Cat. 37. Water Lily Pond, 1900

Cat. 37  Water Lily Pond, 1900

Cat. 37

Water Lily Pond1
1900
Oil on canvas; 89.8 × 101 cm (35 3/8 × 39 3/4 in.)
Signed and dated: Claude Monet 1900 (upper left, in dark-red paint)
The Art Institute of Chicago, Mr. and Mrs. Lewis Larned Coburn Memorial Collection, 1933.441

Crafting the Motif

In 1890, Claude Monet purchased the house he had been renting in Giverny since 1883. His reason, as he explained to his dealer, Paul Durand-Ruel, was that he was “certain never to find . . . so beautiful a region.”2 A long-time gardening enthusiast, Monet set about renovating the grounds, carefully supplementing the flower beds with plantings so that the gardens would be in bloom all season long.3 In February 1893, the artist acquired additional land across the train tracks at the south end of the property, where he envisioned adding a water garden. He applied for permission to divert water from a branch of the Epte River for a pond and to build two bridges. In spite of local concern over his proposal, by July Monet received the necessary permits to proceed with his project, and within a few months the thousand-square-meter pond and a Japanese-inspired wooden bridge were completed (fig. 37.1).

In his application to the Eure department prefect, Monet had argued that a water garden would be “agreeable and for the pleasure of the eyes,” but he offered another reason as well, that he intended to mine the picturesque setting for subject matter.4 He treated his Japanese bridge at least twice in 1895 and the theme of the water lily at least eight times in 1897–98.5 In the summers of 1899 and 1900, interrupted only by working trips to London (see cats. 38–41), he concentrated exclusively on this motif, producing a group of eighteen paintings featuring his Japanese bridge and pond. These summer campaigns also coincided with further renovations on his property—by May 1901, Monet had purchased additional land with the intention of enlarging the water lily pond (fig. 37.2). Crafting his garden environment and painting the fruits of his labor would preoccupy Monet for much of the rest of his life (see cat. 44, cat. 46 and cat. 47).6

Animating the Motif

During the summer of 1899, Monet worked on twelve pictures of the pond, directly facing the Japanese bridge that spanned the width of the canvas. Although most of the paintings from the 1899 group are similar in size (nearly square), depict basically the same compositional elements, and feature a rather cool palette (e.g., fig. 37.3 [W1515]), Monet tweaked some of the viewpoints, especially through his use of differently formatted canvases and slight variations in the cropping of forms (e.g., fig. 37.4 [W1517] and fig. 37.5 [W1518]).7 The related six paintings Monet painted the following summer—including the Art Institute’s Water Lily Pond—similarly feature the Japanese bridge, but the viewpoints vary more significantly. None include the perfect arch of the bridge from head on; Monet, rather, has moved himself to the left and back, making visible a larger number of the plantings on the bank in the foreground and presenting the structure seen asymmetrically and less dramatically arched (see also fig. 37.6 [W1630] and fig. 37.7 [W1633]).8 This reinforced associations between his works and the spatial constructs and subject matter used in prints by Japanese artist Utagawa Hiroshige (see fig. 37.8, fig. 37.9), a number of whose woodblock prints were in his personal collection.9

The series of water lily pond paintings from the summers of 1899 and 1900 as a whole is strikingly divergent from those groups he had painted earlier in the 1890s, and, as has been discussed by the art historian Paul Tucker, they seem to recall Monet’s Impressionist roots.10 Certainly the incorporation of active brushwork in boldly juxtaposed colors used in Water Lily Pond diverges from the smoother strokes and blended, tonal palette of the works in his most recent series Mornings on the Seine (see fig. 37.10) (cat. 36 [W1475]) and is perhaps more akin to the paintings Monet produced in the 1870s during his classic Impressionist phase.11 Notably also, Monet mapped out the composition for Water Lily Pond by laying in zones of thin, colored washes, as opposed to building up his surface with areas of paint that he let dry before covering them with additional paint layers (see Technical Report/Paint Application).

Exhibiting the Motif

The novel quality of Monet’s Water Lily Pond paintings did not go unnoticed by his contemporaries, and it seems likely that he himself was keen to publicize the change in his work. When Durand-Ruel organized a show of Monet’s recent works in late 1900, twelve of the twenty-six works included were dedicated to the water lily motif.12 The Art Institute’s Water Lily Pond was not one of those exhibited in this show; the fact that Monet signed and dated it, and sold it to Léonce Rosenberg around the time of the exhibition suggests that the artist considered it completed.13

The series was not embraced as widely as others that he exhibited in the 1890s, however. While some remarked on its dazzling radiance, others criticized a lack of variety of the vantage points.14 Charles Saunier, the art critic for La revue blanche, for example, enthusiastically praised the overall exhibition—which also included works from Monet’s earlier series—but in response to the Water Lily Pond paintings, he remarked: “In front of these pictures, one senses the secret design of a cinematographer who noted the color, not the action—the color, I say, but not the nuance.”15 Despite Monet’s flickering, impasted brushwork and bold application of color in the Water Lily Pond series, they indeed lack the ephemeral atmospheric effects—the enveloppe—that Monet foregrounded in the Mornings on the Seine paintings, especially the Art Institute’s Branch of the Seine near Giverny (Mist) (cat. 36 [W1475]). Exemplifying Monet’s ability to redirect his aesthetic concerns for each motif, his Water Lily Pond is more legible and independent; the viewer is not required to view it alongside others in the series in order to understand it.16

Close comparison of Water Lily Pond and Branch of the Seine near Giverny (Mist) reveals apparent differences, but they also share aspects common to Monet’s practice. Both works foreground a concern that vexed Monet throughout his career and dominated his choice of subject matter in the twentieth century—the representation of water: its reflective properties as well as that ever-complex moment when it converges with land or sky at the horizon. Analysis of the [glossary:transmitted-light] photography of Branch of the Seine near Giverny (Mist) and Water Lily Pond illuminates the differing approaches that Monet used to render this motif. In particular, it reveals that Monet painted areas of Water Lily Pond much more openly. Instead of applying paint relatively evenly across the surface to create reflections in the water, as he did in Branch of the Seine near Giverny (Mist) (fig. 37.11), Monet here leaves exposed areas of the [glossary:ground] and the thin washes that initially blocked in the composition (fig. 37.12). In this way he expresses water’s transparency by exploiting the reflection of light off the ground layer. Notably, however, Monet did make adjustments to the areas where water meets air in both paintings. As mentioned in regard to Branch of the Seine near Giverny (Mist), Monet seems to have reworked the horizon line, obscuring it with the patch of blue haze in the central area of the composition. Although there are few compositional changes in Water Lily Pond, [glossary:X-ray] imaging (fig. 37.13) reveals that Monet did paint out some of the foliage (actual or reflected) in the area underneath the bridge, suggesting his continued struggle to convey the moment where reality ends and reflection begins.
Jill Shaw

Technical Report

Technical Summary

Claude Monet’s Water Lily Pond was painted on a [glossary:pre-primed], non-standard-size linen [glossary:canvas]. The [glossary:ground] is off-white and consists of a single layer. A [glossary:warp-thread match] was detected with seven other Monet paintings from the Art Institute’s collection, suggesting that the fabric for these paintings came from the same [glossary:bolt] of material: The Petite Creuse River (cat. 25 [W1231], inv. 1922.432), Stacks of Wheat (End of Summer) (cat. 27 [W1269], inv. 1985.1103), Stacks of Wheat (End of Day, Autumn) (cat. 28 [W1270], inv. 1933.444), 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 Branch of the Seine near Giverny (Mist) (cat. 36 [W1475], inv. 1933.1156). 17 The artist used deep tones of red, brown, and green, applied in thin washes, to map out the composition and provide the general tone for the work. The [glossary:ground] layer was left exposed in lighter areas of the composition, such as the far end of the pond and openings in the dense background foliage. Both the ground layer and the initial washes remain exposed throughout the composition, and some light abrasion of these layers seems to have occurred before the painting was further built up and may be the result of deliberate scraping or wiping of these layers by the artist. The foliage and flowers were built up using an open network of thick brushstrokes and [glossary:impasto] in brighter tones of green, yellow, pink, and purple. The work incorporates both [glossary:wet-in-wet] and [glossary:wet-over-dry] paint applications, the latter indicating that the painting was carried out in more than one session, allowing sufficient time for some of the earlier layers to have dried.18

Multilayer Interactive Image Viewer

The multilayer interactive image viewer is designed to facilitate the viewer’s exploration and comparison of the technical images (fig. 37.14).19

Signature

Signed and dated: Claude Monet 1900 (upper left, in dark-red paint20) (fig. 37.15). The underlying paint was mostly dry when the signature and date were applied, except for the bright-red strokes underneath the M, which were picked up by the signature (fig. 37.16).

