Cat. 30. Stack of Wheat (Snow Effect, Overcast Day), 1890/91

Submitted by aweber on Fri, 01/24/2014 - 13:51

Navigation Title:

Cat. 30 Stack of Wheat (Snow Effect, Overcast Day), 1890/91

Catalogue #: 30 Active: Yes Tombstone:

Cat. 30

Stack of Wheat (Snow Effect, Overcast Day)1
1890/912
Oil on canvas; 66 × 93 cm (26 × 36 5/8 in.)
Signed and dated: Claude Monet 91 (lower right, in light reddish-brown paint)
The Art Institute of Chicago, Mr. and Mrs. Martin A. Ryerson Collection, 1933.1155

Author: Kimberley Muir Technical Report:

Technical Report

Technical Summary

Claude Monet’s Stack of Wheat (Snow Effect, Overcast Day) was painted on a [glossary:pre-primed], no. 30 landscape ([glossary:paysage]) standard-size linen [glossary:canvas]. The [glossary:ground] consists of a single, off-white layer. A [glossary:warp-thread match] was detected with two other Monet paintings from the Art Institute’s collection: The Customs House at Varengeville (cat. 35 [W1455], inv. 1933.1149) and Charing Cross Bridge, London (cat. 40 [W1527], inv. 1933.1150), suggesting that the fabric for these paintings came from the same bolt of material.3 The painting has a richly textured surface, which is largely related to the fact that the final painting was executed on top of an earlier composition, which included a second smaller stack on the right side of the canvas. Open brushwork and a few small areas of interlayer [glossary:cleavage] between the two compositions reveal that the field and at least part of the background hills of the earlier composition consisted predominantly of bright green tones, suggesting that the earlier painting may not have been a winter scene. The artist then covered the green field with a layer of lead white–rich paint. Where visible, it appears that a thin, dull-purple toning layer was applied over the white intermediate layer before the snow-covered field was painted. It appears that the final wheat stack was expanded on the left and right sides after the small stack was painted out of the composition. On the left side of the stack, brushwork unrelated to the final composition indicates the inclusion of one or more buildings in this area at an earlier stage of the painting. There are also brushstrokes that form a rough diagonal slope from around the middle of the final stack to the upper right edge of the painting. It is unclear whether these forms were associated with the earlier two-stack composition or whether they could be related to an even earlier composition.4

Multilayer Interactive Image Viewer

The multilayer interactive image viewer is designed to facilitate the viewer’s exploration and comparison of the technical images (fig. 30.1).5

Signature

Signed and dated: Claude Monet (lower right, in light reddish-brown paint6) (fig. 30.2). Some of the underlying brushstrokes were still wet when the signature and date were applied, specifically, the pale blue strokes (fig. 30.3). Near the edges, these pale blue brushstrokes are directly over the ground layer and may represent final touches added to the corner just before the painting was signed.7

Structure and Technique

Support

Canvas

Flax (commonly known as linen).8

Standard format

The original dimensions were approximately 65 × 92 cm, which corresponds to a no. 30 landscape (paysage) standard-size stretcher.9

Weave

[glossary:Plain weave]. Average [glossary:thread count] (standard deviation): 21.5V (0.8) × 23.4H (0.6) threads/cm; the horizontal threads were determined to correspond to the [glossary:warp] and the vertical threads to the [glossary:weft].10 A warp-thread match was determined with two other Monet paintings: The Customs House at Varengeville (cat. 35 [W1455], inv. 1933.1149) and Charing Cross Bridge (cat. 40 [W1527], inv. 1933.1150).11

Canvas characteristics

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

Stretching

Current stretching: Dates to the 1991 conservation treatment (see Conservation History) tacks spaced 3–4 cm apart, with paper interleaf.

Original stretching: Tack holes spaced 5–7 cm apart. Most of the holes correspond to the cusping pattern, except along the top edge where the cusping is more pronounced and the points of attachment seem to originate from beyond the cut edge of the canvas).12 There is a series of smaller pinholes around the edges, spaced approximately 3–4 cm apart (only present on the left side of the bottom edge, unless holes are present underneath the current tacks). The purpose and origin of these holes are not known.

Stretcher/strainer

Current stretcher: Dates to the 1991 conservation treatment (see Conservation History); five-membered wooden [glossary:stretcher] with vertical [glossary:crossbar], butt-ended [glossary:mortise and tenon joints], keyable (no [glossary:keys] inserted). Depth: 3 cm

Original stretcher: Discarded. The pre-1969-treatment stretcher may have been the original stretcher.13 It was described as having five members including a horizontal (probably vertical, as in drawing) crossbar.14 Depth: Not documented.

Manufacturer’s/supplier’s marks

None observed in current examination or documented in previous examinations.

Preparatory Layers

Sizing

Not determined (probably glue).15

Ground application/texture

There is a ground layer that 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 ranges from approximately 20 to 120 µm in thickness (fig. 30.4). Numerous bubble holes were observed in the ground layer (fig. 30.5).

