Renoir Paintings and Drawings at the Art Institute of Chicago

The Dating of Lunch at the Restaurant Fournaise and Renoir at Chatou

In this painting, Renoir shows a group of boaters—two oarsmen and a female companion (dressed for the water in blue flannel)—relishing an alfresco lunch. Bottles on a silver tray, fluted wine glasses, and a compote of fruit have been offered for their enjoyment on a brilliant white tablecloth. Judging from the bustle of boating traffic in the background, this is only one of many such groups that took to the waters of the Seine on a summer day, but Renoir transformed this commonplace scene into an idyllic episode of sensuality and pleasure. Lunch at the Restaurant Fournaise was sold to Potter Palmer by Durand-Ruel, New York, on April 9, 1892, with the title Déjeuner de canotiers, just weeks before the May 1 opening of Renoir’s retrospective at the Durand-Ruel in Paris, which included the renowned scene of a boating luncheon along the Seine painted between 1880 and 1881, now in the Phillips Collection in Washington, D.C. (fig. 2.5 [Daulte 379; Dauberville 224]).14 In the catalogue that accompanied the retrospective, the Washington work was given the erroneous title Déjeuner à Bougival.15 Both the Chicago and Washington paintings, however, are set in the restaurant of the Maison Fournaise (fig. 2.6), located on what was then known as the Île du Chiard in the Seine, part of the municipality of Chatou, about one mile farther upriver and north of Bougival. The relationship of subject and site that the two paintings share determined for decades the dating of Lunch at the Restaurant Fournaise to 1879. The earlier date of 1875 came to light in 1986, when the Chicago work was identified as that included in the second Impressionist exhibition held in April 1876. An astute connection was made between the catalogue title Déjeuner chez Fournaise and the snide though accurate description of it as “Tonnelle des Canotiers sans jambes” by the critic of Le soleil.16

With the new dating, Lunch at the Restaurant Fournaise can be placed with a group of paintings thought to be executed during Renoir’s extended stay at the Maison Fournaise in the summer of 1875, which opened an important chapter in his portrayal of boating along the Seine. The other paintings include an interior luncheon or breakfast (fig. 2.7); at least two landscapes, one of a rowing subject (fig. 2.8 [Dauberville 141]) and another showing the nearby bridge at Chatou (Dauberville 136); and portraits of the proprietor of the restaurant, Alphonse Fournaise (fig. 2.9) and his daughter Alphonsine, both of which are dated and share the loose, flowing brushwork that characterizes Lunch at the Restaurant Fournaise.17 Why Renoir was drawn to the Maison Fournaise in the summer of 1875 remains a mystery, as he was no doubt aware of its local fame as a destination for boat rental before that time. His parents lived in Louveciennes just downriver, near Bougival, and he had been painting in the area since the mid-1860s, most significantly in the summer of 1869 at La Grenouillère on the Île de Croissy, where he and Claude Monet completed plein air sketches of visitors and moored boats at the popular restaurant and bathing establishment in preparation for the Salon of 1870.18 Renoir’s interest in the Fournaise establishment came to an end as abruptly as it began. After 1881 he produced no further paintings with Chatou subjects, and his letter to Théodore Duret on Easter Monday of that year, during the execution of Two Sisters (On the Terrace) (cat. 11), was written during his last recorded stay in the town.19 The restaurant and hotel would continue to thrive for many years, gaining celebrity in a short story by Guy de Maupassant as the Restaurant Grillon, a “stronghold of canotiers.”20

Renoir and the Boating Theme

Renoir’s earliest depictions of leisure boating date to the 1860s and recall the paintings of Eugène Boudin and Gustave Courbet. In addition to peopling the landscape views of La Grenouillère in 1869 mentioned above, boaters continued to appear elliptically in such works as La promenade (fig. 2.10 [Daulte 55; Dauberville 257]), in which the male protagonist wears a boater’s straw hat decorated with red ribbon, and Bather with a Griffon Dog (fig. 2.11 [Daulte 54; Dauberville 596]), a classically posed scene of modern life that Renoir exhibited at the Salon of 1870, depicting two women who arrived at their secluded bathing spot by rowboat.21 Renoir also took a personal interest in rowing, boating, and regattas, a passion he shared with his Impressionist colleagues.22 In July 1865 he sailed down the Seine with Alfred Sisley’s brother, Henri, and a model from Édouard Manet’s studio to see the regattas at Le Havre, taking his paint box to make sketches along the way. Renoir wrote enthusiastically to his friend the artist Frédéric Bazille to join them in the adventure.23

