Cat. 6. The Laundress, 1877/79

Cat. 6  The Laundress, 1877/79

Cat. 6

The Laundress1
1877/792
Oil on canvas; 80.8 × 56.5 cm (31 13/16 × 22 1/4 in.)
The Art Institute of Chicago, Charles H. and Mary F. S. Worcester Collection, 1947.102

Origins and Innovations

The theme of the laundress was prevalent in the visual and literary culture of middle-class nineteenth-century France. Aside from Edgar Degas, however, the Impressionists did not regularly take up this subject in their paintings of modern life; when the theme did appear in Impressionist work, it was typically “subordinated to the atmospheric surroundings.”3 The Laundress is indeed an anomaly in the oeuvre of Pierre-Auguste Renoir. Although he returned to the subject in the mid-1880s and later—though only a handful of times—this canvas is likely the artist’s first and only incorporation of the motif during the time when he was actively engaged with the concerns of Impressionism.

As noted by Douglas Druick, Renoir probably made The Laundress—which is signed, but not dated—after completing his illustrations for Émile Zola’s gritty novel L’assommoir, a tragic tale centered around a laundress named Gervaise Macquart, which exposed the blight of poverty and alcoholism in contemporary working-class Paris.4 Originally published by Renoir’s patron, Georges Charpentier, in 1877, the first illustrated edition of L’assommoir appeared the following year. At Zola’s request, Renoir created four illustrations for it. But while Zola could present his vivid narrative with words, Renoir had to find a way to visualize select scenes in a two-dimensional format. As the Art Institute’s original drawing for one of the illustrations (fig. 6.1 (cat. 5) demonstrates, the artist—using pen, brown ink, and black chalk—combined areas of shading with a web of thin, scratchy lines in order to produce a vibrating surface that teems with an almost restless energy.

By the mid-1870s, Renoir was also creating similar effects in his paintings, as The Laundress exemplifies. Using a limited palette and a variety of techniques, he crafted a shimmering surface through a complex, built-up network of feathery brushstrokes. Combined with some areas of smooth modeling and heavy impasto, Renoir’s brushwork and use of complementary-color contrasts construct a tapestry of textures to suggest space and form. Precise contours were dissolved and details of the background were obscured as the artist decreased the density of his web of brushstrokes around the edges of the painting, allowing more of the warm gray ground layer to peek through (fig. 6.2).

The casualness of Renoir’s brushstrokes and the confidence demonstrated by his use of [glossary:wet-in-wet] paint and his juxtaposition of individual strokes of unmixed, bold color to create areas like the figure’s hair (fig. 6.3) suggest that he executed this painting quickly. It seems that he actually developed it relatively systematically, however. The traditional triangular composition provides stability to the otherwise vibrating surface, and [glossary:X-ray] imaging indicates that the artist reinforced this form by straightening out the hemline of the model’s skirt (fig. 6.4).

Renoir also altered the posture of the model as he worked out his composition. In an earlier state of the painting, the figure was slightly more frontal, and her elbows projected out from her body more symmetrically. By adjusting her arms and both sides of her skirt, Renoir shifted her body ever so slightly to a three-quarter angle. The alteration he made to her left arm is still visible with the naked eye: flesh tones appear around the area where her wrist meets her awkwardly disproportionate hand (fig. 6.5). Renoir also lowered the height of her hair and the frothy pile of laundry beside her in order to achieve the exact balance that he was seeking.

Genre and Portraiture

There is something very deliberate and even disconcerting about the way Renoir constructed—or rather, deconstructed—his young laundress. The model for this painting was identified by François Daulte as Nini Lopez, whom Renoir employed regularly between approximately 1874 and 1880.5 A resident of Montmartre, the Parisian quarter where Renoir moved in the summer of 1876, Nini was characterized by critic Georges Rivière as the ideal model, for she was “punctual, serious, [and] discreet.”6 But while she can be identified in The Laundress, this is not a portrait; her features are generalized and dissolve into a frenzy of brushstrokes. Instead, Renoir depicted a Parisian type—in this case, a young, working-class girl.7

Renoir also used Nini as his model in another, probably slightly earlier painting entitled First Step (Le premier pas) (fig. 6.6 [Daulte 347; Dauberville 250]). In this picture, however, Nini—who appears to be wearing the same blouse and skirt that she wore when posing for The Laundress—seems to embody a different type of Parisian woman. The figure that Renoir presented in Le premier pas is more refined and polished. Her facial features—though still generalized—are more delicate; using minimized brushstrokes, Renoir gave her skin a porcelain-like finish that glows like mother-of-pearl. Set in what appears to be the interior of a bourgeois dwelling—as indicated by the richly patterned, colorful carpet underfoot—she looks lovingly at a child, encouraging it to take its first steps. In many ways, Renoir made Nini a radiant, modern Madonna in this painting.

But, simultaneously, Renoir infused a degree of ambiguity in Le premier pas that makes us question this characterization. While both of Nini’s shoulders are covered, the hint of cleavage revealed as she leans toward the child highlights her sexuality; she is both demure and provocative. Her garment is simple and pulled together with the red sash at her waist, but its silhouette is not of the period. As a result of her pose, the waist appears to be cinched higher than was fashionable at the time, recalling instead coquettish Rococo fashion. Moreover, a white garment and striped socks draped over the chair suggest two possible identities for the woman. Perhaps she is the child’s mother and lady of the house awaiting the arrival of her laundress through the half-open door at right, or she might be a domestic caring for the child before undertaking her laundry chores, a woman who might even be sexually available. At this time, Renoir’s audience would have been aware that working women were known to sometimes supplement their incomes with prostitution.8

Meaning and Method

As part of the Impressionist group, Renoir was interested in depicting themes of modern life, but his worldview was much more tempered than those of Zola and some of his other Naturalist and Impressionist colleagues. Even in his own era Renoir was accused of viewing the world with rose-colored glasses. As John House has explained, “Even in their original contexts, the vision of the world presented by Renoir’s canvases was escapist; his smiling world-view was an attempt to erase the fundamental anxieties of the late nineteenth century, about the breakdown of order and of the sense of social and personal identity in a society that was rapidly changing, with the emergence of industrialisation and urban capitalism.”9

But however tame Renoir’s imagery may seem, the subtle ambiguities that he infused into Le premier pas remind us of the disconnects between class and gender in modern life and highlight the difficulty of expressing these ideas visually on a flat surface. Such uncertainties are even more exaggerated in The Laundress. Despite its similarities to Le premier pas, The Laundress is radically different in execution. The artist’s brushwork recalls the graphic, hatched quality of the drawings he made for Zola’s novel, which he also employed in a painted portrait of his friend and fellow Impressionist painter Alfred Sisley (fig. 6.7 [cat. 4]).

