Cat. 15. Chrysanthemums, 1881/82

Cat. 15  Chrysanthemums, 1881/82

Cat. 15

Chrysanthemums1
1881/822
Oil on canvas; 54.8  × 65.8  cm (21 5/8 × 25 7/8 in.)
Signed: Renoir. (upper right, in dark-blue paint)
The Art Institute of Chicago, Mr. and Mrs. Martin A. Ryerson Collection, 1933.1173

Chrysanthemums in Relation to Renoir’s Floral Still Lifes

In the fall of 1881 Renoir visited Italy, and the clearer structure of Chrysanthemums reveals a classicism that emerged in his style following the trip. The bouquet is simply contained in an earthenware crock with little indication of setting. The plain design of the vessel acts as a visual pause between the colorful blossoms and the life-size floral pattern of the tablecloth. The composition exhibits an emphatic geometry: the wide oval of the bouquet fills the canvas symmetrically, is reinforced by the central position of the crock, and is echoed in the curve of the table. The painting can be understood as a transitional work between the more spontaneous Impressionism of Peonies (fig. 15.1 [Dauberville 36]), circa 1880, and floral still lifes such as Bouquet of Chrysanthemums (fig. 15.2 [Dauberville 38]), assigned to 1881.3

While Renoir’s still-life work remains an under-studied aspect of his career, the sheer number of documented canvases in this genre indicates how significant a role they played in his development. The catalogue for his first retrospective exhibition, held on the boulevard de la Madeleine in April 1883, includes six still-life paintings among seventy works.4 The proportion of still-life paintings to work in other genres remained roughly the same in his retrospective exhibition organized by the art dealer Paul Durand-Ruel in 1892.5 Three of the still lifes in the 1883 exhibition were identified as specific varieties of flowers: Pivoines, no. 34 (likely Peonies, c. 1880 [Dauberville 36]); Géraniums, no. 55 (fig. 15.3 [Dauberville 35]); and Lilas, no. 64 (Lilacs, 1878 [Dauberville 32]).6 Durand-Ruel bought Chrysanthemums from Renoir in December 1882.

Chrysanthemums makes no reference to setting and may represent one of the bouquets that the artist loved to keep in his home to paint when the impulse came upon him. A light source from the left casts a blue shadow on the wall to the right. This shadow closely follows the curved line of the table suggesting it is located in a circular nook of the kind found in the entrance halls of middle class homes. The table itself is quite small relative to the vase and therefore could only be a side table. Its diameter matches almost exactly the breadth of the floral bouquet.

There is a balanced distribution of white and orange blossoms across the bouquet in Chrysanthemums, while the crock and the patterned tablecloth seem thoughtfully chosen for how they complement the composition.7 There is, however, a certain casualness about the preparation and execution of this canvas. The application of the commercial ground layer is uneven, and the palette knife used to spread it on the canvas caused lumps of already dry material to leave gouged lines in the surface (see Preparatory Layers in the technical report). A number of these are quite prominent (fig. 15.4). Renoir simply painted over them and carried on. Traces of graphite underdrawing are apparent in skips in the upper paint layers. While thin curved lines of brown underdrawing, executed directly on top of the ground, are visible in many areas; the brown lines vaguely outline the form of short, curved petals (fig. 15.5). The underdrawing is selective and Renoir’s rendering of individual blossoms appears intended to rehearse their linear rhythm and assess relative proportions directly on canvas.

Chrysanthemum: Flower of the Artist-Gardener

As Chrysanthemums attests, Renoir’s interest in the flower as an artistic subject can be dated to at least the early 1880s.8 He may have had the opportunity to admire paintings of the flower by Claude Monet made in 1878 and 1881.9 A bouquet of chrysanthemum blossoms provides an extraordinarily ebullient setting for Renoir’s painting of the red-haired model Jeanne Samary, A Girl with a Fan, circa 1881 (fig. 15.6 [Daulte 360; Dauberville 344]).10 In this case the flowers complement the taste for Japonisme suggested by the fan in Samary’s hand.

First imported to France from the Far East during the French Revolution, chrysanthemums are a late summer flower appreciated for their strong scent and exceptional range of color and shape.11 Referenced in Marcel Proust’s À la recherche du temps perdu (Remembrance of Things Past), in the early twentieth century they were still considered an exotic Japanese feature of French gardens.12 Notably, Renoir’s Chrysanthemums includes two blossom varieties, each with different color and petal shape—the orange starburst variety with a long, straight petal and the white blossom variety with a shorter, denser petal that gives it a spherical appearance. This mixture of blossom varieties is a feature of the celebrated Japanese woodblock print by Hokusai, Chrysanthemums and Bee (fig. 15.7) and further adds to the Japonisme of Renoir’s painting.13 In Hokusai’s print the distinctive flat leaf of the chrysanthemum provides visual contrast with the intricate blossoms. The leaf plays an analogous role in Renoir’s Chrysanthemums, which takes full advantage of the color and textural potential of the celebrated flower to produce a still-life painting of sublime authority.

The Still Life as a Study in Color

While his floral still lifes remained popular with collectors, commercial concerns were not Renoir’s only motivation for painting them. Sympathetic critics recognized that his floral still lifes embodied a truly progressive approach to painting. As Renoir’s German biographer, Julius Meier-Graefe, wrote in 1912, Renoir’s flower paintings were like fictions of color that possessed an “immaterial completeness” quite independent from reality.14 Such an expressive freedom is amply demonstrated in the brushwork of the bouquet in Chrysanthemums, which is feathery and gestural. Another of his biographers, Georges Rivière, a close friend from the early 1870s, recorded the artist’s explanation for why floral still lifes afforded the opportunity for risk-taking: “Painting flowers is a form of mental relaxation. I do not need the concentration that I need when I am faced with a model. When I am painting flowers I can experiment boldly with tones and values without worrying about destroying the whole painting. I would not dare to do that with a figure because I would be afraid of spoiling everything. The experience I gain from these experiments can then be applied to my painting.”15

Indeed, a bold experimental approach to floral still-life painting can be seen throughout Chrysanthemums, in the chromatic links that unify the composition and establish a tonal theme. Red, orange, and yellow predominate, with white, blue, and green acting as counterbalance. The intermingling of orange and white blossoms across the bouquet makes the unusual choice of a russet tone for the background less unsettling. Renoir draws upon the ability of the eye to mix colors near one another. Yellow is used for the blossoms, areas of dappled sunlight on the tablecloth, and to brighten the part of the vase facing the light source. Red is used for the background as well as to highlight the radiating line of petals in the yellow blossoms to give them an orange appearance (fig. 15.8). The blues of the tablecloth also appear in the deeper shadows of the bouquet as well as defining the petals of the white blossoms. Julie Manet, the daughter of Impressionist painter Berthe Morisot, who was under the guardianship of Renoir and Edgar Degas after her mother died in 1895, wrote in her diary, “M. Renoir said that one should paint still lifes in order to learn to paint quickly.”16 If speed was a concern for the artist in painting Chrysanthemums, it was also an opportunity to demonstrate his consummate skill as a colorist.
John Collins