Renoir’s work alongside Monet on the shores of the Seine at Argenteuil during the summer of 1874 apparently rekindled his interest in depicting leisure life along the river and boating subjects.24 On July 22 Renoir and Monet were joined by Manet, who was summering across the river at Petit-Gennevilliers and also painted a number of pictures of boaters that summer.25 Manet sent one of these, an explicitly Impressionist work with a bright palette depicting a boater and his female companion sitting by the docks, titled Argenteuil (Musée des Beaux-Arts, Tournai), to the Salon in May 1875. It received a lukewarm reception and was caricatured several times in the satiric journal Charivari. One caricature claimed that the pair of boaters had clearly run aground.26

Thus Renoir’s decision to paint at the Restaurant Fournaise in the summer of 1875 was likely informed by his experience the previous summer on the banks of the Seine at Argenteuil and by Manet’s recent attempt to bring Impressionism to the Salon with a boating theme. The question for Renoir was how to make the theme his own: how to break free of Monet’s predominantly landscape example, how to be a figure painter and create a genre scene based in reality but open to broader readings of idyllic leisure. At Fournaise he found ideal subject matter and willing models. Fournaise was a family-run establishment with a long history in the community that attracted a serious sporting clientele, artists, and members of the Parisian theater world, as well as the odd aristocrat seeking the outdoor experience (who was invariably out of place). Its Parisian equivalent was the Moulin de la Galette, the Montmartre dance hall. As Renoir’s close friend and biographer Georges Rivière later commented, “The exuberant rowers and the grisettes who accompanied them resembled the young folk and dancers of Moulin de la Galette; the infectious gaiety of this carefree crowd, boastful without arrogance and mocking without malice, attracted the painter, for whom the spectacle of popular enjoyments had always been of interest.”27

The subjects of boating and dancing shared an association with youthful bohemia and student life during the July Monarchy and inspired many treatments in popular culture, such as vaudeville theater, as early as 1845 (fig. 2.12). Before the expansion of the city during the Second Empire and the extension of the railway in the 1840s and 1850s, Parisians boated for pleasure at Bercy, on the east side of Paris near the current location of the finance ministry (fig. 2.13). Boating at Chatou became popular after the area was made accessible by rail and the land was acquired for commercial development by boatbuilder Alphonse Fournaise in 1857. The terrace upon which Renoir’s models sit for the Washington Luncheon of the Boating Party dates from 1867, when a Neoclassical, two-story, red-brick structure was constructed as a restaurant, a function it still serves today.28 Judging from the point of view of the Chicago Lunch at the Restaurant Fournaise, the tonnelles or arbors were on the first floor under this terrace.

Renoir’s Models and Boating Fashion

As with many of Renoir’s genre paintings inspired by popular pastimes, the models for Lunch at the Restaurant Fournaise were drawn from his immediate circle of acquaintances and may very well have been habitués of the place in which they are shown. The sunburned figure in the white shirt on the right has never been identified but may have been inspired by Renoir’s younger brother, the journalist Edmond Renoir, who served frequently as a model for his brother during the 1870s (fig. 2.14 [Daulte 319; Dauberville 554]).29 In a series of articles promoting the leisurely pleasures of Bougival and its environs, written for La vie moderne in 1883, Edmond wrote perceptively of boating on the Seine and insisted on extending his survey to Chatou and the Restaurant Fournaise because it reflected the “same world, same joviality, same insouciance.”30 The fact that the figure is sunburned suggests an intentional light mockery of the city dilettante who has forgotten his hat—license that one would expect a sibling of the modern family to take.

