Cat. 40. Charing Cross Bridge, London, 1901

Cat. 40  Charing Cross Bridge, London, 1901

Cat. 40

Charing Cross Bridge, London1
1901
Oil on canvas 65 × 92.2 cm (25 5/8 × 36 5/16 in.)
Signed and dated: Claude Monet 1901 (lower right, in blue paint)
The Art Institute of Chicago, Mr. and Mrs. Martin A. Ryerson Collection, 1933.1150

Technical Report

Technical Summary

Claude Monet’s Charing Cross Bridge, London was executed on a [glossary:pre-primed], no. 30 landscape ([glossary:paysage]) standard-size linen [glossary:canvas]. The painting appears to retain its original [glossary:stretcher]. The number 30 stenciled on the back of the stretcher probably refers to the stretcher size. The [glossary:ground] is off-white and consists of a single layer. A [glossary:warp-thread match] was determined with two other paintings in the Art Institute’s collection: Stack of Wheat (Snow Effect, Overcast Day) (cat. 30 [W1281], inv. 1933.1155) and The Customs House at Varengeville (cat. 35 [W1455], inv. 1933.1149), suggesting that the fabric for these paintings came from the same [glossary:bolt] of fabric.2 The painting has a heavily brush marked surface. Crisp brushstrokes introduced in the earlier paint layers remain visible on the surface through the thin, fluid brushstrokes applied on top. In some places, the canvas texture remains prominent through light applications of paint that deposited mainly on the peaks of the canvas [glossary:weave]. The artist also appears to have scraped or wiped the upper paint layers in localized areas, revealing colors from underneath. In some places, small areas of interlayer [glossary:cleavage] have resulted, due to poor adhesion between the layers. The artist made a significant change in the perspective of the scene. The technical examination shows that major compositional elements, including the bridge supports, the bridge house, the embankment, and the buildings were all originally painted further left of their positions in the final painting. In addition, more of Westminster Bridge, in the distance, was originally included, its arches initially extending further to the left edge of the canvas. The painting was originally signed at the lower left corner. This signature was then painted over, probably in conjunction with further reworking of the painting, and then signed again in the lower-right corner.3

Multilayer Interactive Image Viewer

The multilayer interactive image viewer is designed to facilitate the viewer’s exploration and comparison of the technical images (fig. 40.1).4

Signature

Signed and dated: Claude Monet 1901 (lower right, in blue paint5) (fig. 40.2). Some of the strokes of pale-pinkish-purple paint were still wet when the signature was applied. These strokes may represent finishing touches added by the artist before signing the painting.6

At the lower left corner, there are traces of another signature that was subsequently painted over (fig. 40.3). This signature was also executed in blue paint (fig. 40.4). It is difficult to make out the second half of the signature, which may indicate that the paint was at least partially scraped or wiped away before subsequent paint layers were applied. It is not clear whether the painting was also dated in this area, but microscopic traces of similar blue paint extend sufficiently far to the right to suggest this possibility. It looks like the signature was dry when the yellowish-green paint from the water was applied on top. It is clear that some wiping or scraping of the paint surface, similar to that observed elsewhere in the painting (see Application/technique), occurred after the signature was painted out. The paint appears flattened and abraded in areas, with underlying layers exposed at the surface. There are small, localized areas of associated interlayer cleavage where separation has occurred between the upper, yellowish-green paint and the lower paint layers including the signature (fig. 40.5). The pale-pink and pale-purple strokes of the water were applied after the abrasion and interlayer cleavage had occurred.

Structure and Technique

Support

Canvas

Flax (commonly known as linen).7

Standard format

The dimensions correspond closely to a no. 30 landscape (paysage) standard-size stretcher (65 × 92 cm).8

Weave

[glossary:Plain weave]. Average [glossary:thread count] (standard deviation): 23.4V (0.6) × 20.9H (0.7) threads/cm; the vertical threads were determined to correspond to the [glossary:warp] and the horizontal threads to the [glossary:weft].9 A warp-thread match was found with Stack of Wheat (Snow Effect, Overcast Day) (cat. 30 [W1281], inv. 1933.1155) and The Customs House at Varengeville (cat. 35 [W1455], inv. 1933.1149).10

Canvas characteristics

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

Stretching

The painting appears to retain its original stretching. The canvas is attached with iron tacks11 spaced 5.5–7.5 cm apart. The cusping corresponds to the placement of the original tacks. There are a few additional small holes on each tacking edge, which appear to be more recent. Excess canvas wraps around the back edge of the stretcher on all sides.