In large part because of the nature of the paint handling, much of the painting is impossible to read. Aside from the laundress, very few details of the composition can be definitively identified: the model stands next to a half-open door, on the other side of which is a completely illegible space; to the left of the laundress, there is only a vague impression of a yellow table or chair in what appears to be a hallway or another room; shadows on the floor do not consistently correspond with the light source coming from the upper left; and the clothes in the laundry basket—composed of swirls of paint—are not identifiable (fig. 6.8).

It is also curious that although the surface of The Laundress pulsates insistently, no substantial action is being depicted in the scene. With her flushed face, reddened hands, and basket of unfolded laundry sitting on the floor next to her, the laundress’s work is evident; this is perhaps the moment after the laundry was washed but before it was ironed, for the streaks of blue visible throughout the laundry pile may indicate that it has just been treated with bluing, a product used during laundering to enhance whitening. But in this particular moment, as Druick has observed, the laundress is not actively undertaking difficult labor, and there is no reason for her blouse to have slipped off of one of her shoulders.10 Renoir’s depiction of the young woman with décolletage—a motif he would feature in many other paintings of young women throughout his career—encourages a sexual, voyeuristic reading.11 At the same time that the young woman exhibits sexual and social vulnerability, however, she also conveys a sense of defiance. Solidly placed in the center of the composition with her hands on her hips, she has a certain resolve and confidence that suggests she is perhaps more in control of her own destiny than Zola’s laundress, Gervaise.

In the 1880s, Renoir abandoned his pursuit of urban, modern-life subjects and his broken, textured brushwork for more timeless, idyllic imagery inspired by the French countryside and the more precise forms and techniques of the Old Masters. When he picked up the theme of the laundress again nearly ten years later, his model was not Nini Lopez but rather his future wife, Aline Charigot, holding their first son, Pierre (fig. 6.9). Although his 1870s depiction speaks to the modern life of the city, Renoir—from the mid-1880s onward—related the theme of the laundress to the country, nature, hard work, and maternity.
Gloria Groom and Jill Shaw

Technical Report

Technical Summary

Renoir began this work on a warm-gray, [glossary:commercially primed] [glossary:canvas]; the color of the [glossary:priming] is visible in many areas of the background and gives the work a unifying undertone. The original size of the composition is unclear; however, it appears that the work may have been slightly larger than a standard size. Unfinished edges and individual brushstrokes that pass onto the tacking margin complicate an assessment of the painting’s original size. There is no discernible compositional planning, and the [glossary:X-ray] and infrared images show that the artist shifted the pose of the figure through a series of small alterations in the paint stages. Initially, the figure’s gaze was more frontal, her hair pulled tighter toward the top of the head, her hips pushed slightly to the right, and the hem of her skirt shorter on the sides, making her appear longer in relation to her surroundings than she does in the final composition. Renoir also made slight changes in the placement of her arms, especially her left one, some of which are visible under normal viewing conditions.

The artist used a limited [glossary:palette] and varied the size and concentration of brushstrokes throughout the work. In the figure, areas of very fine strokes of unmixed color placed side by side while still wet contrast with smoothly modeled areas and heavy [glossary:impasto] created by dragging stiff paint with a fine, soft brush. These effects are seen in the figure’s hair, skirt, and blouse, respectively. The flesh tones—primarily lead white with some vermilion and red lake—were modeled with a combination of these methods. As the artist moved from the figure to her surroundings, covering his compositional changes with strokes of background colors, the composition became less detailed, marked by broader brushstrokes and large areas of exposed ground.

Multilayer Interactive Image Viewer

The multilayer interactive image viewer is designed to facilitate the viewer’s exploration and comparison of the technical images (fig. 6.10).12

Signature/Distinguishing Marks

Signed (lower left, in warm blue paint): Renoir. (fig. 6.11 and fig. 6.12).13

Structure and Technique

Support

Canvas

Flax (commonly known as linen).14

Standard format

As there is no obvious painted edge, the original size of the canvas is unclear and depends largely on whether the [glossary:stretcher] is original. If this is the original stretcher, the dimensions appear to have been approximately 80.7 × 56 cm. The closest standard sizes are seascape ([glossary:marine]) 25 [glossary:haute] and [glossary:basse], which measure 81 × 54 cm and 81 × 56.7 cm, respectively.15

Weave

[glossary:Plain weave]. Average [glossary:thread count] (standard deviation): 16.4V (0.7) × 13.8H (0.4) threads/cm. The horizontal threads were determined to correspond to the [glossary:warp] and the vertical threads to the [glossary:weft].16

Canvas characteristics

There is mild cusping along the top and bottom edges corresponding to the placement of the original tacks and some variation in thread thickness in both directions. The thread-count [glossary:weft-angle map] also indicates two places in the upper right quadrant where there was a [glossary:warp-thread repair], causing the perpendicular weft threads to distort around it (fig. 6.13).17

Stretching

Current stretching: The painting was lined and restretched prior to 1956 (see Conservation History). It is unclear if the dimensions changed during this treatment. The X-ray indicates that although some of the old tack holes were reused at this time, cusping along the top and bottom edges does not correspond to current tack placement. Where the tacking margin is not obscured by paper tape, it appears the painting is currently attached with steel tacks through both the original and [glossary:lining] canvases.

Original stretching: As the edges are largely covered with paper tape, it is not clear how many times the painting was stretched. Based on cusping visible along the top and bottom  in the X-ray, tacks were placed approximately 5–7 cm apart. There is almost no discernible scalloping in the weft-angle map or the X-ray for the left side and very little information on the right. Along the right edge, there is a crease approximately 0.5 cm from the edge, and a corresponding set of extra tack holes appears just beyond the current foldover. These holes are not always visible but may correspond to the faint angle changes illustrating cusping on the right edge in the weft-angle map (fig. 6.14). If this crease represents an earlier foldover, the width of the painting would be about 56 cm. Gaps between stretcher members on the verso suggest that closing the members of the current, expanded stretcher (tapping in) would accommodate this 0.5 cm.

While the height of this painting corresponds to a standard size, the width has a larger discrepancy. The edges of the composition are not clear, as they are often unfinished or have brushstrokes running over the foldover, but there is no physical evidence to suggest the work was ever smaller than 56 cm wide.18

Stretcher/strainer

Current stretcher: Six-member keyable mortise-and-tenon stretcher with vertical and horizontal crossbars.

The stretcher may be original to the painting, but this remains unclear, as the painting was lined, mounted to [glossary:hardboard], and restretched (see Conservation History). The stretcher’s structure and patina suggest that if it is not original to the painting, it was added early in the painting’s lifetime (fig. 6.15). Depth: 1.7 cm.