Technical Report

Technical Summary

This painting is executed on a very rough, unevenly applied preparation layer on a standard-size [glossary:canvas]. The presence of a color merchant’s stamp and standard-size number on the verso of the support may indicate that the canvas was stretched by the [glossary:color merchant], but it is unclear who applied the preparation.17 The [glossary:ground] layer covers the compositional area only and appears very uneven in the [glossary:X-ray] and along the edges. It contains many particulates, probably clumps of dried preparation that were dragged across the surface during application with a [glossary:palette knife], resulting in large gouges; these characteristics may logically point to artist application. However, the composition of the ground, containing a moderate amount of calcium-based extenders, and the presence of the stamps on the verso argue strongly for a color merchant’s preparation. Immediately on top of the ground, Renoir drew some compositional elements in a few different types of media, including individual bloomed chrysanthemums in very fine graphite lines, curving petals of other flowers in dilute brown paint, and possibly the outline of the earthenware crock as a first step of the painting process. The artist did not follow the drawing exactly, but the forms and placement are consistent. In one white flower (above center), the brown [glossary:underdrawing] lines were left exposed on white ground and articulate individual petals. It also appears that the artist painted areas of the background before finishing the flowers, bringing in additional background colors to immediately surround the petals and adding final touches to the flowers over that background at a later stage. In other areas, the background seems to have overlapped white flowers and the artist wiped these colors away, leaving a thin shadowy film in the depressions of the canvas. Edges between major still-life elements, such as the table and pitcher/vase, were blended with the background, and paint was often applied [glossary:wet-in-wet] and mixed on the surface. The work is currently varnished, however it is unclear whether the artist would have varnished this painting.

Multilayer Interactive Image Viewer

The multilayer interactive image viewer is designed to facilitate the viewer’s exploration and comparison of the technical images (fig. 15.9).18

Signature

Signed: Renoir. (upper right, in dark blue paint) (fig. 15.10, fig. 15.11).19

Structure and Technique

Support

Canvas

Flax (commonly known as linen).20

Standard format

The original dimensions of the canvas were 54.5 × 65.2 cm, according to pretreatment measurements. This corresponds to a no. 15 portrait ([glossary:figure]) standard-size (65 × 54 cm) canvas, turned horizontally.21 The size 15 stamp visible in transmitted infrared is now behind the right side of the painting (fig. 15.12).

Weave

[glossary:Plain weave]. Average [glossary:thread count] (standard deviation): 29.7V (0.7) × 27.3H (0.9) threads/cm. The vertical threads were determined to correspond to the [glossary:warp] and the horizontal threads to the [glossary:weft].22

Canvas characteristics

There is strong [glossary:cusping] on all four sides corresponding to original tack placement. Along with the presence of [glossary:priming] only in the compositional area, the strength of this cusping suggests the canvas was stretched before it was prepared.

Stretching

Current stretching: The canvas was lined and restretched in 1972 (see Conservation History), and the dimensions were increased slightly on all sides.

Original stretching: Based on cusping visible in the X-ray, the original tacks were placed 3–3.5 cm apart.

Stretcher/strainer

Current stretcher: Four-member redwood [glossary:ICA spring stretcher]. Depth: 2.7 cm

Original stretcher: Description, construction and labels taken from the previous [glossary:stretcher] suggest it was original. It was a four-member, keyable, mortise-and-tenon stretcher. Depth: Approximately 1.8 cm.23

Manufacturer’s/supplier’s marks

Stamp
Location: canvas verso (covered by lining)
Method: stamp/stencil
Content: [. . .] FINES [. . .] / TABLEAUX / REY [A] PERROD / [51] Rue de la Rochefoucau[ld] / PARIS (fig. 15.13)24

Stamp
Location: canvas verso (covered by lining)
Method: stamp/stencil
Content: 15 (fig. 15.14)

Preparatory Layers

Sizing

Not determined (probably glue).25

Ground application/texture

The ground is applied rather unevenly to the compositional area only; it is a single layer ranging approximately 60–220 µm in thickness. The uneven coverage and lack of priming on the [glossary:tacking margins] would tend to suggest an artist-application, however analytical evidence suggests the ground was applied by the color merchant.26 The nature of the rough edges around the perimeter, abrupt changes in density seen in the X-ray, and various scrape marks on the surface suggest application with a palette knife (fig. 15.15); in some areas, the initial working in with the palette knife was followed by a brush to smooth the texture and extend the priming farther toward the edges (fig. 15.16). The ground itself is granular in nature, with large, chunky white inclusions (fig. 15.17) dragged across the surface during preparation, resulting in curvilinear gouges throughout (fig. 15.18). In some areas, the X-ray indicates that these particles remain in the paint film and appear as radio-opaque spots at the ends of individual gouges. The thickness of the ground varies throughout: in some areas, it was so heavily pressed into the canvas with the palette knife that the tops of the canvas threads are exposed (fig. 15.19).

Color

[glossary:Stereomicroscopic examination] of the surface and [glossary:cross sections] confirms that the ground is white, with no additional or colored particles visible (fig. 15.20).

Materials/composition

The ground is predominantly lead white with moderate amounts of calcium carbonate (probably chalk), and traces of alumina and complex silicates (clays).27 The [glossary:binder] is estimated to be [glossary:oil].28

Compositional Planning/Underdrawing/Painted Sketch

Extent/character

Microscopic and infrared examinations indicate that the artist drew a number of the individual chrysanthemums and other flowers.29 Examination of the work in transmitted light shows that he outlined the earthenware crock, but it is unclear whether this was a separate step in compositional planning or the beginning of the painting stage (fig. 15.21).

Medium/technique

Some of the individual yellow chrysanthemums with long, tapering petals are articulated with very fine [glossary:graphite] lines (fig. 15.22). Elsewhere the artist used graphite and thin brown paint to establish the curving edges of at least one white flower (above center) (fig. 15.23). Transmitted light indicates that Renoir also painted the outline of the crock prior to painting the full composition. However, the upper paint layers have obscured the color and texture of these lines.

Revisions

While Renoir did not follow the fine graphite lines exactly, the individual petals are quite close to the original drawing (fig. 15.24). In some areas, the brown underdrawing lines were left exposed against the white ground, and it is unclear whether they were used regularly throughout. The artist followed the initial outline of the vase/pitcher in the final composition, smoothing the transition between the object and the background as he painted.

Paint Layer

Application/technique and artist’s revisions

It appears that the artist established, through various methods of underdrawing, the space for the still-life elements before painting them. The artist painted the background with stiff-bristle brushes and dilute paint (fig. 15.25), leaving a roughly ovular space for the flowers. He brought in the remaining background with finer strokes to meet the still life once these elements were painted; in these areas the background has a somewhat mottled appearance. In some areas, the ground was left exposed to serve as the white body of the flowers, and thin background paint was wiped away from the edges in some areas while it was still wet. This process left a thin film that settled into the depressions of the canvas weave and the gritty, gouged texture of the preparation, visually functioning as shadow (fig. 15.26). Over this, additional paint, colors, and white [glossary:impasto] were added, sometimes wet-in-wet with the background or while the background was not quite dry. In some areas, like the left side of the tablecloth, the artist added paint to the object edge when he brought the background in to create a soft, blended transition.