Color

The ground is off-white with some dark particles visible under magnification (fig. 30.6).

Materials/composition

Analysis indicates the presence of the following components: lead white and calcium carbonate (chalk),16 with traces of bone black, iron oxide, alumina, silica, and various silicates.17 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 [glossary:infrared reflectogram] clearly shows that the artist originally included another smaller wheat stack on the right side of the painting. This stack was set farther back in the composition than the large stack in the final painting, and it extended up into the area currently occupied by the buildings (fig. 30.7). The painted-out stack is difficult to see in the [glossary:X-ray] and [glossary:transmitted-infrared] images, which may indicate that it was not built up very far. Breaks in the upper paint layers reveal dark blue-gray and brownish paint underneath, which may indicate the general tone of the stack, as far as it was developed (fig. 30.8, fig. 30.9, fig. 30.10).

Throughout the field, breaks in the brushwork and a few small losses in the upper paint layers resulting from interlayer cleavage provide glimpses of paint from the earlier composition and indicate that the painting originally had a different color scheme. Losses near the left, right, and bottom edges reveal bright green and yellowish-green paint layers underneath the snow-covered field (fig. 30.11, fig. 30.12, fig. 30.13). Similar bright green was observed in the layers underneath the buildings on the right side of the canvas. Other hues observed from the underlying painting (although not as prevalent as the green tones) include pale orange, pink, and gray as well as a very dark brown tone to the right of the stack in the final painting (fig. 30.14). The presence of these bright colors may indicate that the earlier composition was not a winter scene.18 An area of the green paint, exposed at a loss near the right edge (fig. 30.15), was analyzed with X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy ([glossary:XRF]) and was found to contain the copper-and-arsenic-containing pigment emerald green. This bright green was not detected in the upper layers of the painting. PLM analysis also detected emerald green in lower paint layers (fig. 30.16) but not in any other samples taken from representative areas of the final composition. These findings suggest that the pigment was used only in the earlier composition.19 A buildup of textural brushwork unrelated to the final composition appears to be associated with a thick, brushy application of lead white–rich paint in the foreground of the painting. Evidence of this layer is present to the right of the painted-out stack and in areas where the bright green underlayer is exposed (fig. 30.17). It does not, however, appear to be present underneath either the final or the painted-out stack. This may represent a kind of blocking-out layer that was aimed specifically at covering the bright green field of the earlier painting. Localized interlayer cleavage has occurred between the earlier composition and this intermediate layer, which appears to have been applied when the underlying painting was already surface dry, probably resulting in poor adhesion. Where the intermediate layer is visible at the edges of losses, it appears to be covered with a thin, dull purplish-gray layer, which seems to serve as a toning layer for the final composition (fig. 30.18, fig. 30.19, fig. 30.20). The edges of the paint losses often look quite soft, as if the paint was still somewhat fluid when the losses occurred. In at least one place—a small loss near the lower right corner—a later brushstroke curves over the edges of the paint loss, suggesting that the loss occurred while the artist was still working on the painting (fig. 30.21).

In the background area, at the left edge of the large stack, a series of distinct linear brushmarks, visible in the X-ray and transmitted-infrared (IR) images, seems to indicate that the artist originally painted some architectural forms in this location (fig. 30.22). Other brushwork unrelated to the final composition includes a series of [glossary:radio-opaque] strokes that form a diagonal, running from approximately the center of the final stack to the upper-right edge of the painting (fig. 30.23). It is unclear whether these forms were associated with the earlier composition that included the smaller stack or whether they may have been part of an even earlier composition.

In the process of painting the final composition, some modifications were made to the large wheat stack. The X-ray indicates that the stack was originally significantly smaller, possibly with its peak positioned further to the right (fig. 30.24). It was then subsequently expanded along the left and right sides. The stack appears to have been planned from early on in the painting of the final composition, and it is possible that it coexisted (in its earlier, smaller incarnation) with the small, painted-out stack at some point. The smaller dimensions of the stack were in place in the final composition, when the snowy landscape in the distance was painted around it, including the hills, trees, and buildings, which were added on top of the painted-out stack. The blue hills and the screen of trees behind the final stack can be seen to continue underneath the edges of the stack up to its original borders in the X-ray and detail images (fig. 30.24, fig. 30.25). On the right side of the painting, brushstrokes that do not correspond to the final composition seem to indicate that some adjustments were made to the buildings: the roof of the building farthest to the right appears to have originally extended further to the right, and a strong horizontal stroke near the right edge may have been related to another building that was ultimately not included in the final composition (fig. 30.26). The paint of the sky is quite thickly built up, making it difficult to see the underlying layers (fig. 30.27). Most of the surface consists of a fairly continuous [glossary:wet-in-wet] paint application.

