Cat. 41. Houses of Parliament, London, 1900-01

Cat. 41  Houses of Parliament, London, 1900-01

Cat. 41

Houses of Parliament, London1
1900–012
Oil on canvas; 81.2 × 92.8 cm (32 × 36 9/16 in.)
Signed: Claude Monet (lower right, in light reddish-brown paint)
The Art Institute of Chicago, Mr. and Mrs. Martin A. Ryerson Collection, 1933.1164

Technical Report

Technical Summary

Claude Monet’s Houses of Parliament, London was painted on a [glossary:pre-primed], non-standard-size linen [glossary:canvas], which was probably custom ordered. The [glossary:ground] is off-white and consists of two layers. A very fine, dotted line of blue paint was observed along the left and right edges of the composition. The purpose of the lines is unclear, but they appear to lie between the [glossary:ground] and the paint layers and seem to have been applied before the canvas was mounted on the [glossary:stretcher]. The paint layer was densely built up, and some areas of the composition were substantially reworked at a later stage. This includes the tallest tower, the edges of some of the other towers and spires, and the water in the lower right half of the composition, including the boat. The edges of the painting were also reworked in the final painting stages, covering areas of exposed ground. It appears that the paint used in the reworked areas contains a red lake pigment that has faded in areas where it was exposed to the light but retains its color in areas that were protected by the frame [glossary:rebate]. This has resulted in a distinct band of pinkish-gray paint that is visible especially along the left and bottom edges of the painting. An earlier signature was applied [glossary:wet-in-wet] with the painting, before the water in the lower right corner was reworked. The painting was then resigned in approximately the same location.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. 41.1).4

Signature

Signed: Claude Monet (lower right, in light-reddish-brown paint5) (fig. 41.2). It appears that the painting was signed twice, in the same location at the lower right corner. The earlier signature is slightly offset from the final one and is visible mainly because of the impression it made when it was applied wet-in-wet to the underlying paint layer. It is most easily discerned in the [glossary:X-ray] and in [glossary:raking light] (fig. 41.3 and fig. 41.4). Not all of the letters are legible, but Claude and part of the M can clearly be seen. No date is visible. A few breaks in the upper paint layers expose small areas of the earlier signature, which appears to have been executed in pale-orange-red paint (fig. 41.5). Along with other areas of the painting (see Application/Technique), the artist appears to have reworked the lower right corner at a later date and then resigned the painting. The earlier paint layers and signature were dry when the reworking was carried out. When the final signature was applied, some of the greenish-gray surface strokes of the water were still soft.

Structure and Technique

Support

Canvas

Flax (commonly known as linen).6

Standard format

An examination report in the conservation file lists the previous (probably original; see Original Stretcher) stretcher dimensions as 80 × 91 cm.7 The dimensions of the painted composition are approximately 81 × 92 cm. Neither of these dimensions corresponds to a standard-size stretcher; standard-size stretcher bars were available, however, in 81 and 92 cm lengths (no. 25 and no. 30, respectively).8 The stretcher was probably custom ordered.

Weave

[glossary:Plain weave]. Average [glossary:thread count] (standard deviation): 17.5V (0.7) × 19.1H (0.5) threads/cm; the horizontal threads were determined to correspond to the [glossary:warp] and the vertical threads to the [glossary:weft].9 No weave matches were found with any other Monet paintings analyzed for this project.

Canvas characteristics

There is [glossary:cusping] along all four sides of the canvas. It is more pronounced on the top edge. The cusping seems to correspond to the placement of the original tack holes on all sides, except on the top edge where some of the cusping appears to extend beyond the cut edge of the canvas.10

Stretching

Current stretching: Dates to 1991 treatment (see Conservation History). Copper tacks spaced approximately 2–5 cm apart.

Original stretching: Tack holes spaced approximately 5–8 cm apart. On the left, right, and bottom [glossary:tacking edges], there are a few additional tack holes that do not correspond to the cusping pattern; these are probably from tacks added later. Microscopic examination of the edges of the painted composition revealed several additional holes just inside the painted area (fig. 41.6). The holes do not seem to be regularly or symmetrically spaced, and their origin and function are not known.11

Stretcher/strainer

Current stretcher: Six-membered, keyable stretcher with vertical and horizontal crossbars; dates to the 1991 conservation treatment (see Conservation History). Depth: 2.5 cm.