Preparatory Layers

Sizing

[glossary:Cross-sectional analysis] indicates a thin brownish layer of material between the paint and canvas that closely follows the canvas texture. This material is organic in nature and estimated to be glue (fig. 6.16).19

Ground application/texture

The preparation is a two-layered (or [glossary:lisse]), commercially applied [glossary:ground] that extends to the edges of the [glossary:tacking margins]. The lower layer of the ground has an approximate thickness of 10–60 µm, while the upper, toned layer is approximately 15–45 µm thick. It is smooth, somewhat fills the canvas weave, and is left visible throughout the background.

Color

The upper ground layer is a warm gray, with black and yellow particles visible microscopically. Microscopic examination reveals the creamy white initial ground layer visible along the tops of some of the abraded threads (fig. 6.17).

Materials/composition

The commercial ground is a two-layered preparation with a whitish first layer consisting of primarily lead white with small amounts of iron oxide yellow, associated silicates, barium sulfate, and calcium sulfate. The upper layer is a warm gray made of a complex mixture of lead white, bone black, and iron oxide red and yellow, with associated complex silicates, quartz, calcium sulfate, and a trace amount of Naples yellow (fig. 6.18).20 Both layers are estimated to be bound in an [glossary:oil] medium.21

Compositional Planning/Underdrawing/Painted Sketch

Extent/character

No compositional planning visible with infrared or microscopy.

Paint Layer

Application/technique and artist’s revisions

Renoir made many changes to the figure’s posture in The Laundress. There are heavy strokes of underpaint above and to the right of the figure that may mask some changes (fig. 6.19); however, a number of small later changes can still be discerned on the painting’s surface. X-ray analysis suggests that the skirt was originally placed slightly to the right, with a lower red waistband (fig. 6.20), as if the figure were shifting her weight slightly to one side. In response, the artist swung her left arm farther out to the side, while her right arm was placed slightly closer to her body (fig. 6.21). Some of the changes to the figure’s arms and hands were made quickly and remain visible on the work’s surface (fig. 6.22). The initial profile of the woman’s left arm and hand were roughly painted out with fine background strokes. Close examination of the surface reveals flesh tones visible between these fine strokes along the outer edge of the arm and hand. From the [glossary:infrared reflectogram] (IRR) and X-ray, it appears that the artist may have moved the figure’s left arm more than once, as the flesh tone extends under the background paint for a distance. Specific movements are difficult to discern, however. Renoir also quickly indicated an extension of the figure’s blouse at the neckline, bringing up the top slightly near her left shoulder. Initially, the skirt’s profile appeared thinner and the figure seemed to be turned more toward the viewer (fig. 6.10). [glossary:Raking light] and infrared examination also indicate changes to her hairstyle in the final version of the painting: her bun was higher on her head and more tightly held in place with a dark band. The general effect of these changes is that the figure appears bulkier, with a less defined waist. Renoir also reduced the laundry pile at the lower right, adding a bright red background to trim the upper edge of the pile.

Renoir used wider brushstrokes toward the edges of the picture, in the laundry, and along the right side, which broadly contrast with the densely applied, finer strokes associated with the figure (fig. 6.23) and her immediate surroundings. After masking some compositional changes with heavy strokes of paint that tonally mimic the ground color, he continued changing the figure’s posture. The composition’s background wraps around the figure in fine, separate strokes, often directly covering later pentimenti. Renoir alternated individual strokes of unmixed, bold color placed side by side, as in the figure’s hair (fig. 6.24), with more blended, softer transitions between colors and crisscross patterns, as in the skirt. In some areas, soft, fine brushes dragged stiff paint across the surface, leaving heavy impasto with small peaks from lifting the brush (fig. 6.25). The flesh tones appear to alternate between these three techniques; the artist began with a smoother modeling that he later textured with heavy impasto and directional strokes. In other areas, such as the laundry pile and the figure’s blouse, he utilized stiff-bristled brushes, leaving a heavy texture in the paint surface.

Painting tools

Very fine brushes, flat and round, up to 1 cm width.

Palette

Analysis indicates the presence of the following [glossary:pigments]:22 lead white, vermilion, two red lakes,23 chrome yellow, cobalt blue, cerulean blue,24 emerald green, iron oxide red and/or iron oxide yellow, and bone black.

[glossary:UV] examination suggests the presence of fluorescing red lake, particularly in the flesh tones and limited portions of the background, based on the observation of a characteristic, orange [glossary:fluorescence] (fig. 6.26).25 Visible through microscopic analysis of the surface and [glossary:cross sections] of other portions of the composition, such as the background along the left edge, is a second, nonfluorescing red lake.

Binding media

Oil (estimated).26

Surface Finish

Varnish layer/media

The current [glossary:synthetic varnish] was applied in 1969 and replaced a different synthetic varnish from the 1956–57 treatment. Application of this earlier synthetic varnish followed removal of a discolored oil-resin [glossary:varnish]. As the painting was already lined at the time of this treatment (1956–57), it is unclear whether the oil-resin varnish was original to the painting.

Conservation History

The painting has had two documented treatments since acquisition. The earliest notes on the painting come from a 1937 memo indicating that the canvas was in good condition and the frame miters were opening.27 By 1956 the painting was noted as lined and mounted to a board (either a thin wooden panel or a Masonite-type hardboard), with a secondary, unprimed fabric on the verso of the board, indicating previous undocumented treatment.28 Although lined, the painting retained its stretcher; the stretcher is either original or evidence of a very early treatment. In January 1957, the work was treated, and an oil-resin varnish was removed along with a heavy layer of grime using a combination of solvent and mechanical cleaning.29 The work was given a spray coat of synthetic varnish (n/butyl isobutyl methacrylate copolymer resin); [glossary:retouching] was not deemed necessary at the time. In 1969 the work was given a second aesthetic treatment during which the 1957 varnish was removed and replaced with three coats of synthetic varnish (an isolating layer of polyvinyl acetate [PVA] AYAA, followed by methacrylate resin L-46, and a final coat of AYAA).30

Condition Summary

The work is in good condition, aqueously lined to a secondary canvas and mounted to an unidentified thin panel. The panel features unprimed canvas on its verso and therefore cannot be positively identified. The panel is concave, creating a slightly dished appearance, but appears stable at this time. There are minimal localized losses to the paint layer, cracking throughout the sections of blue paint (including the skirt and the background left of center), and stretcher-bar creases corresponding to the horizontal [glossary:crossbar]. Along the foldover on all sides, there is abrasion and grime, in addition to localized cracking of both the paint and the support resulting from the lining process.
Kelly Keegan

