Cat. 46. Irises, 1914/17

Cat. 46  Irises, 1914/17

Cat. 46

Irises1
1914/172
Oil on canvas; 200 × 200.7 cm (78 3/4 × 79 in.)
Stamped: Claude Monet (lower right, in black paint)
The Art Institute of Chicago, Art Institute Purchase Fund, 1956.1202

Decorations Revisited

Irises is an example of the artistic experiments Claude Monet undertook during World War I.3 It treats a familiar subject—the plantings surrounding his water lily pond—that he had focused on intensively since 1899 (see cat. 37). But, measuring approximately 6 1/2 feet square, Irises literally and figuratively expands the scale of his beloved water garden, a treatment representative of the artist’s late oeuvre. Irises was part of a group that Monet created on the heels of a period of relative inactivity after the exhibition of his Venice pictures at Bernheim-Jeune in May–June 1912 (see cat. 45). Undoubtedly Monet’s artistic stagnation was caused by the deaths of his second wife, Alice, in May 1911, and his son Jean in February 1914, as well as the discovery that he had cataracts. But by April 30 of that year, Monet showed signs of rejuvenation, describing to his friend Gustave Geffroy, “I am even planning to embark on some big paintings, for which I found some old attempts in a basement. Clemenceau saw them and was amazed. Anyway, you’ll see something of this soon, I hope.”4 By late May or early June 1914, Monet had reinvigorated his artistic practice.

The project to which Monet referred was one that he had spoken about as early as August 1897 to writer Maurice Guillemot, who was in Giverny to visit and interview the artist, then at work on the Mornings on the Seine series (see cat. 36). Recalling his chat with Monet, part of which took place under the parasol on the bank of the pond, Guillemot referred to a decorative project, an interior environment comprised of mural-like paintings, that was percolating in the artist’s mind: “The oasis [Monet’s water lily pond] is [the most] charming of all the models he decided on; for these are the models for a decoration, for which he has already begun to paint studies, large panels, which he showed me afterward in his studio. Imagine a circular room in which the dado beneath the molding is covered with [paintings of] water, dotted with these plants to the very horizon, walls of a transparency alternately green and mauve, the calm and silence of the still waters reflecting the opened blossoms. The tones are vague, deliciously nuanced, with a dreamlike delicacy.”5

The Experience of War

The realities of the war did not deter Monet’s work on this new project. He was determined to remain in Giverny, despite the fact that most of his family and many of the locals in the village evacuated. Monet demonstrated his usual tenacity, as expressed in a letter to his friend the art critic Gustave Geffroy in early September 1914: “As for me, I will stay here all the same, and if these savages must kill me, it will be in the midst of my canvases, in front of all of my life’s work.”6 By early January 1915, he had described the undertaking as his Grande decoration, “a project that I have been involved with for some time already; water, water lilies, plants, but on a very large scale.”7

Indeed, these paintings were so large that Monet found it necessary to build a third studio, 276 square meters in size and complete with skylights, to accommodate the bigger canvases (fig. 46.1).8 The true intention of many of the panels is unclear. Some were probably not conceived as decorations in their own right. Rather, they were likely studies transported from the bank of Monet’s water lily pond to his new studio, where panels could be placed side by side to build up the three-, four-, and five-meter paintings that the artist would ultimately offer to the French nation.9 Others were probably destined for the decorative project, but ultimately some made it in, and some did not. Monet intended this gift to be a patriotic gesture, as he explained to the recently appointed prime minister, Georges Clemenceau (previously minister of war), on November 12, 1918: “I am on the verge of finishing 2 decorative panels that I want to sign on the day of the Victory, and I am going to ask you to offer them to the State . . . It’s not much, but it is the only way I have of taking part in the victory.”10 Although the terms of Monet’s donation would be fraught with complications, it led to the eventual installation of the Water Lily Pond murals in Paris’s Musée de l’Orangerie (fig. 46.2).11

Constructing Irises

Although the function of Irises is ambiguous—it is radically different from any passage included in the final mural cycle—it was certainly not created for exhibition or sale. The painting was never signed or dated, suggesting that the artist did not consider it a “finished” work that he would have exhibited or sold. Irises does bear a signature stamp, which does not quite mimic Monet’s actual autograph on the front of the canvas (fig. 46.3), as well as two additional estate stamps on the back, probably applied well after Monet’s death by his son Michel, who inherited the studio. Likely because these late paintings looked so different from what the public expected of the artist’s work, Michel—probably in conjunction with Paris dealer Katia Granoff, who sold many of Monet’s late works—devised a set of stamps to guarantee the authenticity of the paintings that were leaving the deceased artist’s studio.12

The fact that Irises was unfinished does not mean that Monet carried it out quickly or without sustained effort. Technical examination shows that the painting—executed on a pre-primed, very fine canvas—was very thickly worked up in multiple layers of [glossary:wet-over-dry] paint, which suggests multiple sessions over a significant period of time (fig. 46.4; see Technical Report). [glossary:X-ray] and [glossary:transmitted-infrared] images also show that Monet may have made compositional changes to the canvas: it appears that earlier water lilies may have been painted out, indicating that the work began as a study that was focused more on the pond than on the plantings that surrounded it (fig. 46.5; see Technical Report). That Monet produced a handful of other paintings related to Irises, including The Path through the Irises (fig. 46.6 [W1828]), Irises (fig. 46.7 [W1829]), and Irises by the Pond (fig. 46.8 [W1832]), also reflects his commitment to perfecting the composition of this motif. Technical analysis of the version in the National Gallery, London, indicates that Monet also carried out this work in several sessions, for the thickest impasto on the surface was applied over a layer of partially dried paint.13