The paint throughout varies from very thin areas of the background and initial indications of the flowers to heavy impasto in the final stages (fig. 15.27). Individual colors were applied wet-in-wet over their surroundings, using fine brushes to create visually complicated and finely articulated flower petals (fig. 15.28).

Painting tools

Mostly fine, soft brushes for the individual flower petals and wider, stiff-bristle brushes for the background with strokes up to 1 cm wide; palette knife for ground application.

Palette

Analysis indicates the presence of the following [glossary:pigments]:30 lead white, cobalt blue, malachite, viridian, black, iron oxide red and/or yellow, vermilion, carmine lake, second red lake, zinc yellow, cadmium yellow and Naples yellow31

[glossary:UV] examination indicates that Renoir used salmon-fluorescing red lake throughout the chrysanthemums and other flowers and in broad areas of the background (fig. 15.29).32 [glossary:Cross-sectional analysis] of a sample taken from the background indicates the artist also used a second, non fluorescing red lake. As the sample analyzed contained both red lakes, it is unclear whether carmine lake is the fluorescing or non fluorescing variety (fig. 15.30).33

Binding media

Oil (estimated).34

Surface Finish

Varnish layer/media

The painting has a [glossary:synthetic varnish], applied in 1972, with residues of natural resin in areas of impasto. Treatment notes from 1972 mention removal of [glossary:overpaint] and a discolored [glossary:natural-resin varnish] (see Conservation History). It is unclear if this [glossary:varnish] was original.

Conservation History

The first documented treatment occurred in 1972.35 At that time, the painting was described as stretched on a four-member stretcher with a [glossary:hardboard] insert between the painting and the stretcher. Pretreatment conditions also included abrasion, shrinkage cracks, and minor losses with overpaint to hide these damages. The presence of the hardboard and overpaint suggest the painting had been treated in the past. During the 1972 treatment, grime, varnish, and the hardboard mounting were removed, and the work was faced with mulberry fiber paper and starch paste in preparation for [glossary:lining]. The old six-member stretcher was discarded when the work was wax-resin lined, and the lined painting was tacked onto a four-member redwood ICA spring stretcher of slightly larger dimensions (21 1/2 × 25 3/4 in.).36 The work was inpainted with methacrylate paints and given 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).

Condition Summary

Widespread cracking, with some associated tenting, appears to come from the ground, rather than from interlayer [glossary:cleavage] between the ground and the paint. There are minimal localized losses in areas where cracks intersect; most have been filled and inpainted. The lining is in good condition, keeping the work relatively planar and with no delamination. The wax-resin lining material has saturated the support, making the canvas appear very dark; however, the thickness of the ground and subsequent paint layers make this affect less apparent in the compositional area. The rough perimeter, resulting from uneven preparation, has been heavily retouched in an attempt to “square” the composition and compensate for the extended dimensions resulting from the 1972 treatment. The work has a glossy synthetic varnish.
Kelly Keegan

Frame

The current frame appears to be original to the painting.37 It is a French (Paris), late-nineteenth-century, Durand-Ruel, Régence Revival, gilt ogee frame with cast foliate ornament, center and corner cartouches, and a gilt fillet liner. The frame has water and oil gilding over bole on cast plaster and gesso. The bole color is varied throughout the frame. There is red-orange bole on the sanded frieze and fillets, and red bole on the perimeter molding, sight molding, liner, and scotia sides on the ogee face. The scotia sides and liner are burnished, and the cast foliate ornament and sight molding are selectively burnished. The quadrillage bed on the ogee face has been rubbed selectively to expose the underlying plaster. The gilding is toned with a casein or gouache raw umber [glossary:wash] and gray overwash. The frame has a glued pine substrate with a cast plaster face. 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 with stylized dovetail-pierced egg-and-flower outer molding; scotia side; ogee face with cast foliate and flower ornament on a quadrillage bed, and center and corner foliate scroll cartouches with cabochon centers on a diamond bed; sanded front frieze bordered with fillets; ogee with stylized leaf-tip-and-shell sight molding; and an independent flat fillet liner with cove sight edge (fig. 15.31).
Kirk Vuillemot

Provenance

Sold by the artist to Durand-Ruel, Paris, Dec. 14, 1882, for 600 francs.38

Transferred by Durand-Ruel, Paris, to Durand-Ruel, New York, 1897.39

Sold by Durand-Ruel, New York, to Martin A. Ryerson, Chicago, Feb. 17, 1915, for $7,500.40

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

Exhibition History

Possibly Paris, Grand Palais, Salon d’automne, Oct. 15–Nov. 15, 1904, cat. 30, as Chrysanthèmes.

Possibly New York, Durand-Ruel, Exhibition of Paintings by Pierre Auguste Renoir, Nov. 14–Dec. 5, 1908, cat. 12, as Chrysanthèmes, 1882.41

New York, Durand-Ruel, Exhibition of Paintings by Renoir, Feb. 7–21, 1914, cat. 1.42

Art Institute of Chicago, “A Century of Progress”: Loan Exhibition of Paintings and Sculpture, May 23–Nov. 1, 1933, cat. 340.43 (fig. 15.32)

Art Institute of Chicago, “A Century of Progress” Loan Exhibition of Paintings and Sculpture for 1934, June 1–Oct. 31, 1934, cat. 228.44

Art Institute of Chicago, Paintings by Renoir, Feb. 3–Apr. 1, 1973, cat. 39 (ill.).

Pasadena, Calif., Norton Simon Museum of Art, Jan. 27–Oct. 31, 1978, no cat.45

Tokyo, Isetan Museum of Art, Exposition Renoir, Sept. 26–Nov. 6, 1979, cat. 33 (ill.); Kyoto Municipal Museum, Nov. 10–Dec. 9, 1979.

Albi, Musée Toulouse-Lautrec, Trésors impressionnistes du Musée de Chicago, June 27–Aug. 31, 1980, cat. 22 (ill.).

Santa Barbara (Calif.) Museum of Art, Sept. 13, 1984–June 7, 1985, no cat.46

Tokyo, Seibu Museum of Art, Shikago bijutsukan insho-ha ten [The Impressionist tradition: Masterpieces from the Art Institute of Chicago], Oct. 18–Dec. 17, 1985, cat. 38 (ill.); Fukuoka Art Museum, Jan. 5–Feb. 2, 1986; Kyoto Municipal Museum of Art, Mar. 4–Apr. 13, 1986.

Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago’s Dream, a World’s Treasure: The Art Institute of Chicago, 1893–1993, Nov. 1, 1993–Jan. 9, 1994, not in cat.47

Fort Worth, Tex., Kimbell Art Museum, The Impressionists: Master Paintings from the Art Institute of Chicago, June 29–Nov. 2, 2008, cat. 35 (ill.).

Selected References

Possibly Société du Salon d’Automne, Catalogue de peinture, dessin, sculpture, gravure, architecture et arts décoratifs, exh. cat. (Hérissey, 1904), p. 115, cat. 30.