Overall, the paint layer has a rich, textural surface, with thick brush-marked strokes and areas of low [glossary:impasto], the texture coming from the two superimposed compositions as well as the intermediate layer applied to much of the foreground (fig. 30.28). For the most part, the paint has a relatively dry, stiff, paste-like consistency, with a predominantly matte surface finish. Some areas, such as the expanded left edge of the stack, appear more fluid with wet-in-wet paint application, the brushstrokes of which have settled out to some degree, resulting in a slightly smoother surface and suggesting that the artist added extra medium to the paint (fig. 30.29). Some of the final touches added to the painting include the reddish-brown trees in the background (fig. 30.30) and the colored diagonal strokes applied over the surface of the snow, which consist largely of dry brushstrokes that deposited mainly on the high points of the underlying paint texture (fig. 30.31). A deep ridge along the right edge of the painting seems to have occurred when the paint was still soft and may be related to framing or some kind of transport device (fig. 30.32).

Painting tools

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

Palette

Analysis indicates the presence of the following [glossary:pigments]: lead white, cadmium yellow, chrome yellow, vermilion, red lake, viridian, emerald green, cobalt blue, and ultramarine blue.20 [glossary:UV fluorescence] indicates the liberal use of red lake throughout the landscape (fig. 30.33).21

Binding media

Oil (estimated).22

Surface Finish

Varnish layer/media

The painting was cleaned in 1991 and selectively varnished with dilute Arkon-P90 to saturate areas of localized blanching in the wheat stack only (see ). The paint surface has a relatively dry, matte quality in most areas. It is noted in the conservation file that a [glossary:natural-resin varnish] (estimated) was removed in 1969; the origin of that varnish is not known.23

Conservation History

In 1969, yellowed [glossary:varnish] and [glossary:overpaint] were removed. The painting was wax-resin lined and restretched on an [glossary:ICA spring stretcher]. A layer of polyvinyl acetate (PVA) AYAA was applied. [glossary:Inpainting] was carried out. A layer of methacrylate resin L-46 was applied, followed by a layer of AYAA.24

In 1991, the AYAA and methacrylate varnish layers applied in 1969 were removed. Residues of starch-paste adhesive from the 1969 treatment were removed mechanically after the residues had been dampened. The [glossary:wax-resin lining] was removed. The canvas was edge lined and mounted on a tongue and groove stretcher prepared with a loose [glossary:lining]. Selective revarnishing of the wheat stack was carried out with dilute Arkon-P90, in order to minimize the effects of localized blanching after the varnish removal. Minor scattered inpainting was carried out.25

Condition Summary

The painting is in good condition. The canvas was edge lined and loose lined in 1991 after removal of the wax-resin lining that had been applied in 1969. The canvas is stretched flat and taut on the stretcher. There is some loss and abrasion in the ground layer on the original tacking margins. The paint layer has a rich, textural surface. A few small areas of interlayer cleavage in the field and the sky appear to be old and seem to be due to poor adhesion between the upper paint layers and the earlier composition. There is localized [glossary:retouching] associated with some of these losses. There is some flattening of thicker paint and dark accretions around the edges, which appear to be the result of framing while the paint was still soft. There is a general network of age cracks; this is most noticeable in the sky, which has a slightly quilted appearance. In addition, there are fine, slightly opened [glossary:drying cracks] in the upper layers of the wheat stack, revealing light-colored paint beneath. There are some starch-paste residues in the recesses of the paint texture. The painting is currently unvarnished, except for the localized application of Arkon P-90 on the upper part of the stack, which was applied to deal with blanching issues. Overall, the paint surface is relatively matte, with some slight variations in sheen across the surface.
Kimberley Muir

Frame

Current frame (installed in 1995: this frame was originally on The Customs House at Varengeville [transferred in 1995] (cat. 35): The frame is not original to the painting. It is a French (Parisian), late-nineteenth-century, Durand-Ruel Régence, ogee frame with cast foliate and center cartouches and fillet liner. The frame is both water and oil gilded. Red-brown bole was used on the perimeter, cast foliate ornament on the face and sight molding, and the liner. Red bole was used for the scotia sides. The gilding was applied directly to the plaster on the ogee face in the crosshatched areas between the ornament. The quadrillage face has been rubbed to bring out the white of the plaster. The frame has an overall bronze tone with casein or gouache raw umber and gray washes. The frame has a glued pine substrate with a cast plaster face. At a later date the original back of the frame was planed flat, removing all construction history and provenance. A back frame was then glued to the back. All back and interior surfaces have been overpainted. The molding, from perimeter to interior, is fillet with stylized cast dovetail-pierced egg-and-flower molding; scotia side; ogee face with a cast quadrillage bed and center and corner foliate and floral cartouches with cabochon centers on a double-lined diamond bed with punched centers; fillet; sanded front frieze; fillet; ogee with stylized leaf-tip-and-shell sight molding; and independent fillet liner with cove sight (fig. 30.34).26

Previous frame (installed by 1975; removed 1995) The work was previously housed in a twentieth-century reproduction of a Régence frame with swept sides and foliate rocaille cartouches (fig. 30.35, fig. 30.36).27
Kirk Vuillemot

Provenance:

Provenance

Sold by the artist to Durand-Ruel, Paris, May 9, 1891, for 2,500 francs.28

Sold by Durand-Ruel, Paris, to Durand-Ruel, New York, Oct. 25 or Nov. 16, 1892.29

Sold by Durand-Ruel, New York, to Martin A. Ryerson, Chicago, Mar. 31, 1893, for $1,500.30

Bequeathed by Martin A. Ryerson (died 1932), Chicago, to the Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.