Frame

Current frame (installed after 1948): The frame is not original to the painting. It is a French, late-eighteenth-century, Louis XVI, scotia frame with acanthus leaves, beading, and leaf-and-tongue sight molding. The frame has water and oil gilding over red bole on gesso. The ornament and outer fillet are burnished. The frame sustained water damage and was subsequently painted with bronze powder paint. It retains most of the original gilding, except on the heavily damaged bottom section. The carved oak molding is mitered and joined with angled, dovetailed splines. At some point in the frame’s history, the original verso was planed flat, removing all construction history and provenance, a back frame was added, and all back and interior surfaces were painted. The molding, from the perimeter to the interior, is fillet; scotia side; stepped fillet; scotia with acanthus leaves and beaded fillet; frieze; fillet; ogee with leaf-and-tongue ornament; fillet with a cove sight edge; and an independent fillet liner with a cove sight edge that was added when the painting was paired with the frame (fig. 6.27).31

Previous frame (installed by 1948): The work was previously housed in a late-nineteenth–early-twentieth-century, Louis XIV reproduction, reverse ogee frame with cast plaster anthemia corner cartouches and shell center cartouches linked by foliate scrollwork (fig. 6.28).
Kirk Vuillemot

Provenance

Possibly sold by the artist to Durand-Ruel, Paris, June 15, 1882.32

Sold by Durand-Ruel, Paris, to Bernheim-Jeune, Paris, Aug. 3, 1905, for 8,500 francs.33

Sold by Bernheim-Jeune, Paris, to the Prince de Wagram (Alexandre Berthier, 4th Prince de Wagram), Paris, by Feb. 24, 1906.34

Resold by the Prince de Wagram (Alexandre Berthier, 4th Prince de Wagram), Paris, to Bernheim-Jeune, Paris, Feb. 24, 1906, for 9,000 francs.35

Possibly sold by Bernheim-Jeune, Paris, to Léon Orosdi, Paris (died 1922), Mar. 2, 1906.36

Acquired by Galérie Barbazanges, Paris, by Jan. 4, 1923.37

Acquired by Meyer Goodfriend, New York and Paris, by Jan. 4, 1923.38

Sold at the sale of Meyer Goodfriend, New York and Paris, New American Art Galleries, New York, Jan. 5, 1923, lot 109, to John Levy Galleries, New York, for $2,000.39

Acquired by Howard Young, New York, by Mar. 28, 1923.40

Sold by Howard Young, New York, to Charles H. Worcester, Chicago, by Mar. 28, 1923.41

Given by Charles H. and Mary F. S. Worcester to the Art Institute of Chicago, 1947.42

Exhibition History

Paris, Galeries Durand-Ruel, Exposition A. Renoir, May 1892, cat. 8, as Laveuse.43

Art Institute of Chicago, Exhibition of the Worcester Collection, July 24–Sept. 23, 1923, no cat.44

Toledo Museum of Art, Paintings by French Impressionists and Post-Impressionists, Nov. 7–Dec. 12, 1937, cat. 30 (ill.).

New York, Wildenstein, Renoir: A Loan Exhibition for the Benefit of the American Association of Museums in Commemoration of the Fiftieth Anniversary of Renoir’s Death, Mar. 27–May 3, 1969, cat. 37 (ill.).

Art Institute of Chicago, Paintings by Renoir, Feb. 3–Apr. 1, 1973, cat. 31 (ill.).

Atlanta, High Museum of Art, May 25, 1984–May 30, 1985, no cat.45

Tokyo, Bridgestone Museum of Art, Renoir: From Outsider to Old Master, 1870–1892, Feb. 10–Apr. 15, 2001, cat. 13 (ill.); Nagoya City Art Museum, Apr. 21–June 24, 2001.

Columbus (Ohio) Museum of Art, Renoir’s Women, Sept. 23, 2005–Jan. 8, 2006, cat. 2.

Fort Worth, Tex., Kimbell Art Museum, The Impressionists: Master Paintings from the Art Institute of Chicago, June 29–Nov. 2, 2008, cat. 25 (ill.).

Selected References

Galeries Durand-Ruel, Exposition A. Renoir, exh. cat. (Imp. de l’Art, E. Ménard et Cie, 1892), p. 37, cat. 8.

“Renoir Painting Sold for $7,000,” New York Times, Jan. 6, 1923, p. 13.

Toledo Museum of Art, Paintings by French Impressionists and Post-Impressionists, exh. cat. (Toledo Museum of Art, 1937), n.pag., cat. 30 (ill.).

Daniel Catton Rich, Catalogue of the Charles H. and Mary F. S. Worcester Collection of Paintings, Sculpture and Drawings (Lakeside, 1938), pp. 77–78; pl. 46/cat. 80.

Edith Weigle, “Gift of Art,” Chicago Daily Tribune, May 25, 1947, p. C6 (ill.).

“Donor to Get Honor Degree at Art Institute,” Chicago Daily Tribune, June 13, 1947, p. 21.

Art Institute of Chicago, “Complete List of Works,” Bulletin of the Art Institute of Chicago 41, 5 [pt. 3] (Sept.–Oct. 1947), p. 63.

Art Institute of Chicago, “The Magnificent Worcester Gift,” Bulletin of the Art Institute of Chicago, 42, 2, pt. 3 (Feb. 1948), p. 4 (ill.).

Frederick A. Sweet, “The Charles H. and Mary F. S. Worcester Collection,” Art Institute of Chicago Quarterly 50, 3 (Sept. 15, 1956), p. 44.

Art Institute of Chicago, Paintings in the Art Institute of Chicago: A Catalogue of the Picture Collection (Art Institute of Chicago, 1961; reissue, 1968), p. 396.

Frederick A. Sweet, “Great Chicago Collectors,” Apollo 84, 55 (Sept. 1966), p. 203.

François Daulte, Renoir: A Loan Exhibition for the Benefit of the American Association of Museums in Commemoration of the Fiftieth Anniversary of Renoir’s Death, exh. cat. (Wildenstein, 1969), cat. 37 (ill.).

François Daulte, Auguste Renoir: Catalogue raisonné de l’oeuvre peint, vol. 1, Figures, 1860–1890 (Durand-Ruel, 1971), pp. 254–55, cat. 348 (ill.); 416.

Elda Fezzi, L’opera completa di Renoir, nel periodo impressionista, 1869–1883, Classici dell’arte 59 (Rizzoli, 1972), p. 108, cat. 434 (ill.).

Art Institute of Chicago, Paintings by Renoir, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago, 1973), pp. 26; 86; 90–91, cat. 31 (ill.).

Sophie Monneret, Renoir, Profils de l’art (Chêne, 1989), p. 153, cat. 8 (ill.).

Art Institute of Chicago, Treasures of 19th- and 20th-Century Painting: The Art Institute of Chicago, with an introduction by James N. Wood (Art Institute of Chicago/Abbeville, 1993), p. 79 (ill.).

Gerhard Gruitrooy, Renoir: A Master of Impressionism (Todtri Productions, 1994), p. 109 (ill.).

Douglas W. Druick, Renoir, Artists in Focus (Art Institute of Chicago/Abrams, 1997), pp. 30; 37–38; 87, pl. 6; 108 (detail).