Possibly Durand-Ruel, New York, Exhibition of Paintings by Pierre Auguste Renoir, exh. cat. (Durand-Ruel, New York, 1908), no. 12.48

Art Institute of Chicago, A Guide to the Paintings in the Permanent Collection (Art Institute of Chicago, 1925), p. 162, cat. 2154.49

M. C., “Renoirs in the Institute (Continued),” Bulletin of the Art Institute of Chicago 19, 4 (Apr. 1925), pp. 47, 48 (ill.).

Daniel Catton Rich, “Französische Impressionisten im Art Institute zu Chicago,” Pantheon: Monatsschrift für Freunde und Sammler der Kunst 11, 3 (Mar. 1933), p. 78. Translated by C. C. H. Drechsel as “French Impressionists in the Art Institute of Chicago,” Pantheon/Cicerone (Mar. 1933), p. 18.

Art Institute of Chicago, Catalogue of “A Century of Progress”: Exhibition of Paintings and Sculpture; Lent from American Collections, ed. Daniel Catton Rich, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago, 1933), p. 49, cat. 340.

Art Institute of Chicago, Catalogue of “A Century of Progress”: Exhibition of Paintings and Sculpture, 1934, ed. Daniel Catton Rich, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago, 1934), p. 39, cat. 228.

Art Institute of Chicago, An Illustrated Guide to the Collections of the Art Institute of Chicago (Art Institute of Chicago, 1945), p. 36.50

Art Institute of Chicago, Paintings in the Art Institute of Chicago: A Catalogue of the Picture Collection (Art Institute of Chicago, 1961), p. 397.51

Charles C. Cunningham and Satoshi Takahashi, Shikago bijutsukan [Art Institute of Chicago], Museums of the World 32 (Kodansha, 1970), pp. 130, pl. 118; 177.

Elda Fezzi, L’opera completa di Renoir: Nel periodo impressionista, 1869–1883, Classici dell’arte 59 (Rizzoli, 1972), p. 111; 112, cat. 505 (ill.).52

Art Institute of Chicago, Paintings by Renoir, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago, 1973), pp. 74; 106–07, cat. 39 (ill.); 126; 210; 211; 214.

Isetan Museum of Art and Kyoto Municipal Museum, Exposition Renoir, exh. cat. (Isetan Museum of Art/Kyoto Municipal Museum/Yomiuri Shimbun Sha, 1979), cat. 33 (ill.).

Musée Toulouse-Lautrec and Art Institute of Chicago, Trésors impressionnistes du Musée de Chicago, exh. cat. (Musée Toulouse-Lautrec, 1980), pp. 40, no. 22 (ill.); 68.

Art Institute of Chicago, Seibu Museum of Art, Kyoto Municipal Museum of Art, and Fukuoka Art Museum, Shikago bijutsukan insho-ha ten [The Impressionist tradition: Masterpieces from the Art Institute of Chicago], trans. Akihiko Inoue, Hideo Namba, Heisaku Harada, and Yoko Maeda, exh. cat. (Nihon Nippon Television Network, 1985), pp. 84, cat. 38 (ill.); 85 (detail); 148 (ill.).

Nagoya City Art Museum, Renoir Retrospective, exh. cat. (Nagoya City Art Museum/Chunichi Shimbun, 1988), pp. 72, 239.

Gerhard Gruitrooy, Renoir: A Master of Impressionism (Todtri, 1994), p. 52 (ill.).

Douglas W. Druick, Renoir, Artists in Focus (Art Institute of Chicago/Abrams, 1997), pp. 56–57; 63 (detail); 95, pl. 14; 110.

M. Therese Southgate, “The Cover,” JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association 281, 7 (Feb. 17, 1999), cover (ill.); p. 591 (ill.).

Art Institute of Chicago, Impressionism and Post-Impressionism in the Art Institute of Chicago, selected by James N. Wood (Art Institute of Chicago/Hudson Hills, 2000), p. 76 (ill.).

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. 52, 54.

Flavie Durand-Ruel, “Pierre-Auguste Renoir (1841–1919) et Paul Durand-Ruel (1831–1922), son ami et marchand,” Renoir et les familiers des Collettes, exh. cat. (Trulli, 2008), p. 89 (ill.).

Galeries Nationales, Grand Palais, Los Angeles County Museum of Art, and Philadelphia Museum of Art, Renoir au XXe siècle, exh. cat. (Réunion des Musées Nationaux/Musée d’Orsay, 2009), p. 103 (ill.).

Los Angeles County Museum of Art and Philadelphia Museum of Art, Renoir in the Twentieth Century, exh. cat. (Los Angeles County Museum of Art/Philadelphia Museum of Art/Hatje Cantz, 2010), p. 103 (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), p. 83, cat. 35 (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), p. 83, cat. 35 (ill.).53

Guy-Patrice Dauberville and Michel Dauberville, Renoir: Catalogue raisonné des tableaux, pastels, dessins et aquarelles, vol. 2, 1882–1894 (Bernheim-Jeune, 2009), p. 15, cat. 701 (ill.).

Sylvie Patin, “De la nature morte au paysage,” in Réunion des Musées Nationaux, Claude Monet, 1840–1926, exh. cat. (Réunion des Musées Nationaux/Musée d’Orsay, 2010), p. 223.

Colin B. Bailey, Renoir, Impressionism, and Full-Length Painting, exh. cat. (Frick Collection/Yale University Press, 2012), p. 103, fig. 19.

Other Documentation

Documentation from the Durand-Ruel Archives

Inventory number
Stock Durand-Ruel, Paris, 2650, Paris stock années 1880/8454

Inventory number
Stock Durand-Ruel, Paris, 178755

Inventory number
Stock Durand-Ruel, New York, 172156

Photograph number
Photo Durand-Ruel New York A 65257

Other Documents

Label (New York stock no. 1721) (fig. 15.33)58

Label (no. A652) (fig. 15.34)59

Purchase receipt60

Letter
E. C. Holston to Martin A. Ryerson, dated Chicago 11 [sic], 191561

Letter
Joseph Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel, New York, to Georges Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel, Paris, Feb. 16, 191562

Labels and Inscriptions

Undated

Label
Location: frame
Method: handwritten script (faded) on white label
Content: . . . [. . .] 4 . . . 123 (fig. 15.35)

Inscription
Location: frame
Method: handwritten script (graphite)
Content: 33.1173 (fig. 15.36)

Pre-1980

Label
Location: previous stretcher (discarded); preserved in conservation file
Method: handwritten script on brown label
Content: Renoir No. 1721 / Chrysanthèmes / 1882 ebbb (fig. 15.37)

Label
Location: previous stretcher (discarded); preserved in conservation file
Method: handwritten script (graphite) on white and gold label
Content: a652 (fig. 15.38)

Label
Location: previous stretcher (discarded); preserved in conservation file
Method: stamped (?) number on craft paper label
Content: 2,650 (fig. 15.39)