Structure and Technique

Support

Canvas

Flax (commonly known as linen).21

Standard format

A report in the conservation file lists the previous [glossary:stretcher] dimensions as 89 × 100 cm.22 This does not correspond to a standard size, but both dimensions correspond to standard stretcher-bar sizes.23 The stretcher was probably custom ordered.

Weave

[glossary:Plain weave]. Average [glossary:thread count] (standard deviation): 22.3V (0.7) × 23.3H (0.6) threads/cm; the horizontal threads were determined to correspond to the [glossary:warp] and the vertical threads to the [glossary:weft].24 A warp-thread match was determined with seven other Monet paintings from the Art Institute: The Petite Creuse River (cat. 25 [W1231], inv. 1922.432), Stacks of Wheat (End of Summer) (cat. 27 [W1269], inv. 1985.1103), Stacks of Wheat (End of Day, Autumn) (cat. 28 [W1270], inv. 1933.444), 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 Branch of the Seine near Giverny (Mist) (cat. 36 [W1475], inv. 1933.1156).25

Canvas characteristics

There is relatively even, mild-to-moderate [glossary:cusping] around all four edges. The cusping appears to be slightly more pronounced along the top edge. The cusping appears to correspond to the placement of the original tack holes.

Stretching

Current stretching: Dates to the 1974 [glossary:lining] (see Conservation History). Copper tacks spaced 5.5­–9 cm apart. The current stretcher is slightly larger than the original [glossary:foldover] dimensions, resulting in a narrow band of exposed ground from the [glossary:tacking margins] around the edges of the composition. It appears that the lined canvas was slightly off square when it was restretched.

Original stretching: Tack holes spaced approximately 5–7 cm apart. There are a few additional holes on the top and bottom edges. These probably relate to tacks added later to reinforce the edges.

Stretcher/strainer

Current stretcher: Four-membered [glossary:ICA spring stretcher] with vertical metal [glossary:crossbar]. Depth: 2.7 cm.

Original stretcher: Discarded. The previous stretcher was probably the original stretcher. A photograph of the stretcher and an examination report in the conservation file record that the previous stretcher was a Buck type 2, consisting of six members, including a horizontal and a vertical crossbar, with [glossary:mortise and tenon joints], and twelve [glossary:keys]. The report gives the following dimensions: height, 100 cm; width, 89 cm; outside depth, 2 cm; inside depth, 3 cm; stretcher-bar width, 7 cm; distance from canvas position, 0.5 cm; length of mortise, 7 cm (fig. 37.17).26

Manufacturer’s/supplier’s marks

None observed in current examination or documented in previous examinations.

Preparatory Layers

Sizing

In [glossary:UV] light, evidence of a light-blue [glossary:fluorescence] below the ground layer suggests the presence of an organic layer, possibly glue [glossary:sizing] fig. 37.18).27

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 fabric, which was probably commercially prepared. Some fine, parallel ridges were observed in broad areas across the midleft side of the painting and in the upper left corner. The ridges appear to be either part of the ground layer or are directly on top of it. They are visible in the [glossary:X-ray] (fig. 37.19) and on the surface of the painting (fig. 37.20). In some areas, the overlying paint has been lightly abraded at the peaks, exposing the white tops of the ridges (fig. 37.21). The cause of these ridges is unclear. [glossary:Cross-sectional analysis] indicates that the ground consists of a single layer that ranges from approximately 10 to 80 µm in thickness (fig. 37.22).

Color

The ground is off-white, with some dark (possibly red and black) particles visible under magnification (fig. 37.23). There are some relatively large, white clumps present (fig. 37.24).

Materials/composition

Analysis indicates that the ground contains lead white and calcium carbonate (chalk)28 with traces of alumina, silica, and various silicates.29 [glossary:Binder]: [glossary:Oil] (estimated).

Compositional Planning/Underdrawing/Painted Sketch

Extent/character

No [glossary:underdrawing] was detected with [glossary:infrared reflectography]; however, a few black, splintery particles were observed microscopically at the back left edge of the pond (fig. 37.25). Some particles are directly on top of the ground layer, while others are incorporated into the greenish-yellow paint layer. The particles are visually similar to those associated with charcoal underdrawing on other Monet paintings in the Art Institute collection. In those cases, the charcoal particles had also sometimes been picked up by the paint layers.30 In this painting, however, there is insufficient evidence to say whether the artist may have used some preliminary drawing in the work.

Medium/technique

The material was not sampled.

Paint Layer

Application/technique and artist’s revisions

The composition was broadly mapped out using thin washes of paint in dark tones of brown, reddish brown, and green. In these thinly applied passages, the canvas texture remains prominent and the paint surface is often abraded, exposing the peaks of the canvas [glossary:weave]. It appears the artist scraped or wiped these initial paint layers before building up the composition (fig. 37.26, fig. 37.27).31 The [glossary:lay-in] provides the general tone for the shadowed areas of the composition, including the dark areas of dense foliage behind the bridge (fig. 37.28). Where the effects of the sunlight were depicted, in the foreground water for example, the initial washes of reddish brown and dark green were left open, leaving the ground layer exposed in those areas where the water lilies would be painted (fig. 37.29). Similarly, the sunlit area of the pond on the far side of the bridge, as well as the light areas at the upper left and upper right corners, were left in [glossary:reserve] at the lay-in stage, with unpainted ground providing much of the light tone in those parts (fig. 37.30, fig. 37.31).32 In areas of the distant sunlit water, the artist appears to have applied a very thin, translucent paint layer directly over the ground, which imparts a subtle, greenish-yellow tone in places (fig. 37.32, fig. 37.33). It seems that the general form of the bridge was indicated at the lay-in stage using strokes of thin purple and reddish-brown paint (fig. 37.34). The posts and railings were then painted on top of the broad underpainting, with the foliage built up in the negative space in between the supports (fig. 37.35). The bright green and yellow branches that hang down from the top edge of the composition appear to have been planned from early on, since more of the ground layer remains visible through breaks in the brushwork in that area (fig. 37.36). Monet then worked back and forth between the bridge and the foliage behind and in front of it (fig. 37.37).

In painting the foliage and the water lilies, Monet employed more varied brushwork, using individual strokes of paint that are both more colorful and more highly textured than the underlying layers. This buildup of paint is mostly applied in an open network such that areas of exposed ground and thin underpainting are juxtaposed against solid, opaque brushstrokes and dashes of impasto (fig. 37.38, fig. 37.39, fig. 37.40, fig. 37.41). The openness of the brushwork is emphasized when the painting is viewed in transmitted light: the initial thin layers of paint appear relatively transparent while the thicker strokes block the light and appear dark (fig. 37.42). The painting was carried out in several sessions. The initial thin layers of paint appear to have been dry for the most part when the landscape was worked up with the more textural strokes. The upper brushwork includes both [glossary:wet-on-wet] (fig. 37.43) and wet-over-dry (fig. 37.44) paint applications. The water lilies in the foreground and at the far end of the pond were blocked in using thick, lead white–rich strokes applied over the thin underpainting layers; more colorful strokes were added on top when the thick white paint had already set (fig. 37.45, fig. 37.46). The artist often picked up multiple colors on his brush (fig. 37.47), depositing them on the canvas in strokes of unmixed colors. The more textural brushstrokes are often very free and gestural (fig. 37.48, fig. 37.49). For the long grasses at the left edge of the composition, Monet dragged stiff white and pale-yellowish-green paint lightly across the surface in flickering strokes that skip over the surface in places (fig. 37.50). Throughout the painting, he applied strokes of relatively flat, unmodulated color—often deep greens and reds—that cross over and conform to the dried impasto strokes underneath and serve to break up the surface (fig. 37.51).