Stretcher/strainer

The painting appears to retain its original stretcher (fig. 40.6). It is five membered with a vertical [glossary:crossbar] and keyable, [glossary:mortise and tenon joints]. All ten [glossary:keys] are present (lower crossbar key broken but still functional). Dimensions: outer depth, 2.0 cm; inner depth, 1.8 cm; stretcher-bar width, 6.0 cm (left, right, and bottom), 6.4 cm (top); crossbar depth, 1.3 cm; crossbar width, 6.2 cm.

Manufacturer’s/supplier’s marks

The number 30 is stenciled on the back of the stretcher (fig. 40.7). This probably refers to the standard-size stretcher.

Preparatory Layers

Sizing

Not determined (probably glue).12

Ground application/texture

The ground layer extends to the edges of all four [glossary:tacking margins], indicating that the canvas was cut from a larger piece of primed fabric, which was probably commercially prepared. [glossary:Cross-sectional analysis] indicates that the ground consists of a single layer that ranges from approximately 20 to 105 µm in thickness (fig. 40.8).

Color

The ground is off-white, with some dark and possibly red or brown particles visible under magnification (fig. 40.9).

Materials/composition

Analysis indicates that the ground contains lead white and calcium carbonate (chalk)13 with traces of alumina, silica, and various silicates.14 [glossary:Binder]: [glossary:Oil] (estimated).

Compositional Planning/Underdrawing/Painted Sketch

Extent/character

No [glossary:underdrawing] was observed with [glossary:infrared reflectography] (IRR) or microscopic examination.

Paint Layer

Application/technique and artist’s revisions

The painting was densely built up over most of the surface, as evidenced by the relative radio-opacity of much of the paint layer in the [glossary:X-ray] (fig. 40.10). The paint layers are continuous, completely concealing the ground layer, except near the edges of the work. The thick buildup of paint is partly related to the fact that the artist made significant changes to the placement of the major compositional elements. The vertical supports of Charing Cross Bridge, as well as the bridge house, the embankment in the lower right corner,15 and the towers of the Houses of Parliament were all originally painted to the immediate left of their final positions. The outlines of the earlier forms are most clearly seen when the painting is viewed in transmitted light (fig. 40.11). With the use of transmitted infrared, the horizontal line of the railroad tracks can be seen to continue straight across to the right edge of the canvas, underneath the bridge house in the final painting (fig. 40.12). In addition, the perspective of Westminster Bridge, faintly visible in the distance, was also altered slightly: the arches painted in the earlier composition are offset from their position in the final painting; and, in the earlier painting, five or six arches were depicted, continuing further to the left edge of the painting, underneath the area later covered by the steam from the train (fig. 40.13). These changes suggest that the artist shifted his viewpoint of the scene and that the steam train on Charing Cross Bridge may not have been conceived for the first composition or, at least, was not incorporated early in the painting process.

Overall, the painting is relatively flat with no [glossary:impasto]. It does, however, have a heavily brush marked surface (fig. 40.14). Much of this texture was introduced in the early painting stages; for example, the crisp horizontal strokes that run through broad areas of the sky (fig. 40.15) and the crisscrossed strokes in the water (fig. 40.16), the texture of which remain evident through the subsequent buildup of paint layers applied on top. These underlying strokes appear to be related to the earlier composition, as they seem to conform to the edges of the painted-out forms. For example, the horizontal brush marks in the sky, which pass underneath the towers of the Parliament buildings in the final painting, seem to stop on either side of the earlier towers that were painted out (fig. 40.17). Further texture was incorporated into the paint surface through the artist’s use of different paint applications and treatments. For example, a corrugated texture was created in some areas through the successive buildup of paint layers that were lightly applied and deposited mainly on the high points of the canvas weave (fig. 40.18, fig. 40.19). In some areas, slightly thicker and more fluid paint applications provide a relatively smooth, flat surface, obscuring much of the texture of the layers underneath (fig. 40.20). In localized areas, including the steam from the train, the fluid paint was worked wet-into-wet (fig. 40.21, fig. 40.22). In other areas, the artist appears to have lightly scraped or wiped the upper layers, breaking up the paint surface by locally revealing colors from underlying layers (fig. 40.23, fig. 40.24).16 This is especially visible in parts of the sky, where the abrasion reveals the peaks of the lighter-hued, horizontal brushstrokes from underneath (fig. 40.25, fig. 40.26). Often, in association with the scraping or wiping, some interlayer cleavage has occurred (fig. 40.27). For the most part, the underlying paint looks like it was already dry when it was painted over, as the ridges of the brush marks remained undisturbed. This probably resulted in weak adhesion between the layers, leading to separation when the artist worked back into the surface (fig. 40.28). The edges of the interlayer cleavage losses appear soft, suggesting that the upper paint layers were still somewhat fluid when the cleavage occurred (fig. 40.29). Some final paint strokes were applied over these localized areas of interlayer cleavage, including parts of the final signature, and the isolated purple strokes that skip across the surface of the sky. There are several small inclusions (possibly dried paint picked up on the brush) embedded in the paint layer.