Stamp
Location: canvas verso (covered by lining); preserved as a tracing in conservation file
Method: stamp/stencil
Content: [. . .] FINES [. . .] / TABLEAUX / REY [A] PERROD / [51] Rue de la Rochefoucau[ld] / PARIS (fig. 15.40)63

Stamp
Location: canvas verso (covered by lining)
Method: stamp/stencil
Content: 15 (fig. 15.41)

Post-1980

Label
Location: stretcher
Method: handwritten script and blue stamp on printed white label
Content: FROM / [TH]E ART INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO / CHICAGO ILLINOIS 60603, U. S. A. / Renoir, Pierre / Chrysanthemums / 1933.1173 / [right side, blue stamp] Inventory—1980–1981 (fig. 15.42)

Stamp
Location: stretcher
Method: blue stamp (partially removed)
Content: [Inventory]—1980–1981 (fig. 15.43)

Label
Location: [glossary:backing board]
Method: printed label
Content: THE ART INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO / ARTIST: Pierre Auguste Renoir / TITLE: Chrysanthemums (1881–82) / MEDIUM: Oil on canvas / CREDIT: Mr. and Mrs. Martin A. Ryerson Coll. / ACC#: 1933.1173 (fig. 15.44)

Examination and Analysis Techniques

X-radiography

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

Infrared Reflectography

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) and J filter (1.5–1.7 µm).

Transmitted Infrared

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

Visible Light

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

Ultraviolet

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

High-Resolution Visible Light (and Ultraviolet)

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

Microscopy and Photomicrographs

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

X-ray Fluorescence Spectroscopy (XRF)

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

Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM)

Zeiss Universal research microscope.

Scanning Electron Microscopy/Energy-Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy (SEM/EDX)

Cross sections were analyzed after carbon coating with a Hitachi S-3400N-II VPSEM with an Oxford EDS and a Hitachi solid-state [glossary:BSE] detector. Analysis was performed at the Northwestern University Atomic and Nanoscale Characterization Experimental (NUANCE) Center, Electron Probe Instrumentation Center (EPIC) facility.

Raman Spectroscopy and Surface-Enhanced Raman Spectroscopy (SERS)

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

The excitation line of an air-cooled, frequency-doubled, Nd:Yag solid-state laser (532 nm), He-Ne laser (632.8 nm for SERS), or solid-state diode laser (785.7 nm) was focused through a 20×, 50×, or 100× 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.64

Automated Thread Counting

Thread count and weave information were determined by Thread Count Automation Project software.65

Image Registration Software

Overlay images were registered using a novel image-based algorithm developed 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.66

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. 15.45).

Chrysanthemums (Dauberville 701) corresponds to Guy-Patrice Dauberville and Michel Dauberville, Renoir: Catalogue raisonné des tableaux, pastels, dessins et aquarelles, vol. 2, 1882–1894 (Bernheim-Jeune, 2009), p. 15, cat. 701 (ill.). The Art Institute currently uses the title that resulted from the research conducted for the publication Douglas W. Druick, Renoir, Artists in Focus (Art Institute of Chicago/Abrams, 1997). The painting had the following titles during the lifetime of the artist:
 

Possibly Oct. 15, 1904: Chrysanthèmes (Société du Salon d’Automne, Catalogue de peinture, dessin, sculpture, gravure, architecture et arts décoratifs, exh. cat. [Hérissey, 1904], p. 115, cat. 30.)

Possibly Nov. 14, 1908: Chrysanthèmes, 1882 (Durand-Ruel, New York, Exhibition of Paintings by Pierre Auguste Renoir, exh. cat. [Durand-Ruel, New York, 1908], no. 12. According to the Durand-Ruel Archives, “Il est possible mais pas certain que votre tableau soit celui exposé chez Durand-Ruel New York en 1908 sous le no. 12”; see Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to Gloria Groom, Apr. 2, 2014, e-mail correspondence, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.)

Feb. 16, 1915: Chrysanthèmes (Joseph Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel, New York, to Georges Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel, Paris, Feb. 16, 1915; confirmed by Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to Gloria Groom, Apr. 2, 2014, e-mail correspondence, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.)

Feb. 17, 1915: Chrysanthèmes, 1882 (Purchase receipt on Durand-Ruel letterhead, dated Feb. 17, 1915, photocopy in curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.)

The painting was dated 1881/82 based on research conducted for the publication Douglas W. Druick, Renoir, Artists in Focus (Art Institute of Chicago/Abrams, 1997). This range includes 1882, a date that has traditionally been assigned to the painting and may have originated from the Durand-Ruel stock books, and allows for the possibility that Renoir painted Chrysanthemums in 1881, while staying with the Berards in Wargemont or in Paris before leaving for Italy. See cataloguing sheet, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.

See Colin B. Bailey, “Bouquet of Chrysanthemums, 1881,” in Colin B. Bailey, Joseph J. Rishel, and Mark Rosenthal, Masterpieces of Impressionism and Post-Impressionism: The Annenberg Collection (Philadelphia Museum of Art, 1989), pp. 36–37. Although assigned to 1881, Bouquet of Chrysanthemums was more likely painted years later, judging by the atmospheric color, controlled brushwork, and the wash-like appearance of the paint in the background and table. Dauberville refers to the Renoir catalogue raisonné: Guy-Patrice Dauberville and Michel Dauberville, Renoir: Catalogue raisonné des tableaux, pastels, dessins et aquarelles, vols. 1–5 (Bernheim-Jeune, 2007–14).

Durand-Ruel, Paris, Catalogue de l’exposition des oeuvres de P.-A. Renoir, exh. cat. (Pillet & Dumoulin, 1883).

The catalogue for the retrospective, which was held at the Durand-Ruel Galleries in Paris, includes seven still lifes among 107 works total.

Dauberville refers to the Renoir catalogue raisonné: Guy-Patrice Dauberville and Michel Dauberville, Renoir: Catalogue raisonné des tableaux, pastels, dessins et aquarelles, vols. 1–5 (Bernheim-Jeune, 2007–14).

Ambrose Vollard later related that Renoir cared nothing for arrangement in his floral still-life painting and preferred the “fifteen-cent green pots” found by his wife. See Renoir: An Intimate Record, trans. Harold L. Van Doren and Randolph T. Weaver (Knopf, 1925), p. 146.

Renoir not only painted chrysanthemums, he cultivated them, along with sunflowers, in his garden at the historic Château des Brouillards on the Butte Montmartre, where he lived from October 1889 until the spring of 1897. Visited by a reporter after his Young Girls at the Piano (1892; Musée d’Orsay [Dauberville 993]) was acquired by the Musée Luxembourg in 1892, Renoir related that he had been told he should exhibit with the Society of Horticulturalists, conjecturing ironically that he might win his first medal. “Il est très fier de son jardin, M. Renoir; il s’est mis à la culture des géraniums, des héliotropes et des calcéolaires avec une véritable passion.” Anonymous, “Nos Artistes. Le peintre P.-A. Renoir chez lui,” L’éclair 5, 1352 (Aug. 9, 1892). Dauberville refers to the Renoir catalogue raisonné: Guy-Patrice Dauberville and Michel Dauberville, Renoir: Catalogue raisonné des tableaux, pastels, dessins et aquarelles, vols. 1–5 (Bernheim-Jeune, 2007–14).