Exhibitions:

Exhibition History

Paris, Galeries Durand-Ruel, Exposition d’oeuvres récentes de Claude Monet, May 1891, cat. 9, as Meule. (Effet de neige; temps couvert), Appartient à M. Durand-Ruel.31

Minneapolis Institute of Arts, Inaugural Exhibition, Jan. 7–Feb. 7, 1915, cat. 255, as The Haystack, Lent by Martin A. Ryerson, Chicago, Ill.

Art Institute of Chicago, “A Century of Progress”: Loan Exhibition of Paintings and Sculpture for 1934, June 1–Oct. 31, 1934, cat. 218.32

Decatur (Ill.) Art Center, Masterpieces of European and American Art Lent by the Art Institute of Chicago, Mar. 4–25, 1945, cat. 12; Springfield (Ill.) Art Association, Apr. 1945, no cat.33

Chicago, Remington Rand, window display, Apr. 14–30, 1952, no cat.34

University of Chicago, Lexington Hall, Nov. 17–Dec. 17, 1952, no cat.35

Park Forest (Ill.) Art Center, Mar. 25–Apr. 22, 1956, no cat.36

Art Institute of Chicago, The Paintings of Claude Monet, Apr. 1–June 15, 1957, no cat. no.37

Art Institute of Chicago, Paintings by Monet, Mar. 15–May 11, 1975, cat. 86 (ill.). (fig. 30.37)

Los Angeles County Museum of Art, A Day in the Country: Impressionism and the French Landscape, June 28–Sept. 16, 1984, cat. 111 (ill.); Art Institute of Chicago, Oct. 23, 1984–Jan. 6, 1985; Paris, Galeries Nationales d’Exposition, Grand Palais, as L’impressionnisme et le paysage français, Feb. 4–Apr. 22, 1985.38

Leningrad (now Saint Petersburg), State Hermitage Museum, Ot Delakrua do Matissa: Shedevry frantsuzskoi zhivopisi XIX–nachala XX veka, iz Muzeia Metropoliten v N’iu-Iorke i Khudozhestvennogo Instituta v Chikago [From Delacroix to Matisse: Masterpieces of French Painting of the Nineteenth to the Beginning of the Twentieth Century from the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, and the Art Institute of Chicago], Mar. 15–May 16, 1988, cat. 30 (ill.); Moscow, Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts, May 30–July 30, 1988.

Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, Monet in the ’90s: The Series Paintings, Feb. 7–Apr. 29, 1990, cat. 25 (ill.); Chicago, Art Institute of Chicago, May 19–Aug. 12, 1990; and London, Royal Academy of Arts, Sept. 7–Dec. 9, 1990. (fig. 30.38)

Art Institute of Chicago, Claude Monet, 1840–1926, July 22–Nov. 26, 1995, cat. 99 (ill.) (fig. 30.39)

Washington, D.C., Phillips Collection, Impressionists in Winter: Effets de neige, Sept. 19, 1998–Jan. 3, 1999, cat. 23 (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.).

Fort Worth, Tex., Kimbell Museum of Art, The Impressionists: Master Paintings from the Art Institute of Chicago, June 29–Nov. 2, 2008, cat. 78 (ill.).

Selected References:

Selected References

Galeries Durand-Ruel, Exposition Claude Monet, exh. cat. (Galeries Durand-Ruel, 1891), p. 15, cat. 9.39

Minneapolis Institute of Arts, Catalogue of the Inaugural Exhibition, exh. cat. (Minneapolis Society of Fine Arts, 1915), p. 44, cat. 255.

Gustave Geffroy, Claude Monet: Sa vie, son temps, son oeuvre (G. Crès, 1922), p. 189.

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, Catalogue of “A Century of Progress”: Exhibition of Paintings and Sculpture, 1934, ed. Daniel Catton Rich, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago, 1934), p. 37, cat. 218.

George Slocombe, “Giver of Light,” Coronet 3, 5 (Mar. 1938), p. 23 (ill.).

“Critics of Art Hear Lecture by Dr. Neal,” Decaturian Weekly 42, 12 (Mar. 16, 1945), p. 1.

Decatur Art Center, Masterpieces of European and American Art Lent by the Art Institute of Chicago, exh. cat. (Decatur Art Center, 1945), p. 7, cat. 12.

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

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

Art Institute of Chicago, Paintings in the Art Institute of Chicago: A Catalogue of the Picture Collection (Art Institute of Chicago, 1961), p. 320.40

J. Patrice Marandel, “Monet in Chicago,” Art Gallery Magazine 18, 6 (Mar. 1975), p. 48 (ill.).

Susan Wise, ed., Paintings by Monet, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago, 1975), pp. 50, pl. 6; 143, cat. 86 (ill.).