Painting tools

Brushes, including 1.0 and 2.0 cm width, flat ferrule (based on width and shape of brushstrokes). Several brush hairs are embedded in the paint layers.

Palette

Analysis indicates the presence of the following [glossary:pigments]: lead white, cadmium yellow, vermilion, red lake, emerald green, viridian, cobalt blue, ultramarine blue, and cobalt violet.17

Binding media

Oil (estimated).18

Surface Finish

Varnish layer/media

The painting was cleaned in 1993 and left unvarnished (see Conservation History). It has a soft yet variable surface, with relatively matte passages as well as areas of smooth, fluid paint application that have a slightly glossy sheen. In 1971, the painting was reported to have a discolored and yellowed, soft resin [glossary:varnish] layer; its origin is unknown.19

Conservation History

The 1972 pretreatment notes state that there were scattered abrasions, especially in the left sky and foreground, which had previously been overpainted.20 There is some evidence of this in the 1971 pretreatment [glossary:UV] photograph in the sky at upper left, but more apparent is the minor [glossary:inpainting] visible in the sky, right of center and at the upper right edge. All of this [glossary:retouching] appears to be related to the interlayer cleavage resulting from the artist’s technique of scraping or wiping the paint surface (see Application/technique).

In 1972, discolored surface films and overpaint were removed. A layer of polyvinyl acetate (PVA) AYAA was applied. Paint losses were inpainted. A layer of methacrylate resin L-46 was applied, followed by a final layer of AYAA.21

In 1991, the [glossary:synthetic varnish] layers and previous retouching were removed. Three small interlayer cleavage losses in the sky at upper left were inpainted.22

Condition Summary

The painting is in near-pristine condition. It is unlined and appears to retain its original stretcher and tacking. The canvas is stretched taut and is relatively planar, except for mild draws at the upper left, lower left, and lower right corners. The paint layer is in excellent condition. Small areas of interlayer cleavage throughout the painting appear to be related to the artist’s technique (i.e., possible scraping) (see Application/technique). There is mild abrasion in the ground and paint layers at the edges, with minor, associated retouching along the left edge. Other areas of retouching—in the sky at upper left and near the lower left corner—appear to be related to the interlayer cleavage losses. There are localized areas of fine cracking, which are only visible under magnification. A few localized areas of microscopic wrinkling were observed in areas of more-fluid paint application. 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 with cabochon centers on a quadrillage bed, leaf-tip-and-shell sight molding and a nonoriginal independent fillet liner. The frame has both water and oil gilding. The liner has been painted gold. 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. No bole was applied to the quadrillage bed of the ogee face. The ornament and sight molding are selectively burnished. The frame has an overall light brass tone with an even toning [glossary:wash], on top of which casein or gouache raw umber and gray washes and dark flecking were applied. The frame has a glued poplar substrate that is mitered and nailed with glued half-lap braces 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 and all back and interior surfaces were painted. The molding, from perimeter to interior, is fillet with 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. 40.30, fig. 40.31).23
Kirk Vuillemot

Provenance

Sold by the artist to Durand-Ruel, Paris, Oct. 30, 1905, for 8,000 francs.24

Sold by Durand-Ruel, Paris, to Adrien Hébrard, as agent for the Prince de Wagram (Alexandre Berthier, 4th Prince de Wagram), Paris, Dec. 20, 1905, for 15,000 francs.25

Sold by the Prince de Wagram (Alexandre Berthier, 4th Prince de Wagram), Paris, to Durand-Ruel, Paris, Apr. 4, 1914, for 15,000 francs.26

Sold by Durand-Ruel, Paris, to Durand-Ruel, New York, Nov. 11 or Dec. 9, 1915.27

Sold by Durand-Ruel, New York, to Martin A. Ryerson, Chicago, Feb. 23, 1916, for a painting by Pierre-Auguste Renoir [Pivoines, no. 3094], plus $1,000.28

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

Exhibition History

University of Chicago, Classics Building, The Quarter-Centennial Celebration of the University of Chicago, Paintings of the French Impressionist School, June 21–Sept. 1, 1916, no cat.29

Art Institute of Chicago, “A Century of Progress”: Loan Exhibition of Paintings and Sculpture, May 23–Nov. 1, 1933, cat. 294.30 (fig. 40.32)

Art Institute of Chicago, “A Century of Progress”: Loan Exhibition of Paintings and Sculpture for 1934, June 1–Oct. 31, 1934, cat. 212.31

Art Institute of Chicago, The Paintings of Claude Monet, Apr. 1–June 15, 1957, no cat. no.32

Art Institute of Chicago, Paintings by Monet, Mar. 15–May 11, 1975, cat. 102 (ill.).