These works are Chrysanthemums (1878; Musée d’Orsay, Paris) and Red Chrysanthemums (1881; private collection), both reproduced in Galeries Nationales, Grand-Palais, Claude Monet, 1840–1926, exh. cat. (Réunion des Musées Nationaux/Musée d’Orsay, 2010), pp. 229 and 230, respectively. As Sylvie Patin observed in “De la nature morte au paysage,” on p. 223 of this publication, Monet favored chrysanthemums as a painting subject, and he actively cultivated the flower in his garden at Giverny in 1885 and 1886.

Daulte and Dauberville refer to the Renoir catalogues raisonnés: FrançoisDaulte, Auguste Renoir: Catalogue raisonnéde l’oeuvrepeint (Durand-Ruel, 1971); Guy-Patrice Dauberville and Michel Dauberville, Renoir: Catalogue raisonnédes tableaux, pastels, dessins et aquarelles, vols. 1–5 (Bernheim-Jeune, 2007–14).

For an authoritative discussion of Renoir’s interest in the subject of chrysanthemums, see Colin B. Bailey, “Bouquet of Chrysanthemums, 1881,” in Colin B. Bailey, Joseph J. Rishel, and Mark Rosenthal, Masterpieces of Impressionism and Post-Impressionism: The Annenberg Collection (Philadelphia Museum of Art, 1989), p. 36.

Marcel Proust, À la recherche du temps perdu, vol. 1, Du côté du chez Swann (Paris, 1914), p. 271, and vol. 2, À l’ombre des jeunes filles en fleur (Paris, 1918), p. 151. Sylvie Patin discussed Proust’s reference to chrysanthemums in “De la nature morte au paysage,” in Galeries Nationales, Grand-Palais, Claude Monet, 1840–1926, exh. cat. (Réunion des Musées Nationaux/Musée d’Orsay, Paris, 2010), p. 223.

An impression of the Hokusai print that was acquired by Claude Monet is now in the collection of the Fondation Claude Monet, Giverny.

Julius Meier-Graefe, Auguste Renoir (H. Floury, 1912), pp. 132–33. Colin B. Bailey highlighted Meier-Graefe’s insight that “Renoir’s flowers are above all fictions of colour,” in “Bouquet of Chrysanthemums, 1881,” in Colin B. Bailey, Joseph J. Rishel, and Mark Rosenthal, Masterpieces of Impressionism and Post-Impressionism: The Annenberg Collection, exh. cat. (Philadelphia Museum of Art, 1989), p. 36.

Georges Rivière, Renoir et ses amis (H. Floury, 1921), p. 81, translated in Hayward Gallery, Galeries Nationales du Grand Palais, Paris, and Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Renoir, exh. cat. (Arts Council of Great Britain, 1985), p. 183.

Julie Manet, Journal, 1893–1899: Sa jeunesse parmi les peintres impressionnistes et les hommes de lettres (C. Klincksieck, 1979), translated in Nicholas Wadley, ed., Renoir: A Retrospective (Hugh Lauter Levin/Macmillan, 1987), p. 212.

In many cases, the absence of [glossary:ground] on the [glossary:tacking margins] and uneven ground application are taken to indicate an artist-applied ground. Recent research has also suggested, however, that smaller-scale color merchants may have stretched and prepared single canvases from larger, unprimed rolls. The [glossary:canvas] stamps on the verso in addition to the ground composition, lead white with a good proportion of extenders, suggest the [glossary:support] was not artist-prepared. See Inge Fiedler and Marc Vermeulen, “1933_1173_Renoir_analytical_report,” July 2, 2014; Marc Vermeulen, “Ren_33_1173_Chrysanthemums_XRF_report,” Apr. 11, 2012, both on file in the Conservation Department, the Art Institute of Chicago. See also Anthea Callen, The Art of Impressionism: Painting Technique and the Making of Modernity (Yale University Press, 2000), p. 68; Ella Hendriks and Muriel Geldof, “Van Gogh’s Antwerp and Paris Picture Supports (1885–1888): Reconstructing Choices,” Art Matters: Netherlandish Technical Studies in Art 2 (2005), pp. 42–43.

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], in conjunction with [glossary:XRF], indicate that the signature is primarily cobalt blue. See Marc Vermeulen, “Ren_33_1173_Chrysanthemums_XRF_report,” Apr. 11, 2012, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

Flax was confirmed by microscopic cross-sectional fiber identification; see Inge Fiedler and Marc Vermeulen, “1933_1173_Renoir_analytical_report,” July 2, 2014, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

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

[glossary:Thread count] and [glossary:weave] information were determined by Thread Count Automation Software. See Don H. Johnson and Robert G. Erdmann, “Thread Count Report: Chrysanthemums, Pierre-Auguste Renoir, 1881–1882 (Mums/1933.1173),” Mar. 2012.

This depth measurement is based on the original [glossary:tacking margins], which are somewhat damaged due to age and previous treatment.

No pretreatment verso photograph exists. The stamp is seen in transmitted light and transmitted infrared and is preserved as a tracing, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago. Rey & Perrod was located at 51, rue de la Rochefoucauld. See Stéphanie Constantin, “Barbizon Painters: A Guide to Their Suppliers,” Studies in Conservation 46 (2001), p. 66. See also Ella Hendriks and Muriel Geldof, “Van Gogh’s Antwerp and Paris Picture Supports (1885–1888): Reconstructing Choices,” Art Matters: Netherlandish Technical Studies in Art 2 (2005), p. 45.

The presence of a [glossary:sizing] layer is difficult to determine from [glossary:cross sections] due to previous conservation treatments. [glossary:Cross-sectional analysis] did not reveal a discrete sizing layer; however, sizing was common practice in commercial preparation, and a thinly applied sizing could have been absorbed by the [glossary:canvas] and would not be visible under current circumstances. A sample of unprimed canvas from the tacking margin contained a whitish layer with a blue [glossary:fluorescence] in [glossary:UV], suggesting the presence of an organic material such as glue, however, as the work has been lined, this material could be attributed to the starch paste facing material used in that process (see Conservation History). See Inge Fiedler and Marc Vermeulen, “1933_1173_Renoir_analytical_report,” July 2, 2014, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

In many cases, the absence of [glossary:ground] on the [glossary:tacking margins] is taken to indicate an artist-applied ground. Anthea Callen wrote, “Raw fabric on the edges of a canvas support show that the ground was applied after the canvas had been stretched. This is the norm for self-priming—artists generally stretched the canvas and then prime only the surface to be painted.” Additionally, an unevenly applied ground, such as this one, may reinforce the idea that the canvas was artist-prepared. Recent research, however, has suggested that smaller-scale color merchants may have stretched and prepared single canvases. Complaints by artists such as Camille Pissarro indicate some of these supports were not of good quality. The color merchant’s proprietary and standard size stamps on the verso of this painting, in addition to the composition of the ground argue for a non-artist preparation. See Anthea Callen, The Art of Impressionism: Painting Technique and the Making of Modernity (Yale University Press, 2000), p. 68. See also Ella Hendriks and Muriel Geldof, “Van Gogh’s Antwerp and Paris Picture Supports (1885–1888): Reconstructing Choices,” Art Matters: Netherlandish Technical Studies in Art 2 (2005), pp. 42–43; Inge Fiedler and Marc Vermeulen, “1933_1173_Renoir_analytical_report,” July 2, 2014, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