Daniel Wildenstein, Claude Monet: Biographie et catalogue raisonné, vol. 3, Peintures, 1887–1898 (Bibliothèque des Arts, 1979), pp. 38; 42, n. 1032; 142; 143, cat. 1281 (ill.).

Robert Gordon and Andrew Forge, Monet (Abrams, 1983), pp. 160 (ill.), 163, 292.

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, “Monet’s Haystacks Reconsidered,” Art Institute of Chicago Museum Studies 11, 1 (Autumn 1984), pp. 6; 7; 12; 13, pl. 5; 16–17, fig. 9 (ill.); 21, n. 6, n. 7.

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; 270, no. 111 (ill.).

Richard R. Brettell, “La campagne française,” in L’impressionnisme et le paysage français, exh. cat. (Réunion des Musées Nationaux, 1985), pp. 261; 282; 290, no. 111 (ill.).

Richard R. Brettell and Scott Schaefer, “Impressionism in Context,” 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. 19, 21, 22.

Richard R. Brettell and Scott Schaefer, introduction to L’impressionnisme et le paysage français, exh. cat. (Réunion des Musées Nationaux, 1985), pp. 17, 18, 19.

Sylvie Gache-Patin and Scott Schaefer, “Impressionism and the Sea,” 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), p. 284.

Sylvie Gache-Patin and Scott Schaefer, “La mer,” in L’impressionnisme et le paysage français, exh. cat. (Réunion des Musées Nationaux, 1985), p. 304.

Françoise Heilbrun, “Appendix: The Landscape in French Nineteenth-Century Photography,” 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), p. 359.

Françoise Heilbrun, “Le paysage dans la photographie française au XIXe siècle et ses rapports avec la peinture du realisme à l’impressionnisme,” in L’impressionnisme et le paysage français, exh. cat. (Réunion des Musées Nationaux, 1985), p. 384.

Scott Schaefer, “The Retreat from Paris,” 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), p. 305.

Scott Schaefer, “L’évasion loin de Paris,” in L’impressionnisme et le paysage français, exh. cat. (Réunion des Musées Nationaux, 1985), p. 328.

John House, “Monet and the Genesis of His Series,” in Auckland City Art Gallery, Claude Monet: Painter of Light, exh. cat. (Auckland City Art Gallery/NZI , 1985), pp. 19; 21, fig. 11.

Charles F. Stuckey, ed., Monet: A Retrospective (Hugh Lauter Levin, 1985), p. 163 (ill.).

Richard Shiff, “The End of Impressionism,” in The New Painting: Impressionism, 1874–1886, ed. Charles S. Moffett, exh. cat. (Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, 1986), pp. 64; 66, fig. 5.

Ministry of Culture, SSSR; State Hermitage Museum; Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts; Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; and Art Institute of Chicago, Ot Delakrua do Matissa: Shedevry frantsuzskoi zhivopisi XIX–nachala XX veka, iz Muzeia Metropoliten v N’iu-Iorke i Khudozhestvennogo Instituta v Chikago [From Delacroix to Matisse: Masterpieces of French Painting of the Nineteenth to the Beginning of the Twentieth Century from the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, and the Art Institute of Chicago], trans. from English by Iu. A. Kleiner and A. A. Zhukov, exh. cat. (Avrora, 1988), pp. 82–83, cat. 30 (ill.).

Grace Seiberling, Monet in London, exh. cat. (High Museum of Art/University of Washington Press, 1988), p. 10 (ill.).

Richard Kendall, ed., Monet by Himself: Paintings, Drawings, Pastels, Letters, trans. Bridget Strevens Romer (Macdonald Orbis, 1989), p. 203 (ill.); 320.

Paul Hayes Tucker, Monet in the ’90s: The Series Paintings, exh. cat. (Museum of Fine Arts, Boston/Yale University Press, 1989), pp. 3; 77; 80; 82, pl. 24; 296, cat. 25.

Karin Sagner-Düchting, Claude Monet, 1840–1926: Ein Fest für die Augen (Benedikt Taschen Verlag, 1990), pp. 161–62 (ill.), 170. Translated by Karen Williams Wall,Claude Monet 1840-1926: A Feast for the Eyes (Taschen, 2004), pp. 161–62 (ill.).

Sylvie Patin, Monet: “Un oeil . . . mais, bon Dieu, quel oeil!” (Gallimard/Réunion des Musées Nationaux, 1991), pp. 106–07 (ill.), 172. Translated by Anthony Roberts as Monet: The Ultimate Impressionist (Abrams, 1993), pp. 106–07 (ill.); 171.

Anne Rorimer, “The Date Paintings of On Kawara,” Art Institute of Chicago Museum Studies 17, 2 (1991), p. 122, fig. 2.

