Cat. 36. Branch of the Seine near Giverny (Mist), from the series Mornings on the Seine, 1897
Navigation Title:
Cat. 36 Branch of the Seine near Giverny (Mist), from the series Mornings on the Seine, 1897
Catalogue #: 36 Active: Yes Tombstone:Cat. 36
Branch of the Seine near Giverny (Mist)1
1897
Oil on canvas; 89.9 × 92.7 cm (35 3/8 × 36 1/2 in.)
Signed and dated: Claude Monet 97 (lower left, in pink paint)
The Art Institute of Chicago, Mr. and Mrs. Martin A. Ryerson Collection, 1933.1156
The Reversible Image
In August 1897, the writer Maurice Guillemot set off to Giverny to visit and interview Claude Monet, who was immersed in work on the series he had begun the previous summer. Despite Monet’s willingness to talk to Guillemot, whom he had never met, the artist relayed a unique desire upon showing his interviewer fourteen of his works in progress: “I’d like to keep anyone from knowing how it’s done,” he exclaimed.2 Signed and dated 1897, Branch of the Seine near Giverny (Mist) was quite possibly one of those works. It was part of his series of over twenty canvases painted in the summers of 1896 and 1897 depicting the spot near Giverny where the Epte River flows into the Seine (fig. 36.1). The majority of these paintings—like Branch of the Seine near Giverny (Mist)—portray various early-morning atmospheric effects at one particular site, featuring the river bank to the left and the Île aux Orties, one of the many islets dotting the river Seine at that time, to the right.3 The particularity of the location is difficult to discern in the Art Institute’s painting, however. It is only in comparison with other works in the series—like Morning on the Seine, near Giverny, painted the year before, and now in the collection of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston (fig. 36.2 [W1435])—that geographic specificity is evident.4 In the Boston painting, for example, recognizable overhanging trees and foliage reflect in the water below; there is a distinct suggestion of the place where land and water meet to form the bank of the river; and the lighter-colored vegetation of diminutive size in the distance provides some sense of receding perspective.
Few indicators suggest that the Art Institute’s painting is anything more than a pure, hazy abstraction. Monet dissolved the defining outlines of his forms and increased the vaporous mist hovering in the atmosphere. Further abstracting the features of the natural setting before him, the artist virtually eliminated the horizon line seen in the Boston painting, and by treating the trees and their reflections in a strikingly similar manner, he created what art historian Dario Gamboni has called “a reversible image, in which any distinction between the reflection and what it reflects is abolished.”5 This effect is amplified by Monet’s choice of a nearly square canvas size, which he used for a number of works in this series, as opposed to the traditional, rectangular landscape format that would help key the viewer into the subject being depicted. Although this was not the first time Monet used nearly square canvases—(see Étretat: The Beach and the Falaise d’Amont [cat. 21])—he would have had to go to some effort to special order non-standard-size canvases like this from his canvas supplier, suggesting that he had a particular penchant for the visual impact they provided.
Witnessing the Eye
Although Monet expressed the desire to keep people from knowing his process, he proceeded to let interviewer Guillemot in on his routine. In vividly descriptive fashion, Guillemot provided an eyewitness account of Monet at work and chronicled his morning regimen:
The crack of dawn, in August, 3:30 a.m.
His torso snug in a white woolen hand-knit, his feet in a pair of sturdy hunting boots with thick, dew-proof soles, his head covered by a picturesque, battered, brown felt hat with the brim turned down to keep off the sun, a cigarette in his mouth—a spot of brilliant fire in his great, bushy beard—he pushes open the door, walks down the steps, follows the central path through his garden, where the flowers awaken and unfold as day breaks, crosses the road (at this hour deserted), slips through the picket fence beside the railroad track leading from Gisors, skirts the pond mottled with water lilies, steps over the brook lapping against the willows, plunges into the mist-dimmed meadows, and comes to the river.
There he unties his rowboat moored in the reeds along the bank, and with a few strokes, reaches the large punt at anchor which serves as his studio. The local man, a gardener’s helper, who accompanies him, unties the packages—as they call the stretched canvases joined in pairs and numbered—and the artist sets to work.
Fourteen paintings have been started at the same time—a study in scales, as it were—each the translation of a single, identical motif whose effect is modified by the time of day, the sun, and the clouds.
This is where the Epte River flows into the Seine, among tiny islands shaded by tall trees, where branches of the river, like peaceful, solitary lakes beneath the foliage, form mirrors of water reflecting the greenery; this is where, since last summer, Claude Monet has been working, his winters being occupied by another series, the cliffs at Pourville, near Dieppe.6
Appearing in La revue illustrée less than three months before the opening of Monet’s one-man exhibition at Galerie Georges Petit in June 1898, Guillemot’s account not only documented the artist’s current working method, but it also provided a narrative preview of what the public could expect to see next from the artist. Indeed, eighteen works from the Mornings on the Seine series—probably including the Art Institute’s Branch of the Seine near Giverny (Mist)—would go on view that June, alongside examples from the Rouen Cathedral, Norway, and Chrysanthemum series. Featured as well were twenty-four works featuring coastal views of Normandy, which Guillemot specifically mentioned in his account and which Monet had worked on during the same two-year period as his Mornings on the Seine paintings.