Although there are no major changes in the composition, a few small areas were painted out as the work was built up. This can be seen in the water underneath the bridge. The X-ray shows that more distinct vertical and diagonal brushstrokes from the reflected foliage were originally included in this area. These strokes were subsequently covered by the flat, rose-colored paint (fig. 37.52).

Painting tools

Brushes, including 2–3 and 5 mm and 1.0 cm width, and possibly wider brushes used for broad underpainting; flat ferrule (based on width and shape of brushmarks).

Palette

Analysis indicates the presence of the following [glossary:pigments]: lead white, cadmium yellow, chrome yellow, vermilion, red lake, viridian, cobalt blue, ultramarine blue, and cobalt violet. PLM analysis highlighted the presence of pale-red and deeper-red particles of red lake, suggesting that two different types may be present. Only one type was analyzed by [glossary:SERS] and identified as madder lake.33 A bright, orange-pink fluorescence under ultraviolet light indicates that the artist used red lake throughout the work.34

Binding Media

Oil (estimated).35

Surface Finish

Varnish layer/media

In 1997–98, the painting was cleaned and left unvarnished (see Conservation History). It has a relatively matte surface with subtle variations in surface sheen depending on the qualities of the paint application.

Conservation History

There is no early treatment report in the conservation file, but pretreatment photographs from 1974, showing the painting on its original stretcher and apparently unlined, were probably taken just before the painting was treated. The treatment probably included the [glossary:wax-resin lining], restretching on the current ICA spring stretcher, and the application of a [glossary:synthetic varnish]. A [glossary:natural-resin varnish] may have been removed at this time as well, based on the presence of yellowed [glossary:varnish] residues in the recesses of the brushwork.

In 1997–98, the synthetic varnish and old natural resin varnish residues were removed. The paint surface was aqueously cleaned, and glue residues embedded in the paint texture were removed.36

Condition Summary

The painting is in good condition. The canvas is wax-resin lined and stretched taut and in plane on an ICA spring stretcher. There is minor wear and abrasion on the tacking edges. There are several old splits in the canvas at the original foldovers, especially along the top and bottom edges. Areas of light abrasion in the ground and the earliest paint layers, which expose the peaks of the canvas weave in places occurred while Monet was still working on the painting, possibly as part of his working process. Cracking in the paint layer is minimal and where present it is very fine, visible mainly only under magnification. There are localized [glossary:drying cracks], as well as pronounced microcracking specific to brushstrokes containing yellow paint. One small area of old flake losses was observed in one of these yellow areas. There are some starch-paste residues from the previous lining treatment in the recesses of the more textured paint. The painting is currently unvarnished.
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, the scotia sides, and the liner. 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 gold-bronze tone, with casein or gouache raw umber and gray washes and dark flecking. 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 a cast quadrillage bed and center and corner foliate and floral cartouches with cabochon centers on a double-lined diamond bed with punched centers; fillet; sanded front frieze; fillet; ogee with stylized leaf-tip-and-shell sight molding; and an independent fillet liner with cove sight (fig. 37.53).37
Kirk Vuillemot

Provenance

Sold by the artist to Léonce Rosenberg, Paris, Dec. 1900.38

Acquired by the Prince de Wagram, 1904.39

Acquired by Léonce Rosenberg, Paris, by July 22, 1914.40

Sold by Léonce Rosenberg, Paris, to Durand-Ruel, Paris, July 22, 1914, for 21,000 francs.41

Sold by Durand-Ruel, Paris, to Durand-Ruel, New York, Dec. 3 or 30, 1914.42

Sold by Durand-Ruel, New York, to Arthur Meeker, Chicago, Apr. 8, 1915, for $7,400.43

 Acquired by Mrs. Lewis Larned (Annie Swan) Coburn, Chicago, by 1933.

Bequeathed by Mrs. Lewis Larned (Annie Swan) Coburn (died 1932), Chicago, to the Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.

Exhibition History

New York, Durand-Ruel Galleries, Paintings by Claude Monet, Feb. 1–16, 1915, cat. 8.44

Art Institute of Chicago, Exhibition of the Mrs. L. L. Coburn Collection: Modern Paintings and Watercolors, Apr. 6–Oct. 9, 1932, cat. 25.

Dayton (Ohio) Art Museum, 19th Century French Paintings from the Collection of the Art Institute of Chicago (circuit exhibition organized by the American Federation of Arts), June 1–June 22, 1948, no cat.;45; Springfield (Mo.) Art Museum, Sept. 9–30, 1948, no cat.46; Probably Poughkeepsie, N.Y., Vassar College Art Gallery, Oct. 15–Nov. 5, 194847; Probably Manchester, N.H., Currier Gallery of Art, Nov. 16–Dec. 7, 194848; Saginaw (Mich.) Museum (as Exhibition of Nineteenth Century French Painting), Dec. 19, 1948–Jan. 9, 1949, cat. 1949; Probably Omaha, Neb., Joslyn Memorial Art Museum, Jan. 23–Feb. 15, 194950; Probably Memphis, Tenn., Brooks Memorial Art Gallery, Mar. 1–22, 1949, no cat.51; Utica, N.Y., Munson–Williams-Proctor Institute, Apr. 3–24, 1949, no cat.52 

Chicago, Remington Rand, window display, Apr. 14–30, 1952, no cat.53

Art Institute of Chicago, The Paintings of Claude Monet, Apr. 1–June 15, 1957, no cat. no.54

Art Institute of Chicago, Paintings by Monet, Mar. 15–May 11, 1975, cat. 101 (ill.).  (fig. 37.54)

New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Monet’s Years at Giverny: Beyond Impressionism, Apr. 19–July 9, 1978, cat. 33 (ill.); Saint Louis Art Museum, Aug. 1–Oct. 8, 1978.

Los Angeles County Museum of Art, A Day in the Country: Impressionism and the French Landscape, June 28–Sept. 16, 1984, cat. 93 (ill.); Art Institute of Chicago, Oct. 23, 1984–Jan. 6, 1985; Paris, Galeries Nationales d’Exposition du Grand Palais, as L’impressionnisme et le paysage français, Feb. 4–Apr. 22, 1985.

Auckland City Art Gallery, Claude Monet: Painter of Light, Apr. 29–June 9, 1985, cat. 27 (ill.); Sydney, Art Gallery of New South Wales, June 21–Aug. 4, 1985; Melbourne, National Gallery of Victoria, Aug. 14–Sept. 29, 1985.

Madrid, Museo Español de Arte Contemporáneo, Claude Monet, 1840–1926, Apr. 29–June 30, 1986, cat. 94 (ill.).

Basel, Kunstmuseum Basel, Claude Monet: Nymphéas, July 20–Oct. 19, 1986, cat. 10 (ill.).

Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, Monet in the ’90s: The Series Paintings, Feb. 7–Apr. 29, 1990, cat. 91 (ill.); Art Institute of Chicago, May 19–Aug. 12, 1990; London, Royal Academy of Arts, Sept. 7–Dec. 9, 1990. (fig. 37.55)

Art Institute of Chicago, Claude Monet, 1840–1926, July 22–Nov. 26, 1995, cat. 114 (ill.). (fig. 37.56)

Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, Monet in the 20th Century, Sept. 20–Dec. 27, 1998, cat. 1 (ill.); London, Royal Academy of Arts, Jan. 23–Apr. 18, 1999.

Paris, Musée National de l’Orangerie, Monet: Le cycle des “Nymphéas,” May 6–Aug. 2, 1999, cat. 6 (ill.).