François Daulte first identified the figure on the left with the distinctive fan beard as “Monsieur de Lauradour,” a regular at La Grenouillère and the Restaurant Fournaise.31 This model appears in three closely dated Renoir paintings, including a bust portrait (The Rower of Bougival, c. 1876; Kunstmuseum Basel) in the same stipple technique used by the artist in Alfred Sisley (1876; cat. 4).32 Although the nature of their relationship is unclear, Renoir must have been on friendly terms with Lauradour, as at this time he rarely painted portraits of men he did not know.33 The third painting in which Lauradour appears is the Luncheon in the Barnes Collection (fig. 2.7), which is almost certainly an indoor scene set at the Restaurant Fournaise during a cooler time of day, as the woman in the picture wears the same blue dress, but under a white jacket.

That Renoir used the same two models for a complementary theme raises the question of whether the Barnes Luncheon and Lunch at the Restaurant Fournaise were conceived as pendants. Luncheon of the Boating Party is slightly smaller but shares a horizontal format. Significant changes to the number and position of the figures in Lunch at the Restaurant Fournaise suggest that Renoir may have originally intended to include only two people, a male and a female, as in the Barnes Luncheon. Visible in the [glossary:X-ray] (fig. 2.15) is what seems to be the outline of a figure in profile; the shape of the head suggests a woman with her hair pulled up off her neck. Renoir was able to accommodate a second male with his final placement of the female closer to the center of the painting. He thus established a pyramidal arrangement with the woman resting her elbow on the table and the relaxed, smoking oarsman on the right. The pose of the seated figures, together with the perspectival lines of the table, acts to carry the eye diagonally toward a sun-filled river playground, resulting in a superbly balanced composition.

The comparison of Lunch at the Restaurant Fournaise with contemporary caricature reveals that Renoir followed up-to-date trends in sport fashion. Both male models may be identified as rowers by their white costume and the rowboats seen on the river through the trellis. A woman in a skiff near the shoreline wears a blue flannel dress that matches the one worn by the female figure seated at the table.34 In J. Pelcoq’s satiric image of boaters modeling their clothes for the Journal amusant in 1875, a number of male and female costumes for nautical outings are displayed, such as the collarless shirt with buttons and the sleeveless shirt for men, and the half-length jacket for women (fig. 2.16). A more distinguished “outdoor gentleman’s” look “à l’anglaise,” as suggested by the caption, is modeled by the man wearing a dark jacket, wide-collared shirt with lavaliere, and visored cap. Around his waist this figure sports what appears to be a sash. In Renoir’s painting, Lauradour is portrayed in a combination of these fashions, including the collarless shirt, white jacket, and blue sash. Renoir’s bust portrait of Lauradour shows him to be as meticulous about the stylish trim of his moustache and beard as any of the sportsmen in Pelcoq’s illustration. It is worth noting that on the bank to the right of this scene of boaters sits a woman dressed in a jacket and pants—an outfit that would better accommodate outdoor physical activity.

Lunch at the Restaurant Fournaise as a Bold Step Forward in Renoir’s Use of Color

In this relatively small canvas—a no. 15 portrait ([glossary:figure]) standard-size canvas turned horizontally to become a landscape format—Renoir indulged his predilection for pure color. In a remarkably audacious move for the mid-1870s, the artist limited his palette to emphasize the primary colors (see Technical Report). Most distinctive in this regard is the contrasting treatment of the two male boaters. The folds and shadows in the shirt of the smoking figure on the right are rendered in cool blue tones, whereas the trim of Lauradour’s jacket and shirt is entirely yellow. The hair color of the two men is consistent with this yellow/blue color distinction (fig. 2.17). Yellow highlights are found throughout the painting, from the tablecloth and glassware to the flowers, the tree by the water, and the opposite shoreline. Generous application of lead white paint in the men’s shirts, the tablecloth, and the surface of the river behind them contributes to the striking luminosity of the scene (see Palette in the Technical Report). The brushwork of the shirt on the right (fig. 2.18) can be compared to that of the white shirt in the portrait of Alphonse Fournaise (fig. 2.9), in which a flat brush was used to apply the paint and model the folds of the sleeves. In this bold display of color, the blue of the woman’s dress acts as a neutral tone to anchor the composition, while yellow and white encourage movement of the eye over the picture plane.