The Years 1896–97 in Comparative Perspective
Despite the fact that Monet’s series depicting the Channel coast and the banks of the Seine were developed roughly simultaneously, art historians have indeed noted the different moods evoked by them. For Paul Tucker, “the Norman coast pictures are open and expansive, windswept and volatile, the Mornings on the Seine are contained and self-reflective, hushed and delicate.”7 Although the sensations aroused by Monet and certain aspects of his application of paint vary across these series, there are numerous similarities to be explored, many of which can be illustrated through a juxtaposition of Branch of the Seine near Giverny (Mist) with the Art Institute’s Customs House at Varengeville (fig. 36.3 [cat. 35]), a painting from the Norman coast series that was possibly also included in the June 1898 exhibition, or with others from that series like The Pointe du Petit Ailly (fig. 36.4 [W1445]), or At Val Saint-Nicolas, near Dieppe, in the Morning (fig. 36.5 [W1466]), both of which show the same customs house but viewed from radically different perspectives.8 As Tucker indicates, paintings from both series incorporate arabesque forms and decorative arrangements and convey a sense of Monet’s isolation in the natural environment before him.9 Works from these series also feature similarly soft, muted palettes and seemingly matte surfaces, foregrounding the enveloppe—the nearly tangible, yet continually changing atmospheric effects surrounding the subject—over topographic specificity.10
Similarities can also be seen in the way in which Monet executed the initial stages of Customs House at Varengeville and Branch of the Seine near Giverny (Mist): in both paintings, the artist laid in areas of more intense color, and after this paint layer had dried, covered it with the paler paint in order to evoke ephemeral effects (see Application/technique and artist’s revision in cat. 35 and Application/technique and artist’s revision in cat. 36). Technical examination of Branch of the Seine near Giverny (Mist) reveals that Monet initially used deeper, darker blues and greens, particularly in the sky and in the foliage on the left-hand side of the composition (fig. 36.6 and fig. 36.7). It further indicates that underneath the light-blue area to the right of center is a patch of brighter green, suggesting that Monet initially may have begun this composition with more defined and naturalistic green trees (or a reflection of them) along the horizon, and then obscured them with the upper layer of smooth, pale paint in order to evoke a different set of atmospheric conditions (fig. 36.8). Technical imaging also suggests that Monet may have laid in the shoreline in this area more distinctly in an earlier state of the painting (fig. 36.9).
The possibility that Monet began the Art Institute’s painting more naturalistically and then later applied its dream-like, foggy haze—in conjunction with the fact that he began Branch of the Seine near Giverny (Mist) in a palette similar to the one used in the Boston picture dated the year before (fig. 36.2) suggests that Monet may have begun this work in 1896 but put it aside until the next summer when he finished and dated it. Indeed, Monet wrote to Paul Durand-Ruel in November 1896 that because of the terrible weather he planned to take a break until the following year.11
Channeling Corot
Three years before his successful exhibition of the Mornings on the Seine series, a number of critics had compared Monet’s paintings (specifically those from his Rouen Cathedral series) to those of French Barbizon painter Jean-Baptiste-Camille Corot; the Mornings on the Seine series reinvigorated this comparison.12 Indeed, Monet evoked the ethereal qualities used by Corot in paintings like Recollection of Mortefontaine (fig. 36.10), which had been on exhibit at the Musée du Louvre since 1889, as well as the older artist’s practice of painting early in the morning to capture fleeting light effects.13
Corot was in fact on Monet’s mind at this time. Reflecting upon the work of his predecessors before the June 1898 exhibition of Mornings on the Seine, Monet was quoted by Guillemot as saying that “Corot, with his quickly brushed studies from nature, would assemble those composites that his admirers fight over,” and he further noted the way in which Corot left evidence of his initial painting stages on the canvas.14 In calling attention to the composed qualities of Corot’s paintings—a kind of “synthesis of observation and reflection”—Monet was making a point that Guillemot was certain to redirect in his treatment of Monet’s own method.14
Guillemot recounted how that afternoon, upon returning together to the studio to escape the piercing sun, Monet pulled out the fourteen canvases retrieved from his flat-bottomed studio boat and placed them on easels. “It is a marvel of contagious emotion, of intense poetry,” Guillemot expressed. “And unless one already knew—from certain disclosures in the course of our interview—about the prolonged, patient labor, the anxiety about the results, the conscientious study, the feverish obsession with the work of two years, one would be astonished by his wish [to keep anyone from knowing how it’s done].”15 Indeed, technical examination of Branch of the Seine near Giverny (Mist) confirms Guillemot’s account and reveals the laborious effort that Monet spent creating and developing this canvas. In turn, Monet leaves viewers of his painting in a state of wonder similar to that which the artist himself experienced in the compositions of Corot.
Jill Shaw
Technical Report
Technical Summary
Claude Monet’s Branch of the Seine near Giverny (Mist) was executed on a non-standard-size, [glossary:pre-primed], linen [glossary:canvas], which was probably custom ordered. The [glossary:ground] consists of a single, off-white layer. A [glossary:warp-thread match] was determined with seven other Monet paintings in the Art Institute’s collection: The Petite Creuse River ( [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), Stacks of Wheat (Sunset, Snow Effect) (cat. 29 [W1278], inv. 1922.431) Stack of Wheat (Thaw, Sunset) (cat. 32 [W1284], inv. 1983.166), Sandvika, Norway (cat. 34 [W1397], inv. 1961.790), and Water Lily Pond (cat. 37 [W1628], inv. 1933.441), suggesting that the fabric for these paintings came from the same [glossary:bolt] of material.16 The artist seems to have laid in the shoreline on the right side of the painting more distinctly than it appears in the final painting. The [glossary:X-ray] indicates that, underneath the pale-blue mist, the land in this area of the composition was more densely built up. Ultimately, the boundary between the land and the water was obscured by the cloud of mist painted on top. In several areas of the composition, tiny losses and breaks in the upper paint layers reveal underlying layers of relatively darker and more intensely colored hues. In some areas, the buildup of paint is surprisingly complex, consisting of multiple superimposed layers. For the most part, it appears that the underlying layers were dry when the painting was worked up on top. With the exception of a few discrete strokes of color in the foliage at the upper left, the surface brushwork was mostly blended wet-into-wet, with subtle transitions between color areas.17
Multilayer Interactive Image Viewer
The multilayer interactive image viewer is designed to facilitate the viewer’s exploration and comparison of the technical images (fig. 36.11).18
Signature
Signed and dated: Claude Monet 97 (lower left corner, in pink paint19) (fig. 36.12). It appears that the painting was still slightly tacky when the signature and date were applied.
Structure and Technique
Support
Canvas
Flax (commonly known as linen).20
Standard format
The original dimensions were approximately 89 × 92 cm. This does not correspond to a standard-size [glossary:stretcher], but both dimensions correspond to standard stretcher-bar sizes.21 The stretcher was probably custom ordered.