John Sallis, “Monet’s Grainstacks: Shades of Time,” Tema Celeste International Art Magazine 30 (Mar.–Apr. 1991), pp. 63; 64 (ill.); 67, nn. 3, 13.

Gérald Collot, “Blanc comme neige. . .” in Couleurs de neige, exh. cat. (Musée Savoisien/Skira, 1992), p. 16 (ill.).

Sophie Fourny-Dargère, Monet, Profils de l’art (Chêne, 1992), p. 118, fig. 2.

Christoph Heinrich, Claude Monet, 1840–1926 (Benedikt Taschen, 1993), pp. 55, 58 (ill.), 95.

Andrew Forge, Monet, Artists in Focus (Art Institute of Chicago, 1995), pp. 44; 89, pl. 18; 108.

Charles F. Stuckey, with the assistance of Sophia Shaw, Claude Monet, 1840–1926, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago/Thames & Hudson, 1995), p. 120, cat. 99 (ill.); 220.

Daniel Wildenstein, Monet, or The Triumph of Impressionism, cat. rais., vol. 1 (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), pp. 274, cat. 1281 (ill.); 275.

Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vol. 3, Nos. 969–1595 (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), pp. 494, cat. 1281 (ill.); 500.

David Spence, Monet: Impressionism (Ticktock, 1997), p. 27.41

Matthias Arnold, Claude Monet, Rowohlts Monographien (Rowohlt, 1998), p. 133 (ill.).

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; 210–11, cat. 23.

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, 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; 121, cat. 23 (ill.); 122.

John Sallis, Shades—Of Painting at the Limit (Indiana University Press, 1998), pl. 6; 26, n. 13; 48.

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. 133 (ill.).

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. 62 (ill.), 183.

Richard R. Brettell, From Monet to Van Gogh: A History of Impressionism, vol. 2 (Teaching Co., 2002), pp. 161, 167, 183.

Anna Gruetzner Robins, “‘Slabs of Pink and Lumps of Brown’: The Critical Reaction to the Exhibition of a Monet Grainstack Painting in Britain in 1893,” in Monet and French Landscape: Vétheuil and Normandy, ed. Frances Fowle (National Galleries of Scotland, 2006), pp. 159; 168, n. 10, n. 11.

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; 87–88, fig. 9.

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. 22; 103; 108; 156; 158, cat. 78 (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. 22; 103; 108; 156; 158, cat. 78 (ill.).42

Félicie de Maupeou, “Esthétique et littérature artistique,” under the direction of Ségolène Le Men, La bibliothèque de Monet, exh. cat. (Citadelles & Mazenod, 2013), pp. 106–07 (ill.).

Other Documentation

Documentation from the Durand-Ruel Archives

Inventory number
Stock Durand-Ruel Paris 942
Durand-Ruel, Paris, stock book 1891–190143

Inventory number
Stock Durand-Ruel New York 976
Durand-Ruel, New York, stock book 1888–9344

Photograph number
Photo Durand-Ruel Paris 21945

Labels and Inscriptions

Undated

Number
Location: frame
Method: handwritten script
Content: 1933.1149 [in ink with 55 written over 49 in pencil] (fig. 30.41)

Pre-1980

Label
Location: pre-1969-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 N^o 9[7?]6 / meule effet de neige / mass (fig. 30.42)

Post-1980

Label
Location: [glossary:backing board]
Method: printed label with typewritten script
Content: Museum of Fine Arts / Boston, MA 02115 / W. 1281 GRAINSTACK / Art I., Chicago (fig. 30.43)

Label
Location: backing board
Method: printed label with typewritten script
Content: Museum of Fine Arts / Boston, MA 02115 / W. 1455 V-CH / Art I., Chicago47 (fig. 30.44)

Label
Location: backing board
Method: printed label
Content: THE ART INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO / artist Claude Monet / title “Stack of Wheat; Snow Effect / Overcast Day” 1890–91 / medium oil on canvas / credit: Mr.+Mrs. M. A. Ryerson Coll. / acc. # 1933.1155 / LZ-341-001 1M 1/90 (Rev. 1/90) (fig. 30.45)

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# : 25 W: 1281 / TITLE : Grainstack (Snow effect; overcast day) / LENDER: The Art Institute of Chicago (fig. 30.46)

Label
Location: backing board
Method: printed label
Content: The Art Institute of Chicago / “Claude Monet: 1840–1926” / July 14, 1995–November 26, 1995 / Catalog: 99 / Wheatstack (Snow Effect, Overcast Day) / Meule, effet de neige, temps couvert / The Art Institute of Chicago, Mr. and Mrs. Martin A. / Ryerson Collection (1933.1155) (fig. 30.47)

Label
Location: backing board
Method: printed label with handwritten script
Content: Panel Insert / Installation Date / 2-27-08 (fig. 30.48)

Label
Location: backing board
Method: printed label with handwritten script
Content: Panel Insert / Installation Date / 2-27-08 (fig. 30.49)

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

Surface Optics modified near-infrared [glossary:hyperspectral] camera (collects 4 nm spectral-band images from 960 to 1730 nm); Goodrich/Sensors Unlimited SU640SDV-1.7RT with H filter (1.1–1.4 µm) and J filter (1.5–1.7 µm); Inframetrics Infracam with 1.5–1.73 µm filter; Fujifilm S5 Pro with X-Nite 1000B/2 mm filter (1.0–1.1 µm).