Original stretcher: Discarded. The pre-1974-treatment stretcher was probably the original stretcher.12 The 1974 verso photograph and treatment report indicate that the previous stretcher consisted of six members, including a horizontal and a vertical crossbar (Buck type 2), with beveled back and keyable [glossary:mortise and tenon joints] (fig. 41.7). The report gives the following dimensions: overall, 80 × 91 cm; outside depth, 2 cm; inside depth, 1 cm; stretcher-bar width, 6 cm; distance from canvas position, 0.5 cm; length of mortise, 6 cm (see Conservation History).13

Manufacturer’s/supplier’s marks

None observed in current examination or documented in previous examinations. No marks are visible in the 1974 photograph of the original canvas back (fig. 41.7).

Preparatory Layers

Sizing

Not determined (probably glue).14

Ground application/texture

The ground 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 two layers are present (fig. 41.8, fig. 41.9). Overall, the ground is very thin. The lower layer ranges from a few microns to 30 µm in thickness. The upper layer ranges from approximately 10 to 55 µm in thickness.

Color

When the painting surface is observed microscopically, only the upper ground layer is visible. It is off-white with some dark and possible red or brown particles visible under magnification (fig. 41.10).

Materials/composition

Analysis indicates that the lower ground layer contains calcium sulfate with traces of silicates and calcium carbonate. The upper layer contains lead white with traces of iron oxide, ultramarine blue, calcium-based white, barium sulfate, and silicates.15 [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 [glossary:palette] is dominated by a range of grayish-blues and grayish-greens, with touches of pale pink scattered throughout the sky and the water. The artist worked up the composition as a whole, moving back and forth between the buildings, the sky, and the water. The paint layers are relatively continuous and heavily built up in areas, making it difficult to see how the work was initially laid in. Much of the surface texture comes from underlying brushstrokes that were covered by subsequent paint applications (fig. 41.11). The X-ray shows the dense mass of brushwork that covers most of the canvas (fig. 41.12).

The painting was reworked in several areas by the artist, after the earlier paint layers had had sufficient time to dry. This is evident in the tallest tower, where the paint is thicker than in other parts of the architecture, and the upper part of the tower stands out as the most [glossary:radio-opaque] area of the painting (fig. 41.13). The tower was reworked from just below the spires down to where it connects with the building (fig. 41.14). This reworking makes the tower appear more solid and distinct from the sky, compared with other parts of the buildings whose edges visually dissolve into the surroundings to a greater degree. The edges of some of the spires on the right side of the building were similarly reinforced with solid, vertical brushstrokes of a more-intense blue paint. The added strokes do not seem to have significantly altered the proportions of the structures but, rather, make the architecture appear more substantial and emphasize the backlighting of the buildings (fig. 41.15). The water in the lower right corner was also repainted. This includes the signature and the boat (for discussion of the signature, see Signature). The texture of the brushwork from the earlier boat remains visible on the surface of the painting (fig. 41.16 and fig. 41.17), and small breaks in the upper paint layers show that the boat was originally painted with a more orangey-brown-toned paint (fig. 41.18).16 The first boat seems to have been placed slightly to the left and higher or possibly rotated slightly counterclockwise compared with the final boat. The water was reworked when the earlier layers were at least surface dry, and the final boat was thinly painted on top. The reflections of the building and the sky in the lower right corner were added in the final stages of painting (fig. 41.19). The bright-blue, horizontal strokes in the central area of the water were also added as final touches and pass over the left edge of the boat (fig. 41.20).

All of the reworked areas look somewhat labored and heavy handed.17 The darker blue and gray strokes applied to the towers near the right edge seem poorly integrated into the surrounding painting (fig. 41.21). Microscopically, it appears that some of these strokes were subsequently retouched with paint that more closely matches the lighter, greenish-blue paint of the building (fig. 41.22, fig. 41.23). It seems, however, that much of this [glossary:retouching] has been removed, probably in past cleaning.18 Whether the retouching was applied by the artist or as a later restoration is not known. It is also unclear how much has been removed and how extensive the retouching originally was.