Weave
[glossary:Plain weave]. Average [glossary:thread count] (standard deviation): 21.1V (0.7) × 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].22 A warp-thread match was determined with seven other Monet paintings: The Petite Creuse River (cat. 25 [W1231], inv. 1922.432), Stacks of Wheat (End of Day, Autumn) (cat. 28 [W1270], inv. 1933.444), Stacks of Wheat (End of Summer) (cat. 27 [W1269], inv. 1985.1103), Stacks of Wheat (Sunset, Snow Effect) (link:135603|text=cat. 29] [W1278], inv. 1922.431) Stack of Wheat (Thaw, Sunset) (cat. 32 [W1284], inv. 1983.166), Sandvika, Norway (cat. 34 [W1397], inv. 1961.790), and Water Lily Pond (cat. 37 [W1628], inv. 1933.441).23
Canvas characteristics
There is relatively even, mild-to-moderate [glossary:cusping] around all four edges that corresponds to the placement of the original tacks (fig. 36.13). The cusping appears slightly more pronounced on the top and bottom edges.
Stretching
Current stretching: Dates to 1974 [glossary:lining] (see Conservation History); copper tacks spaced 5–8 cm apart. It seems that the current stretcher is slightly larger than the original stretcher, resulting in a narrow border of exposed ground from the [glossary:tacking margins] around the edges of the composition. The lined canvas was slightly off-square (counterclockwise with respect to the stretcher) when it was restretched.
Original stretching: Tacks spaced approximately 5.5–8 cm apart. There are approximately five additional holes that do not correspond to the cusping pattern on each tacking edge. Their origin and function are unknown.
Stretcher/strainer
Current stretcher: Four-membered [glossary:ICA spring stretcher] with vertical metal [glossary:crossbar]; dates to 1974 treatment (see Conservation History). Depth: 1.7 cm.
Original stretcher: Discarded. The pre-1974-treatment stretcher may have been the original stretcher (see Conservation History). An undated report describes the stretcher as follows: six members (Buck type 2), with [glossary:mortise and tenon joints]. This report gives the following dimensions: height, 89 cm; width, 92 cm; inside depth, 2 cm; distance from canvas position, 0.5 cm; and length of mortise, 6.5 cm.24
Manufacturer’s/supplier’s marks
None observed in current examination or documented in previous examinations.
Preparatory Layers
Sizing
Not determined (probably glue).25
Ground application/texture
The ground layer extends to the edges of all four tacking margins, indicating that the canvas was cut from a larger piece of primed canvas that was probably commercially prepared. [glossary:Cross-sectional analysis] indicates that the ground consists of a single layer that measures approximately 30 to 100 µm in thickness (fig. 36.14).
Color
Off-white, with some dark (possibly brown or black) and red particles visible under magnification (fig. 36.15).
Materials/composition
Analysis indicates that the ground contains lead white and calcium carbonate (chalk)26 with traces of iron oxide, alumina, silica, and various silicates; traces of fine black particles were observed optically.27 Binder: [glossary:Oil] (estimated).
Compositional Planning/Underdrawing/Painted Sketch
Extent/character
No [glossary:underdrawing] was observed with [glossary:infrared reflectography] (IRR) or microscope examination.
Paint Layer
Application/technique and artist’s revisions
In general, the paint application is quite smooth and flat, with a large amount of blending of the brushstrokes on the canvas. There is very little distinct [glossary:impasto] or thick, textural brushwork, but variations in surface texture are created through the juxtaposition of relatively smooth paint passages with areas of low-relief brush marks and applications that emphasize the texture of the canvas [glossary:weave] (fig. 36.16, fig. 36.17, fig. 36.18). The artist worked over the surface of the painting as a whole, moving back and forth between the foreground and the background to build up the composition. The surface has the appearance of having been worked when the paint was at varying stages of dryness, including areas of wet-into-wet blending (fig. 36.19), [glossary:wet-over-dry] applications, and areas that appear to have been worked with the brush while the paint was semidry (fig. 36.20). In addition, some areas have the appearance of having been wiped or rubbed while the paint was still soft, resulting in a relatively smooth, flat surface where paint from the underlying layers is exposed (fig. 36.21, fig. 36.22). Discrete strokes of more intense color were applied as final touches,mainly in the foliage on the upper left side (fig. 36.23, fig. 36.24). The cloud of pale-blue mist at the center and the right edge of the canvas consists of dense, more continuous layers of paint. Where the paint is thickest, the surface is smooth and the canvas texture is mostly obscured (fig. 36.25). The surface was built up in very thin layers, sometimes over paint that was still soft, causing a smoothing out of the texture of the underlying layer. Toward the edges, where the mist starts to dissipate, the brushwork becomes more open, allowing the canvas texture and the slightly darker colors from the underlying layers to show through (fig. 36.26). Areas where the canvas texture remains pronounced are the result of thin paint applications as well as the buildup of light-handed brushstrokes where the paint deposited mostly on the high points of the canvas weave (fig. 36.27).28
The buildup of the paint layers in some areas of the composition is complex. For example, a small area below the signature provides a cross-sectional view of the layer structure: over the off-white ground (the light spot near the center) there is a bright green layer, followed by blue and yellowish-green layers, and finally the upper layer of light-purple paint that is visible on the surface (fig. 36.28). Throughout the composition, tiny losses and breaks in the brushwork expose underlying paint layers that consist of more intense hues of blue, green, greenish-blue, and bluish-purple. In the sky, for example, deeper greenish- and purplish-blue tones were subsequently covered by the creamy-white, pinkish-white, and pale-blue brushstrokes on the surface (fig. 36.29). In the foliage on the left side of the painting, more intense greens are visible beneath the surface (fig. 36.30), and in the upper left corner, darker blues and greens are exposed in tiny areas (fig. 36.31). It is unclear whether this shift from deeper, more colorful hues to the paler tones of the final painting was a deliberate change in color scheme or simply part of the artist’s process of building up the painting. A possible change in the shoreline on the right side of the painting, however, may indicate that, at an earlier stage, the landscape was more defined. Both the X-ray and transmitted infrared images (fig. 36.32) show that the land in the area of the distant shore was laid in more distinctly than it appears in the final composition where the boundary between the shore and its reflection in the water is completely obscured by the mist.