Acquiring Irises

Although the Art Institute of Chicago had been given numerous Monet works, Irises was the first Monet painting that was purchased by the museum. In 1956 Katharine Kuh, the Art Institute’s pioneering curator of modern art, must have perceived the acquisition of the work as potentially risky, as she wrote to her mother about her recent purchase: “Edgar Kauffman [son of the Pennsylvania businessman who commissioned Frank Lloyd Wright’s Fallingwater] . . . gave me courage to buy for the museum a fine very late very free very large Monet of water lilies and iris. Quite marvelous! and of course not cheap!”14 Kuh’s tentativeness was certainly a result of the reception of Monet’s late paintings, which was initially lukewarm at best, but that was undergoing a major reconsideration.15 In the late 1940s and early 1950s, private collectors began acquiring some of the works, but it was the purchase of one of Monet’s mural sized compositions in 1955 by New York’s Museum of Modern Art that precipitated American excitement for them.16 Kuh’s purchase of Irises followed that of the Museum of Modern Art, but it was trailblazing among other American institutions. The Art Institute’s purchase of Irises preceded the first exhibition in the United States to feature the late paintings (at Knoedler & Company in New York in fall 1956) as well as the sale of a large triptych that was divided and sold by Knoedler to the Saint Louis Art Museum, the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, and the Cleveland Museum of Art.17

The purchase of Irises surely instigated the organization of a Monet exhibition at the Art Institute the following year. The press release for the show not only billed Irises as the crown jewel that rounded out museum’s Monet holdings but also presented the work as a survivor and living witness to the ravages of World War II: “During the Second World War, the whole lot of these forgotten canvases [like Irises] almost perished. The Germans attacked the storage where they were hidden and unknowingly riddled some of them with machine-gun bullets.”18 This account may explain the localized damage that the painting had suffered before it entered the Art Institute’s collection (see Technical Report). Monet’s stepson, Jean-Pierre Hoschedé, reported that some of Monet’s canvases were damaged by shrapnel from shells during the war, and it has been recorded that a number of the other late works suffered the same fate.19
Jill Shaw

Technical Report

Technical Summary

Claude Monet’s Irises was painted on a [glossary:pre-primed], non-standard-size (square), linen [glossary:canvas]. The work is in its original unlined and unvarnished state. The [glossary:ground] is off-white and appears to consist of two layers. The work is densely built up on a very fine canvas using thick, textural brushstrokes. The final surface of the work relies heavily on the texture and color of multiple, superimposed layers of brushwork. Earlier brushstrokes whose texture remains visible on the surface of the painting in the form of oval shapes, are suggestive of water lilies that may have been included in an earlier painting stage and then painted out. Similarly, a few of the irises were painted over, leaving traces of the purple paint visible through breaks in the brushwork. Overall, the paint has a dry, matte appearance, with localized areas of glossier paint. The work is unsigned but has an estate signature stamp in the lower right corner. Another signature stamp was applied to the back of the canvas in the upper right corner, along with an authentication stamp. Some of the brushwork in the lower right corner passes over the stamp, indicating that some reworking of the corners and edges of the painting was probably carried out after the artist’s death.20

Multilayer Interactive Image Viewer

The multilayer interactive image viewer is designed to facilitate the viewer’s exploration and comparison of the technical images (fig. 46.9).21

Signature

Stamped: Claude Monet (lower right, in black paint22) (fig. 46.10).23 The underlying paint was dry when the stamp was applied. In addition, there are two stamps on the back of the canvas: Claude Monet (upper right, in black paint or ink) (fig. 46.11);24 and Certifié authentique / M. MONET (upper right, in black paint or ink) (fig. 46.12).

Structure and Technique

Support

Canvas

Flax (commonly known as linen).25

Standard format

The canvas is not a standard size.26 It was probably custom ordered27 and cut from a roll of preprimed canvas along the top and bottom edges, with the left and right edges corresponding closely to the original width of the canvas roll, which probably would have been slightly wider than the current 208.4 cm width of the canvas (including the [glossary:tacking margins]) (see Ground Application).28

Weave

[glossary:Plain weave]. Average [glossary:thread count] (standard deviation): 26.4V (0.4) × 25.5H (1.1) threads/cm; the vertical threads were determined to correspond to the [glossary:warp] and the horizontal threads to the [glossary:weft].29 No thread count or weave matches were found with other Monet paintings analyzed for this project.

Canvas characteristics

There is moderate [glossary:cusping] on the left and right edges, and mild cusping on the top and bottom edges.

Stretching

Current stretching: The work appears to retain its original stretching. Tack spacing ranges from approximately 2.5–14.0 cm apart. The canvas has deteriorated around many of the original tacks and additional copper tacks have been added as reinforcements. Empty holes on the [glossary:tacking edges] that continue into the stretcher are from nails used to attach the previous wooden strip frame that was removed in 2013 (see Frame History). [glossary:Cusping] appears to correspond to the placement of the original tacks (fig. 46.13).

Original stretching: See above.

Stretcher/strainer

Current stretcher: The painting retains its original [glossary:stretcher] (fig. 46.14). It is a six-membered, beveled, wooden stretcher with a horizontal and a vertical [glossary:crossbar], and mortise and half-miter joints with twelve [glossary:keys]. Overall dimensions: 200.0 × 200.7 cm; stretcher-bar width: 7.9 cm; inner stretcher-bar depth: 2.0 cm; outer stretcher-bar depth: 2.3 cm; crossbar width: 7.9 cm; crossbar depth: 2.0 cm.

Original stretcher: See above.

Preparatory Layers

Sizing

Not determined (probably glue).30

Ground application/texture

The ground extends to the top and bottom edges of the canvas, indicating that the canvas was cut from a longer piece of primed fabric on those sides. The ground stops short of the left and right edges, where there is approximately 2 cm of unprimed canvas on each side. The current width of the canvas is probably very close to the width of the roll from which it was cut, and the unprimed edges probably correspond to the edges of the original canvas roll that were attached to the [glossary:priming] frame. On the left and right sides, there is often a thick ridge of ground that probably relates to the application. The texture of the canvas remains visible, but because the [glossary:weave] is so fine, the surface has a relatively smooth appearance. On the tacking edges, the surface of the ground appears brushmarked. On the painting surface, several ridges and lines suggestive of the use of a [glossary:palette knife] are visible but it is unclear whether these marks are in the ground layer or early paint layers (see Application/technique) (fig. 46.15).