The presence of lead and calcium was confirmed with [glossary:XRF]. [glossary:SEM/EDX] and [glossary:PLM] confirmed that this was calcium carbonate; interestingly, it showed a wide range of particle size including some very large grains. SEM/EDX also identified alumina and silicates. PLM results from 1972 were published in Marigene H. Butler, “Technical Note,” in Paintings by Renoir (Art Institute of Chicago, 1973), p. 211. PLM results were confirmed and amended by Inge Fiedler. See Fiedler, microanalysis summary, Dec. 19, 2012, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago. For more detailed results and conditions used, see Inge Fiedler and Marc Vermeulen, “1933_1173_Renoir_analytical_report,” July 2, 2014; Marc Vermeulen, “Ren_33_1173_Chrysanthemums_XRF_report,” Apr. 11, 2012, both 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.

These lines appear to be in [glossary:graphite]. Lines as fine and thin as graphite may be obscured in infrared examination in some areas due to the presence of IR-absorbing [glossary:pigments] in the paint layers or additional [glossary:underdrawing]. As such, the possibility of graphite lines elsewhere, though not visible under the current circumstances, cannot be excluded.

[glossary:Pigments] identified by the following techniques: lead white, cobalt blue, vermilion, Naples yellow ([glossary:XRF], [glossary:PLM], [glossary:SEM/EDX]); malachite (PLM, Raman; XRF and SEM/EDX identified a copper-based green); zinc yellow (XRF, 2012 PLM, SEM/EDX, Raman); cadmium yellow (XRF, 2012 PLM, SEM/EDX); unspecified black (2012 PLM); iron oxides (XRF, SEM/EDX); viridian (PLM; SEM/EDX [as chrome-based green]); red lakes (PLM, SEM/EDX; [glossary:SERS] identified carmine lake). PLM results from 1972 were published in Marigene H. Butler, “Technical Note,” in Paintings by Renoir (Art Institute of Chicago, 1973), p. 211. PLM results were confirmed and amended by Inge Fiedler. See Fiedler, microanalysis summary, Dec. 19, 2012, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago. For more detailed results and conditions used, see Inge Fiedler and Marc Vermeulen, “1933_1173_Renoir_analytical_report,” July 2, 2014; Marc Vermeulen, “Ren_33_1173_Chrysanthemums_XRF_report,” Apr. 11, 2012; Federica Pozzi, “Ren_1933_1173_Chrysanth_Raman_Results,” Mar. 7, 2013; Federica Pozzi, “Ren_Chrysanthemums_1933_1173_SERS_Results,” May 10, 2013; all on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago. Analysis was carried out on selected areas and may not include all pigments present in the painting.

Analysis suggests all three yellows were used together as a mixture in many areas of the painting. See Inge Fiedler and Marc Vermeulen, “1933_1173_Renoir_analytical_report,” July 2, 2014; Marc Vermeulen, “Ren_33_1173_Chrysanthemums_XRF_report,” Apr. 11, 2012, both on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

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 lakes, including their fluorescence under UV light, are discussed in Helmut Schweppe and John Winter, “Madder and Alizarin,” in Artists’ Pigments: A Handbook of Their History and Characteristics, vol. 3, ed. Elisabeth West FitzHugh (Cambridge University Press, 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.

[glossary:PLM] analysis and cross-sectional examination indicate the presence of two red lakes of slightly different shades, with one fluorescing and the other non fluorescing under [glossary:UV] illumination. [glossary:SEM/EDX] analysis indicates that the fluorescing red lake has an aluminum [glossary:substrate], while the second red lake has a tin substrate. Carmine lake was identified by [glossary:SERS] in a sample that contained both red lakes, in addition to starch grains, which fluoresce blue under UV illumination. See Inge Fiedler and Marc Vermeulen, “1933_1173_Renoir_analytical_report,” July 2, 2014; Inge Fiedler, microanalysis summary, Dec. 19, 2012; Federica Pozzi, “Ren_Chrysanthemums_1933_1173_SERS_Results,” May 10, 2013; 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. See David Bomford, Jo Kirby, John Leighton, and Ashok Roy, Art in the Making: Impressionism (National Gallery, London/Yale University Press, 1990), pp. 72–75; 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.

Alfred Jakstas, treatment report, Aug. 28, 1978, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

Dimensions listed in treatment report equal 54.6 × 65.4 cm and are approximately 0.5 cm larger than the original compositional area in both directions. See Alfred Jakstas, treatment report, Aug. 28, 1978, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

The construction and style of this frame, in addition to documentary evidence, suggest that it is of the same period as the work and may have been paired with the work upon sale. This frame appears in a 1914 Durand-Ruel installation photograph, reproduced in Collin B. Bailley, Renoir, Impressionism, and Full-Length Paintings, exh. cat. (Frick Collection/Yale University Press, 2012), p. 103, fig. 19. See also Kirk Vuillemot, “Renoir Frame Descriptions Final,” May 15, 2013, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

This transaction is recorded in the Durand-Ruel, Paris, stock book for 1880–84 (no. 2650): “Ce tableau a été acheté par Durand-Ruel à Renoir le 14 décembre 1882 pour 600 F stock années 1880/84 no. 2650. En 1891: nouvelle numérotation de stock: no. 1787,” as confirmed by Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to Gloria Groom, Apr. 2, 2014, e-mail correspondence, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago. This revises information previously published in Guy-Patrice Dauberville and Michel Dauberville, Renoir: Catalogue raisonné des tableaux, pastels, dessins et aquarelles, vol. 2, 1882–1894 (Bernheim-Jeune, 2009), p. 15, cat. 701.

“Transféré à Durand-Ruel New York en 1897, stock DR New York no. 1721,” as confirmed by Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to Gloria Groom, Apr. 2, 2014, e-mail correspondence, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.