Due to the fluid, settled quality of the paint in some areas, it is likely that the artist modified his tube paints by incorporating additional medium or thinner.29 There are many tiny bubble holes throughout the paint surface, which could be the result of the incorporation of air while mixing the paint or vigorous working of the paint on the canvas. In some places, the paint surface appears pitted which seems to be due to a combination of bubble holes and paint application (fig. 36.33, fig. 36.34). Most of the surface paint layers were worked wet-into-wet, but the underlayers were probably dry to varying degrees before the upper layers were applied. There are some small, localized areas of interlayer [glossary:cleavage] between the upper and lower layers that appear to be the result of poor adhesion between wet and dry paint layers (fig. 36.35). There are numerous short brush hairs embedded in the paint surface. Because of the rather thick ridges of paint built up on either side of the hairs, they can be clearly seen on the surface and in the X-ray and transmitted-IR image (fig. 36.36). Around the edges of the painting, there are areas of flattened paint that appear to have been caused by framing when the paint was still soft.
Painting tools
Brushes, including 0.5 and 1.0 cm width (based on width of brushstrokes). Numerous brush hairs are embedded in the paint layer.
Palette
Analysis indicates the presence of the following [glossary:pigments]: zinc white, lead white, cadmium yellow, chrome yellow, vermilion, red lake, viridian, cobalt blue, ultramarine blue, and cobalt violet.30
Binding media
Oil (estimated).31
Surface Finish
Varnish layer/media
The painting currently has a multilayered, synthetic surface coating that dates to the 1974 treatment (see Conservation History). The [glossary:varnish] imparts a slight sheen depending on the surface qualities of the underlying paint but remains matte in areas where the canvas texture is more pronounced. There are old [glossary:natural-resin varnish] and starch-paste residues in the recesses of the paint texture that seem to emphasize the surface texture in some areas. A darkened and discolored oleoresinous varnish was removed in the 1974 treatment (see Conservation History).
Conservation History
At an undocumented date (probably in or after 1959), the canvas and stretcher were vacuumed, the keys were fixed with wax-resin adhesive, and metal strip molding was applied.32
The 1974 pre-treatment examination report includes the following comments on previous treatments: “An attempt had been made to clean the painting with soap and water, and this process caused the pronounced crackle and also lead [sic] to embedding of the grime in open layers of paint, where dry brushwork had left the ground showing. To try to minimize this, a stain was put over the picture, and some green paint was added to the left side causing streaks just above signature.” The surface film was described as oleoresinous, discolored, and darkened.33
In 1974, discolored surface films were removed. The canvas was wax-resin lined and restretched onto a new ICA spring stretcher. A layer of polyvinyl acetate (PVA) AYAA was applied, and inpainting was carried out. A layer of methacrylate resin L-46 was applied, followed by a final layer of AYAA.34
Condition Summary
The painting is in good condition. It is wax-resin lined and stretched taut on an ICA spring stretcher. The paint exhibits fairly pronounced cracking especially in the thickest, lead white–rich areas near the center and the right edge. The edges of some of the cracks are raised with slightly opened apertures. The paint layer appears secure in all areas as a result of the [glossary:wax-resin lining], although some flattening of impasto appears to have occurred during the lining process. There are a few tiny losses throughout the painting that appear to be old, and there is some minor abrasion around the edges in the frame rebate area. Several small protrusions and craters observed on the paint surface may be the result of soap formations. There is a multilayered synthetic surface coating that inappropriately heightens the contrast between the more textural paint application and smoother areas. There are residues of old starch paste and natural-resin varnish, as well as grime, embedded in the recesses of the more textured paint, which is causing these areas to appear darker than originally intended. There appears to be something splattered on the surface in the lower left corner; the material exhibits a different [glossary:UV fluorescence] from the rest of the paint surface.
Kimberley Muir
Frame
The current frame appears to be original to the painting. It is a French (Parisian), early-twentieth-century, Durand-Ruel Régence Revival, ogee frame with cast foliate and center cartouches on a quadrillage bed with leaf-tip-and-shell sight molding and a nonoriginal, painted fillet liner. The frame has both water and oil gilding. Red bole was used on the perimeter molding, the cast foliate on the ogee and sight molding, and the scotia sides. Red-orange bole was used on the sanded frieze and bordering fillets. The ornament and sight molding are selectively burnished. The frame has an overall raw umber–bronze tone, with casein or gouache raw umber and gray washes and dark flecking. The liner (nonoriginal replacement) was painted with a whitened raw umber. The frame has a glued poplar 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. The molding, from perimeter to interior is fillet with cast, stylized, running undulating bands with rhomboid center punches; scotia side; ogee face with cast quadrillage bed and center and corner foliate and floral cartouches with cabochon centers on a double-lined diamond bed with punched centers; fillet; sanded front frieze; fillet; ogee with stylized leaf-tip-and-shell sight molding; and an independent fillet liner with cove sight (fig. 36.37).35
Kirk Vuillemot
Provenance
Acquired from [unknown] by Jos Hessel, Paris, by Oct. 26, 1916.36
Sold by Jos Hessel, Paris, to Durand-Ruel, Paris, Oct. 26, 1916, for 20,000 francs.37
Sold by Durand-Ruel, Paris, to Durand-Ruel, New York, Nov. 6 or Dec. 4, 1916.38
Sold by Durand-Ruel, New York, to Martin A. Ryerson, Chicago, Dec. 8, 1916, for $10,000.39
Bequeathed by Martin A. Ryerson (died 1932), Chicago, to the Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.40
Exhibitions:Exhibition History
Paris, Galerie George Petit, Exposition Claude Monet, June–July 1898.41
New York, Durand-Ruel, Paintings by Claude Monet, Dec. 9–23, 1916, cat. 10, as Matinée sur la Seine.42
Toledo (Ohio) Museum of Art, Paintings by French Impressionists and Post-Impressionists, Nov. 7–Dec. 12, 1937, cat. 15 (ill.).
