customs House at Varengeville (1897; 1933.1149 [W1455/]). 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).

The [glossary:pigments] were identified by the following methods: lead white, cadmium yellow, vermilion, viridian, and cobalt blue ([glossary:PLM], [glossary:XRF]), chrome yellow, red lake, and ultramarine blue (PLM). PLM analysis highlighted the presence of pale-red and deeper-red particles of red lake, suggesting that two different types may be present. Analysis was carried out on selected areas and may not include all pigments present in the painting. For more detailed results and conditions used, see Inge Fiedler, “1922_431_Monet_analytical_report,” Dec. 19, 2013; Inge Fiedler, “1922_431_Monet_PLM_results,” Dec. 17, 2013; and Kimberley Muir, “Mon_Stacks_22_431_XRF_Results,” Aug. 9, 2011; 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 [glossary: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 interdepartmental correspondence, n.d., “on list = Pictures from The Potter Palmer Collection cleaned and varnished by Hammond Smith April 20, 1922,” on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

See interdepartmental correspondence, n.d., “on list = Pictures from The Potter Palmer Collection cleaned and varnished by Hammond Smith April 20, 1922,” on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

See index card dated Aug. 19, 1954, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

See notes on back of Anton Konrad, examination report, Nov. 9, 1959, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

See Alfred Jakstas, treatment report, Aug. 15, 1968, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

See Faye Wrubel, treatment report, Sept. 1992, 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.

See loan request, n.d. (but approved June 1969), on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

See notes on back of Anton Konrad, examination report, Nov. 9, 1959, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago. The stamp is undoubtedly from the [glossary:color merchant] Troisgros Frères, which operated at this address from 1888 to 1899, according to Stéphanie Constantin, “The Barbizon Painters: A Guide to Their Suppliers,” Studies in Conservation 46, 1 (2001), pp. 49–67. Given that stamps from Troisgros Frères and its predecessor Vieille & Troisgros were documented on the back of the [glossary:canvas] of several other Art Institute Monet paintings, and in the absence of any photodocumentation, it should perhaps be questioned whether this stamp was actually on the [glossary:stretcher], or whether it may have been on the canvas, the distinction not having been made when it was transcribed along with the labels from the stretcher. The canvas was lined in 1968; no evidence of a [glossary:canvas stamp] was observed when the painting was viewed with transmitted light.

This label probably corresponds to the Copley Society, Boston, exhibition, Loan Collection of Paintings by Claude Monet and Eleven Sculptures by Auguste Rodin, Mar. 1905.

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.

Stacks of Wheat (Sunset, Snow Effect) (W1278) corresponds to Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vol. 3, Nos. 969–1595 (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), pp. 489; 492, cat. 1278 (ill.); 500. The Art Institute currently uses the title that resulted from the research for the exhibition 1995 exhibition Claude Monet (1840–1926) and from consulting several Monet scholars. See Tracie Nappi, European Painting, Art Institute of Chicago, memo, Mar. 26, 1996, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago. This painting had the following titles during the lifetime of the artist:
 

July 20, 1891: Meules, effet de neige, soleil couchant (Durand-Ruel, Paris, stock book for 1891–1901 [no. 1075]; 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).

Feb. 29, 1892: Meules, effet de neige, soleil couchant (Durand-Ruel, New York, stock book for 1888–1893 [no. 847]; 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: Meules. Effet de Neige, Soleil Couchant. 1891 (Copley Society of Boston, Loan Collection of Paintings by Claude Monet and Eleven Sculptures by August Rodin, exh. cat. [Copley Society, 1905], p. 26, cat 84).

The painting was dated 1890/91 by James N. Wood and Douglas Druick; see Tracie Nappi, European Painting, Art Institute of Chicago, memo, March 26, 1996, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago. This range includes the inscribed date of 1891 and allows for the possibility that Monet began the painting in 1890.

The transaction is recorded in the Durand-Ruel, Paris, stock book for 1891–1901 (no. 1075, as Meules, effet de neige, soleil couchant): “Purchased from Monet by DR Paris on 20 July 1891 for 3 200 F / Stock DR Paris no. 1075; photo no. 220,” 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, Paris, stock book for 1891–1901 (no. 1075, as Meules, effet de neige, soleil couchant): “Sold to DR New York on 30 October 1891.” The transaction is also recorded in the Durand–Ruel, New York, stock book for 1888–1893 (no. 847, as Meules, effet de neige, soleil couchant): “Purchased by DR New York in (???),” 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 1888–1893 (no. 847, as Meules, effet de neige, soleil couchant): “Stock DR New York no. 847 / Sold to Potter Palmer on 29 February 1892 for $13 000,” 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.

This painting was on loan from the Palmer family to the Art Institute of Chicago, intermittently, by 1921, according to Museum Registration department artists sheets, on file in Museum Registration, Art Institute of Chicago.

See Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 20, 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. 20, 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-1968-treatment [glossary:stretcher] (discarded), now preserved in conservation file, Art Institute of Chicago.

The label was located on the pre-1968-treatment [glossary:stretcher] (discarded), now preserved in conservation file, Art Institute of Chicago. 

Exhibition information was 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.

Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vol. 3, Nos. 969–1595 (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), p. 489, cat. 1278. It is possible that a label preserved in the conservation file corresponds to this exhibition.

The exhibition catalogue does not list dates for the exhibition. For dates, see Art Institute of Chicago, “Approaching Exhibitions,” Bulletin of the Art Institute of Chicago 3, 4 (Apr. 1910), p. 51; which lists the original dates as May 10–June 8. A subsequent publication says the exhibition was extended to November; see Art Institute of Chicago, “Announcement: The Art Institute of Chicago: Exhibitions, Lectures, Musicales, Receptions, Etc., for the Season of 1910–11,” Bulletin of the Art Institute of Chicago 4, 2 (Oct. 1910), p. 23.

According to shipping order A3049, and a schedule of the circuit exhibition on American Federation of Arts letterhead, both on file Institutional Archives, Art Institute of Chicago. “Calendar,” Vassar Miscellany News, Dec. 1, 1954, p. 3, states that the exhibition was held through Nov. 30.

According to a schedule of the circuit exhibition on American Federation of Arts letterhead, on file Institutional Archives, Art Institute of Chicago.

See “Claude Monet Painting to be Shown at Gibbes Art Gallery,” News and Courier, Charleston, S. C., Sunday Morning, Dec. 26, 1954, p. Ten–B (ill.); and a schedule of the circuit exhibition on American Federation of Arts letterhead, on file Institutional Archives, Art Institute of Chicago.

See news clipping, photocopy in curatorial file, Art Institute of Chicago; and a schedule of the circuit exhibition on American Federation of Arts letterhead, on file Institutional Archives, Art Institute of Chicago.

According to a schedule of the circuit exhibition on American Federation of Arts letterhead, on file Institutional Archives, Art Institute of Chicago.

“April Picture of the Month,” J. B. Speed Art Museum Bulletin 16, 4 (Apr. 1955), p. 6 (ill.). See also a schedule of the circuit exhibition on American Federation of Arts letterhead, on file Institutional Archives, Art Institute of Chicago.

According to receipt of object 14582, on file in Museum Registration, Art Institute of Chicago. See also a schedule of the circuit exhibition on American Federation of Arts letterhead, on file Institutional Archives, Art Institute of Chicago.

According to shipping out order A4298, on file in Institutional Archives, Art Institute of Chicago; and receipt of object 14851, on file in Museum Registration, Art Institute of Chicago.

The exhibition catalogue is printed in Art Institute of Chicago, “Catalogue,” Art Institute of Chicago Quarterly 51, 2 (Apr. 1, 1957), pp. 33–34. Under “Exhibitions” in the same issue, the original exhibition dates were listed as April 1–30 (p. 36); however, the show was extended until June 15. See Edith Weigle, “The Wonderful World of Art,” Chicago Daily Tribune, May 26, 1957, p. E2, for an exhibition review and reference to the extension of the length of the show. The April 1957 issue of the Art Institute of Chicago Quarterly was largely dedicated to the Monet works in the Art Institute’s collection. The exhibition marked the first time the Art Institute’s thirty Monet paintings were shown together in the museum.

The painting was included in the exhibition according to shipping order B6209, on file in Institutional Archives, Art Institute of Chicago; and receipt of object 26295, on file Museum Registration, Art Institute of Chicago.

An installation view of this painting at the Chicago venue can be found in Anne Rorimer, “The Date Paintings of On Kawara,” Art Institute of Chicago Museum Studies 17, 2 (1991), p. 122, fig. 2.

The painting was exhibited but was not included in the exhibition catalogue; see Medieval to Modern European Painting and Sculpture cataloguing card in curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.

The painting was included in the exhibition according to an exhibition checklist, on file in Institutional Archives, Art Institute of Chicago.

The painting was included in the exhibition according to receipt of object 44627, on file in Museum Registration, Art Institute of Chicago.

The publication accompanying the exhibition is Eik Kahng, ed. The Repeating Image: Multiples in French Painting from David to Matisse, exh. cat. (Walters Art Museum/Yale University Press, 2007).

Originally published as Birgit Zeidler, Claude Monet: Leben und Werk (Könemann, 1998).

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. 13; 22; 113; 119; 172; 174, cat. 90 (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).

See Inge Fiedler, “1922_431_Monet_analytical_report,” Dec. 19, 2014, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

See Inge Fiedler, "1922_431_Monet_analytical_report," Dec. 19, 2014, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.