Tokyo, Seibu Museum of Art, Shikago bijutsukan insho-ha ten [The Impressionist tradition: Masterpieces from the Art Institute of Chicago], Oct. 18–Dec. 17, 1985, cat. 63 (ill.); Fukuoka Art Museum, Jan. 5–Feb. 2, 1986; Kyoto Municipal Museum of Art, Mar. 4–Apr. 13, 1986.

Nagaoka, Niigata Prefectural Museum of Modern Art, Shikago bijutsukan ten: Kindai kaiga no 100-nen [Masterworks of modern art from the Art Institute of Chicago], Apr. 20–May 29, 1994, cat. 19 (ill.); Nagoya, Aichi Prefectural Museum of Art, June 10–July 24, 1994; Yokohama Museum of Art, Aug. 6–Sept. 25, 1994.

Fort Worth, Tex., Kimbell Art Museum, The Impressionists: Master Paintings from the Art Institute of Chicago, June 29–Nov. 2, 2008, cat. 85 (ill.).

Selected References

M. C., “Monets in the Art Institute,” Bulletin of the Art Institute of Chicago 19, 2 (Feb. 1925), pp. 20 (ill.), 21.

Art Institute of Chicago, Catalogue of “A Century of Progress”: Exhibition of Paintings and Sculpture; Lent from American Collections, ed. Daniel Catton Rich, 3rd ed., exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago, 1933), p. 43, cat. 294.

Daniel Catton Rich, “Französische Impressionisten im Art Institute zu Chicago,” Pantheon: Monatsschrift für freunde und sammler der kunst 11, 3 (Mar. 1933), p. 77. Translated by C. C. H. Drechsel as “French Impressionists in the Art Institute of Chicago,” Pantheon/Cicerone (Mar. 1933), p. 18.

Art Institute of Chicago, Catalogue of “A Century of Progress”: Exhibition of Paintings and Sculpture, 1934, ed. Daniel Catton Rich, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago, 1934), p. 37, cat. 212.

Oscar Reuterswärd, Monet: En konstnärshistorik (Bonniers, 1948), p. 287.33

Art Institute of Chicago, “Catalogue,” Art Institute of Chicago Quarterly 51, 2 (Apr. 1, 1957), p. 34.

William C. Seitz, Claude Monet, Library of Great Painters (Abrams, 1960), p. 40, fig. 52.

Art Institute of Chicago, Paintings in the Art Institute of Chicago: A Catalogue of the Picture Collection (Art Institute of Chicago, 1961), p. 321.34

Grace Seiberling, “The Evolution of an Impressionist,” in Paintings by Monet, ed. Susan Wise, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago, 1975), p. 36.

Susan Wise, ed., Paintings by Monet, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago, 1975), p.159, cat. 102 (ill.).

A. James Speyer and Courtney Graham Donnell, Twentieth-Century European Paintings (University of Chicago Press, 1980), p. 58, cat. 3A9; microfiche 3, no. 3A9 (ill.).

Grace Seiberling, Monet’s Series (Garland, 1981), p. 370, no. 3.

Art Institute of Chicago, Seibu Museum of Art, Kyoto Municipal Museum of Art, and Fukuoka Art Museum, Shikago bijutsukan insho-ha ten [The Impressionist tradition: Masterpieces from the Art Institute of Chicago], exh. cat. (Nippon Television Network, 1985), pp. 124, cat. 63 (ill.); 125 (detail); 160–61 (ill.).

Daniel Wildenstein, Claude Monet: Biographie et catalogue raisonné, vol. 4, Peintures, 1899–1926 (Bibliothèque des Arts, 1985), pp. 160; 161, cat. 1527 (ill.); 431, pièce justificative 275.

Richard R. Brettell, Post-Impressionists (Art Institute of Chicago/Abrams, 1987), pp. 91, 93 (ill.), 118.