Katsunori Fukaya, “The Laundress,” in Bridgestone Museum of Art and Nagoya City Art Museum, Renoir: From Outsider to Old Master, 1870–1892, exh. cat. (Bridgestone Museum of Art/Nagoya City Art Museum/Chunichi Shimbun, 2001), pp. 82–83, cat. 13 (ill.).

Paul Hayes Tucker, “Renoir in the 1870s and ’80s: Modernity, Tradition, and Individuality,” in Bridgestone Museum of Art and Nagoya City Art Museum, Renoir: From Outsider to Old Master, 1870–1892, trans. Yumiko Yamazaki and Yuko Tatsuno, exh. cat. (Bridgestone Museum of Art/Nagoya City Art Museum/Chunichi Shimbun, 2001), pp. 37–38, 223.

Ann Dumas and John Collins, Renoir’s Women, exh. cat. (Columbus Museum of Art/Merrell, 2005), pp. 11, fig. 2; 118.

Guy-Patrice Dauberville and Michel Dauberville, with the collaboration of Camille Frémontier-Murphy, Renoir: Catalogue raisonné des tableaux, pastels, dessins et aquarelles, 1858–1881, vol. 1 (Bernheim-Jeune, 2007), p. 409, cat. 382 (ill.).

Gloria Groom and Douglas Druick, with the assistance of Dorota Chudzicka and Jill Shaw, The Impressionists: Master Paintings from the Art Institute of Chicago, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago/Kimbell Art Museum, 2008), pp. 17; 68–69, cat. 25 (ill.). Simultaneoously 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 Unversity Press, 2008), pp. 17; 68-69, cat. 25 (ill.).46

Anne Distel, Renoir, Les Phares (Citadelles et Mazenod, 2009), pp. 158–59, ill. 142; 310.

Other Documentation

Documentation from the Durand-Ruel Archives

Inventory number
Stock Durand-Ruel Paris 2464. Ce tableau a peut-être été acheté à l’artiste par Durand-Ruel le 15 juin 1882, livre de stock Paris 1880–84, stock no. 2464.47

Inventory number
Stock Durand-Ruel Paris 1520. Blanchisseuse, Livre de stock Paris 1891; Blanchisseuse, livre de stock Paris 1901.48

Photograph number
Photo Durand-Ruel Paris 1647. Blanchisseuse, photo entre 1899 et 1901.49

Documentation from the Bernheim-Jeune Archives

Inventory number
No. de stock Bernheim-Jeune 148535250

Photograph number
Photographie Bernheim-Jeune no. 106655351

Labels and Inscriptions

Undated

Number
Location: stretcher
Method: handwritten script
Content: #18799 (fig. 6.29)

Label
Location: stretcher
Method: blue label
Content: [blank] (fig. 6.29)

Number
Location: stretcher
Method: handwritten script
Content: 30 [circled and crossed out] (fig. 6.29)

Inscription
Location: stretcher
Method: handwritten script
Content: P (fig. 6.29)

Number
Location: stretcher
Method: red stamp
Content: 2096 (fig. 6.30)

Label
Location: stretcher
Method: handwritten script (graphite) on red-and-white label
Content: 1828/2 (fig. 6.31)

Number
Location: stretcher
Method: stamp
Content: 341[6]7 (fig. 6.32)

Number
Location: stretcher
Method: handwritten script
Content: 580 (fig. 6.33)

Number
Location: stretcher
Method: handwritten script
Content: 1337 [?] (fig. 6.34)

Number
Location: stretcher
Method: handwritten script
Content: 2093 (fig. 6.35)

Label
Location: stretcher
Method: red stamp on label
Content: 1337 (fig. 6.36)

Inscription
Location: stretcher
Method: handwritten script
Content: 289 / 34167 / XR 118 (fig. 6.37)

Number
Location: stretcher
Method: handwritten script
Content: 409 [crossed out] (fig. 6.38)

Number
Location: stretcher
Method: handwritten script
Content: 14426 [crossed out] (fig. 6.38)

Label 
Location: stretcher
Method: handwritten script (red pencil) on red-and-white label
Content: M [ . . . ] / 268 (fig. 6.39)

Pre-1980

Inscription
Location: stretcher
Method: handwritten script
Content: DR [ . . . ] / 1520 (fig. 6.40)

Number
Location: stretcher
Method: red stamp
Content: 14853 (fig. 6.41)

Number
Location: stretcher
Method: handwritten script (pen)
Content: 1947.102 (fig. 6.42)

Number
Location: stretcher
Method: hand-painted script
Content: 47.102 (fig. 6.29)

Label
Location: stretcher
Method: typed label
Content: THE LAUNDRESS by RENOIR / PROPERTY OF THE ART INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO / GIFT CHARLES H. AND MARY F. S. WORCESTER, / AS PART OF THE [WOR]CESTER COLLECTION (fig. 6.43)

Post-1980

Label
Location: stretcher
Method: printed/typed label
Content: FROM / THE ART INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO / CHICAGO ILLINOIS 60603, U.S.A. / To / Renoir, Pierre Auguste / Inventory 1980–1981 / The Laundress c. 1880 / 1947.102 (fig. 6.44)

Examination and Analysis Techniques

X-radiography

Westinghouse X-ray unit, films scanned on Epson Expressions 10000XL flatbed scanner.

Infrared Reflectography (IRR)

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

Visible light

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

Ultraviolet light

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

High-resolution visible light (and ultraviolet light)

Sinar P3 camera with Sinarback eVolution 75 H (B+W 486 UV/IR cut MRC filter).

Microscopy and photomicrographs (sample and cross-section analysis)

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

X-Ray Fluorescence Spectroscopy (XRF)

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

Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM)

Zeiss Universal research microscope.

Scanning Electron Microscopy coupled with Energy-Dispersive X-Ray Spectroscopy (SEM/EDX)

Cross sections analyzed after carbon coating with Hitachi S-3400N-II VPSEM 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.

Automated thread counting

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

Image registration

Overlay images registered by Damon M. Conover (GW), Dr. 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., using a novel image-based correlation algorithm.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. 6.45).

The Laundress (Daulte 348) corresponds to François Daulte, Auguste Renoir: Catalogue raisonné de l’oeuvre peint, vol. 1, Figures, 1860–1890 (Durand-Ruel, 1971), pp. 254–55, cat. 348 (ill.); 416. The Laundress (Dauberville 382) corresponds to Guy-Patrice Dauberville and Michel Dauberville, with the collaboration of Camille Frémontier-Murphy, Renoir: Catalogue raisonné des tableaux, pastels, dessins et aquarelles, 1858–1881, vol. 1 (Bernheim-Jeune, 2007), p. 409, cat. 382 (ill.). The Art Institute currently uses the title that was given to the painting when it was first documented in Durand-Ruel’s stock book for 1891. The painting had the following titles during the lifetime of the artist:

1891: Blanchisseuse (Durand-Ruel, Paris, stock book for 1891 [no. 1520]; see Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Oct. 5, 2010, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.)