Transmitted Infrared

Fujifilm Pro with X-Nite 1000B/2 mm filter (1.0–1.1µm).

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 75 H (PECA 918 UV/IR interference cut 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/[glossary: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 Center (NUANCE), Electron Probe Instrumentation Center (EPIC) facility.

Automated Thread Counting

[glossary:Thread count] and [glossary:weave] information were determined by Thread Count Automation Project software.48

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.49

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. 30.50).

Footnotes:

This label is related to a different Monet painting, The Customs House at Varengeville Varengeville (cat. 35 [W1455], inv. 1933.1149), and was probably erroneously attached to the [glossary:backing board] of this painting.

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.

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 (normal 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, indicates that the paint mixture includes lead white, cadmium yellow, vermilion, viridian, and cobalt blue; other pigments may also be present in the mixture. See Kimberley Muir, “Mon_Stack_33_1155_XRF_Results,” Aug. 9, 2011, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

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, “1933_1155_Monet_analytical_report,” May 13, 2014, 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 Stack of Wheat (Snow Effect, Overcast Day) (W1281/1933.1155),” 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, W1281, W1455, W1527,” 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 more pronounced [glossary:cusping] on the top edge is probably [glossary:primary cusping] related to the attachment of the larger roll of fabric (from which this canvas was cut) to the commercial priming frame (see Ground Application/Texture).

The presence of a Durand-Ruel label suggests that the [glossary:stretcher] was either original or was added early in the painting’s lifetime.

See Alfred Jakstas, treatment report, Aug. 26, 1969, 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], [glossary:PLM], and [glossary:XRF]. For more detailed results and conditions used, see Inge Fiedler, “1933_1155_Monet_analytical_report,” May 13, 2014; Inge Fiedler, “1933_1155_Monet_PLM_results,” Jan. 28, 2014; Kimberley Muir, “Mon_Stacks_33_1155_XRF_Results,” Aug. 9, 2011, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

A similar change in [glossary:palette] was observed in Stack of Wheat (cat. 31 [W1283], inv. 1983.29), where passages of bright green and red paint were observed underneath the snowy landscape as well as bright blue underlayers in the sky.

The copper and arsenic from the underlying green paint was probably not detected in spectra collected from the surface of the painting because of the lead white–rich layer that was broadly applied on top of the earlier composition. It should be noted, however, that spectra were collected from select areas of the painting and it cannot be ruled out that emerald green could be present in areas of the final painting that were not analyzed. Green areas related to the final painting that were analyzed were found to contain viridian (a green pigment that contains chromium). See Kimberley Muir, “Mon_Stack_33_1155_XRF_Results,” Aug. 9, 2011; Inge Fiedler, “1933_1155_Monet_PLM_results,” Jan. 28, 2014, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago. Fig Caption: Photomicrograph of a cross section of the paint and ground layers of Monet’s Stack of Wheat (Snow Effect, Overcast Day) (1890/91) showing a green layer that contains emerald green from an earlier painting stage. Original magnification: 200x. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.1155.

The [glossary:pigments] were identified by the following methods: lead white, cadmium yellow, vermilion, viridian, emerald green, cobalt blue ([glossary:PLM], [glossary:XRF]); chrome yellow, red lake, ultramarine blue (PLM). Emerald green was detected only in paint layers that appear to be associated with the earlier composition. PLM analysis highlighted the presence of pale-red and deeper-red particles of red lake, suggesting that two different types may be present. Paint scraping samples taken in 1977 were reexamined by PLM in 2013. 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, “1933_1155_Monet_analytical_report,” May 13, 2014; Inge Fiedler, “1933_1155_Monet_PLM_results,” Jan. 28, 2014; Kimberley Muir, “Mon_Stack_33_1155_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 ultraviolet light, 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, Washignton, 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. 26, 1969, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

See Frank Zuccari, treatment report, Sept. 12, 1991, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

This frame was originally on Monet’s The Customs House at Varengeville (cat. 35 [W1455], inv. 1933.1149).

Kirk Vuillemot, “Monet Frame Descriptions Final,” Dec. 3, 2013, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

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).

Stack of Wheat (Snow Effect, Overcast Day) (W1281) corresponds to Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vol. 3, Nos. 969–1595 (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), pp. 494, cat. 1281 (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. The painting had the following titles during the lifetime of the artist:

May 1891: Meules. (Fin de l’été.) (Galeries Durand-Ruel, Exposition d’oeuvres récentes de Claude Monet, exh. cat. [Galeries Durand-Ruel, 1891], p. 15, cat. 9; 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).