Grace Seiberling, Monet in London, exh. cat. (High Museum of Art/University of Washington Press, 1988), pp. 49; 78, fig. 59.

Art Institute of Chicago and Niigata Prefectural Museum of Modern Art, Shikago bijutsukan ten: Kindai kaiga no 100-nen [Masterworks of modern art from the Art Institute of Chicago], exh. cat. (Asahi Shinbunsha, 1994), pp. 80–81, cat. 19 (ill.).

Eric Shanes, Impressionist London (Abbeville, 1994), pp. 125, pl. 101; 127.

Charles F. Stuckey, “Chicago’s Fortune: Patrons of Modern Paintings and The Art Institute of Chicago,” in Art Institute of Chicago and Niigata Prefectural Museum of Modern Art, Shikago bijutsukan ten: Kindai kaiga no 100-nen [Masterworks of modern art from the Art Institute of Chicago], exh. cat. (Asahi Shinbunsha, 1994), p. 18.

Andrew Forge, Monet, Artists in Focus (Art Institute of Chicago, 1995), pp. 56; 57; 65; 100, pl. 29; 109.

Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vol. 3, Nos. 969–1595 (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), pp. 655–56, cat. 1527 (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. 157 (ill.).

Ann Sumner, with contributions by Louisa Briggs and Julia Carver, Colour and Light: Fifty Impressionist and Post-Impressionist Works at the National Museum of Wales (National Museum of Wales, 2005), pp. 20 (ill.), 90 (ill.), 91.

John E. Thornes and Gemma Metherell, “The Art and Science of London’s Atmosphere around 1900,” in London’s Environment: Prospects for a Sustainable City, ed. Julian Hunt (Imperial College Press, 2005), p. 119.

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. 166–67, cat. 85 (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. 166–67, cat. 85 (ill.).35

Other Documentation

Documentation from the Durand-Ruel Archives

Inventory number
Stock Durand-Ruel Paris 8018, Paris Stock Book 1901–1336

Photograph number
Photo Durand-Ruel Paris 538037

Inventory number
Stock Durand-Ruel Paris 10528, Paris Stock Book 1913–2138

Photograph number
Photo Durand-Ruel Paris 784639

Inventory number
Stock Durand-Ruel New York 3898, New York Stock Book 1904–2440

Other Documents

Label (fig. 40.33)41

Label (fig. 40.34)42

Inscription (fig. 40.35)43

Inscription (fig. 40.36)44

Inscription (fig. 40.37)45

Inscription (fig. 40.38)46

Purchase receipt

Labels and Inscriptions

Undated

Label
Location: stretcher
Method: printed label with handwritten script
Content: A. I. / 2 / 9[?] (fig. 40.39)

Label
Location: stretcher
Method: obscured by label applied on top, but label has printed red border
Content: [?] (fig. 40.40)

Label
Location: stretcher
Method: handwritten script on printed label
Content: 16 / 45 [crossed out] (fig. 40.41)

Stamp
Location: stretcher
Method: ink stamp
Content: 30 / M / M / M[?]47 (fig. 40.42)

Inscription
Location: stretcher
Method: handwritten script
Content: D (fig. 40.43)

Number
Location: stretcher
Method: handwritten script
Content: #10248 (fig. 40.44)

Number
Location: canvas
Method: handwritten script
Content: 33.1150 (fig. 40.45)

Possible inscription or number
Location: stretcher
Method: handwritten script
Content: [covered by paper] (fig. 40.46)

Pre-1980

Stamp
Location: stretcher
Method: stencil
Content: 30 (fig. 40.47)

Label
Location: stretcher
Method: printed label with handwritten script
Content: [M]onet No 3898 / [. . .]dres, Charing+Bridge / [. . .]leil couchant 1901 mbbbb (fig. 40.48)

Label
Location: stretcher
Method: handwritten script
Content: Monet n^o. 10528 / Londres, Charing Cross / bridge, soleil couchant. / 1901 (fig. 40.49)

Number
Location: stretcher
Method: handwritten script
Content: [DR?] 10528 (Mon CharX 33.1150 10528 or 10528 IR)

Number
Location: stretcher
Method: handwritten script
Content: 5380 (fig. 40.50)

Number
Location: stretcher
Method: handwritten script
Content: 7846 (fig. 40.51)

Number
Location: stretcher
Method: handwritten script
Content: D-R / 8018 (fig. 40.52)

Post-1980

Label
Location: [glossary:backing board]
Method: printed label with typewritten script
Content: THE ART INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO / artist Claude Monet / title “Charing Cross Bridge, London” / c.1901 / medium oil on canvas / credit Martin Ryerson Collection / acc. # 1933.1150 / LZ-341-001 1M 1/90 (Rev. 1/90) (fig. 40.53)