May 1892: Laveuse (Galeries Durand-Ruel, Paris, Exposition A. Renoir, exh. cat. [Imp. de l’Art, E. Ménard et Cie, 1892], p. 37, cat. 8.)

Aug. 3, 1905: Blanchisseuse (Durand-Ruel, Paris, stock book for 1901 [no. 1520]; see Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Oct. 5, 2010, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.)

In Douglas W. Druick, Renoir, Artists in Focus (Art Institute of Chicago/Abrams, 1997), Druick redated the painting to 1877/79 to incorporate its possible connection to Renoir’s illustrations for Émile Zola’s novel L’Assommoir, whose main protagonist is a laundress. Renoir made these illustrations in 1877 or 1878, when the illustrated edition of the book was published. See memo, July 31, 1997, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago. In the past, The Laundress was dated c. 1880 because of its similarity to Renoir’s painting Le premier pas, which was long thought to be signed and dated 1880. In 2002, when that painting reappeared on the market, the 1880 date was refuted, and the work was published as signed and dated “Renoir 76.” See Christie’s, London, Impressionist and Modern Art (Evening Sale), sale cat. (Christie’s, Feb. 4, 2002), pp. 58–61, lot 17.

See Eunice Lipton, “The Laundress in Late Nineteenth-Century French Culture: Imagery, Ideology and Edgar Degas,” Art History 3, 3 (Sept. 1980), p. 297.

Douglas W. Druick, Renoir, Artists in Focus (Art Institute of Chicago/Abrams, 1997), p. 37.

François Daulte, Auguste Renoir: Catalogue raisonné de l’oeuvre peint, vol. 1, Figures, 1860–1890 (Durand-Ruel, 1971), pp. 254, cat. 348; 416.

Georges Rivière, Renoir et ses amis (H. Floury, 1921), p. 65, described her as “ponctuelle, sérieuse, discrète.”

John House, “Renoir: Between City and Country,” in Renoir: Master Impressionist, exh. cat. (Art Exhibitions Australia, 1994), p. 17.

See Hollis Clayson, Painted Love: Prostitution in French Art of the Impressionist Era (Yale University Press, 1991).

John House, “Renoir: Master Impressionist,” in Renoir: Master Impressionist, exh. cat. (Art Exhibitions Australia, 1994), p. 10.

Douglas W. Druick, Renoir, Artists in Focus (Art Institute of Chicago/Abrams, 1997), p. 37.

John House, “Young Girl in a Décolletage,” in Renoir: Master Impressionist, exh. cat. (Art Exhibitions Australia, 1994), p. 119. See also Anthea Callen, “Renoir: The Matter of Gender,” in John House, Renoir: Master Impressionist, exh. cat. (Art Exhibitions Australia, 1994), pp. 41–51; and Ann Dumas and John Collins, Renoir’s Women, exh. cat. (Merrell, 2005).

According to the Durand-Ruel Archives, “(?) Ce tableau a peut-être été acheté à l’artiste par Durand-Ruel le 15 juin 1882, stock Paris 1880-84, stock n^o2464.” Durand-Ruel, Paris, stock book for 1880–84 (no. 2464), and for 1891 (no. 1520); see Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Oct. 5, 2010, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago. Both François Daulte, Auguste Renoir: Catalogue raisonné de l’oeuvre peint, vol. 1, Figures, 1860–1890 (Durand-Ruel, 1971), p. 254, cat. 348 (ill.); and Guy-Patrice Dauberville and Michel Dauberville, with the collaboration of Camille Frémontier-Murphy, Renoir: Catalogue raisonné des tableaux, pastels, dessins et aquarelles, 1858–1881, vol. 1 (Bernheim-Jeune, 2007), p. 409, cat. 382 (ill.), record that the painting was bought from the artist by Durand-Ruel, Paris, for 550 francs on August 25, 1891. According to the letter to the Art Institute dated October 5, 2010, however, the Durand-Ruel Archives believes it was “acheté par Durand-Ruel Paris avant 1891, Blanchisseuse. . . . Ce tableau a peut-être (?) été acheté par Durand-Ruel le 15 juin 1882. Par la suite Durand-Ruel ayant frôlé la ruine, a déposé certains tableaux en garantie (date inconnue). Lorsque Durand-Ruel a pu financièrement les récupérer, il en a été à nouveau pleinement propriétaire et les a entrés à nouveau dans son stock en 1891. . . . Durand-Ruel a acheté le tableau stock n^o2464 à Renoir. Il s’agit probablement (?) du même tableau bien que n’en puissions pas en apporter la preuve.”

According to the Durand-Ruel Archives, “Vendu par Durand-Ruel Paris à Bernheim-Jeune le 3 août 1905 pour 8500 francs.” Durand-Ruel, Paris, stock book 1901 (no. 1520); see Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Oct. 5, 2010, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago. Durand-Ruel corrected information published in François Daulte, Auguste Renoir: Catalogue raisonné de l’oeuvre peint, vol. 1, Figures, 1860–1890 (Durand-Ruel, 1971), p. 254, cat. 348, which claimed that the painting was sold to Bernheim-Jeune for 5,075 francs on October 18, 1900.

According to Guy-Patrice Dauberville and Michel Dauberville, with the collaboration of Camille Frémontier-Murphy, Renoir: Catalogue raisonné des tableaux, pastels, dessins et aquarelles, 1858–1881, vol. 1 (Bernheim-Jeune, 2007), p. 409, cat. 382 (ill.).

According to Guy-Patrice Dauberville and Michel Dauberville, with the collaboration of Camille Frémontier-Murphy, Renoir: Catalogue raisonné des tableaux, pastels, dessins et aquarelles, 1858–1881, vol. 1 (Bernheim-Jeune, 2007), p. 409, cat. 382 (ill.).

According to Guy-Patrice Dauberville and Michel Dauberville, with the collaboration of Camille Frémontier-Murphy, Renoir: Catalogue raisonné des tableaux, pastels, dessins et aquarelles, 1858–1881, vol. 1 (Bernheim-Jeune, 2007), p. 409, cat. 382 (ill.), the painting was “vendu le 2 mars 1906,” but it is unclear if it was sold directly from Bernheim-Jeune to the next documented owner, Léon Orosdi, Paris. New York, New American Art Galleries, Paintings and Pastels by the Barbizon Masters, Their Contemporaries the French Impressionists, and Modern French Painters Forming the Private Collection of Mr. Meyer Goodfriend New York–Paris, sale cat. (New American Art Galleries, Jan. 4–5, 1923), lot 109, confirms the name “Léon Orosdi.” This painting was not included in the sale of Orosdi’s collection at Hôtel Drouot on May 25, 1923, so it is presumed that he sold the painting before he died in 1922. For more information on Léon Orosdi, see Uri M. Kupferschmidt, “Who Needed Department Stores in Egypt? From Orosdi-Back to Omar Effendi,” Middle Eastern Studies 43, 2 (Mar. 2007), pp. 175–92; and Uri M. Kupferschmidt, European Department Stores and Middle Eastern Consumers: The Orosdi-Back Saga (Ottoman Bank Archive and Research Centre, 2007).