A cross section of the ground and canvas layers from the bottom tacking edge indicates that the ground consists of a single layer (fig. 46.16) (fig. 46.17). The thickness of the layer ranges from approximately 20 to 120 µm. Backscattered electron ([glossary:BSE]) images of two additional samples taken from the picture plane, however, show a clear demarcation that indicates two distinct ground layers (fig. 46.18, fig. 46.19). In each of these samples, the overall thickness of the ground ranges from approximately 20 to 80 µm and 50 to 140 µm, respectively. It is difficult to say definitively whether these results indicate that an additional ground layer was applied only to the picture plane (i.e., after the canvas was stretched) or whether the [glossary:cross sections] from within the painted area capture overlapping brushstrokes of a single application.31

Color

Off-white (fig. 46.20).

Materials/composition

Analysis indicates that the ground contains lead white with traces of iron oxide, alumina, silica, calcium-based white, and silicates.32 In the cross sections from the picture plane that indicated two distinct layers, the composition in the upper and the lower layers was found to be similar. 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 very thickly built up in layers of superimposed brushstrokes. The highly textured surface is evident when the painting is viewed in raking light (fig. 46.21). The [glossary:X-ray] further reveals the dense mass of brushwork that covers most of the canvas (fig. 46.22). The work is much more thinly painted at the edges and the corners where the ground layer remains visible through the thin applications of paint (fig. 46.23, fig. 46.24). Some of this paint from the periphery is associated with the initial [glossary:lay-in] of the composition. It consists of very thin washes of opaque color that present a flat, matte surface. The paint appears to have been thinned with solvent. Where the brush was lightly dragged, the texture of the canvas weave is evident. The artist then began building up low-relief texture that was ultimately covered by subsequent brushwork (fig. 46.25). In some of the earlier paint layers, it seems that the artist used a palette knife, or similar straight, rigid implement, to apply the paint. The tool marks are visible throughout the X-ray, and the texture of the ridges created by the application technique remains visible on the surface of the painting (fig. 46.26). Compositional elements, such as the slender leaves and the flowers of the irises, were articulated with thick strokes of [glossary:impasto] (fig. 46.27, fig. 46.28). In other areas, such as the patches of orange in the upper part of the composition, the brush was lightly dragged across the surface, accentuating the rough texture of the layers underneath (fig. 46.29).

Where the brushwork is very densely worked up, it is difficult to trace the progression of the painting process. Underlying brushstrokes often seem unrelated to specific forms in the final composition but are not necessarily the result of actual pentimenti. In fact, it seems that much of the underlying brushwork was designed to build up a network of color and texture that contributes in various ways to the final appearance of the painting.33 This is evident, for example, in the way that colors from earlier paint layers show through small breaks in the brushwork applied on top (fig. 46.30, fig. 46.31), and the way that the texture of underlying brushmarks remains evident even when covered by subsequent layers of paint (fig. 46.32). Texture from the earlier layers is actually emphasized in places by Monet’s technique of applying fairly thin, light-handed strokes that graze the peaks of the already dry brush ridges and impasto underneath, creating a corrugated texture (fig. 46.33). The fact that the painting was carried out with multiple layers of [glossary:wet-over-dry] paint application, including some thick, textural underlayers, suggests that the work was executed in several sessions over a significant period of time.

The work shows some evidence of compositional changes. In the midright section of the painting, there are several underlying brushstrokes that form ovoid shapes. These are visible in the X-ray and [glossary:transmitted-infrared] images and are suggestive of water lily plants (fig. 46.34).34 These painted-out forms may indicate that an earlier painting stage focused more on the water-lily pond than on the irises. Monet also appears to have painted out some of the flowers from the final composition. This is visible in a few areas of dense, relatively [glossary:radio-opaque] brushwork that appear similar in the X-ray to the way in which the flowers visible on the surface were constructed (fig. 46.35). In a couple of places, where the underlying paint layers are exposed, the purple hue of the irises is visible (fig. 46.36). Several additional, similarly dense strokes are visible in other parts of the X-ray but are not apparent in the final composition, suggesting that other flowers may have been included initially but were subsequently painted over (fig. 46.37).

As mentioned above, some thin paint layers were applied to the edges and corners of the canvas in the early painting stages. Other brushwork, however, was clearly added to these areas at a later time. The dull-green paint that was applied around the signature stamp, for example, overlaps the stamp slightly (fig. 46.38), indicating that this paint was applied after the estate stamp and, therefore, by someone other than the artist.35 [glossary:UV] examination shows that the later, dull-green paint in the lower right corner was applied around the signature stamp but overlaps it in places at the top of the stamp (fig. 46.39). Two significant damages to the painting, which seem like accidental punctures or impacts that resulted in tears in the canvas (see Condition Summary), were documented upon arrival of the work at the Art Institute in 1956 and may have occurred while the work was in the artist’s studio.36

Painting tools

Brushes, including 1–3 cm width (based on width of brushstrokes), as well as a rigid tool, such as a palette knife, used for earlier paint layers.37

Palette

Analysis indicates the presence of the following [glossary:pigments]: lead white, cadmium yellow, zinc yellow, red lake (madder), viridian, cobalt blue, ultramarine blue, and cobalt violet; [glossary:SEM/EDX] analysis also detected the possible presence of chrome yellow.38 [glossary:UV fluorescence] of several deep-red brushstrokes indicates the use of red lake for the iris leaves (fig. 46.40). The complexity of Monet's layering and paint mixtures is illustrated by a cross section taken from an orange area near the upper left corner of the painting. Also visible in the cross section are small spherical particles of cadmium orange (fig. 46.41). 

Binding media

Oil (estimated).39 In general, the paint has a notably dry, matte surface appearance.40

Surface Finish

Varnish layer/media

The painting retains its original, unvarnished surface. The paint has a dry, matte appearance with localized strokes of glossy, more medium-rich paint.