Fort Worth, Tex., Kimbell Art Museum, The Impressionists: Master Paintings from the Art Institute of Chicago, June 29–Nov. 2, 2008, cat. 90 (ill.).

Melbourne, National Gallery of Victoria, Monet’s Garden: The Musée Marmottan Monet, Paris, May 10–Sept. 8, 2013, no cat. no. (ill.).55

Selected References

Lucien Descaves, “Chez Claude Monet,” Paris-Magazine, Aug. 25, 1920, p. 354 (ill.).56

Gustave Geffroy, “Claude Monet,” L’art et les artistes 2, 11 (Nov. 1920), p. 73 (ill.).

Camille Mauclair, Claude Monet (Rieder, 1924), pp. 63; pl. 39. Republished in Camille Mauclair, Claude Monet, 2nd ed. (Rieder, 1927), p. 63; pl. 39. Translated by J. Lewis May as Claude Monet (Dodd, Mead, 1924), pp. 6; pl. 39.

Florent Fels, Claude Monet: Trente reproductions de peintures et dessins précédées d’une étude critique, Les peintres français nouveaux 22 (Gallimard, 1925), p. 63 (ill.).

“Les toiles de jeunesse de Claude Monet,” L’art vivant, Jan. 1, 1927, p. 22 (ill.)

Léon Werth, Claude Monet (G. Crès, 1928), pl. 50.

Art Institute of Chicago, Exhibition of the Mrs. L. L. Coburn Collection: Modern Paintings and Watercolors, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago, 1932), p. 20, cat. 25.

Daniel Catton Rich, “The Mrs. L. L. Coburn Collection,” in Art Institute of Chicago, Exhibition of the Mrs. L. L. Coburn Collection: Modern Paintings and Watercolors, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago, 1932), p. 7.

John Rewald, “Monet, Solid Builder of Impressions,” Art News 42, 10 (Oct. 1–14, 1943), p. 25 (ill.).

Saginaw Museum, Exhibition of Nineteenth Century French Painting, exh. cat. (Saginaw Museum, 1949), p. 9, cat. 19.

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.

A. James Speyer, “Twentieth-Century European Paintings and Sculpture,” Apollo 84, 55 (Sept. 1966), p. 222.

Frederick A. Sweet, “Great Chicago Collectors,” Apollo 84 (Sept. 1966), pp. 201, fig. 29; 203.

Denis Rouart and Jean-Dominique Rey, Monet, nymphéas, ou Les miroirs du temps, with a cat. rais. by Robert Maillard (Hazan, 1972), p. 155 (ill.). Translated by David Radzinowicz as Monet, Water Lilies: The Complete Series, rev. ed., with a cat. rais. by Julie Rouart with Camille Sourisse (Flammarion/Rizzoli, 2008), p. 121 (ill.).

John Maxon, “Monet Exhibition,” Bulletin of the Art Institute of Chicago 69, 2 (Mar.–Apr. 1975), p. 2 (ill.).

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. 158, cat. 101 (ill.).

Metropolitan Museum of Art, Monet’s Years at Giverny: Beyond Impressionism, exh. cat. (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 1978), pp. 84, cat. 33 (ill.); 161.

Kirk Varnedoe, “In Monet’s Gardens,” New York Times Magazine, Apr. 2, 1978, p. 32 (ill.).

A. James Speyer and Courtney Graham Donnell, Twentieth-Century European Paintings (University of Chicago Press, 1980), p. 58, cat. 3A8; microfiche 3, no. A8 (ill.).

Grace Seiberling, Monet’s Series (Garland, 1981), pp. 219; 230; 276; 438, fig. 30.

Robert Gordon and Andrew Forge, Monet (Abrams, 1983), pp. 262, 268–69 (ill.), 294.

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

Richard R. Brettell, “The Fields of France,” in A Day in the Country: Impressionism and the French Landscape, ed. Andrea P. A. Belloli, exh. cat. (Los Angeles County Museum of Art, 1984), p. 246.

Sylvie Gache-Patin, “Private and Public Gardens,” 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. 211; 215; 224; 230; 236; 239, no. 93 (ill.).

Scott Schaefer, “Rivers, Roads, and Trains,” 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. 154.

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. 304.

Richard R. Brettell, “La campagne française,” in Réunion des Musées Nationaux, L’impressionnisme et le paysage français, exh. cat. (Réunion des Musées Nationaux, 1985), p. 261.

Andrew Forge, Monet, Artists in Focus (Art Institute of Chicago, 1995), pp. 61; 64; 95, pl. 24; 109.

Sylvie Gache-Patin, “Jardins privés et jardins publics,” in Réunion des Musées Nationaux, L’impressionnisme et le paysage français, exh. cat. (Réunion des Musées Nationaux, 1985), pp. 217; 220; 252–253, no. 93 (ill.).

John House, “Catalogue of the Exhibition,” in Auckland City Art Gallery, Claude Monet: Painter of Light, exh. cat. (Auckland City Art Gallery/NZI, 1985), pp. 94–95, cat. 27 (ill.); 106.

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), p. 25.

Scott Schaefer, “L’évasion loin de Paris,” in Réunion des Musées Nationaux, L’impressionnisme et le paysage français, exh. cat. (Réunion des Musées Nationaux, 1985), p. 327.

Scott Schaefer, “Rivières, routes et chemins de fer,” in Réunion des Musées Nationaux, L’impressionnisme et le paysage français, exh. cat. (Réunion des Musées Nationaux, 1985), p. 156.

Virginia Spate, “Transcending the Moment—Monet’s Water Lilies, 1899–1926,” in Auckland City Art Gallery, Claude Monet: Painter of Light, exh. cat. (Auckland City Art Gallery/NZI, 1985), pp. 30, 31.

Charles F. Stuckey, ed., Monet: A Retrospective (Hugh Lauter Levin, 1985), p. 237, pl. 93.

Daniel Wildenstein, Claude Monet: Biographie et catalogue raisonné, vol. 4, Peintures, 1899–1926  (Bibliothèque des Arts, 1985), pp. 21; 194; 195, cat. 1628 (ill.); 349, letters 1580, 1581; 427, pièces justificatives 151, 152; 431, pièces justificatives 271, 273; 432, pièce justificative 316.

James G. Ravin, “Monet’s Cataracts,” JAMA: Journal of American Medical Association 254, 3 (July 19, 1985), pp. 394; 395, fig. 2. 

Kunstmuseum Basel, Claude Monet, Nymphéas: Impression, Vision, exh. cat. (SV International, 1986), pp. 29; 33, cat. 10 (ill.); 172.

Museo Español de Arte Contemporáneo, Claude Monet, 1840–1926, exh. cat. (Ministerio de Cultura, in collaboration with Fundación para el Apoyo de la Cultura, 1986), pp. 380–81, cat. 94 (ill.); 499.

Daniel Wildenstein, “Giverny, o La conquista de lo absolute,” in Museo Español de Arte Contemporáneo, Claude Monet, 1840–1926, exh. cat. (Ministerio de Cultura, in collaboration with Fundación para el Apoyo de la Cultura, 1986), p. 68, cat. 94 (ill.).

Richard R. Brettell, Post-Impressionists (Art Institute of Chicago/Abrams, 1987), pp. 111, 114 (ill.), 118.

Art Institute of Chicago, Master Paintings in the Art Institute of Chicago, selected by James N. Wood and Katharine C. Lee (Art Institute of Chicago/New York Graphic Society Books/Little, Brown, 1988), p. 72 (ill.).

Charles F. Stuckey, Monet: Water Lilies (Hugh Lauter Levin/Macmillan, 1988), p. 33, pl. 6.

Art Institute of Chicago, Master Paintings in the Art Institute of Chicago, selected by James N. Wood and Katharine C. Lee (Art Institute of Chicago/New York Graphic Society Books/Little, Brown, 1988), p. 72 (ill.).

Paul Hayes Tucker, Monet in the ‘90s: The Series Paintings, exh. cat. (Museum of Fine Arts, Boston/Yale University Press, 1989), pp. 260; 263, pl. 98; 265; 300, cat. 91.