This painting was not included in the sale of Léon Orosdi’s collection at Hôtel Drouot on May 25, 1923, so it is possible that he sold the painting before he died, in 1922, to Galérie Barbazanges, Paris, which is recorded as the next documented owner in New York, New American Art Galleries, Paintings and Pastels by the Barbizon Masters, Their Contemporaries the French Impressionists, and Modern French Painters Forming the Private Collection of Mr. Meyer Goodfriend New York–Paris, sale cat. (New American Art Galleries, Jan. 4–5, 1923), lot 109; and Guy-Patrice Dauberville and Michel Dauberville, with the collaboration of Camille Frémontier-Murphy, Renoir: Catalogue raisonné des tableaux, pastels, dessins et aquarelles, 1858–1881, vol. 1 (Bernheim-Jeune, 2007), p. 409, cat. 38  (ill.).

According to New York, New American Art Galleries, Paintings and Pastels by the Barbizon Masters, Their Contemporaries the French Impressionists, and Modern French Painters Forming the Private Collection of Mr. Meyer Goodfriend New York–Paris, sale cat. (New American Art Galleries, Jan. 4–5, 1923), lot 109, photocopy in curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.

According to an annotated copy of New York, New American Art Galleries, Paintings and Pastels by the Barbizon Masters, Their Contemporaries the French Impressionists, and Modern French Painters Forming the Private Collection of Mr. Meyer Goodfriend New York–Paris, sale cat. (New American Art Galleries, Jan. 4–5, 1923), lot 109, photocopy in curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago. See also “Renoir Painting Sold for $7,000,” New York Times, Jan. 6, 1923, p. 13.

See the verso of an archival photograph of The Laundress inscribed by Howard Young and dated Mar. 28, 1923, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.

See the verso of an archival photograph of The Laundress inscribed by Howard Young and dated Mar. 28, 1923, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago. The painting was on loan to the Art Institute intermittently from 1923 for exhibition and storage.

The painting stayed in the Worcesters’ home until 1956, when Mr. Worcester died; see receipt of object 14829, on file in Museum Registration, Art Institute of Chicago. Mrs. Worcester died in 1954.

According to Guy-Patrice Dauberville and Michel Dauberville, with the collaboration of Camille Frémontier-Murphy, Renoir: Catalogue raisonné des tableaux, pastels, dessins et aquarelles, 1858–1881, vol. 1 (Bernheim-Jeune, 2007), p. 409, cat. 382 (ill.).

According to receipt 1130, on file in Museum Registration, Art Institute of Chicago, and Daniel Catton Rich, Catalogue of the Charles H. and Mary F. S. Worcester Collection of Paintings, Sculpture and Drawings (Lakeside Press, 1938), pp. 77–78; pl. 46/cat. 80. See also M. B. W., “Summer Loan Exhibitions,” Bulletin of the Art Institute of Chicago 17, 6 (Sept. 1923), pp. 56–58, where there is general reference to the summer loan of works from the Worcester collection.

According to Museum Registration department Artists Sheets, on file in Museum Registration, Art Institute of Chicago, this work was on loan to the High Museum of Art 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, cat. 6 (ill.); Art Institute of Chicago, Oct. 23, 1984–Jan. 6, 1985; Paris, Galeries Nationales d’Exposition du Grand Palais (as L’impressionnisme et le paysage français), Feb. 4–Apr. 22, 1985. According to Frances R. Francis, senior registrar, High Museum of Art, in an e-mail to David Brenneman, Director of Collections and Exhibitions and Frances B. Bunzl Family Curator of European Art, High Museum of Art, and Gloria Groom, Sept. 9, 2011, “The loan of Renoir’s The Laundress happily coincided the High’s exhibition of The Henry P. McIlhenny Collection: 19th Century French and English Masterpieces, May 25–September 30, 1984 and was displayed along with other works from our collection in a little companion installation. After the McIlhenny Collection departed, the painting remained on view until the loan was returned to AIC on May 30, 1985.”

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. 17; 74–75, cat. 31 (ill.).

See Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Oct. 5, 2010, 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, Oct. 5, 2010, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.

Located in the Durand-Ruel Archives; see Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel and Flavie Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Oct. 5, 2010, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.

According to Guy-Patrice Dauberville and Michel Dauberville, with the collaboration of Camille Frémontier-Murphy, Renoir: Catalogue raisonné des tableaux, pastels, dessins et aquarelles, 1858–1881, vol. 1 (Bernheim-Jeune, 2007), p. 409, cat. 382 (ill.). This information was confirmed in a letter from Guy-Patrice Dauberville to Gloria Groom, Sept. 2, 2011, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.

Located in the Bernheim-Jeune et Cie Archives; according to Guy-Patrice Dauberville and Michel Dauberville, with the collaboration of Camille Frémontier-Murphy, Renoir: Catalogue raisonné des tableaux, pastels, dessins et aquarelles, 1858–1881, vol. 1 (Bernheim-Jeune, 2007), p. 409, cat. 382 (ill.). This information was confirmed in a letter from Guy-Patrice Dauberville to Gloria Groom, Sept. 2, 2011, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.

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:Stereomicroscopic examination], coupled with [glossary:XRF], suggests that the signature is a mixture containing predominantly cobalt blue with red lake. The presence of cobalt was confirmed with XRF. See Kimberley Muir, “Ren_Laundress_47_102_XRF_Results,” Sept. 15, 2011; and Sonia Maccagnola and Francesca Casadio, “Ren_Laundress_47_102_Artax_Results,” Oct. 10, 2011, both on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

Flax was confirmed by microscopic cross-sectional fiber identification; see Inge Fiedler, “1947_102_Renoir_Analytical_Report,” Aug. 29, 2011, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

See chart of standard sizes available from Lefranc & Cie in 1889 reproduced in Anthea Callen, The Art of Impressionism: Painting Technique and the Making of Modernity (Yale University Press, 2000), p. 15, fig. 24. Original dimensions were determined by approximating foldover edges based on creases and old tack holes. Small discrepancies between the current measurements and standard sizes may be a result of this approximation, in addition to restretching, [glossary:lining], slacking, and [glossary:keying out] of the [glossary:canvas] over time.