In the final stages of painting, the artist also reworked the edges of the canvas where more of the ground layer had originally been left exposed. It appears that some of the paint mixtures used along the edges contained a red lake that has faded in the more interior parts of the painting but that has maintained its original color along the edges, where it was protected by the frame rebate (fig. 41.24).19 This has resulted in a narrow band of pinkish-gray paint visible along the left and bottom edges of the painting (fig. 41.25). On the right edge, there is some similar pinkish-gray paint, but it is not as extensive and there is more exposed ground visible along the edge. At the top of the painting, the brushwork from the sky continues to the edge of the canvas, although there is some evidence of the pinkish-gray paint near the left corner.

A very fine, dotted line of blue paint was observed along most of the length of the left and right edges of the composition.20 The blue paint was identified as Prussian blue21 and was applied very lightly, mainly depositing on the peaks of the canvas [glossary:weave] to create a broken, rather than continuous, line. It appears to lie between the ground and the paint layers. On the right edge, where the brushwork from the painting is more open and thinly applied, the blue line remains visible intermittently under magnification (fig. 41.26, fig. 41.27). On the left edge, where the painting is more thickly built up, the blue line could not be seen microscopically, but it was visible with the aid of infrared reflectography (fig. 41.28). Both lines appear to conform to the cusping of the canvas, indicating that they were applied before the canvas was mounted on the stretcher.22 

Painting tools

Brushes, including 0.5 and 1.0 cm width, flat ferrule (based on width and shape of brushstrokes). Several brush hairs are embedded in the paint layer.

Palette

Analysis indicates the presence of the following [glossary:pigments]: lead white, cadmium yellow, strontium yellow, iron oxide (including burnt sienna), vermilion, red lake, viridian, cobalt blue, ultramarine blue, and Prussian blue.23 [glossary:UV fluorescence] of some of the pale-pink strokes indicates the use of red lake throughout the sky and the water.24

Binding media

Oil (estimated).25

Surface Finish

Varnish layer/media

The painting was cleaned in 1991 and left unvarnished. It has a soft, even sheen. In 1974, a discolored [glossary:varnish] was removed; its origin is unknown (see Conservation History).

Conservation History

In 1974, a discolored varnish was removed. The canvas was wax-resin lined and stretched onto a new [glossary:ICA spring stretcher]. A layer of polyvinyl acetate (PVA) AYAA was applied. Minimal [glossary:inpainting] was carried out. A layer of methacrylate resin L-46 was applied, followed by a final coating of AYAA.26

In 1991, the [glossary:synthetic varnish] layers and old retouchings were removed. The cleaning revealed a number of very small losses. These were filled and inpainted. The painting was restretched on a new keyable stretcher, over a loose [glossary:lining] fabric. A foam-core backing was attached to the stretcher. The painting was left unvarnished.27

Condition Summary

The painting is in good condition. It is wax-resin lined and stretched over a loose lining on a keyable stretcher. There are no planar deformations. There is moderate wear and abrasion around the tacking edges. There are several small, localized losses throughout the painting with associated retouching. Some tiny flakes of crushed paint are adhered to the surface near the edges; this probably occurred during the lining procedure. Isolated areas of fine cracks are visible throughout the paint surface. The painting is currently unvarnished. There are some starch-paste residues from the lining procedure on the surface of the painting.
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 an independent fillet liner. The frame has both water and oil gilding. The liner was probably regilded. Red bole was used on the perimeter molding, the cast foliate on the ogee and sight molding, and the scotia sides. Red-orange bole was used on the sanded frieze and bordering fillets. The ornament and sight molding are selectively burnished. The frame has an overall bronze tone with an even, darkening wash, on top of which casein or gouache raw umber and gray washes and dark flecking were applied. The regilded liner was left without a toning layer. 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 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. 41.29).28
Kirk Vuillemot