Philip Sandblom, Creativity and Disease: How Illness Affects Literature, Art and Music, rev. ed. (Marion Boyars, 1995), pp. 131, pl. 52; 203.

Charles F. Stuckey, with the assistance of Sophia Shaw, Claude Monet, 1840–1926, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago/Thames & Hudson, 1995), pp. 135, cat. 114 (ill.); 234; 246.

Paul Hayes Tucker, Claude Monet: Life and Art (Yale University Press, 1995), pp. 184; 186, pl. 212.

Genevieve Morgan, ed., Monet: The Artist Speaks (Collins, 1996), pp. 85 (ill.), 95.

Daniel Wildenstein, Monet, or The Triumph of Impressionism, cat. rais., vol. 1 (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), p. 353.

Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vol. 4, Nos. 1596–1983 et les grandes décorations (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), pp. 728–29, cat. 1628 (ill.).

James G. Ravin, “Artistic Vision in Old Age: Claude Monet,” in Michael F. Marmor and James G. Ravin, The Eye of an Artist (Mosby, 1997), p. 169, fig. 14.1.

George T. M. Shackelford and MaryAnne Stevens, “The Garden at Giverny, 1900–1902,” in Paul Hayes Tucker with George T. M. Shackelford and MaryAnne Stevens, Monet in the 20th Century, exh. cat. (Royal Academy of Arts, London/Museum of Fine Arts, Boston/Yale University Press, 1998), pp. 118; 120, cat. 1 (ill.).

Paul Hayes Tucker, “The Revolution in the Garden: Monet in the Twentieth Century,” in Paul Hayes Tucker, with George T. M. Shackelford and MaryAnne Stevens, Monet in the 20th Century, exh. cat. (Royal Academy of Arts, London; Museum of Fine Arts, Boston/Yale University Press, 1998), p. 32.

Christopher Yetton, Monet in the 20th Century: An Introduction, exh. cat. (Royal Academy of Arts, London, 1999), pp. 30, cat. 1 (ill.); 31 (detail).

“Monet, les nymphéas: L’exposition,” special issue, Connaissance des arts 137 (1999), pp. 62–63, ill. 59.

Pierre Georgel, Claude Monet: Nymphéas (Hazan, 1999), pp. 8, 32 (ill.).

Pierre Georgel with Chantal Georgel and Jacqueline Séjourné, Monet: Le cycle des “Nymphéas,” exh. cat. (Réunion des Musées Nationaux, 1999), pp. 31; 81, cat. 6 (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. 159 (ill.).

Christie’s, London, Impressionist and Post-Impressionist Art, sale cat. (Christie’s, June 18, 2000), p. 48, fig. 2.

Karin Sagner-Düchting, “Monet’s Late Work from the Vantage Point of Modernism,” in Monet and Modernism, ed. Karin Sagner-Düchting, exh. cat. (Prestel, 2001), p. 25.

Karin Sagner-Düchting, “The Waterlilies in Giverny and the Grande Décoration,” in Monet and Modernism, ed. Karin Sagner-Düchting, exh. cat. (Prestel, 2001), pp. 66, 73 (ill.).

Norio Shimada and Keiko Sakagami, Kurōdo Mone meigashū: Hikari to kaze no kiseki [Claude Monet: 1881–1926], vol. 2 (Nihon Bijutsu Kyōiku Sentā, 2001), p. 106, no. 234 (ill.); 190.

Debra N. Mancoff, Monet: Nature into Art (Publications International, 2003), pp. 96–97 (ill.), 128.

Françoise Cachin, “Claude Monet, Le pont japonais, sur le basin des nymphéas,” in L’impressionnisme, de France et d’Amérique: Monet, Renoir, Sisley, Degas . . . , ed. Françoise Cachin and Richard R. Brettell, exh. cat. (Artlys/Musée Fabre/Musée de Grenoble, 2007), p. 140.

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. 127.

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. 15 (ill.); 19 (ill.); 20 (ill.); 22; 161; 163; 167; 172 (detail); 173, cat. 90 (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. 15 (ill.); 19 (ill.); 20 (ill.); 22; 161; 163; 167; 172 (detail); 173, cat. 90 (ill.).57

Jon Kear, The Treasures of the Impressionists (Andre Deutsch, 2008), pp. 66 (ill.), 72.

Alec Mishory, Still Life: From Represented Objects to Real Objects, vol. 1 (Open University of Israel, 2008), pp. 241, fig. 208; 292.

Michael Sciarrillo and Scott Aker, “Drawing as Insight into Wholeness,” Journal for Geometry and Graphics 12, 1 (2008), pp. 87; 89; 91, fig. 1.

Michel Draguet, Les Nymphéas: Monet; Grandeur; Nature (Hazan, 2010), p. 4, fig. 10.

Mary Mathews Gedo, Monet and His Muse: Camille Monet in the Artist’s Life (University of Chicago Press, 2010), p. 221, fig. 15.1.

Marianne Mathieu and Sophie Matthiesson, Monet’s Garden, Musée Marmottan Monet, Paris, exh. cat. (National Gallery of Victoria, 2013), pp. 126 (ill.), 173.

Other Documentation

Documentation from the Durand-Ruel Archives

Inventory number
Stock Durand-Ruel Paris 10710, Durand-Ruel Paris stock book 1913–2158

Inventory number
Stock Durand-Ruel New York 3807, Durand-Ruel New York stock book 1904–2459

Photograph number
Photo Durand-Ruel Paris 797060

Other Documents

Label (fig. 37.57)61

Label (fig. 37.58)62

Inscription (fig. 37.59)63

Inscription (fig. 37.60)64

Labels and Inscriptions

Undated

Label
Location: frame
Method: handwritten label
Content: 33 / Art Institute / of Chicago (fig. 37.61)

Number
Location: frame
Method: handwritten
Content: 1933.441 (fig. 37.62)

Stamp
Location: frame
Method: stamp
Content: AJD65 (fig. 37.63)

Pre-1980

Label
Location: pre-1974-treatment stretcher (discarded); preserved in conservation file
Method: printed label with handwritten script
Content: Monet No. 3807 / Le bassin aux / nymphéas 1900 / iabb (fig. 37.58)

Label
Location: pre-1974-treatment stretcher (discarded); 1974 photograph preserved in conservation file
Method: handwritten label
Content: Monet n^o. 10710 / Le bassin aux nymphéas / 1900 (fig. 37.57)

Label
Location: pre-1974-treatment stretcher (discarded); 1974 photograph preserved in conservation file
Method: handwritten label
Content: [. . .] / [n]ymphéas / 1900 (fig. 37.64)

Number
Location: pre-1974-treatment stretcher (discarded); 1974 photograph preserved in conservation file
Method: handwritten
Content: 7970 (fig. 37.65)

Number
Location: pre-1974-treatment stretcher (discarded); 1974 photograph preserved in conservation file
Method: handwritten
Content: 1186 (fig. 37.66)

Number
Location: pre-1974-treatment stretcher (discarded); 1974 photograph preserved in conservation file
Method: handwritten
Content: 33.441 (fig. 37.67)

Inscription
Location: pre-1974-treatment stretcher (discarded); 1974 photograph preserved in conservation file
Method: handwritten
Content: D.R.N.Y. 3807 (fig. 37.68)

Inscription
Location: pre-1974-treatment stretcher (discarded); 1974 photograph preserved in conservation file
Method: handwritten
Content: illegible [dimensions?] (fig. 37.69)

Inscription
Location: pre-1974-treatment stretcher (discarded); 1974 photograph preserved in conservation file
Method: handwritten
Content: [Top? or box?] (fig. 37.70)

Inscription
Location: pre-1974-treatment stretcher (discarded); 1974 photograph preserved in conservation file
Method: handwritten
Content: [. . .] bassin aux nymphéas [. . .] (fig. 37.71)

Label
Location: previous frame; transcription in conservation file
Method: typewritten label
Content: The Saginaw Museum / “Garden at Giverny” by Monet / Art Institute of Chicago / L1948.36566 (fig. 37.72)