Label
Location: backing board
Method: printed label with green sticker
Content: [Logo] JAPAN / YAMATO TRANSPORT CO., LTD. / FINE ARTS DIVISION / EXHIBT. JAPAN 94’ / シカゴ 美術館展 [Shikago (Chicago) Bijutsukan ten] / CASE NO. / 35 / CATAL. NO. /
Sticker: 19 (fig. 40.54)

Label
Location: backing board
Method: printed label with handwritten script
Content: Panel Insert / Installation Date / 3. 3. 2008 (fig. 40.55)

Label
Location: backing board
Method: printed label with handwritten script
Content: Panel Insert / Installation Date / 3. 3. 2008 (fig. 40.56)

Examination and Analysis Techniques

X-radiography

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

Infrared Reflectography

Fujifilm S5 Pro with X-Nite 1000B/2 mm filter (1.0–1.1 µm); Inframetrics Infracam with 1.5–1.73 µm filter; and Goodrich/Sensors Unlimited SU640SDV-1.7RT with H filter (1.1–1.4 µm) and J filter (1.5–1.7 µm).

Transmitted Infrared

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

Visible Light

Natural-light, raking-light, and transmitted-light overalls and macrophotography: Fujifilm S5 Pro with X-NiteCC1 filter.

Ultraviolet

Fujifilm S5 Pro with X-NiteCC1 filter and Kodak Wratten 2E filter.

High-Resolution Visible Light (and Ultraviolet)

Sinar P3 camera with Sinarback eVolution 75 H (PECA 918 UV/IR interference cut filter and Kodak Wratten 2E filter).

Microscopy and Photomicrographs

Sample and [glossary:cross-sectional analysis] using a Zeiss 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.

Automated Thread Counting

[glossary:Thread count] and weave information were determined by Thread Count Automation Project software.49

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.50

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. 40.57).

For further discussion, see Kimberley Muir, Inge Fiedler, Don H. Johnson, and Robert Erdmann, “Thread Count, Weave, and Ground Analysis of Claude Monet’s Vieille & Troisgros/Troisgros Frères canvases in the Art Institute of Chicago,” in Painting Techniques: History, Materials and Studio Practice (Rijksmuseum, forthcoming). The numbers preceded by a W refer to the Monet catalogue raisonné; see Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vols. 1–4 (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996).

Using the toolbar at the bottom right, any two images of the painting may be selected for comparison by clicking the layers icon to the right of the slider bar. The slider bar may be moved to transition back and forth between the two chosen images. The jagged line icon brings up a list of available annotations, or colored lines that show the significant features visible in each image, which may be turned on or off in any combination. For example, the red annotation lines, associated with the natural-light image, trace some of the painting’s key compositional features. When overlaid onto a technical image ([glossary:X-ray], [glossary:raking light], [glossary:UV], etc.), the red outlines help the viewer to better observe how features in the technical image relate to or diverge from the painting as seen with the naked eye. (When annotations are turned on, a legend appears in the upper right showing each color and its associated image type.) The circular arrow icon returns the image to the default settings (natural light, full-image view, natural-light [red] annotation on). The four-arrow icon toggles between the view of the image in the page and a full-screen view of the image. In the upper right corner, the vertical slider bar may be moved to zoom into or out of the image; different parts of the image can be accessed by clicking and dragging within the image itself. The icon in the upper left corner opens a small view of the full image, within which a red box indicates the portion of the overall image being viewed when zooming is enabled.

[glossary:XRF] analysis, in conjunction with microscopic examination of the painting surface, indicates that the paint mixture contains cobalt blue and lead white; other [glossary:pigments] may also be present. See Kimberley Muir, “Mon_CharX_33_1150_XRF_Results,” Dec. 6, 2011, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

As observed in several other Monet paintings examined for this project, the corners and edges of his canvases were often left in a more sketchy state, with areas of ground left exposed. John House, Monet: Nature into Art (Yale University Press, 1988), p. 171, notes that “Monet’s stepson J.-P. Hoschedé [. . .] insisted on several occasions that, in the studio, ‘[Monet] signed his pictures and painted the edges of his canvases which he tended not to paint right up to their margins.’”

Flax was confirmed by microscopic cross-sectional fiber identification. See Inge Fiedler, “1933_1150_Monet_analytical report,” June 12, 2014, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

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

[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, Charing Cross Bridge, London, 1901(W1527/1933.1150),” Nov. 2011.