Provenance

Sold by [unknown] to Rosenberg, Paris, by Oct. 10, 1916.29

Sold by Rosenberg, Paris, to Durand-Ruel, Paris, Oct. 10, 1916, for 22,500 francs.30

Sold by Durand-Ruel, Paris, to Durand-Ruel, New York, Nov. 6 or Dec. 4, 1916.31

Sold by Durand-Ruel, New York, to Martin A. Ryerson, Chicago, Dec. 18, 1916, for $10,000.32

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

Exhibition History

San Francisco, California Palace of the Legion of Honor and the M. H. de Young Memorial Museum, Seven Centuries of Painting: A Loan Exhibition of Old and Modern Masters, Dec. 29, 1939–Jan. 28, 1940, cat. L-132 (ill.).33

University of Chicago, Lexington Hall, Nov. 28–Dec. 19, 1951, no cat.34

Chicago, Remington Rand, window display, Apr. 14–30, 1952, no cat.35

Wichita (Kans.) Art Museum, Three Centuries of French Painting, May 9–23, 1954, cat. 18.

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

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

Iowa City, University of Iowa Gallery of Art, Impressionism and Its Roots, Nov. 8–Dec. 6, 1964, cat. 37 (ill.).

London, Hayward Gallery, The Impressionists in London, Jan. 3–Mar. 11, 1973, cat. 28 (ill.).

Art Institute of Chicago, Paintings by Monet, Mar. 15–May 11, 1975, cat. 106 (ill.). (fig. 41.30)

Shelburne (Vt.) Museum, June 7, 1984–Jan. 29, 1985, no cat.38

Auckland City Art Gallery, Claude Monet: Painter of Light, Apr. 29–June 9, 1985, cat. 33 (ill.); Sydney, Art Gallery of New South Wales, June 21–Aug. 4, 1985; Melbourne, National Gallery of Victoria, Aug. 14–Sept. 29, 1985.

Atlanta, High Museum of Art, Monet in London, Oct. 9, 1988–Jan. 8, 1989, cat. 20 (ill.).

Art Institute of Chicago, Claude Monet, 1840–1926, July 22–Nov. 26, 1995, cat. 117 (ill.). (fig. 41.31)

Fort Worth, Tex., Kimbell Art Museum, The Impressionists: Master Paintings from the Art Institute of Chicago, June 29–Nov. 2, 2008, cat. 88 (ill.).

Selected References

Art Institute of Chicago, A Guide to the Paintings in the Permanent Collection (Art Institute of Chicago, 1925), p. 162, cat. 2147.39

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

Anthony Bertram, Claude Monet, The World’s Masters (Studio/William Edwin Rudge, 1931), pl. 20.

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.

California Palace of the Legion of Honor and M. H. de Young Memorial Museum, Seven Centuries of Painting: A Loan Exhibition of Old and Modern Masters, exh. cat. (Recorder, 1939), pp. 47, cat. L-132; 108, cat. L-132 (ill.).

Buford L. Pickens, “H. H. Richardson and Basic Form Concepts in Modern Architecture,” Art Quarterly 3 (1940), pp. 275, fig. 2; 277.

Oscar Reuterswärd, Monet: En konstnärshistorik (Bonniers, 1948), p. 287.

Wichita Art Museum, Three Centuries of French Painting, exh cat. (Wichita Art Museum, 1954), p. 3, cat. 18.

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

Art Institute of Chicago, Paintings in the Art Institute of Chicago: A Catalogue of the Picture Collection (Art Institute of Chicago, 1961), p. 321.40

Frank Seiberling, “A Guide to the Exhibition,” in University of Iowa Gallery of Art, Impressionism and Its Roots, exh. cat. (University of Iowa Gallery of Art, 1964), p. 7.

University of Iowa Gallery of Art, Impressionism and Its Roots, exh. cat. (University of Iowa Gallery of Art, 1964), p. 43, cat. 37 (ill.).

Anthea Callen, The Impressionists in London, exh. cat. (Arts Council of Great Britain, 1973), pp. 48–49, cat. 28 (ill.).

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. 163, cat. 106 (ill.).