Label
Location: previous frame; transcription in conservation file67
Method: typewritten label
Content: Permanent Exhibit Storage Record / during / 1933 Century of Progress / Gallery No. 33

Post-1980

Label
Location: [glossary:backing board]
Method: printed label with typewritten script
Content: THE ART INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO / artist Claude Monet / Japanese Bridge at Giverny” / title / oil on canvas / medium / 1933.441 / credit / acc. # (fig. 37.73)

Label
Location: stretcher
Method: printed label with typewritten script and green-ink inventory stamp
Content: THE ART INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO / CHICAGO ILLINOIS 60603, U. S. A. / To / MONET, Claude / Pool of Waterlilies / Mr. and Mrs. Lewis Larned Coburn Memorial / Collection
Stamp: Inventory—1980–1981 (fig. 37.74)

Stamp
Location: stretcher
Method: green-ink stamp
Content: Inventory—1980–1981 (fig. 37.75)

Label
Location: stretcher
Method: printed label with typewritten script (in parentheses)
Content: SIT TRANSPORTES INTERNACIONALES, S.A / [logo] S.I.T. / Gran Vía, 66—28013 MADRID / Tel. 247 50 00—Telex 27439 / N^o (4) / Título “LE PONT JAPONAIS, GIVERNY”) / Exposición (CLAUDE MONET) / Prestador (ART INSTITUTE CHICAGO/CHICAGO)68 (fig. 37.76)

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# : 91 W: 1628 / TITLE: The Water Lily Pond [Japanese Bridge] / LENDER: The Art Institute of Chicago (fig. 37.77)

Label
Location: backing board
Method: printed label with typewritten script (in parentheses)
Content: Museum of Fine Arts / Boston, MA 02115 / (W. 1628 JAPANESE B / Art I., Chicago)69 (fig. 37.78)

Label
Location: backing board
Method: printed label
Content: The Art Institute of Chicago / “Claude Monet: 1840–1926” / July 14, 1995–November 26, 1995 / Catalog: 114 / Water Lily Garden / Le Pont sur le bassin aux nymphéas, Giverny / The Art Institute of Chicago, Mr. and Mrs. Lewis / Larned Coburn Collection (1933.441) (fig. 37.79)

Label
Location: backing board
Method: printed label
Content: MONET IN THE 20TH CENTURY / Museum of Fine Arts, Boston / September 20–December 27, 1998 / Royal Academy of Arts, London / January 21–April 18, 1999 / Cat. 1 W. 1628 / Le Pont sur le bassin aux nymphéas, Giverny; / The Bridge over the Water-Lily Pond, 1900 / The Art Institute of Chicago (fig. 37.80)

Examination and Analysis Techniques

X-radiography

Westinghouse X-ray unit, scanned on Epson Expressions 10000XL flatbed scanner. Scans digitally composited by Robert G. Erdmann, University of Arizona.

Infrared Reflectography

Fujifilm S5 Pro with X-Nite 1000B/2 mm filter (1.0–1.1 µm) and Inframetrics Infracam with 1.5–1.73 µm filter.

Transmitted Infrared

Fujifilm S5 Pro with X-Nite 1000B/2 mm filter (1.0–1.1 µm).

Visible Light

Normal-light, raking-light, and [glossary: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 (B+W 486 UV/IR cut MRC filter).

Microscopy and Photomicrographs

Sample and cross-sectional analysis using a Zeiss Axioplan2 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 (NUANCE) Center, Electron Probe Instrumentation Center (EPIC) facility.

Surface-Enhanced Raman Spectroscopy (SERS)

A Jobin Yvon Horiba LabRAM 300 confocal Raman microscope was used, equipped with an Andor multichannel, Peltier-cooled, open-electrode charge-coupled device detector (Andor DV420-OE322; 1024×256), an Olympus BXFM open microscope frame, a holographic notch filter, and an 1,800-grooves/mm dispersive grating.

The excitation line of an air-cooled, frequency-doubled, He-Ne laser (632.8 nm) was focused through a 20× objective onto the samples, and Raman scattering was back collected through the same microscope objective. Power at the samples was kept very low (never exceeding a few mW) by a series of neutral density filters in order to avoid any thermal damage.70

Automated Thread Counting

[glossary:Thread count] and weave information were determined by Thread Count Automation Project software.71

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.72

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. 37.81).

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 raisonnéWerkverzeichnis, 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 and [glossary:UV] examination of the painting surface, indicates that the paint mixture contains vermilion, cobalt violet, and red lake; other [glossary:pigments] may also be present. See Kimberley Muir, “Mon_WLPond_33_441_XRF_Results,” Dec. 13, 2011, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

Flax was confirmed by microscopic cross-sectional fiber identification. See Inge Fiedler, “1933_441_Monet_analytical_report,” May 21, 2014, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

The previous [glossary:stretcher] was probably the original stretcher. See examination record of auxiliary support, n.d., on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

See, for example, chart of standard sizes available from Bourgeois Aîné in 1888, reproduced in David Bomford, Jo Kirby, John Leighton, and Ashok Roy, Art in the Making: Impressionism (National Gallery, London/Yale University Press, 1990), p. 46, fig. 31.

[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, Water Lily Pond (W1628/1933.441),” Nov. 2011.

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.

See Inge Fiedler, “1933_441_Monet_analytical_report,” May 21, 2015, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

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]. See Inge Fiedler, “1933_441_Monet_analytical_report,” May 21, 2014; Inge Fiedler, "1933_441_Monet_PLM_results," Oct. 17, 2013; Kimberley Muir, “Mon_WLPond_33_441_XRF_Results,” Dec. 13, 2011, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

In areas where the [glossary:ground] layer is exposed, it too is often abraded, with the peaks of the [glossary:canvas] threads visible at the surface. This abrasion also appears to have occurred while Monet was working on the painting, since subsequent brushwork passes over the abraded areas.

In the upper left corner, pale-purple paint was added later over the areas of exposed [glossary:ground], providing the light tone in some places.

The [glossary:pigments] were identified by the following methods: lead white, cadmium yellow, vermilion, viridian, cobalt blue, cobalt violet ([glossary:PLM]; [glossary:XRF]); chrome yellow, red lake, ultramarine blue (PLM); madder lake ([glossary:SERS]). XRF analysis detected cobalt and arsenic in areas of purple paint, indicating that the cobalt violet is a cobalt arsenate. Paint scraping samples taken in 1974 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_441_Monet_analytical_report,” May 21, 2014; Inge Fiedler, "1933_441_Monet_PLM_results," Oct. 17, 2013; Federica Pozzi, "SERS_spectroscopy_results," Apr. 17, 2014; Kimberley Muir, “Mon_WLPond_33_441_XRF_Results,” Dec. 13, 2011, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

Identifying the specific type of lake used only by its [glossary:fluorescence] under [glossary:UV] is difficult, as many factors, including the type of [glossary:substrate], binders, varnishes, and admixtures with other [glossary:pigments], can ultimately affect the perceived color of the fluorescence. Some types of madder and purpurin [glossary:lake pigments] have been reported to fluoresce orange, but other lakes, such as lacs, may fluoresce as well. The characteristics of red lakes, including their fluorescence under UV, are discussed in Helmut Schweppe and John Winter, “Madder and Alizarin,” in Artists’ Pigments: A Handbook of Their History and Characteristics, ed. Elisabeth West FitzHugh, vol. 3 (National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., 1997), pp. 124–26. See also Ruth Johnston-Feller, Color Science in the Examination of Museum Objects: Nondestructive Procedures (Getty Conservation Institute, 2001), p. 207.

The [glossary:binding medium] was not analyzed. The estimation of an [glossary:oil] medium is based on visual examination, as well as on knowledge of Monet’s technique and published analyses of Monet paintings in other collections. See, for example, David Bomford, Jo Kirby, John Leighton, and Ashok Roy, Art in the Making: Impressionism (National Gallery, London/Yale University Press, 1990), pp. 72–75.