[glossary:Thread count] and [glossary:weave] information were determined by Thread Count Automation software. See Don H. Johnson and Robert G. Erdmann, “Thread Count Report: Pierre-Auguste Renoir, The Laundress (D348/1947.102),” July 2011.

[glossary:Thread count] and [glossary:weave] information were determined by Thread Count Automation software. See Don H. Johnson and Robert G. Erdmann, “Thread Count Report: Pierre-Auguste Renoir, The Laundress (D348/1947.102),” July 2011. Warp-thread repair feature was identified through e-mail correspondence with Don Johnson after his visit to Claessens Belgian commercial priming factory (www.claessens-va.be), Jan. 27, 2010, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

While the current measurements are very close to an available standard size ([glossary:marine] 25 [glossary:basse]), the closed [glossary:stretcher] dimensions reflect enough of a discrepancy to suggest the possibility of a nonstandard size. Tack holes present along the edges and cusping seen in the [glossary:X-ray] suggest the work was at one time approximately 56 cm wide.

The cross-section sample from the edge of the tacking margin was the only sample containing all layers, including the [glossary:canvas]. The [glossary:sizing] layer exhibits a bluish [glossary:fluorescence] associated with organic materials, such as glue. See Inge Fiedler, “1947_102_Renoir_Analytical_Report,” Aug. 29, 2011, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

The presence of lead white, iron oxide [glossary:pigments] and calcium was confirmed with [glossary:XRF] and [glossary:SEM/EDX]. SEM/EDX also identified calcium sulfate, complex silicates, quartz and Naples yellow. For more detailed results and conditions used, see Inge Fiedler, “1947_102_Renoir_Analytical_Report,” Aug. 29, 2011; Kimberley Muir, “Ren_Laundress_47_102_XRF_Results,” Sept. 15, 2011; and Sonia Maccagnola and Francesca Casadio, “Ren_Laundress_47_102_Artax_Results,” Oct. 10, 2011, all on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

The [glossary:binding medium] was not analyzed. The estimation of an [glossary:oil] medium is based on visual examination, as well as on knowledge of Renoir’s technique and published analyses of Renoir’s paintings.

[glossary:Pigments] were identified by the following methods: lead white, vermilion, chrome yellow, cobalt blue, cerulean blue, bone black, iron oxide red and/or iron oxide yellow ([glossary:XRF], [glossary:SEM/EDX]); emerald green (XRF); two red lakes (optical microscopy, SEM/EDX). For more detailed results and specific conditions used, see Kimberley Muir, “Ren_Laundress_47_102_XRF_Results,” Sept. 15, 2011; Sonia Maccagnola and Francesca Casadio, “Ren_Laundress_47_102_Artax_Results,” Oct. 10, 2011; and Inge Fiedler, “1947_102_Renoir_Analytical_Report,” Aug. 29, 2011, all on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago. The Artax report represents an update with additional XRF analysis to specifically address the distribution and composition of cerulean and cobalt blues in the painting. Analysis was carried out on selected areas and may not include all pigments present.

[glossary:SEM/EDX] analysis indicated that the substrate for both lakes is aluminum. See Inge Fiedler, “1947_102_Renoir_Analytical_Report,” Aug. 29, 2011, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

[glossary:SEM/EDX] identified the presence of magnesium-containing cerulean blue in samples taken from the edges of the painting. See Inge Fiedler, “1947_102_Renoir_Analytical_Report,” Aug. 29, 2011, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago. See also Sonia Maccagnola and Francesca Casadio, “Ren_Laundress_47_102_Artax_Results,” Oct. 10, 2011, on file in the Conservation Department. This report represents an update with additional [glossary:XRF] analysis to specifically address the distribution and composition of cerulean and cobalt blues throughout the painting.

Identifying the specific type of lake used only by its autofluorescence 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 lake, including its fluorescence under UV light, are discussed in Helmut Schweppe and John Winter, “Madder and Alizarin,” Artists’ Pigments: A Handbook of Their History and Characteristics, vol. 3, ed. Elisabeth West FitzHugh (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 knowledge of Renoir’s technique and published analyses of his paintings. See 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; and Aviva Burnstock, Klaas Jan van den Berg, and John House, “Painting Techniques of Pierre-Auguste Renoir: 1868–1919,” Art Matters: Netherlandish Technical Studies in Art 3 (2005), pp. 47–65.

DELETED Kirk Vuillemot, “Renoir Frame Descriptions Final,” May 15, 2013, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

DELETED The back of the frame was planed flat and all construction history and provenance removed. A backframe was added and exposed surfaces of the back overpainted. See Kirk Vuillemot, “Renoir Frame Descriptions Final,” May 15, 2013, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

DELETED The image of the painting on the sitting room wall of the Worcester, reproduced in Art Institute of Chicago, "The Magnificent Worcester Gift," Bulletin of the Art Institute 42, 2, pt. 3 (Feb. 1948), does not provide adequate detail to further identify the specifics of this frame. See Kirk Vuillemot, “Renoir Frame Descriptions Final,” May 15, 2013, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

See “Paintings Lent by Mr. and Mrs. Charles H. Worcester to The Toledo Museum of Art,” Oct. 27, 1937, Institutional Archives, Art Institute of Chicago. The note makes no mention of the [glossary:lining]; however, as it is a summary assessment of damages, the painting may have been lined and not noted.

See “H. H. Renoir, Laundress, Condition Note,” 1956, conservation object file, Art Institute of Chicago. See also H. Huth, “Worcester Paintings Examined by Dr. Huth 4/24/56,” Institutional Archives, Art Institute of Chicago.

See L. Pomerantz, report of examination and treatment, Jan. 22, 1957, on file in Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

See A. Jakstas, “The Laundress Treatment Report,” Apr. 2, 1969, on file in Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

DELETED. See Don H. Johnson, C. Richard Johnson, 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 (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 2009), pp. 679–84; doi:10.1109/DSP.2009.4786009.

DELETED. See Damon M. Conover, John K. Delaney, Paola Ricciardi, and Murray H. Loew, “Towards automatic registration of technical images of works of art,” in David G. Stork, James Coddington, and Anna Bentkowska-Kafel, eds., Computer Vision and Image Analysis of Art II, Proc. SPIE, vol. 7869 (Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers, 2011), 7869 0C; doi:10.1117/12.872634.

See Don H. Johnson, C. Richard Johnson, 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 (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 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 David G. Stork, James Coddington, and Anna Bentkowska-Kafel, eds., Computer Vision and Image Analysis of Art II, Proc. SPIE, vol. 7869 (Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers, 2011), 7869 0C; doi:10.1117/12.872634.

Kirk Vuillemot, “Renoir Frame Descriptions Final,” May 15, 2013, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

Kirk Vuillemot, “Renoir Frame Descriptions Final,” May 15, 2013, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.