A. James Speyer, Twentieth-Century European Paintings, compiled by Courtney Graham Donnell (University of Chicago Press, 1980), p. 59, cat. 3A12; microfiche 3, no. A12 (ill.).

Grace Seiberling, Monet’s Series (Garland, 1981), p. 378, no. 53.

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. 102; 103; 105, cat. 33 (ill.).

John House, “Monet and the Genesis of His Series,” in Auckland City Art Gallery, Claude Monet: Painter of Light, exh. cat. (Auckland City Art Gallery/NZI, 1985), pp. 16, 23.

Daniel Wildenstein, Claude Monet: Biographie et catalogue raisonné, vol. 4, Peintures, 1899–1926 (Bibliothèque des Arts, 1985), pp. 184; 185, cat. 1600 (ill.); 431, pièce justificative 278.

Richard R. Brettell, Post-Impressionists (Art Institute of Chicago/Abrams, 1987), pp. 91, 92 (ill.), 118.

Grace Seiberling, Monet in London, exh. cat. (High Museum of Art/University of Washington Press, 1988), pp. 23, fig. 17; 59; 62; 84; 102, cat. 20.

Judi Freeman, “Far from the Earth of France: The Fauves Abroad,” in Judi Freeman, The Fauve Landscape, exh. cat. (Los Angeles County Museum of Art/Abbeville, 1990), pp. 187; 190, pl. 192; 191.

Nina Kalitina, Claude Monet: Tableaux des musée d’URSS (Èd. d’Art Aurora/Cercle d’Art, 1990), p. 124 (ill.).

Andrew Forge, Monet, Artists in Focus (Art Institute of Chicago, 1995), pp. 56; 57; 99, pl. 28; 109.

Judi Freeman, Fauves, exh. cat. (Art Gallery of New South Wales/Thames & Hudson, 1995), p. 86, fig. 1.

Charles F. Stuckey, with the assistance of Sophia Shaw, Claude Monet, 1840–1926, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago/Thames & Hudson, 1995), p. 138, cat. 117 (ill.).

Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vol. 4, Nos. 1596–1983 et les grandes décorations (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), pp. 708–09, cat. 1600 (ill.).

Meyer Schapiro, Impressionism: Reflections and Perceptions (Braziller, 1997), pp. 181–82; 183, fig. 86.

Thomas McBurney, Artistic Greatness: A Comparative Exploration of Michelangelo, Beethoven, and Monet (Galde, 1999), p. 305 (ill.).

Matthew Drutt, ed., Thannhauser: The Thannhauser Collection of the Guggenheim Museum (Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation, 2001), pp. 140, 142 (ill.).

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), pp. 118, fig. 3; 119.

David A. Brenneman, “Claude Monet, Le Parlement de Londres, effet de brouillard,” 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. 136.

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 and Co., 2007), p. 112.

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. 167; 170, cat. 88 (ill.); 171. 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. 167; 170, cat. 88 (ill.); 171.41

Paul Hayes Tucker, “André Derain, The Palace of Westminster, 1906–7,” in Richard R. Brettell, Paul Hayes Tucker, and Natalie H. Lee, The Robert Lehman Collection, vol. 3, Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century Paintings (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York/Princeton University Press, 2009), pp. 253, fig. 3; 255.

Other Documentation

Documentation from the Durand-Ruel Archives

Inventory number
Stock Durand-Ruel Paris 10899, Paris Stock Book 1913–2142

Photograph
Photo Durand-Ruel Paris 812843

Inventory number
Stock Durand-Ruel New York 4026, New York Stock Book 1904–2444

Other Documents

Label (fig. 41.32)45

Label (fig. 41.33)46

Inscription (fig. 41.34)47

Inscription (fig. 41.35)48

Labels and Inscriptions

Undated

Stamp
Location: frame
Method: stamp
Content: AJD (fig. 41.36)

Pre-1980

Label
Location: pre-1974-treatment stretcher (discarded); preserved in conservation file
Method: handwritten script
Content: Cl. Monet nº. 10899 / Westminster, 1903.(fig. 41.37)