The abrupt vertical of the trellis, with its flowering vine, divides interior from exterior, relaxation from physical activity—especially the focused task of navigating a boat. The riverscape in the background here functions to keep the active life of water sports at a distance from the main action of a contemplative smoke and casual conversation over an outdoor meal during summer. What we see in the considered composition and execution of Lunch at the Restaurant Fournaise, though based in observed reality of a popular nineteenth-century pastime, has more to do with memory and ideals, with a peaceful utopian existence as envisioned by the artist. Robert Herbert has noted that Lunch at the Restaurant Fournaise “has the air of a fable,” while Richard Brettell has likened it to the fêtes galantes of Jean-Antoine Watteau.35 This is not the place to address the degree to which eighteenth-century art influenced Renoir’s development of the modern genre subject, with its youthful cast of characters in quiet conversation, whose mundane moment of leisure has been infused with a decided sensuality. But Lunch at the Restaurant Fournaise suggests a renewed appreciation of the art of the ancien régime and a revisiting of the pastoral tradition through the eyes of an indefatigable colorist.
John Collins

Technical Report

Technical Summary

Renoir’s Lunch at the Restaurant Fournaise (The Rowers’ Lunch) was painted in several [glossary:wet-in-wet] campaigns and shows evidence of a number of compositional changes. The artist began with a [glossary:commercially primed], no. 15 portrait ([glossary:figure]) standard-size [glossary:canvas] turned on its side, onto which he probably added a selective preparatory layer covering specific parts of the compositional area.36 This selective layer has a warmer hue and probably contains added [glossary:oil] medium, which allowed for minimum absorption of subsequent paint layers and provided a warm background off of which Renoir could play the cool colors of the background and water.

There are significant compositional changes in the left half of the composition. [glossary:X-ray] and raking-light images suggest that, in an earlier version of the painting, there was a figure situated in the space between the two individuals who appear on the left in the final composition. Summary [glossary:underdrawing] lines in a dry medium may be related to this figure’s head; additional lines seem to indicate the left side of the trellis opening and the outer curve of the far-left visible figure’s leg, but the nature of these lines is rather intermittent and haphazard. The left side of the original composition seems to have featured only this single figure painted in profile. Heavy brushwork under the far-left visible figure suggests additional changes before the artist executed the forward-facing male figure.

There are also some minor and partially developed alterations to the right side of the canvas. In the X-ray, a curvilinear form beginning just to the right of the figure and continuing through the torso and a second form just below it may suggest elements of the back of a chair. As these elements were abandoned in their early stages, it is unclear how this placement would have affected the posture of the male figure.

Renoir used a limited [glossary:palette], and many of the hues were mixed on the surface of the painting. Instead of carefully blending mixtures before dabbing them onto the surface, the artist appears to have dipped his brush in two or more colors and applied them directly to the canvas, where they exist almost side by side; in other areas, he applied a new color into a still-wet stroke to create this effect. The structure of the paint layers suggests that the painting was probably executed in a limited number of sessions, with each wet-in-wet layer allowed to dry before the next layer was applied. The brushwork ranges from heavily blended and smooth to thick [glossary:impasto], and the heaviest texture appears primarily in the bottom half of the composition. Various small daubs and details, including the highlights on the bottles in the foreground and the small flowers above the figures’ heads, seem to be the final steps of the process.

Multilayer Interactive Image Viewer

The multilayer interactive image viewer is designed to facilitate the viewer’s exploration and comparison of the technical images (fig. 2.19).37

Signature

Signed: Renoir. (lower left, in warm-black paint)38 (fig. 1.1, fig. 1.2).

Structure and Technique

Support

Canvas

Flax (commonly known as linen).39

Standard format

The original dimensions of the canvas were approximately 54 × 64.7 cm, according to 1971 pretreatment measurements.40 This probably corresponds to a no. 15 portrait (figure) standard-size (65 × 54 cm) canvas, turned horizontally.41

Weave

[glossary:Plain weave]. Average [glossary:thread count] (standard deviation): 22.0V (0.9) × 23.9H (0.8) threads/cm. The horizontal threads were determined to correspond to the [glossary:warp] and the vertical threads to the [glossary:weft].42

Canvas characteristics

The canvas has very mild [glossary:cusping] around the edges, especially on the left, corresponding to the placement of the original tacks.