This suggests that these canvases were cut from the same [glossary:bolt] of fabric. See Don H. Johnson, “Weave Match Report: Claude Monet, W1281, W1455, W1527,” Apr. 2011. For further discussion, see Kimberley Muir, Inge Fiedler, Don H. Johnson, and Robert Erdmann, “Thread Count, Weave, and Ground Analysis of Claude Monet’s Vieille & Troisgros/Troisgros Frères canvases in the Art Institute of Chicago,” in Painting Techniques: History, Materials and Studio Practice (Rijksmuseum, forthcoming). The 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).

Iron was confirmed by [glossary:XRF]; see Kimberley Muir, “Mon_CharX_33_1150_XRF_Results,” Dec. 6, 2011, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

In addition, a small 30 and M were stamped on the [glossary:crossbar] (faint traces of the M stamp were visible in two additional places).The 30 could refer to the [glossary:stretcher] size; it is unclear what the M relates to.

The presence of a [glossary:sizing] layer is difficult to determine from the [glossary:cross sections].

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. Trace amounts of iron were detected in the area of the ground analyzed by [glossary:XRF]. The ground composition was analyzed using [glossary:SEM/EDX] and XRF. See Inge Fiedler, “1933_1150_Monet_analytical_report,” June 12, 2014; Inge Fiedler, "1933_1150_Monet_PLM_results," Nov. 7, 2013; and Kimberley Muir, “Mon_CharX_33_1150_XRF_Results,” Dec. 6, 2011, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

The [glossary:X-ray] reveals another contour, which echoes the edge of the embankment, even further to the left.

No tool marks were observed, making it difficult to speculate on how the artist achieved this effect.

The [glossary:pigments] were identified by the following methods: lead white, cadmium yellow, vermilion, emerald green, viridian, cobalt blue, and cobalt violet ([glossary:PLM], [glossary:XRF]); red lake, ultramarine blue (PLM). Paint scraping samples taken in 1977 were re-examined 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_1150_Monet_analytical_report,” June 12, 2014; Inge Fiedler, "1933_1150_Monet_PLM_results," Nov. 17, 2013; and Kimberley Muir, “Mon_CharX_33_1150_XRF_Results,” Dec. 6, 2011, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

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

See Alfred Jakstas, treatment report, July 18, 1972, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

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

See Alfred Jakstas, treatment report, July 18, 1972, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

See Alfred Jakstas, treatment report, July 18, 1972, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

See Frank Zuccari, treatment report, Mar. 17, 1993, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

Each of the stamps was applied separately but they seem to be related and were probably applied at the same time. Only one M could be captured in the image but traces of two others were seen.

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.

Charing Cross Bridge, London (W1527) corresponds to Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vol. 3, Nos. 969–1595 (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), pp. 655–56, cat. 1527 (ill.). The Art Institute currently uses a title that is based on the title used by the catalogue raisonné. The painting had the following titles during the lifetime of the artist:

Oct. 30, 1905: Londres, Charing Cross Bridge, soleil couchant, 1901 (Durand-Ruel, Paris, stock book 1901–13 [no. 8018]; 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. 20, 1905: Londres, Charing Cross Bridge, soleil couchant, 1901 (Durand-Ruel, Paris, stock book 1901–13 [no. 8018]; 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. 4, 1914: Londres, Charing Cross Bridge, soleil couchant, 1901 (Durand-Ruel, Paris, stock book for 1913–21 [no. 10528]; 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. 9, 1915: Londres, Charing Cross Bridge, soleil couchant, 1901 (Durand-Ruel, New York, stock book 1904–24 [no. 3898]; 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).

Feb. 23, 1916: Charing Cross Bridge, 1901, Soleil couchant (a purchase receipt on Durand-Ruel letterhead, dated February 23, 1916. Photocopy in curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago).

The transaction is recorded in the Durand-Ruel, Paris, stock book for 1901–13 (no. 8018, as Londres, Charing Cross Bridge, soleil couchant, 1901): “Purchased from Monet by DR Paris on 30 October 1905 for 8 000 F / Stock DR Paris no. 8018; Photo no 5380,” 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 recorded in the Durand-Ruel, Paris, stock book for 1901–13 (no. 8018, as Londres, Charing Cross Bridge, soleil couchant, 1901): “Sold to Hébrard on 20 December 1905 for 15 000 F [The journalist and art critic Adrien Hébrard worked also as an agent for Alexandre Berthier, Prince de Wagram],” 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 recorded in the Durand-Ruel, Paris, stock book for 1913–21 (no. 10528, as Londres, Charing Cross Bridge, soleil couchant, 1901): “Purchased by DR Paris from the Prince de Wagram on 4 April 1914 for 15 000 F / Stock Paris no. 10528; Photo no. 7846,” 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 record different dates for the sale. The Paris stock book for 1913–21 gives November 11, 1915, as the date (no. 10528, as Londres, Charing Cross Bridge, soleil couchant, 1901): “Sold to DR New York on 11 November 1915.” In the New York stock book for 1904–24 the date given is December 9 (no. 3898, as Londres, Charing Cross Bridge, soleil couchant, 1901) : “Purchased by DR New York on 9 December 1915.” 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.