Label
Location: pre-1974-treatment stretcher (discarded); preserved in conservation file
Method: handwritten script
Content: 5002 (fig. 41.38)

Label
Location: pre-1974-treatment stretcher (discarded); 1974 photograph preserved in conservation file
Method: printed label with handwritten script
Content: Monet No. 4026 / Vue de Londres / Westminster / 1903 mobbb (fig. 41.39)

Number
Location: pre-1974-treatment stretcher (discarded); 1974 photograph preserved in conservation file
Method: handwritten script
Content: DR 10899 (fig. 41.35)

Number
Location: pre-1974-treatment stretcher (discarded); 1974 photograph of stretcher preserved in conservation file
Method: handwritten script
Content: 33.1164 (fig. 41.40)

Number
Location: pre-1974-treatment stretcher (discarded); 1974 photograph preserved in conservation file
Method: handwritten script
Content: 8128 (fig. 41.34)

Number
Location: pre-1974-treatment stretcher (discarded); 1974 photograph preserved in conservation file
Method: handwritten script
Content: 13 [or B?] X [. . .] (fig. 41.41)

Post-1980

Label
Location: [glossary:backing board]
Method: typewritten label
Content: Cluade [sic] Monet / “Houses of Parliament, Westminster”, 1903 / #1933.1164 / Twentieth Century Collection / Mr. and Mrs. Martin Ryerson (fig. 41.42)

Label
Location: backing board
Method: printed label
Content: The Art Institute of Chicago / “Claude Monet: 1840–1926” / July 14, 1995–November 26, 1995 / Catalog: 117 / Houses of Parliament, London / Le Parlement, Tours de Westminster / The Art Institute of Chicago; Mr. and Mrs. Martin A. / Ryerson Collection (1933.1164) (fig. 41.43)

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 [glossary:UV]/IR interference cut filter and Kodak Wratten 2E filter).

Microscopy and Photomicrographs

Sample and cross-sectional analysis using a Zeiss Axioplan2 research microscope equipped with reflected light/UV fluorescence and a Zeiss AxioCam MRc5 digital camera. Types of illumination used: [glossary:darkfield], differential interference contrast ([glossary:DIC]), and [glossary:UV]. In situ photomicrographs with a Wild Heerbrugg M7A StereoZoom microscope fitted with an Olympus DP71 microscope digital camera.

X-ray Fluorescence Spectroscopy

Several spots on the painting were analyzed in situ with a Bruker/Keymaster TRACeR III-V with rhodium tube.

Polarized Light Microscopy

Zeiss Universal research microscope.

Scanning Electron Microscopy/Energy-Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy

[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. 41.44).

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

[glossary:PLM] and [glossary:XRF] analysis indicate that the paint mixture contains iron oxide red-brown (burnt sienna) and traces of red lake, lead white, vermilion, viridian, and chrome yellow. See Inge Fiedler, "1933_1164_Monet_PLM_results," Nov. 22, 2013 and Kimberley Muir, “Mon_Parl_33_1164_XRF_Results,” Nov. 17, 2011, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

Flax was confirmed by microscopic cross-sectional fiber identification; see Inge Fiedler, “1933_1164_Monet_analytical_report,” June 6, 2014, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

See examination record of auxiliary support, n.d., 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, Houses of Parliament, London, 1900–1901(W1600/1933.1164),” Jan. 2011.

These observations suggest that [glossary:cusping] on the left, right, and bottom edges is [glossary:secondary cusping], related to the mounting of the [glossary:canvas] on the original [glossary:stretcher]. The cusping on the top edge could be a combination of [glossary:primary cusping] (related to the stretching of the larger canvas, from which this canvas was cut, on the commercial priming frame) and secondary cusping.

The holes are difficult to see because of local fills and [glossary:retouching] around the edges. It is possible that additional holes are present but are now obscured by the fills and retouching.

The construction, patina, and labels (including Durand-Ruel gallery labels; see (Labels and Inscriptions) suggest that the [glossary:stretcher] may have been original or was added early in the painting’s lifetime.