See Kristin Lister, treatment report, Nov. 15, 1998, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

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

The label was transcribed in 1977; see twentieth-century painting and sculpture report on verso of painting, July 20, 1977, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

Corresponds to the exhibition Madrid, Museo Español de Arte Contemporáneo, Claude Monet, 1840–1926, Apr. 29–June 30, 1986.

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

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.

Water Lily Pond (W1628) corresponds to Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis,vol. 4, Nos. 1596–1983 et les grandes décorations (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), pp. 728–29, cat. 1628 (ill.). The Art Institute currently uses the title that resulted from the research conducted for the exhibition The Impressionists: Master Paintings from the Art Institute of Chicago. The painting had the following titles during the artist’s lifetime:

July, 22, 1914: Le bassin aux nymphéas, 1900 (Durand-Ruel, Paris, stock book for 1913–21 [no. 10710]; see Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 21, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago).

Dec. 30, 1914: Le bassin aux nymphéas, 1900 (Durand-Ruel, New York, stock book for 1904–24 [no. 3807]; see Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 21, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago).

Apr. 8, 1915: Le bassin aux nymphéas, 1900 (Durand-Ruel, New York, stock book for  1904–24 [no. 3807]; see Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 21, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago).

Monet to Paul Durand-Ruel, Oct. 27, 1890, quoted in 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. 236; original French in Daniel Wildenstein, Claude Monet: Biographie et catalogue raisonné, vol. 3, Peintures, 1887–1898 (Bibliothèque des Arts, 1979), p. 259, letter 1079.

Details concerning Monet’s gardening and renovations at Giverny have been gleaned from Charles F. Stuckey, with the assistance of Sophia Shaw, Claude Monet, 1840–1926, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago/Thames & Hudson, 1995); and Paul Hayes Tucker, Claude Monet: Life and Art (Yale University Press, 1995).

Monet to the prefect of Eure, July 17, 1893, quoted in Paul Hayes Tucker, “The Revolution in the Garden: Monet in the Twentieth Century,” in Paul Hayes Tucker with George T. M. Shackelford and MaryAnne Stevens, Monet in the 20th Century, exh. cat. (Royal Academy of Arts, London/Museum of Fine Arts, Boston/Yale University Press, 1998), p. 16; original French in Daniel Wildenstein, Claude Monet: Biographie et catalogue raisonné, vol. 3, Peintures, 1887–1898 (Bibliothèque des Arts, 1979), pp. 274–75, letter 1219.

The 1895 Japanese bridge paintings are The Japanese Bridge at Giverny (subsequently dated 1892; private collection, United States [W1419]) and The Bridge in Monet’s Garden (subsequently dated 1900; bought in Phillips, de Pury & Luxembourg, New York, Nov. 4, 2002, lot 26 [W1419a]). The water lily paintings completed in 1897–98 are Nympheas (c. 1897–98; Los Angeles County Museum of Art [W1501]), Water-Lilies (1897–98; Ohara Gallery, New York [W1502]), Water-Lilies (1897–99; private collection [W1503]), Water-Lilies, Evening Effect (1897–99; Musée Marmottan Monet, Paris [W1504]), Water-Lilies (1897–99; private collection [W1505]), Water-Lilies (1897–99; Kagoshima City Museum of Art [W1506]), Pink Water-Lilies (1897–99; Galleria Nazionale d’Arte Moderne, Rome [W1507]), and Water-Lilies (1897–99; private collection [W1508]). The number preceded by a W refers to the Monet catalogue raisonné; see Daniel Wildenstein, Monet, or The Triumph of Impressionism, cat. rais., vols. 1–4 (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996). The paintings of water lilies that Monet completed in 1897–98 have been identified as those works that he rediscovered in 1914 and that reinvigorated his project for a mural cycle (see Water Lily Pond [cat. 47] and Irises [cat. 46]). Monet explained: “I am even planning to embark on some big paintings, for which I found some old attempts in a basement. Clemenceau saw them and was amazed. Anyway, you’ll see something of this soon, I hope.” Monet to Gustave Geffroy, Apr. 30, 1914, quoted and translated in Richard Kendall, Monet by Himself: Paintings, Drawings, Pastels, Letters (Macdonald Orbis, 1989), p. 247; original French in Daniel Wildenstein, Claude Monet: Biographie et catalogue raisonné, vol. 4, Peintures, 1899–1926 (Bibliothèque des Arts, 1985), p. 390, letter 2116. See also Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vol. 3, Nos. 969–1595 (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), p. 632.

In her psychoanalytical treatment of Monet, Mary Gedo has recently argued that the 1901 expansion and redesign of the pond “was integrally connected with the death of Camille [Monet’s first wife],” and that “Monet’s preoccupation with watery reflections sprang from his reaction to his mother’s death and his ensuing fantasy that he would float forever in the form of a buoy on the surface of the mother/sea . . . the water garden, then, would function as his own symbolic tomb, as well as that of his beloved dead women—his mother, Aunt Lecadre, Camille, and eventually Alice.” See Mary Mathews Gedo, Monet and His Muse: Camille Monet in the Artist’s Life (University of Chicago Press, 2010), pp. 222–24.

The number preceded by a W refers to the Monet catalogue raisonné; see Daniel Wildenstein, Monet, or The Triumph of Impressionism, cat. rais., vols. 1–4 (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996).

The number preceded by a W refers to the Monet catalogue raisonné; see Daniel Wildenstein, Monet, or The Triumph of Impressionism, cat. rais.,vols. 1–4 (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996).

Geneviève Aitken and Marianne Delafond, La collection d’estampes japonaises de Claude Monet à Giverny (Maison de Monet/Bibliothèque des Arts, 1983), pp. 128, cat. 142; 133, cat. 152. It is not known whether Monet owned impressions of these prints at the time of painting Water Lily Pond, however. But, as noted by John House, by 1895 “Monet’s awareness of Japanese art was inseparable from his direct experiences of nature” and that “even where we can compare his paintings with particular Japanese prints which he owned, he may well have bought the print in question after he had painted the work it resembles, perhaps even because of this resemblance.” John House, Monet: Nature into Art (Yale University Press, 1986), p. 58.

Paul Hayes Tucker, “The Revolution in the Garden: Monet in the Twentieth Century,” in Paul Hayes Tucker with George T. M. Shackelford and MaryAnne Stevens, Monet in the 20th Century, exh. cat. (Royal Academy of Arts, London/Museum of Fine Arts, Boston/Yale University Press, 1998), p. 23. Tucker suggests that Monet’s change in style had much to do with the Dreyfus affair (an intense political scandal in French history involving Alfred Dreyfus, French army officer of Jewish descent falsely charged with treason) and signaled Monet’s belief that France should step back and reassess its core values. These ideas are discussed in Monet in the 20th Century as well as in Paul Hayes Tucker, Monet in the ‘90s: The Series Paintings, exh. cat. (Museum of Fine Arts, Boston/Yale University Press, 1989); and Tucker, Claude Monet: Art and Life (Yale University Press, 1995).

The number preceded by a W refers to the Monet catalogue raisonné; see Daniel Wildenstein, Monet, or The Triumph of Impressionism, cat. rais., vols. 1–4 (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996).

The exhibition was held from November 22 to December 15, 1900, and the water lily paintings were shown alongside two works from his Creuse series (e.g., cat. 25), five of his Norwegian canvases (e.g., cat. 34), three cliff paintings (e.g., cat. 21), and three examples from the Mornings on the Seine series.

Gloria Groom, “Water Lily Pond,” in 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, 2008), p. 173.

Paul Hayes Tucker has provided a helpful summary of the exhibition’s mixed reviews in “The Revolution in the Garden: Monet in the Twentieth Century,” in Paul Hayes Tucker with George T. M. Shackelford and MaryAnne Stevens, Monet in the 20th Century, exh. cat. (Royal Academy of Arts, London/Museum of Fine Arts, Boston/Yale University Press, 1998), pp. 34–37.

Saunier quoted in Paul Hayes Tucker, Claude Monet: Life and Art (Yale University Press, 1995), p. 187.