Conservation History

Prior to the acquisition of the painting in 1956, two significant tears in the canvas had been repaired with pieces of gauze adhered to the back of the canvas with a wax-based adhesive. Textured fills were applied to the front of the damaged areas, overlapping the edges of the original paint. The damaged areas were repainted.41

In 2012–13, the painting was surface cleaned to remove a greasy grime layer. The paint layer was locally consolidated. The two tear areas were treated by removing the old patches and excess wax adhesive from the canvas. The fills and [glossary:retouching] were removed, which exposed well-preserved original paint around the edges of the damage. New patches were applied to the back of the damaged areas and the areas of loss were filled and inpainted. The painting was left unvarnished.42

Condition Summary

The painting retains its original unlined and unvarnished state. The work appears to retain its original stretching, although the canvas is deteriorated around many of the original tack holes and additional copper tacks have been added. The canvas is somewhat slack on the stretcher. The unprimed edges of the canvas on the left and right tacking margins are frayed. The painting is very thickly built up and executed on a very fine and fragile canvas. There is a complex tear (spanning approximately 20 × 16 cm, with four branches radiating from a central point of impact) in the upper right quadrant and a smaller tear or puncture (approximately 5 × 4 cm) in the upper left corner. Canvas has been lost in both areas so that the edges of the damage no longer meet and there is associated paint and ground loss around the edges of the damage. Previous repairs to these damaged areas and associated retouching that were thick, brittle, and poorly matched to the original paint were removed in 2012–13. New patches were applied, and the damages were filled and inpainted. There is a repair to the canvas at the lower right corner where the stretcher has created a hole in the fabric. There are several scattered small flake losses (both between the ground and canvas and between paint layers). There are isolated areas of mechanical cracking throughout the paint layer and [glossary:stretcher-bar cracks] over the crossbars. There are some random paint splatters near the bottom edge of the canvas.
Kimberley Muir

Frame

Current frame (2013): The frame is not original to the painting. It is an American, twenty-first-century reproduction of an early-twentieth-century, French, molding frame with a slight cushion profile. It is oil gilded over a black oil paint base. The pine molding is nailed and mitered at the corners (fig. 46.42).43

Previous frame (installed 1991; removed 2013): The work was previously housed in a black, painted, wooden, batten-strip frame that exposed the edges of the painting.44

Previous frame (installed by 1956; removed 1991): The work was previously housed in an American, mid-twentieth-century, L-shaped, narrow frame with a gilded face (fig. 46.43).45
Kirk Vuillemot

Provenance

By descent from the artist (died 1926) to his son, Michel Monet, Giverny.46

Acquired by Katia Granoff, Paris, by 1956.47

Sold by Katia Granoff, Paris, to the Art Institute of Chicago, 1956.

Exhibition History

Art Institute of Chicago, The Paintings of Claude Monet, Apr. 1–June 15, 1957, no cat. no.48

Selected References

Art Institute of Chicago, “Homage to Claude Monet,” Art Institute of Chicago Quarterly 51, 2 (Apr. 1, 1957), p. 23, 24, 25 (ill.).

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

Art Institute of Chicago, “Exhibitions,” Art Institute of Chicago Quarterly 51, 2 (Apr. 1, 1957), p. 36.

Edith Weigle, “The Wonderful World of Art,” Chicago Daily Tribune, May 26, 1957, p. E2.

Art Institute of Chicago, Paintings in the Art Institute of Chicago: A Catalogue of the Picture Collection (Art Institute of Chicago, 1961), pp. 284 (ill.), 322.49

A. James Speyer, “Twentieth-Century European Paintings and Sculpture,” Apollo 84, no. 55 (Sept. 1966), p. 222.

Charles C. Cunningham, Instituto de arte de Chicago, El mundo de los museos 2 (Editorial Codex, 1967), pp. 11, ill. 28; 57, no. 4 (ill.).

Jean-Dominique Rey, “Au-delà de la peinture,” in Denis Rouart and Jean-Dominique Rey, Monet, nymphéas, ou Les miroirs du temps, with a cat. rais. by Robert Maillard (Hazan, 1972), pp. 144–45 (ill.).

Denis Rouart and Jean-Dominique Rey, Monet, nymphéas, ou Les miroirs du temps, with a cat. rais. by Robert Maillard (Hazan, 1972), p. 179 (ill.).

Art Institute of Chicago, 100 Masterpieces (Art Institute of Chicago, 1978), p. 94, pl. 51.

A. James Speyer and Courtney Graham Donnell, Twentieth-Century European Paintings (University of Chicago Press, 1980), pp. 12; 60, cat. 3B6; microfiche 3, no. B6 (ill.).

Horst Keller, with a contribution by Herbert Keller, Ein Garten wird Malerei: Monets Jahre in Giverny (DuMont Buchverlag, 1982), pp. 86; 108; 117; 141 (ill.), 159. Translated by Sylvia Gouding as Monet’s Years at Giverny: A Garden Becomes Painting (DuMont Buchverlag/Dumont Monte, 2001), pp. 86, 108, 117, 141 (ill.), 159.

Claire Joyes, Claude Monet: Life at Giverny (Vendome, 1985), p. 107 (ill.).

Daniel Wildenstein, Claude Monet: Biographie et catalogue raisonné, vol. 4 (Bibliothèque des Arts, 1985), pp. 268; 269, cat. 1833 (ill.).

Andrew Forge, Monet, Artists in Focus (Art Institute of Chicago, 1995), pp. 66; 68; 104, pl. 33; 109.

Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné, vol. 4, Nos. 1596–1983 et les grandes décorations (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), p. 870, cat. 1833 (ill.).

Caroline Holmes, Monet at Giverny (Cassel/Sterling, 2001), pp. 22–23 (ill.).

Norio Shimada and Keiko Sakagami, Kurōdo Mone meigashū: Hikari to kaze no kiseki [Claude Monet: 1881–1926], vol. 2 (Nihon Bijutsu Kyōiku Sentā, 2001), pp. 144, no. 266 (ill.); 191.