Akron (Ohio) Art Institute, Oct. 18, 1946–Nov. 10, 1947, no cat.43
Boston, Mass., Richard C. Morrison, Nov. 19, 1948–Dec. 26, 1950, no cat.44
Art Institute of Chicago, The Paintings of Claude Monet, Apr. 1–June 15, 1957, no cat. no.45
Art Institute of Chicago, The Artist Looks at the Landscape, June 22–Aug. 25, 1974, no cat.46
Art Institute of Chicago, Paintings by Monet, Mar. 15–May 11, 1975, cat. 99 (ill.). (fig. 36.38)
Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, Monet in the ’90s: The Series Paintings, Feb. 7–Apr. 29, 1990, cat. 78 (ill.); Art Institute of Chicago, May 19–Aug. 12, 1990; London, Royal Academy of Arts, Sept. 7–Dec. 9, 1990 (Boston and Chicago only).47 (fig. 36.39)
Art Institute of Chicago, Claude Monet, 1840–1926, July 22–Nov. 26, 1995, cat. 108 (ill.). (fig. 36.40)
Florence, Sala Bianca di Palazzo Pitti, Claude Monet: La poesia della luce; Sette capolavori dell’Art Institute di Chicago a Palazzo Pitti, June 2–Aug. 29, 1999, no cat. no. (ill.).
Zurich, Kunsthaus Zürich, Monet’s Garten, Oct. 29, 2004–Mar. 13, 2005, cat. 34 (ill.).48
Fort Worth, Tex., Kimbell Art Museum, The Impressionists: Master Paintings from the Art Institute of Chicago, June 29–Nov. 2, 2008, cat. 81 (ill.).
Selected References:Selected References
Durand-Ruel Galleries, New York, Paintings by Claude Monet, exh. cat. (Durand-Ruel, 1916), cat. 10.
Art Institute of Chicago, A Guide to the Paintings in the Permanent Collection (Art Institute of Chicago, 1925), p. 162, cat. 2138.49
M. C., “Monets in the Art Institute,” Bulletin of the Art Institute of Chicago 19, 2 (Feb. 1925), p. 20.
Toledo (Ohio) Museum of Art, Paintings by French Impressionists and Post-Impressionists, exh. cat. (Toledo Museum of Art, 1937), cat. 15.
“News Notes,” Magazine of Art, Akron (Ohio) Art Institute Edition (Nov. 1946), p. iii.
Oscar Reuterswärd, Monet: En konstnärshistorik (Bonniers, 1948), p. 283.
Art Institute of Chicago, “Homage to Claude Monet,” Art Institute of Chicago Quarterly 51, 2 (Apr. 1, 1957), p. 24.
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. 321.50
Grace Seiberling, “The Evolution of an Impressionist,” in Paintings by Monet, ed. Susan Wise, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago, 1975), p. 37.
Susan Wise, ed., Paintings by Monet, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago, 1975), p. 156, cat. 99 (ill.).
Grace Seiberling, “Monet’s Series” (Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1976), pp. 189; 335, n. 1.
Daniel Wildenstein, Claude Monet: Biographie et catalogue raisonné, vol. 3, Peintures, 1887–1898 (Bibliothèque des Arts, 1979), pp. 210; 211, cat. 1475 (ill.).
Charles F. Stuckey, ed., Monet: A Retrospective (Hugh Lauter Levin, 1985), p. 183 (ill.).
Grace Seiberling, Monet in London, exh. cat. (High Museum of Art/University of Washington Press, 1988), p. 14, fig. 9.
Richard Kendall, ed., Monet by Himself: Paintings, Drawings, Pastels, Letters, trans. Bridget Strevens Romer (Macdonald Orbis, 1989), pp. 221 (ill.), 320.
Paul Hayes Tucker, Monet in the ’90s: The Series Paintings, exh. cat. (Museum of Fine Arts, Boston/Yale University Press, 1989), pp. 219; 220, pl. 82; 223; 299, cat. 78.
Martha Kapos, ed., The Impressionists: A Retrospective (Hugh Lauter Levin/Macmillan, 1991), p. 31 (ill.).
Martha Kapos, ed., The Post-Impressionists: A Retrospective (Hugh Lauter Levin/Macmillan, 1993), p. 41, pl. 9.
Natasha Staller, “Babel: Hermetic Languages, Universal Languages and Anti-Languages in Fin de Siècle Parisian Culture,” Art Bulletin 76, 2 (June 1994), p. 338, fig. 8.
Andrew Forge, Monet, Artists in Focus (Art Institute of Chicago, 1995), pp. 53–55; 94, pl. 23; 108.
Charles F. Stuckey, with the assistance of Sophia Shaw, Claude Monet, 1840–1926, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago/Thames & Hudson, 1995), pp. 129, cat. 108 (ill.); 230; 247.
Paul Hayes Tucker, Claude Monet: Life and Art (Yale University Press, 1995), pp. 158; 162, pl. 185.
Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vol. 3, Nos. 969–1595 (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), pp. 613, cat. 1475 (ill.); 614.
Simonella Condemi and Andrew Forge, Claude Monet: La poesia della luce; Sette capolavori dell’Art Institute di Chicago a Palazzo Pitti, exh. cat. (Giunti, 1999), pp. 42 (detail), 43 (ill.).
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. 153 (ill.).
Charles Stuckey, “Monet e la Senna,” in Monet: I luoghi della pittura, ed. Marco Goldin, exh. cat. (Linea d’Ombra, 2001), p. 63 (ill.).
Dario Gamboni, Potential Images: Ambiguity and Indeterminacy in Modern Art (Reaktion, 2002), pp. 109; 111, ill. 81; 113; 170; 297.