Paul Hayes Tucker, “The Revolution in the Garden: Monet in the Twentieth Century,” in Paul Hayes Tucker with George T. M. Shackelford and MaryAnne Stevens, Monet in the 20th Century, exh. cat. (Royal Academy of Arts, London/Museum of Fine Arts, Boston/Yale University Press, 1998), pp. 24–25. 

According to Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné, vol. 4, Nos. 1596–1983 et les grandes décorations (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), pp. 728–29, cat. 1628 (ill.).

According to Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vol. 4,  Nos. 1596–1983 et les grandes décorations (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), pp. 728–29, cat. 1628 (ill.).

According to Durand-Ruel, Paris, stock book for 1913–21 (no. 10710, as Le bassin aux nymphéas, 1900): “Purchased from Léonce Rosenberg by DR Paris on 22 July 1914 for 21 000 F; Stock DR Paris no. 10710; photo no. 7970,” as confirmed by Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 21, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.

The transaction is documented in the Durand-Ruel, Paris, stock book for 1913–21 (no. 10710, as Le bassin aux nymphéas,1900): “Purchased from Léonce Rosenberg by DR Paris on 22 July 1914 for 21 000 F / Stock DR Paris no. 10710; photo no. 7970,” as confirmed by Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 21, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.

The Paris and New York Durand-Ruel stock books give different dates for the sale.  The Paris stock book for 1913–21 (no. 10710 as Le bassin aux nymphéas, 1900) states: “Sold to DR New York on 3 December 1914.” The New York stock book for 1904–24 (no. 3807, as Le bassin aux nymphéas, 1900) states: “Purchased by DR New York on 30 December 1914.” See Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 21, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.

The transaction is documented in the Durand-Ruel, New York, stock book for 1904–24 (no. 3807, as Le bassin aux nymphéas, 1900): “sold to Arthur Meeker on 8 Apr. 1915 for $7 400.”  See Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 21, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago. According to Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vol. 4,  Nos. 1596–1983 et les grandes décorations (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), pp. 728–29, cat. 1628 (ill.), the painting was acquired again by Durand-Ruel around 1923. Wildenstein cites a letter from Durand-Ruel to A. Meeker, dated Nov. 24, 1923, in which Durand-Ruel writes that they are happy to hold the Monet Bassin aux nymphéas on deposit and that they will do their best to sell it on Mr. Meeker’s behalf. See Daniel Wildenstein, Claude Monet: Biographie et catalogue raisonné, vol. 4, Peintures, 1899–1926  (Bibliothèque des Arts, 1985), p. 432, pièce justificative 316. According to the Durand-Ruel Archives, “Wildenstein catalogue mentions a purchase from Meeker by Durand-Ruel in 1923; we have not found such information in our archives,” see Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 21, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.

See Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 20, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.

See Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 20, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.

See Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 20, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.

The label was located on the pre-1974-treatment [glossary:stretcher] (discarded); now preserved in conservation file, Art Institute of Chicago.

The label was located on the pre-1974-treatment [glossary:stretcher] (discarded); now preserved in conservation file, Art Institute of Chicago.

The inscription was located on the pre-1974-treatment [glossary:stretcher] (discarded); see 1974 photograph preserved in conservation file, Art Institute of Chicago.

The inscription was located on the pre-1974-treatment [glossary:stretcher] (discarded); see 1974 photograph preserved in conservation 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. 21, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.

According to annotated checklist in curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago. After the exhibition at Dayton, the paintings were returned to the Art Institute of Chicago for summer storage before being reshipped for the remainder of the circuit exhibition; see receipt of object 11043, on file in Museum Registration, Art Institute of Chicago.  According to an annotated schedule of the circuit exhibition (on file Institutional Archives, Art Institute of Chicago) the paintings were in summer storage July 4–25. According to shipping out order 40270 (on file Institutional Archives, Art Institute of Chicago), the paintings were in summer storage July–August. The paintings were scheduled to travel to the San Francisco, Legion of Honor, after summer storage, August 5–26, however this venue was canceled, so it is likely that the paintings stayed at the Art Institute through August; see annotated schedule of the circuit exhibition, on file Institutional Archives, Art Institute of Chicago.

According to annotated checklist in curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago; and shipping out order 40270, on file Institutional Archives, Art Institute of Chicago. The dates of the exhibition held at this venue are recorded on an annotated schedule of the circuit exhibition, on file Institutional Archives, Art Institute of Chicago.

According to annotated schedule of the circuit exhibition, on file in Institutional Archives, Art Institute of Chicago.

According to annotated schedule of the circuit exhibition, on file in Institutional Archives, Art Institute of Chicago.

According to annotated checklist in curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago; and Saginaw Museum, Exhibition of Nineteenth Century French Painting, exh. cat. (Saginaw Museum, 1949), p. 9, cat. 20.

According to annotated schedule of the circuit exhibition, on file in Institutional Archives, Art Institute of Chicago.

According to annotated checklist in curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago. The dates of the exhibition held at this venue are recorded on an annotated schedule of the circuit exhibition, on file Institutional Archives, Art Institute of Chicago; see also Mrs. John A. Pope, American Federation of Arts to Daniel Catton Rich, dated Mar. 18, 1949, on file Institutional Archives, Art Institute of Chicago.

According to annotated checklist in curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago. The dates of the exhibition held at this venue are recorded on an annotated schedule of the circuit exhibition, on file Institutional Archives, Art Institute of Chicago; see also Mrs. John A. Pope, American Federation of Arts to Daniel Catton Rich, dated Mar. 18, 1949, on file Institutional Archives, Art Institute of Chicago. Receipt of object 11524 (on file in Museum Registration, Art Institute of Chicago) documents the return of the painting to the Art Institute from the Munson-Williams-Proctor Institute on May 16, 1949. The annotated schedule includes a final venue to follow Utica, New York—Scranton, Pennsylvania, Everhart Museum, May 10–31, 1949—however, this venue was canceled; see Gladys E. Acton, American Federation of Arts to Daniel Catton Rich, dated May 4, 1949, on file in Institutional Archives, Art Institute of Chicago.

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.

The exhibition catalogue is printed in Art Institute of Chicago, “Catalogue,” Art Institute of Chicago Quarterly 51, 2 (Apr. 1, 1957), pp. 33–34. This museum publication listed the exhibition dates 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.

The painting was included in the exhibition according to Museum Registrars’ records, Museum Registration, Art Institute of Chicago.

According to Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vol. 4,  Nos. 1596–1983 et les grandes décorations (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), pp. 728–29, cat. 1628 (ill.).

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. 15 (ill.); 19 (ill.); 20 (ill.); 22; 177; 179; 183; 188 (detail); 189, cat. 103 (ill.).

The label was transcribed in 1977; see twentieth-century painting and sculpture report on verso of painting, July 20, 1977, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago. The label corresponds to the exhibition 19th Century French Paintings from the Collection of the Art Institute of Chicago, a circuit exhibition organized by the American Federation of Arts held at the Dayton Art Museum, June 1–June 22, 1948; Saginaw, Michigan, Saginaw Museum, Dec. 19, 1948–Jan. 9, 1949; Memphis, Brooks Memorial Art Gallery, Mar. 1949; and Utica, Munson-Williams.

For a discussion of sample preparation and the use of [glossary:SERS] to identify red [glossary:lake pigments], see Federica Pozzi, Klaas Jan van den Berg, Inge Fiedler, and Francesca Casadio, “A Systematic Analysis of Red Lake Pigments in French Impressionist and Post-Impressionist Paintings by Surface-Enhanced Raman Spectroscopy (SERS),” Journal of Raman Spectroscopy (forthcoming 2014); doi:10.1002/jrs.4483.

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_441_Monet_analytical_report,” May 21, 2014.

Possible charcoal particles were found in several of the paint scraping samples analyzed with [glossary:PLM]. See Inge Fiedler, "1933_441_Monet_analytical_report," May 21, 2014, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

The stamp was applied by Anthony J. Domolecny, conservation carpenter at the Art Institute of Chicago from the 1960s to the early 1980s.