Robert Gordon and Sydney Eddison, Monet: The Gardener (Universe, 2002), pp. 55 (ill.), 94.

Katharine Kuh, My Love Affair with Modern Art: Behind the Scenes with a Legendary Curator, ed. Avis Berman (Arcade, 2006), p. 45.

Joseph Baillio, “Katia Granoff (1895–1989): Champion of the Late Works of Claude Monet,” in Wildenstein and Co., Claude Monet (1840–1926): A Tribute to Daniel Wildenstein and Katia Granoff, exh. cat. (Wildenstein, 2007), p. 41.

Eric M. Zafran, “Monet in America,” in Wildenstein and Co., Claude Monet (1840–1926): A Tribute to Daniel Wildenstein and Katia Granoff, exh. cat. (Wildenstein, 2007), pp. 128; 130; 136, fig. 58.

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. 18 (ill.), 19 (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. 18 (ill.), 19 (ill.).50

Other Documentation

Labels and Inscriptions

Undated

Label
Location: stretcher
Method: printed label
Content: 134 (fig. 46.44)

Inscription
Location: stretcher
Method: handwritten script
Content: N^o _ 160 ___ 200 X 200 (fig. 46.45)

Number
Location: right tacking edge
Method: handwritten script
Content: 210 (fig. 46.46)

Pre-1980

Stamp
Location: lower right corner of painting
Method: stamp
Content: Claude Monet (fig. 46.38)

Stamp
Location: canvas
Method: stamp
Content: Claude Monet (fig. 46.11)

Stamp
Location: canvas
Method: stamp
Content: Certifié authentique / M. MONET (fig. 46.12)

Inscription
Location: stretcher
Method: handwritten script
Content: R of O 14963 (fig. 46.47)

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.

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 75H (PECA 918 UV/IR interference cut filter and B+W UV 010 MRC F-Pro filter).

Microscopy and Photomicrographs

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

X-ray Fluorescence Spectroscopy

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

Cross sections analyzed after carbon coating with a Hitachi S3400-N-II VP-SEM with an Oxford EDS and a Hitachi solid-state BSE detector. Analysis was performed at the Northwestern University Atomic and Nanoscale Characterization Experimental (NUANCE) Center, Electron Probe Instrumentation Center (EPIC) facility.

Surface-Enhanced Raman Spectroscopy

A Jobin Yvon Horiba LabRAM 300 confocal Raman microscope was used, equipped with an Andor multichannel, Peltier-cooled, open-electrode charge-coupled device detector (Andor DV420-OE322; 1024×256), an Olympus BXFM open microscope frame, a holographic notch filter, and a 1,800-grooves/mm dispersive grating. The excitation line of a He-Ne laser (632.8 nm) was focused through a 20× objective onto the samples, and Raman scattering was back collected through the same microscope objective. Power at the samples was kept very low (never exceeding a few mW) by a series of neutral density filters in order to avoid any thermal damage.51

Automated Thread Counting

Thread count and weave information were determined by Thread Count Automation Project software.52

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.53

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. 46.48).

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.

The material appears to be paint rather than ink due to its thick, somewhat bodied consistency. [glossary:XRF] analysis of the signature stamp area resulted in a spectrum that was very similar to the adjacent background area of the painting and, therefore, did not provide any conclusive information about [glossary:pigments] present specifically in the material used for the stamp; see Kimberley Muir, “Mon_Iris_56_1202_XRF_Results,” Dec. 14, 2011, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

It has been noted that very few of Monet’s paintings made after 1915 were signed, and several unsigned canvases remained in his studio after his death. When Monet’s son Michel inherited his studio in 1926, different studio stamps were applied to the canvases to guarantee their authenticity. See Jeanne-Marie David, “Une étude de la signature de Claude Monet,” Zeitschrift für Kunsttechnologie und Konservierung 22, 2 (2008), p. 306. According to David, three known signature stamps were used; however, the precise use and distribution of the stamps remain unclear. See Jeanne-Marie David, “De la naissance d’un nom à l’évidence d’un style. Une étude de la signature de Claude Monet (1840–1926)” (mémoire de recherche appliquée, unpublished paper, École du Louvre, Paris, Paris 2006), referenced in Caroline von Saint-George, “Claude Monet—Water Lilies, Brief Report on Technology and Condition,” Painting Techniques of Impressionism and Postimpressionism (Wallraf-Richartz-Museum & Fondation Corboud, 2008), http://www.museenkoeln.de/ausstellungen/wrm_0802_impressionismus/03_abbzoom.asp?lang=en&pg=&typ=kuenstler&val=15&iid=25. The stamp measures approximately 9.3 cm in length.

Although this stamp looks very similar to the signature stamp on the front of the painting, close observation reveals some differences in the shape and slant of the letters, indicating that two different stamps were used.

Flax was confirmed by microscopic cross-sectional fiber identification. See Inge Fiedler, “1956_1202_Monet_analytical_report,” May 27, 2014, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago. A series of faint, horizontal lines was observed on the back of the canvas. The lines span the full width of the canvas and are present from the top to the bottom. They are not regularly spaced, ranging from 6 to 9 cm apart. It is unclear what they are related to, but they are also visible in a 1958 photograph of the verso.

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

The technical report on Monet’s Water Lilies (1915–17 [W1815]) in the collection of the Wallraf-Richartz-Museum & Fondation Corboud states that Monet may have cut the canvas for that painting from a [glossary:pre-primed] roll of canvas and stretched it himself. See Caroline von Saint-George, “Claude Monet—Water Lilies, Brief Report on Technology and Condition,” Painting Techniques of Impressionism and Postimpressionism (Wallraf-Richartz-Museum & Fondation Corboud, 2008), http://www.museenkoeln.de/ausstellungen/wrm_0802_impressionismus/03_abbzoom.asp?lang=en&pg=&typ=kuenstler&val=15&iid=25. This raises the question whether Monet may have purchased rolls of canvas that he cut and stretched himself, or had someone stretch for him, for these late, large-scale works. This would have been a more economical option and easier to transport than prestretched canvases of these dimensions. 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).