Christoph Becker, “Monet’s Garten,” in Monet’s Garten, ed. Christoph Becker, exh. cat. (Kunsthaus Zürich/Hatje Cantz, 2004), pp. 60; 62, cat. 34 (ill.). Translated by Fiona Elliot as "Monet’s Garden,” in Monet’s Garden, ed. Christoph Becker, exh. cat. (Kunsthaus Zürich/Hatje Cantz, 2004), pp. 60; 62, cat. 34 (ill.).
Christopher Butler, Pleasure and the Arts: Enjoying Literature, Painting, and Music (Oxford University Press, 2004), pp. 94; pl. 5; 232.
Nicolas de Warren, “Ad Infinitum: Boredom and the Play of Imagination,” in Infinite Possibilities: Serial Imagery in 20th-Century Drawings, exh. cat. (Davis Museum and Cultural Center/University of Washington Press, 2004), p. 11, fig. 6.
Marco Goldin, ed., Monet, la Senna, le ninfee: Il grande fiume e il nuovo secolo, exh. cat. (Linea d’Ombra, 2004), pp. 118–19 (ill.).
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. 160–61, cat. 81 (ill.); 163; 167. 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. 160–61, cat. 81 (ill.); 163; 167.51
Pascal Bonafoux, Monet, peintre de l’eau (Chêne/Hachette, 2010), pp. 136 (ill.), 174.
Other Documentation:Other Documentation
Documentation from the Durand-Ruel Archives
Inventory number
Stock Durand-Ruel Paris 10908, Paris Stock Book 1913–2152
Inventory number
Stock Durand-Ruel New York 4023, New York Stock Book 1904–2453
Photograph
Photo Durand-Ruel Paris 813454
Other Documents
Labels and Inscriptions
Undated
Label
Location: [glossary:backing board]
Method: printed label with typewritten script
Content: Museum of Fine Arts / Boston, MA 02115 / W. 1475 SEINE / Art I., Chicago (fig. 36.41)
Label
Location: backing board
Method: printed label with typewritten and handwritten script
Content: Museum of Fine Arts / Boston, MA 02115 / W. 1475 SEINE / Art I., Chicago (fig. 36.42)
Label
Location: frame; 1980–81 inventory transcription in conservation file
Method: Not documented
Content: #99 [encircled] (fig. 36.43)
Post-1980
Label
Location: backing board
Method: printed label
Content: The Art Institute of Chicago / “Claude Monet: 1840–1926” / July 14, 199—November 26, 1995 / Catalog: 108 / Branch of the Seine near Giverny (Mist), from the / Matinée sur la Seine / The Art Institute of Chicago, Mr. and Mrs. Martin A. / Ryerson Collection (1933.1156) (fig. 36.44)
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# : 78 W: 1475 / TITLE: Morning on the Seine, near Giverny (Mist) / LENDER: The Art Institute of Chicago (fig. 36.45)
Label
Location: backing board
Method: printed label
Content: Kunsthaus Zürich, Heimplatz 1, 8001 Zürich / Ausstellung Monets Garten, 29.10.2004–27.2.2005 / 34 / Claude Monet / Vormittag auf der Seine, 1897 / Öl auf Leinwand / 89,9 ´ 92,7 cm / The Art Institute of Chicago (fig. 36.46)
Examination and Analysis Techniques
X-radiography
Westinghouse X-ray unit, scanned on Epson Expressions 10000XL flatbed scanner. Scan digitally composited by Robert G. Erdmann, University of Arizona.
Infrared Reflectography
Fujifilm S5 Pro with X-Nite 1000B/2 mm filter (1.0–1.1µm); Inframetrics Infracam with 1.5–1.73 µm filter.
Visible Light
Normal-light, raking-light, and transmitted-light overalls and macrophotography: Fujifilm S5 Pro with X-NiteCC1 filter.
Ultraviolet
Fujifilm S5 Pro with X-NiteCC1 filter and Kodak Wratten 2E filter.
High-Resolution Visible Light (and Ultraviolet)
Sinar P3 camera with Sinarback eVolution 75H (PECA 918 UV IR interference cut filter and Kodak Wratten 2E filter).
Microscopy and Photomicrographs
Sample and cross-sectional analysis using a Zeiss Axioplan2 research microscope equipped with reflected light/UV fluorescence and a Zeiss AxioCam MRc5 digital camera. Types of illumination used: [glossary:darkfield], differential interference contrast ([glossary:DIC]), and UV. In situ photomicrographs with a Wild Heerbrugg M7A StereoZoom microscope fitted with an Olympus DP71 microscope digital camera.
X-ray Fluorescence Spectroscopy (XRF)
Several spots on the painting were analyzed in situ with a Bruker/Keymaster TRACeR III-V with rhodium tube.
Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM)
Zeiss Universal research microscope.
Scanning Electron Microscopy/Energy-Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy (SEM/EDX)
[glossary:Cross sections] analyzed after carbon coating with a Hitachi S-3400N-II VP-SEM with an Oxford EDS and a Hitachi solid-state [glossary:BSE] detector. Analysis was performed at the Northwestern University Atomic and Nanoscale Characterization Experimental (NUANCE), Center Electron Probe Instrumentation Center (EPIC) facility.
Automated Thread Counting
Thread count and weave information were determined by Thread Count Automation Project software.56
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.57
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. 36.47).
Footnotes:For further discussion, see Kimberley Muir, Inge Fiedler, Don H. Johnson, and Robert Erdmann, “Thread Count, Weave, and Ground Analysis of Claude Monet’s Vieille & Troisgros/Troisgros Frères canvases in the Art Institute of Chicago,” in Painting Techniques: History, Materials and Studio Practice (Rijksmuseum, forthcoming). The numbers preceded by a W refer to the Monet catalogue raisonné; see Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vols. 1–4 (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996).