A purchase receipt on Durand-Ruel letterhead, dated February 23, 1916, details that this painting (no. 3898, Claude Monet, Charing Cross Bridge, 1901, Soleil couchant) was acquired by M. A. Ryerson, in exchange for a painting by Renoir (no. 3094, Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Pivoines) in addition to a cash payment of $1,000. Photocopy in curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago. This transaction is also recorded in the Durand-Ruel, New York, stock book for 1904–24 (no. 3898, as Londres, Charing Cross Bridge, soleil couchant, 1901): “Sold to M. A. Ryerson on 23 February 1916 for $ 7 800,” 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. This transaction is also mentioned in a letter from G. Durand-Ruel to M. A. Ryerson, dated February 23, 1916, which is excerpted in Daniel Wildenstein, Claude Monet: Biographie et catalogue raisonné, vol. 4, Peintures, 1899–1926 (Bibliothèque des Arts, 1985), p. 431, pièce justificative 275. The painting was on loan from Mr. Ryerson to the Art Institute of Chicago, intermittently, by 1921, according to Museum Registration department artists sheets, on file in Museum Registration, Art Institute of Chicago.

The exhibition dates are according to typescript document “Martin A. Ryerson Paintings Lent,” dated Jan. 31, 1930, on file in Institutional Archives, Art Institute of Chicago; and Museum Registration department artists sheets on file in Museum Registration, Art Institute of Chicago. An account of this exhibition, including a list of works exhibited, may be found in David Allan Robertson, The Quarter-Centennial Celebration of the University of Chicago (University of Chicago Press, 1918), pp. 48–49, which states that the paintings remained on view during the summer quarter.

The exhibition catalogue lists the dates as June 1–November 1, 1933, but newspaper articles confirm that the exhibition opened on May 23. See India Moffett, “Art Show of 1,500 World Famous Treasures Is Opened at Institute,” Chicago Daily Tribune, May 23, 1933, p. 17; Virginia Gardner, “Record Throng of 1,367,000 Views Art Show,” Chicago Daily Tribune, Oct. 29, 1933, p. 7.

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

The exhibition catalogue is printed in Art Institute of Chicago, “Catalogue,” Art Institute of Chicago Quarterly 51, 2 (Apr. 1, 1957), pp. 33–34. Under “Exhibitions” in the same issue, the exhibition dates were listed as April 1–30, p. 36; however, the show was extended until June 15. See Edith Weigle, “The Wonderful World of Art,” Chicago Daily Tribune, May 26, 1957, p. E2, for an exhibition review and 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.

Also included in the abridged translation into Russian: Oscar Reuterswärd, Klod Mone: Sokrashchennyi perevod so shvedskogo [Claude Monet: An abridged translation from Swedish] (Progress, 1965), p. 235, pl. 75.

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. 182–83, cat. 98 (ill.).

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. 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. 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. 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. 21, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.

This label is located on the [glossary:stretcher].

This label is located on the [glossary:stretcher].

This inscription is located on the [glossary:stretcher].

This inscription is located on the [glossary:stretcher].

This inscription is located on the [glossary:stretcher].

This inscription is located on the [glossary:stretcher].

[glossary:PLM] analysis identified intact microfossils. See Inge Fiedler, “1933_1150_Monet_analytical_report,” June 12, 2014.

Possibly from Art Institute of Chicago, Paintings by Monet, Mar. 15–May 11, 1975, cat. 102 (ill.).

For an overview of the materials and methods of Claude Monet’s paintings in the Art Institute of Chicago, see Kimberley Muir, Inge Fiedler, Don H. Johnson, and Robert G. Erdmann, “An In-depth Study of the Materials and Technique of Paintings by Claude Monet from the Art Institute of Chicago,” ICOM-CC 17th Triennial Meeting Preprints, Melbourne, Sept. 15–19, 2014 (forthcoming).