According to the Durand-Ruel Archives, Renoir’s “Chrysanthèmes, 1882” (New York Stock no. 1721—New York Photo No. A 652) was sold by Durand-Ruel, New York, to Martin A. Ryerson, on February 17, 1915, for “7.500,00$”; as confirmed by Caroline Durand-Ruel Godfroy, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Dec. 13, 1994, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago. See also Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to Gloria Groom, Apr. 2, 2014, e-mail correspondence, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago, which states: “vendu à Martin A. Ryerson le 17 février 1915 pour $7 500.” There is a Durand-Ruel label (see fig. 15.33 in Other Documentation) on the verso of the painting identifying it as no. 1721, as well as a label (see fig. 15.34 in Other Documentation) identifying it as Durand-Ruel Photo No. A 652. According to a letter from E. C. Holston to Martin A. Ryerson on Durand-Ruel letterhead, dated Chicago 11 [sic], 1915, the “asking price” was $9,000 and the “net price for Mr. Ryerson” was $7,800; photocopy in curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago. According to Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to Gloria Groom, Apr. 2, 2014, e-mail correspondence, curatorial object file, the Art Institute of Chicago, a letter sent from Durand-Ruel, New York (Joseph Durand-Ruel), to Durand Ruel, Paris (Georges Durand-Ruel), on February 16, 1915, clarifies the discrepancy in price: “Mr. E. C. Holston [the director of Durand-Ruel, New York] is on his way back from Chicago. He has sold to Mr. Ryerson the following pictures: photo 7135, Monet, Jardin de Monet, $ 7 500—photo A 652, Renoir, Chrysanthèmes, $ 7 500—photo A 1179, Monet, Peupliers, $ 5 000—photo 1130, Monet, Pourville, $ 8 000—photo 7635, André, Provence, $ 500, making a total of $ 28 500. Our asking price was higher, but I thought it better to accept a reduction rather than to miss the sale.” A purchase receipt on Durand-Ruel letterhead, dated Feb. 17, 1915, includes this painting as one of a number sold by Durand-Ruel, New York, to M. A. Ryerson; photocopy in curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago. This painting was on loan from Martin A. Ryerson to the Art Institute of Chicago, intermittently, by 1921, according to Museum Registration Department Artists Sheets, on file in Museum Registration, Art Institute of Chicago.

See Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to Gloria Groom, Apr. 2, 2014, e-mail correspondence, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago, which states: “Il est possible mais pas certain que votre tableau soit celui exposé chez Durand-Ruel New York en 1908 sous le no. 12.”

See Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to Gloria Groom, Apr. 2, 2014, e-mail correspondence, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago, which states: “Votre tableau est celui qui a été exposé chez Durand-Ruel New York du 7 au 21 février 1914 (‘Exhibition Paintings by Renoir’) sous le no. 1.” For an installation view of the exhibition showing the painting, see Colin B. Bailey, Renoir, Impressionism, and Full-Length Painting, exh. cat. (Frick Collection/Yale University Press, 2012), p. 103, fig. 19. The installation view was previously published in Flavie Durand-Ruel, “Pierre-Auguste Renoir (1841–1919) et Paul Durand-Ruel (1831–1922), son ami et marchand,” Renoir et les familiers des Collettes, exh. cat. (Trulli, 2008), p. 89 (ill.).

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

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

According to receipt of object 28230 and Museum Registration Department Artists Sheets, both on file in Museum Registration, Art Institute of Chicago, this work was on loan to the Norton Simon Museum of Art in exchange for its loans to Art Institute of Chicago, Frederic Bazille and Early Impressionism, Mar. 4–Apr. 30, 1978.

According to receipt of object 32995 and Museum Registration Department Artists Sheets, both on file in Museum Registration, Art Institute of Chicago, this work was on loan to the Santa Barbara 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; Art Institute of Chicago, Oct. 23, 1984–Jan. 6, 1985; Paris, Galeries Nationales d’Exposition, Grand Palais, L’impressionnisme et le paysage français, Feb. 4–Apr. 22, 1985.

The painting was exhibited but was not included in the exhibition catalogue; see Medieval to Modern European Painting and Sculpture cataloguing card, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago. For the associated catalogue, see Neil Harris, Chicago’s Dream, a World’s Treasure: The Art Institute of Chicago, 1893–1993, ed. Teri J. Edelstein, with an afterword by James N. Wood, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago, 1993).

See Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to Gloria Groom, Apr. 2, 2014, e-mail correspondence, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago, which states: “Il est possible mais pas certain que votre tableau soit celui exposé chez Durand-Ruel New York en 1908 sous le no. 12.”

Reprinted as Art Institute of Chicago, A Guide to the Paintings in the Permanent Collection (Art Institute of Chicago, 1932), p. 186, cat. 183.15.

Reprinted as Art Institute of Chicago, An Illustrated Guide to the Collections of the Art Institute of Chicago (Art Institute of Chicago, 1948), p. 33; Art Institute of Chicago, An Illustrated Guide to the Collections of the Art Institute of Chicago (Art Institute of Chicago, 1956), p. 34.

Reprinted as Art Institute of Chicago, Paintings in the Art Institute of Chicago: A Catalogue of the Picture Collection (Art Institute of Chicago, 1968), p. 397.

Reprinted as Elda Fezzi, L’opera completa di Renoir: Nel periodo impressionista, 1869–1883, Classici dell’arte 59 (Rizzoli, 1981), pp. 111; 112, cat. 505 (ill.). For a French translation, see Elda Fezzi and Jacqueline Henry, Tout l’oeuvre peint de Renoir: Période impressionniste, 1869–1883, trans. Simone Darses (Flammarion, 1985), pp. 108, 109, cat. 483 (ill.).

The latter was republished as Gloria Groom and Douglas Druick, with the assistance of Dorota Chudzicka and Jill Shaw, The Age of French Impressionism: Masterpieces from the Art Institute of Chicago, rev. and expanded ed. (Art Institute of Chicago/Yale University Press, 2010; repr. 2013), p. 91, cat. 42 (ill.).

See Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to Gloria Groom, Apr. 2, 2014, e-mail correspondence, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.

See Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to Gloria Groom, Apr. 2, 2014, e-mail correspondence, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago. In the same correspondence, the Durand-Ruel Archives explain that “en 1891: nouvelle numérotation de stock: no. 1787.”

See Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to Gloria Groom, Apr. 2, 2014, e-mail correspondence, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.

See Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to Gloria Groom, Apr. 2, 2014, e-mail correspondence, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.

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

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

See Institutional Archives, Art Institute of Chicago. Photocopy in curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.

Photocopy in curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago. According to Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to Gloria Groom, Apr. 2, 2014, e-mail correspondence, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago, E. C. Holston was the director of Durand-Ruel, New York.

See Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to Gloria Groom, Apr. 2, 2014, e-mail correspondence, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago, which includes an extract from this letter: “Mr. E. C. Holston is on his way back from Chicago. He has sold to Mr. Ryerson the following pictures: photo 7135, Monet, Jardin de Monet, $ 7 500—photo A 652, Renoir, Chrysanthèmes, $ 7 500—photo A 1179, Monet, Peupliers, $ 5 000—photo 1130, Monet, Pourville, $ 8 000—photo 7635, André, Provence, $ 500, making a total of $ 28 500. Our asking price was higher, but I thought it better to accept a reduction rather than to miss the sale.”

No pretreatment verso photograph exists. The stamp is seen in transmitted light and transmitted infrared and is preserved as a tracing, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago. Rey & Perrod was located at 51, rue de la Rochefoucauld. See Stéphanie Constantin, “Barbizon Painters: A Guide to Their Suppliers,” Studies in Conservation 46 (2001), p. 66. See also Ella Hendriks and Muriel Geldof, “Van Gogh’s Antwerp and Paris Picture Supports (1885–1888): Reconstructing Choices,” Art Matters: Netherlandish Technical Studies in Art 2 (2005), p. 45.

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.