Using the toolbar at the bottom right, any two images of the painting may be selected for comparison by clicking the layers icon to the right of the slider bar. The slider bar may be moved to transition back and forth between the two chosen images. The jagged line icon brings up a list of available annotations, or colored lines that show the significant features visible in each image, which may be turned on or off in any combination. For example, the red annotation lines, associated with the natural-light image, trace some of the painting’s key compositional features. When overlaid onto a technical image ([glossary:X-ray], [glossary:raking light], [glossary:UV], etc.), the red outlines help the viewer to better observe how features in the technical image relate to or diverge from the painting as seen with the naked eye. (When annotations are turned on, a legend appears in the upper right showing each color and its associated image type.) The circular arrow icon returns the image to the default settings (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 of the painting surface, indicates that the paint mixture includes lead white, cobalt violet, cobalt blue, and red lake; other [glossary:pigments] may also be present. See Marc Vermeulen and Kimberley Muir, “Mon_Seine_33_1156_XRF_Results,” Apr. 7, 2012, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.
Flax was confirmed by microscopic cross-sectional fiber identification; see Inge Fiedler, “1933_1156_Monet_analytical_report,” May 15, 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 (National Gallery, London/Yale University Press, 1990), p. 46, fig. 31. The original dimensions 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, Branch of the Seine near Giverny (Mist) (W1475/1933.1156),” Nov. 2010.
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).
See examination record of auxiliary support, n.d., on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.
The presence of a [glossary:sizing] layer is difficult to determine from [glossary:cross sections] due to previous conservation treatments, including [glossary:wax-resin lining].
Traces of magnesium, aluminum, and silicon were detected in association with the calcium particles and are believed to be impurities often associated with the chalk. The ground composition was analyzed using [glossary:SEM/EDX] and [glossary:XRF]. For more detailed results and conditions used, see Inge Fiedler, “1933_1156_Monet_analytical_report,” May 15, 2014; and Marc Vermeulen and Kimberley Muir, “Mon_Seine_33_1156_XRF_Results,” Apr. 7, 2012, on file in Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.
The effect of the [glossary:canvas] texture and the dark appearance of the recesses seems to be exaggerated by dirt and residues trapped in the interstices of the paint texture, which is causing slight darkening and scattering of light.
This hypothesis has not been scientifically tested.
The [glossary:pigments] were identified by the following methods: zinc white, lead white, chrome yellow, vermilion, viridian, cobalt blue, cobalt violet ([glossary:PLM], [glossary:XRF]); cadmium yellow, red lake, ultramarine blue (PLM). Paint scraping samples taken in 1977 were reexamined by PLM in 2014. 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_1156_Monet_analytical_report,” May 15, 2014; Inge Fiedler, "1933_1156_Monet_PLM_results," May 9, 2014; Kimberley Muir, “Mon_Seine_33_1156_XRF_Results,” Apr. 7, 2012, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.
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 (National Gallery, London/Yale University Press, 1990), pp. 72–75.
See Anton Konrad, examination report, Apr. 9, 1959, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.
See Alfred Jakstas, examination/treatment report, Mar. 22, 1974, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.
See Alfred Jakstas, examination/treatment report, Mar. 22, 1974, on file in the Conservation Department, the Art Institute of Chicago.
Kirk Vuillemot, “Monet Frame Descriptions Final,” Dec. 3, 2013, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.
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.
Maurice Guillemot, “Claude Monet,” La revue illustrée, Mar. 15, 1898, translated in Charles F. Stuckey, ed., Monet: A Retrospective (Hugh Lauter Levin, 1985), pp. 198–99.
Daniel Wildenstein, Claude Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vol. 3, Nos. 969–1595 (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), pp. 595, 614.
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).
Dario Gamboni, Potential Images: Ambiguity and Indeterminacy in Modern Art (Reaktion, 2002), p. 109.
Maurice Guillemot, “Claude Monet,” La revue illustrée, Mar. 15, 1898, translated in Charles F. Stuckey, ed., Monet: A Retrospective (Hugh Lauter Levin, 1985), p. 195.
Paul Hayes Tucker, Monet in the ’90s: The Series Paintings, exh. cat. (Museum of Fine Arts, Boston/Yale University Press, 1989), p. 220.
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).
Paul Hayes Tucker, Monet in the ’90s: The Series Paintings, exh. cat. (Museum of Fine Arts, Boston/Yale University Press, 1989), p. 219.
John House, Monet: Nature into Art (Yale University Press, 1986), p. 221.
“Je ne suis pas venu à Paris depuis bien des mois et n’ai pas bougé de Giverny où j’ai travaillé, mais pas selon mon gré, à cause du temps épouvantable que nous n’avons pas cessé d’avoir depuis un temps infini, et tout ce que j’ai entrepris, ou à peu près, sera à terminer l’an prochain.” Daniel Wildenstein,Claude Monet: Biographie et catalogue raisonné, vol. 3, Peintures, 1887–1898 (Bibliothèque des Arts, 1979), p. 292, letter 1353.
Paul Hayes Tucker, Monet in the ’90s: The Series Paintings, exh. cat. (Museum of Fine Arts, Boston/Yale University Press, 1989), pp. 232–33.
Michael Clarke, Corot and the Art of Landscape (British Museum Press, 1991), p. 121.
Maurice Guillemot, “Claude Monet,” La revue illustrée, Mar. 15, 1898, translated in Charles F. Stuckey, ed., Monet: A Retrospective (Hugh Lauter Levin, 1985), p. 196. My thanks go to Paul Hayes Tucker, who suggested a more nuanced interpretation of this passage.
Paul Hayes Tucker, Monet in the ’90s: The Series Paintings, exh. cat. (Museum of Fine Arts, Boston/Yale University Press, 1989), p. 232.
Maurice Guillemot, “Claude Monet,” La revue illustrée, Mar. 15, 1898, translated in Charles F. Stuckey, ed., Monet: A Retrospective (Hugh Lauter Levin, 1985), pp. 198–99.
Branch of the Seine near Giverny (Mist), from the series Mornings on the Seine (W1475) corresponds toDaniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vol. 3, Nos. 969–1595 (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), pp. 613, cat. 1475 (ill.); 614. The Art Institute currently uses the title that resulted from the research for the 1995 exhibition Claude Monet, 1840-1926. See curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago. This painting had the following titles during the lifetime of the artist:
Oct. 26, 1916: Matinée sur la Seine, 1897 (Durand-Ruel, Paris, stock book for 1913–21 [no. 10908]; 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).