May 9, 1891: Les Meules, effet de neige, temps couvert (Durand-Ruel, Paris, stock book for 1891–1901 [no. 942]; 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).

Nov. 16, 1892: Meules, effet de neige (Durand-Ruel, New York, stock book for 1888–1893 [no. 976]; 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. 31, 1893: Meules, effet de neige (Durand-Ruel, New York,stock book for 1888–93 [no. 976]; 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).

Apr. 12, 1893: Meules, effet de neige (purchase receipt on Durand-Ruel letterhead, dated April 12, 1893, includes this painting as one of several sold by Durand-Ruel, New York, to M. A. Ryerson. Photocopy in curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago).

Jan. 7, 1915: The Haystack (Minneapolis Institute of Arts, Catalogue of the Inaugural Exhibition, exh. cat. [Minneapolis Society of Fine Arts, 1915], p. 44, cat. 255).

The painting was dated 1890/91 by James N. Wood and Douglas Druick; see Tracie Nappi, European Painting, Art Institute of Chicago, memo, Mar. 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. 942, as Les Meules, effet de neige, temps couvert): “Purchased from Monet by DR Paris on 9 May 1891 for 2 500 F / Stock DR Paris no. 942; photo no. 219” 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. 942, as Les Meules, effet de neige, temps couvert) states: “Sold to DR New York on 25 October 1892.” The New York stock book for 1888–1893 (no. 976, as Meules, effet de neige) states: “Purchased by DR New York on 16 November 1892 as Meules, effet de neige / Stock DR New York no. 976.” 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 transaction is recorded in the Durand-Ruel, New York, stock book for 1888–93 (no. 976, as Meules, effet de neige): “sold to Martin Ryerson on 31 March 1893 for $ 1500,” 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. A purchase receipt on Durand-Ruel letterhead, dated April 12, 1893, includes this painting as one of several sold by Durand-Ruel, New York, to M. A. Ryerson. Photocopy in curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago. This purchase receipt is also illustrated in David Spence, Monet: Impressionism (Ticktock, 1997), p. 27. This painting was on loan from Martin A. Ryerson 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. 5, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.

Durand-Ruel to M. A. Ryerson, April 12, 1893. Photocopy in curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago. Also confirmed by 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.

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.

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. In addition to others, this identification is also presented by Daniel Wildenstein, Claude Monet: Biographie et catalogue raisonné, vol. 3, Peintures, 1887–1898 (Bibliothèque des Arts, 1979), p. 42, n. 1032; and Daniel Wildenstein, Claude Monet: Biographie et catalogue raisonné, vol. 3, Peintures, 1887–1898 (Bibliothèque des Arts, 1979), p. 142, cat. 1281.

The exhibition catalogue lists the dates as June 1–Nov. 1, 1934, but newspaper articles confirm the exhibition closed on October 31. See “Fair Art Exhibition Closes Forever at 5:30 This Afternoon,” Chicago Daily Tribune, Oct. 31, 1934, p. 2; and “Shippers Start Dismantling Art Exhibition Today,” Chicago Daily Tribune, Nov. 1, 1934, p. 3.

Archival documents indicate that the objects sent for exhibition at the Decatur Art Center were probably directly shipped to the Springfield Art Association. See Medieval to Modern European Painting and Sculpture cataloguing card, photocopy in curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago. See also shipping out order 34937, on file in Institutional Archives, Art Institute of Chicago; and receipt of object 9662, and Museum Registration Department Artists Sheets; both on file in Museum Registration, Art Institute of Chicago.The shipping out order states that the Springfield Art Association exhibition was scheduled to last the month of April.

Remington Rand was located at 444 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago. See shipping out order A1107, on file in Institutional Archives, Art Institute of Chicago; receipt of object 12931, on file in Museum Registration, Art Institute of Chicago.

According to shipping order A690, on file in Institutional Archives, Art Institute of Chicago; and receipt of objects 13266, on file in Museum Registration 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. Exhibition dates are noted on the shipping out order.

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 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.

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.

Confirmed by the Durand-Ruel Archives; see Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 5, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago. In addition to others, this identification is also presented by Daniel Wildenstein, Claude Monet: Biographie et catalogue raisonné, vol. 3, Peintures, 1887–1898 (Bibliothèque des Arts, 1979), p. 42, n. 1032; and Daniel Wildenstein, Claude Monet: Biographie et catalogue raisonné, vol. 3, Peintures, 1887–1898 (Bibliothèque des Arts, 1979), p. 142, cat. 1281.

Reprinted in Art Institute of Chicago, Paintings in the Art Institute of Chicago: A Catalogue of the Picture Collection (Art Institute of Chicago, 1968), p. 320.

The incorrect Stack of Wheat painting is illustrated on this page, but the discussion refers to the Art Institute’s painting.

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. 22; 113; 119; 172; 174, cat. 91 (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).

Microfossils were identified by [glossary:PLM] and [glossary:SEM/EDX]. See Inge Fiedler, “1933_1155_Monet_analytical_report,” May 13, 2014.