See examination record of auxiliary support, n.d., on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

The presence of a [glossary:sizing] layer was difficult to determine from [glossary:cross sections] due to previous conservation treatments, including [glossary:wax-resin lining].

The [glossary:ground] composition was analyzed using [glossary:SEM/EDX], [glossary:PLM], and [glossary:XRF]. See Inge Fiedler, “1933_1164_Monet_analytical_report,” June 6, 2014; Inge Fiedler, “1933_1164_Monet_PLM_results,” Nov. 22, 2013; and Kimberley Muir, “Mon_Parl_33_1164_XRF_Results,” Nov. 17, 2011, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago. June 6, 2014

The texture of the underlying brushwork suggests that the earlier boat was painted [glossary:wet-in-wet] with the water. This, combined with the observation that the earlier composition was signed while the painting was still wet (see Signature), may suggest a fairly rapid execution of the first painting.

This painting may be an example of what Monet was describing when he commented on his London paintings: “‘I have worked and reworked some canvases as many as twenty times,’ he complained, ‘spoiling them as I went and ending up redoing them as a sketch anyway in double quick-time.’” 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, and Museum of Fine Arts, Boston/ Yale University Press, 1998), p. 27.

Similar [glossary:retouching] residues were observed in the sky at the upper right edge.

The presence of red lake in the faded area has not been confirmed scientifically and is based on microscopic examination of the painting surface. The paint used along the edges appears pale-greenish-gray or pale-pinkish-gray under [glossary:UV], in contrast to the bright-pink [glossary:fluorescence] that was observed in pink areas throughout the sky and the water. This may indicate that the paint used at the edges contained a different, less stable red lake pigment. The implication of this possibility is that some of the greenish-gray and yellowish-gray strokes in the water near the bottom edge and in the sky along the left edge may originally have had a more pinkish tone.

No evidence of similar lines was seen along the top or bottom edges.

The purpose of these lines is unclear. One possibility is that they are related to the stretching of the [glossary:canvas], that is, guidelines for cutting the canvas from a larger roll or for positioning the canvas on the [glossary:stretcher]. Similar blue lines were observed on all four edges of Monet’s Sandvika, Norway (cat. 34 [W1397], inv. 1961.790).

The [glossary:pigments] were identified by the following methods: lead white, cadmium yellow, iron oxide, viridian, cobalt blue ([glossary:SEM/EDX], [glossary:PLM], [glossary:XRF]); strontium yellow (PLM, XRF); ultramarine blue, Prussian blue (SEM/EDX, PLM); vermilion, red lake (PLM). PLM analysis highlighted the presence of pale-red and deeper-red particles of red lake, suggesting that two different types may be present. SEM/EDX analysis confirmed that at least one of the red lakes was precipitated on a substrate containing aluminum, phosphorus, and possibly sulfur. PLM analysis indicates that chrome yellow may also be present. Analysis was carried out on selected areas and may not include all pigments present in the painting. For more detailed results and conditions used, see Inge Fiedler, “1933_1164_Monet_analytical_report,” June 6, 2014; Inge Fiedler, “1933_1164_Monet_PLM_results,” Oct. 22, 2013; and Kimberley Muir, “Mon_Parl_33_1164_XRF_Results,” Nov. 17, 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 [glossary:fluorescence]. Some types of madder and purpurin [glossary:lake pigments] have been reported to fluoresce orange, but other lakes, such as lacs, may fluoresce as well. The characteristics of red lakes, including their fluorescence under UV, are discussed in Helmut Schweppe and John Winter, “Madder and Alizarin,” in Artists’ Pigments: A Handbook of Their History and Characteristics, ed. Elisabeth West FitzHugh, vol. 3 (National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., 1997), pp. 124–26. See also Ruth Johnston-Feller, Color Science in the Examination of Museum Objects: Nondestructive Procedures (Getty Conservation Institute, 2001), p. 207.

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

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

See Alfred Jakstas, treatment record, Aug. 30, 1974, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

See Faye Wrubel, treatment report, May 1991, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

Durand-Ruel Paris label.

Durand-Ruel New York label.

Durand-Ruel Paris stock number.