Dec. 4, 1916: Matinée sur la Seine, 1897 (Durand-Ruel, New York, stock book for 1904–24 [no. 4023]; 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).
Dec. 8, 1916: Matinée sur la Seine, 1897 (Durand-Ruel, New York, stock book for 1904–24 [no. 4023]; 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).
Dec. 9, 1916: Matinée sur la Seine (Durand-Ruel Galleries, New York, Paintings by Claude Monet, exh. cat. (Durand-Ruel, 1916), cat. 10; 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).
Dec. 26, 1916: Matinée sur la Seine, 1897 (purchase receipt on Durand-Ruel letterhead, dated December 26, 1916. Photocopy in curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.
According to Durand-Ruel, Paris, stock book for 1913–21 (no. 10908, as Matinée sur la Seine, 1897): “Purchased from Hessel by DR Paris on 26 October 1916 for 20 000 F / Stock DR Paris no. 10908; photo no. 8134,” 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. According to Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vol. 3, Nos. 969–1595 (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), pp. 613, cat. 1475 (ill.); 614, this painting was sold by the artist to Durand-Ruel in 1913. The information from Durand-Ruel (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) does not mention the 1913 purchase directly from the artist.
The transaction is recorded in the Durand-Ruel, Paris, stock book for 1913–21 (no. 10908, as Matinée sur la Seine, 1897): “Purchased from Hessel by DR Paris on 26 October 1916 for 20 000 F / Stock DR Paris no. 10908; photo no. 8134,” 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 1913–21 (no. 10908, as Matinée sur la Seine, 1897) states: “Sold to DR New York on 6 November 1916.”The New York stock book for 1904–24 (no. 4023, as Matinée sur la Seine, 1897) states: “Purchased by DR New York on 4 December 1916.” As confirmed by Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel 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 1904–24 (no. 4023, as Matinée sur la Seine, 1897): “sold to M.A. Ryerson on 8 December 1916 for $ 10 000,” 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. A purchase receipt on Durand-Ruel letterhead, dated December 26, 1916, 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 painting was on loan from Martin A. Ryerson to the Art Institute of Chicago, intermittently, by 1924, according to Museum Registration department artists sheets, on file in Museum Registration, Art Institute of Chicago.
According to Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vol. 3, Nos. 969–1595 (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), pp. 613, cat. 1475 (ill.); 614, the painting was put up for sale at Parke-Bernet Galleries, New York, but was withdrawn from the sale. See Parke-Bernet Galleries, New York, Valuable Paintings by Modern French and Barbizon Artists and Renaissance Master, Property of a Mid-Western Educational Institution, pt. 2, sale cat. (Parke-Bernet Galleries, May 4, 1944), p. 34, lot 47.There is an annotated copy of this sale catalogue in the Art Institute of Chicago, Ryerson and Burnham Library, which includesthe notation 1200 written next to no.47. Receipt of object 9253 (on file Museum Registration, Art Institute of Chicago) includes this painting as one of several that were returned to the Art Institute on May 29, 1944, and states these paintings were unsold.
See Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives,to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 5, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.
See Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 5, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.
See Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 5, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.
Photocopy in curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.
See Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vol. 3, Nos. 969–1595 (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), pp. 611–12; 613, cat. 1475 (ill.); 614. Wildenstein states that, due to the repetition of titles, it is difficult to identify with any certainty most of the paintings dated “97” that were exhibited. As a result of his research for Claude Monet, 1840-1926, Charles F. Stuckey concluded that this painting was one of the misty scenes, thus identifying it with one of the paintings Monet titled Bras de Seine, près Giverny (Brouillard), under the section heading “Séries des Matins sur la Seine.” Therefore, it is likely that the Art Institute’s painting was one of the five paintings exhibited as Bras de Seine, près Giverny (Brouillard), 1897 (cats 41–43, 47–48).
As 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.
According to shipping out order 38894, on file in Institutional Archives, Art Institute of Chicago; and receipt of object 10700, on file in Museum Registration, Art Institute of Chicago. According to Magazine of Art, Akron Art Institute Edition (Nov. 1946), p. iii, the loan was scheduled to last for three years.
According to shipping out order 40130, on file in Institutional Archives, Art Institute of Chicago; and receipt of object 12125, on file in Museum Registration, Art Institute of Chicago. Richard C. Morrison was an art administrator with the Federal Art Project, see a transcription of an oral history interview with Richard C. Morrison, conduced by Harlan Phillips, June 8, 1965, available on the Archives of American Art website.
The exhibition catalogue appeared as 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 a 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.
According to Medieval to Modern European Painting and Sculpture cataloguing card in curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago. For the exhibition dates, see Evan M. Maurer, “The Artist Looks at the Landscape,” Bulletin of the Art Institute of Chicago 68, 3 (May–Jun. 1974), p. 7; “Exhibition Schedule,” Bulletin of the Art Institute of Chicago 68, 4 (Jul.–Aug. 1974), p. 9.
According to shipping out order C6313, on file in Institutional Archives, Art Institute of Chicago.
The exhibition catalogue lists the dates as October 29, 2004–February 27, 2005, but according to the Kunsthaus Zürich’s online exhibition archives the exhibition closed on March 13, 2005.
Reprinted as Art Institute of Chicago, A Guide to the Paintings in the Permanent Collection (Art Institute of Chicago, 1932), p. 186, cat. R.102/105.
Reprinted as Art Institute of Chicago, Paintings in the Art Institute of Chicago: A Catalogue of the Picture Collection (Art Institute of Chicago, 1968), p. 321.
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. 176–77, cat. 94 (ill.); 179; 183.
Microfossils were identified by [glossary:PLM] and [glossary:SEM/EDX]. See Inge Fiedler, “1933_1156_Monet_analytical_report,” May 15, 2014.
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).