Painting canvases were commonly produced in bolts measuring approximately 100–200 m long by approximately 2.1 m wide. The bolts of canvas were then cut down into ten-meter-long rolls, which were primed and then cut into individual painting canvases. See Louis van Tilborgh, Teio Meedendorp, Ella Hendriks, Don H. Johnson, C. Richard Johnson, Jr., and Robert G. Erdmann, “Weave matching and dating of Van Gogh’s paintings: An interdisciplinary approach,” Burlington Magazine 154 (Feb. 2012), p. 115; and Leslie Carlyle and Ella Hendriks, “Visiting Claessens, artists’ canvas manufacturers,” UKIC News in Conservation 11 (2009), pp. 4–5. Near the bottom of the right tacking edge, there is a short line and the number 210, both handwritten (see Labels and Inscriptions). Although the purpose and origin of this notation are not known, it is interesting to note that the number seems to correspond to the original width of the [glossary:canvas].

[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, Iris (W1833/1956.1202),” June 2011. There is a distinct change in the thread count at the midpoint of the two-meter-wide [glossary:canvas]. The thread-density patterns on either side appear roughly the same, but a demarcation line can be readily seen. This feature is not due to a seam joining two one-meter-wide canvas strips. If this were the case, the weft-thread density patterns on either side would be very different from each other. Instead, it is speculated that this midline feature hallmarks the kind of loom used. In particular, the loom might have been a “half-width” power loom, one in which the loom width is one meter and the two-meter long [glossary:weft] threads run on a U-shaped track. Because the weft threads must make it around the sharp bend in the track at the canvas center, the thread densities differ slightly on either side without discernible effect to the warp-thread density. The same kind of feature was also observed in the weft-density map for Monet’s Water Lily Pond (cat. 47 [W1889], inv. 1982.825). The numbers preceded by a W refer to the Monet catalogue raisonné; see Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vols. 1–4 (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996).

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

The ground of Monet’s Irises (c. 1914­–17; National Gallery, London [W1829]) was found to consist of two layers. It has been posited that the lower layer may be a commercially applied ground and that the upper layer may have been applied to the stretched [glossary:canvas] by Monet in his studio since it does not extend quite to the edges of the picture plane. See Ashok Roy, “Monet’s Palette in the Twentieth Century: Water-Lilies and Irises,” National Gallery Technical Bulletin 28 (2007), p. 61. The numbers preceded by a W refer to the Monet catalogue raisonné; see Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vols. 1–4 (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996).

The [glossary:ground] composition was analyzed using [glossary:SEM/EDX] and [glossary:XRF]. See Inge Fiedler, “1956_1202_Monet_analytical_report,” May 27, 2014; and Kimberley Muir, “Mon_Iris_56_1202_XRF_Results,” Dec. 14, 2011, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

This method of building up the composition from thin paint applications through layers of increasingly textured brushwork was described in the technical report on Monet’s Water Lilies (1915–17 [W1815]) in the collection of the Wallraf-Richartz-Museum & Fondation Corboud: “the first thin brushstrokes were followed by numerous further applications of paint with increasing opacity and pastosity.” See Caroline von Saint-George, “Claude Monet—Water Lilies, Brief Report on Technology and Condition,” Painting Techniques of Impressionism and Postimpressionism (Wallraf-Richartz-Museum & Fondation Corboud, 2008), http://www.museenkoeln.de/ausstellungen/wrm_0802_impressionismus/03_abbzoom.asp?lang=en&pg=&typ=kuenstler&val=15&iid=25. 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).

Similar painted-out water lilies were observed in Monet’s Water Lilies (1915–17 [W1815]) in the collection of the Wallraf-Richartz-Museum & Fondation Corboud. See Caroline von Saint-George, “Claude Monet—Water Lilies, Brief Report on Technology and Condition,” Painting Techniques of Impressionism and Postimpressionism (Wallraf-Richartz-Museum & Fondation Corboud, 2008), http://www.museenkoeln.de/ausstellungen/wrm_0802_impressionismus/03_abbzoom.asp?lang=en&pg=&typ=kuenstler&val=15&iid=25. 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).

These later strokes may have been applied in unpainted areas where the white [glossary:ground] had been left exposed in order to present a more “finished” composition. This kind of [glossary:retouching] of the edges, including [glossary:overpaint] that was applied around but slightly overlaps the signature stamp, has been observed in other late works by Monet; see, for example, Renate Woudhuysen-Keller and Paul Woudhuysen-Keller, “Claude Monet’s Series L’Allée de Rosiers: History, materials, painting technique—removal of overpaint,” in Rodolphe Rapetti, ed., Monet: Atti del convegno, Gli atti 1 (Linea d’Ombra Libri, 2003), pp. 145–56.

See receipt of objects 14963, Aug. 30, 1956, on file in Museum Registration, Art Institute of Chicago. It has been noted, in the context of Monet’s Water Lilies triptych  (1914–1926; Museum of Modern Art, New York [W1972–74]), that damages to those canvases including tears may have resulted from a bombardment during World War II that shattered the skylights of Monet’s studio, causing shreds of glass to puncture the canvases. See Christopher Lyon, “History of Water Lilies,” Unveiling Monet (Museum of Modern Art, 2004), http://www.moma.org/explore/conservation/monet/history_waterlilies.html. 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).

René Gimpel made note of Monet’s painting tools, which he observed during a visit to Monet’s studio on November 28, 1918. In his diary he describes seeing many brushes in pots and scattered around the studio, all of them 2–3 cm in width: “Dans un premier pot de terre vernissée, plus de cinquante pinceaux très propres et peut-être vingt-cinq autres dans un deuxième pot. Il y en a encore plus qui sont éparpillés et tous ont de deux à trois centimètres de large.” Quoted in Renate Woudhuysen-Keller and Paul Woudhuysen-Keller, “Claude Monet’s Series L’Allée de Rosiers: History, materials, painting technique—removal of overpaint,” in Rodolphe Rapetti, ed., Monet: Atti del convegno, Gli atti 1 (Linea d’Ombra Libri, 2003), pp. 148­–49. The authors also mention that “Monet had procured specially prepared brushes with long flexible bristles to apply layer upon layer of contrasting paint in swift brushstrokes, catching only on the impasto of the lower layers” (p. 149).