Durand-Ruel Paris photo number

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.

Durand-Ruel Paris label.

Durand-Ruel New York label.

Durand-Ruel Paris stock number.

Durand-Ruel Paris photo number

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.

Houses of Parliament, London (W1600) corresponds to Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vol. 4, Nos. 1596–1983 et les grandes décorations (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), pp. 708–09, cat. 1600 (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. 10, 1916: Westminster, 1903 (Durand-Ruel, Paris, stock book for 1913–21 [no. 10899]; 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. 4, 1916: Vue de Londres, Westminster, 1903. (Durand-Ruel, New York, stock book for 1904–24 [no. 4026]; 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 Art Institute currently uses the date that is used by Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vol. 4, Nos. 1596–1983 et les grandes décorations (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), pp. 708–09, cat. 1600 (ill.).

According to the Durand-Ruel,Paris, stock book for 1913–21 (no. 10899, as Westminster, 1903): “Purchased from Rosenberg by DR Paris on 10 October 1916 for 22 500 F / Stock DR Paris no. 10899; photo no. 8218,” 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. 10899, as Westminster, 1903): “Purchased from Rosenberg by DR Paris on 10 October 1916 for 22 500 F/Stock DR Paris no. 10899; photo no. 8218,” 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 (no. 10899, as Westminster, 1903) states: “Sold to DR New York on 6 November 1916.” The New York stock book for 1904–24 (no. 4026, as Vue de Londres, Westminster, 1903) states: “Purchased by DR New York on 4 December 1916 as Vue de Londres, Westminster, 1903 / Stock DR New York no. 4026.” 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, New York, stock book for 1904–24 (no. 4026, as Vue de Londres, Westminster, 1903): “sold to M.A. Ryerson on 18 December 1916 for $ 10 000,” as confirmed by Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Feb. 21, 2013, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago. See also, Durand-Ruel to M. A. Ryerson, Dec. 26, 1916, in which Durand-Ruel informs Mr. Ryerson that they sent, on the date of the letter, the painting Mr. Ryerson had recently purchased. Wildenstein includes the stock number 4026 in brackets. See an excerpt from this letter in Daniel Wildenstein, Claude Monet: Biographie et catalogue raisonné, vol. 4, Peintures, 1899–1926 (Bibliothèque des Arts, 1985), p. 431, pièce justificative 278. 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.

This single exhibition was divided into two groups that were simultaneously shown at the California Palace of the Legion of Honor and the M. H. de Young Memorial Museum. Our painting was on display at the California Palace of the Legion of Honor. See California Palace of the Legion of Honor and M. H. de Young Memorial Museum, Seven Centuries of Painting: A Loan Exhibition of Old and Modern Masters, exh. cat. (Recorder Press, 1939), pp. 3; 29; 47, cat. L-132.

According to shipping out order A671, on file in Institutional Archives, Art Institute of Chicago; and receipt of objects 12435, on file in Museum Registration, 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.

According to shipping out order A4298, on file in Institutional Archives, Art Institute of Chicago; receipt of object 14851, on file in Museum Registration, Art Institute of Chicago. Exhibition dates are noted on the shipping out order.

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

According to Museum Registration department artists sheets, on file in Museum Registration, Art Institute of Chicago, this work was on loan to the Shelburne Museum in exchange for its loan to Los Angeles County Museum of Art, A Day in the Country: Impressionism and the French Landscape, June 28–Sept. 16, 1984; Art Institute of Chicago, Oct. 23, 1984–Jan. 6, 1985; Paris, Galeries Nationales, Grand Palais, as L’impressionnisme et le paysage français, Feb. 4–Apr. 22, 1985. 

Reprinted as Art Institute of Chicago, A Guide to the Paintings in the Permanent Collection (Art Institute of Chicago, 1932), p. 186, cat. R.1201/77.

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. 183; 186, cat. 101 (ill.); 187.

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); preserved in conservation file, Art Institute of Chicago.

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

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

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

Prussian blue was identified by [glossary:SEM/EDX]. See Inge Fiedler, "1933_1164_Monet_analytical_report," June 6, 2014.

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