The [glossary:pigments] were identified by the following methods: lead white, cadmium yellow, zinc yellow, viridian, cobalt blue, cobalt violet ([glossary:SEM/EDX], [glossary:XRF]); cadmium orange, ultramarine blue, possible chrome yellow (SEM/EDX); madder lake (SERS, SEM/EDX). SEM/EDX analysis indicates that the madder lake was precipitated on a substrate containing aluminum, phosphorus, and sulfur. XRF analysis detected cobalt and arsenic in areas of purple paint, indicating that the cobalt violet is a cobalt arsenate. 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, “1956_1202_Monet_analytical_report,” May 27, 2014; Kimberley Muir, “Mon_Iris_56_1202_XRF_Results,” Dec. 14, 2011; Federica Pozzi, “Mon_Iris_1956_1202_SERS_Results,” May 14, 2013, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

The [glossary:binding medium] was not analyzed. The estimation of an [glossary:oil] medium was 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, Caroline von Saint-George, “Claude Monet—Water Lilies, Brief Report on Technology and Condition,” Painting Techniques of Impressionism and Postimpressionism (Wallraf-Richartz-Museum & Fondation Corboud, 2008), http://www.museenkoeln.de/ausstellungen/wrm_0802_impressionismus/03_abbzoom.asp?lang=en&pg=&typ=kuenstler&val=15&iid=25; and Ashok Roy, “Monet’s Palette in the Twentieth Century: Water-Lilies and Irises,” National Gallery Technical Bulletin 28 (2007), pp. 61–62.

It has been suggested that Monet may have removed some of the [glossary:oil] medium from his paints in his later works; see Monet Unveiled: A New Look at Boston’s Paintings (Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 1977), p. 7. Anthea Callen, The Art of Impressionism: Painting Technique and the Making of Modernity (Yale University Press, 2000), p. 101, notes that Monet was known to have “leached” his colors.

See examination report, Oct. 10, 1956, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

See Kristin Lister, treatment report, July 30, 2013, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

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

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.

Irises (W1833) corresponds to Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vol. 4, Nos. 1596–1983 et les grandes décorations (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), p. 870, cat. 1833 (ill.). The Art Institute currently uses a title that is based on the title used by the catalogue raisonné and how a related painting (Irises, 1914/17, Virginia Museum of Fine Arts [W1832]) was titled in the exhibition Monet in the 20th Century, held at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston and Royal Academy of Arts, London.

The Art Institute currently uses a date that is based on the date used by Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vol. 4, Nos. 1596–1983 et les grandes décorations (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), p. 870, cat. 1833 (ill.), and how a related painting (Irises, 1914/17, Virginia Museum of Fine Arts [W1832]) was dated in the exhibition Monet in the 20th Century. Previously, Irises was dated circa 1922–26, see Andrew Forge, Monet, Artists in Focus (Art Institute of Chicago, 1995), pp. 104, pl. 33; 109.  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).

Information for this entry is largely informed by the following texts: Paul Hayes Tucker with George T. M. Shackelford and MaryAnne Stevens, Monet in the 20th Century, exh. cat. (Royal Academy of Arts, London/Museum of Fine Arts, Boston/Yale University Press, 1998); and Paul Hayes Tucker, “Monet: Public and Private,” in Claude Monet: Late Work, exh. cat. (Gagosian Gallery, 2010), pp. 16–40.

Monet to Gustave Geffroy, Apr. 30, 1914, quoted and translated in Richard Kendall, Monet by Himself: Paintings, Drawings, Pastels, Letters (Macdonald Orbis, 1989), p. 247; transcribed in Daniel Wildenstein, Claude Monet: Biographie et catalogue raisonné, vol. 4, Peintures, 1899–1926 (Bibliothèque des Arts, 1985), p. 390, letter 2116.

Maurice Guillemot, “Claude Monet,” La revue illustrée, Mar. 15, 1898, translated in Charles F. Stuckey, ed., Monet: A Retrospective (Hugh Lauter Levin), p. 200.

Monet to Gustave Geffroy, Sept. 1, 1914, quoted and translated in Paul Hayes Tucker, “The Revolution in the Garden,” in Paul Hayes Tucker with George T. M. Shackelford and MaryAnne Stevens, Monet in the 20th Century, exh. cat. (Royal Academy of Arts, London/Museum of Fine Arts, Boston/Yale University Press, 1998), p. 65; transcribed in Daniel Wildenstein, Claude Monet: Biographie et catalogue raisonné, vol. 4, Peintures, 1899–1926 (Bibliothèque des Arts, 1985), p. 391, letter 2128.

Monet to Raymond Koechlin, Jan. 15, 1915, quoted and translated in Paul Hayes Tucker, “The Revolution in the Garden,” in Paul Hayes Tucker with George T. M. Shackelford and MaryAnne Stevens, Monet in the 20th Century, exh. cat. (Royal Academy of Arts, London/Museum of Fine Arts, Boston/Yale University Press, 1998), p. 66; transcribed in Daniel Wildenstein, Claude Monet: Biographie et catalogue raisonné, vol. 4, Peintures, 1899–1926 (Bibliothèque des Arts, 1985), pp. 391–92, letter 2142.

Paul Hayes Tucker with George T. M. Shackelford and MaryAnne Stevens, Monet in the 20th Century, exh. cat. (Royal Academy of Arts, London/Museum of Fine Arts, Boston/Yale University Press, 1998), p. 114.

George T. M. Shackelford and MaryAnne Stevens, “Studies: Water Lilies, Weeping Willows, and Irises,” in Paul Hayes Tucker with George T. M. Shackelford and MaryAnne Stevens, Monet in the 20th Century, exh. cat. (Royal Academy of Arts, London/Museum of Fine Arts, Boston/Yale University Press, 1998), p. 192.

Monet to Georges Clemenceau, Nov. 12, 1918, quoted and translated in Paul Hayes Tucker, “The Revolution in the Garden,” in Paul Hayes Tucker with George T. M. Shackelford and MaryAnne Stevens, Monet in the 20th Century, exh. cat. (Royal Academy of Arts, London/Museum of Fine Arts, Boston/Yale University Press, 1998), p. 77; original French in Daniel Wildenstein, Claude Monet: Biographie et catalogue raisonné, vol. 4, Peintures, 1899–1926 (Bibliothèque des Arts, 1985), p. 401, letter 2287.

For a concise and thorough account of the complications surrounding Monet’s donation, see Paul Hayes Tucker, “The Revolution in the Garden,” in Paul Hayes Tucker with George T. M. Shackelford and MaryAnne Stevens, Monet in the 20th Century, exh. cat. (Royal Academy of Arts, London/Museum of Fine Arts, Boston/Yale University Press, 1998), pp. 58–85.

See Jeanne-Marie David, “Une étude de la signature de Claude Monet,” Zeitschrift für Kunsttechnologie und Konservierung 22, 2 (2008), p. 306; and Joseph Baillio, “Katia Granoff (1895–1989): Champion of the Late Works of Claude Monet,” in Claude Monet (1840–1926): A Tribute to Daniel Wildenstein and Katia Granoff (Wildenstein, 2007), pp. 35–44.

Ashok Roy, “Monet’s Palette in the Twentieth Century: Water-Lilies and Irises,” National Gallery Technical Bulletin 28 (2007), p. 62.

Katharine Kuh to Mrs. Morris Woolf, June 29, 1956, Katharine Kuh Papers, Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution.

For accounts of the reception of Monet’s late works, see Joseph Baillio, “Katia Granoff (1895–1989): Champion of the Late Works of Claude Monet,” in Claude Monet (1840–1926): A Tribute to Daniel Wildenstein and Katia Granoff (Wildenstein, 2007), pp. 35–44; Romy Golan, “Oceanic Sensations: Monet’s Grandes Décorations and Mural Painting in France from 1927 to 1952,” in Paul Hayes Tucker with George T. M. Shackelford and MaryAnne Stevens, Monet in the 20th Century, exh. cat. (Royal Academy of Arts, London/Museum of Fine Arts, Boston/Yale University Press, 1998), pp. 86–96; in the same volume, Michael Leja, “The Monet Revival and New York School Abstraction,” pp. 98–108; and Romy Golan, Muralnomad: The Paradox of Wall Painting, Europe, 1927–1957 (Yale University Press, 2009).

The Museum of Modern Art’s Water-Lily Pond (W1982) was destroyed in a fire at the museum on April 15, 1958. 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).

The left panel of the Agapanthus triptych belongs to the Cleveland Museum of Art (W1975); the central panel is in the collection of the Saint Louis Art Museum (W1976); and the right panel is in the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art in Kansas City (W1977). 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). See Simon Kelly with Mary Schafer and Johanna Bernstein, Monet’s Water Lilies: The Agapanthus Triptych, exh. cat. (Saint Louis Art Museum/Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art/Cleveland Museum of Art, 2011).

Art Institute of Chicago Press Release, March 27, 1957, on file in Institutional Archives, Art Institute of Chicago.

Jean-Pierre Hoschedé, Claude Monet, ce mal connu: Intimité familiale d’un demi-siècle à Giverny de 1883 à 1926, vol. 1 (Pierre Cailler, 1960), p. 95. The damaged paintings identified by Wildenstein are Water Lilies (n.d.; private collection, Japan [W1793]), Water Lilies, Reflections of Weeping Willows (1916–19; Musée Marmottan Monet, Paris [W1859]), and The Water Lily Pond (n.d.; right, Musée Marmottan Monet; left, location unknown [W1888]). The Museum of Modern Art’s late Water Lilies triptych (W1972, W1973, and W1974) has undergone significant conservation treatment to repair tears; see Christopher Lyon, “Unveiling Monet,” MoMA 7 (Spring 1991), pp. 14–23. Damages to the late paintings were also reported before World War II. Around the time of the opening of the mural installation at the Orangerie, it was reported that “one of the canvases was seen to be torn or slashed. The injury was inflicted, M. Clemenceau explained, by Monet himself, who frequently, in a fit of anger, slashed a work with which he was dissatisfied.” See “Notes of the Week: News of Art Sales, Museum Exchanges and Exhibitions at Home and Abroad,” New York Times, June 12, 1927, p. X10; and Charles F. Stuckey, with the assistance of Sophia Shaw, Claude Monet, 1840–1926, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago/Thames & Hudson, 1995), p. 257. 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). 

According to Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vol. 4, Nos. 1596–1983 et les grandes décorations (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), p. 870, cat. 1833 (ill.).

According to Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vol. 4, Nos. 1596–1983 et les grandes décorations (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), p. 870, cat. 1833 (ill.).

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; however, the show was extended until June 15. See Edith Weigle, “The Wonderful World of Art,” Chicago Daily Tribune, May 26, 1957, p. E2, for an exhibition review and reference to the extension of the length of the show. The April 1957 issue of the Art Institute of Chicago Quarterly was largely dedicated to the Monet works in the Art Institute’s collection. The exhibition marked the first time the Art Institute’s thirty Monet paintings were shown together in the museum.

Reprinted in Art Institute of Chicago, Paintings in the Art Institute of Chicago: A Catalogue of the Picture Collection (Art Institute of Chicago, 1968), pp. 284 (ill.), 322.

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. 18 (ill.), 19 (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).

Kirk Vuillemot, “Monet Frame Descriptions Final,” Dec. 3, 2013, 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.

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