Stretching

Current stretching: When the painting was lined in 1971, the original dimensions were slightly increased on all sides (see Conservation History).

Original stretching: Based on cusping visible in the X-ray, the original tacks were placed 5–6 cm apart.

Stretcher/strainer

Current stretcher: Four-member redwood [glossary:ICA spring stretcher]. Depth: 2.6 cm.

Original stretcher: Five-member keyable stretcher with vertical [glossary:crossbar]. Depth: Approximately 1.8 cm (fig. 2.20).43

Manufacturer’s/supplier’s marks

Stamp
Location: original canvas (covered by [glossary:lining])
Method: stamp
Content: M_DEFORGE CARPENTIER S^r / COULEURS FINES / ET TOILES [á] PEINDRE / 6 Rue Halevy 6 / PARIS / [. . .] Rue Legendre, 62 [. . .] (fig. 1.3; fig. 1.4)44

Preparatory Layers

Sizing

Not determined (probably glue).45

Ground application/texture

The canvas was prepared with commercially applied priming that extends to the edges of the [glossary:tacking margins]. This commercial priming appears to be a single layer, is rather thin and porous (measuring approximately 5–60 µm), and does not completely fill the [glossary:weave] (fig. 2.21).

Renoir appears to have added a selective preparatory layer to parts of the canvas, especially visible in the top half of the composition.46 This selective layer is thicker, smoother, and more medium-rich than the commercial [glossary:ground]; it leaves some of the canvas texture visible. The outer perimeter of this layer has a soft edge, suggesting that it was applied with a brush; however, the overall texture of this layer is very smooth with no discernible brushstrokes (fig. 2.22).

Color

The color of the commercially applied ground appears to be off-white, but it is difficult to determine. While from the surface there is no microscopic evidence of additional pigment particles in this layer, analysis indicates the presence of a small amount of an iron-containing pigment, such as iron oxide red or yellow. This commercial layer is slightly porous and has darkened due to the combined effects of accumulated grime and the saturation of the [glossary:wax-resin lining] material (see Condition Summary and Conservation History). Because of this discoloration, it is difficult to determine what effect this limited amount of colored pigment might have had on the overall tone of this layer.

The selective preparatory layer is slightly tinted to appear warm beige, and dark particles are visible in it under [glossary:stereomicroscopic examination] (fig. 2.23). In some areas, largely in the upper portions of the background, this layer was left exposed by the artist to provide a warm contrast to the cool tones of the river (fig. 2.24).

Materials/composition

The commercial ground is predominantly lead white with a significant amount of barium sulfate. There are also small amounts of iron oxide red or yellow, iron-containing aluminosilicates, silica, calcium-based whites, and trace amounts of bone black.47

The selective preparatory layer is also predominantly lead white with iron oxide red or yellow and barium- and calcium-containing compounds. Stereomicroscopic examination of this layer suggests the presence of black or dark-brown particles.48 The [glossary:binder] for both layers is estimated to be oil.49

Compositional Planning/Underdrawing/Painted Sketch

Extent/character

Infrared examination reveals very summary contour outlines that may relate to compositional elements in the left half of the painting, including the possible outline of a head (visible in the X-ray) located between the two visible figures (see Paint Layer and Technical Summary); the continuation of the vertical line that forms the left side of the trellis opening; and a faint, curved line near the bottom left corner that relates to the outer contour of the far-left visible figure’s leg (fig. 2.25).50

Medium/technique

Dry media (chalk or charcoal?) (fig. 2.26).

Revisions

No compositional changes noted in drawing stage; see Paint Layer.

Paint Layer

Application/technique and artist’s revisions

It seems that Renoir began this composition with the figures, bringing up the background colors around them after they were painted and also after any major compositional changes. This is especially evident in the female figure, which was painted in relatively radio transparent [glossary:pigments] easily penetrated by the X-ray. [glossary:X-radiography] also indicates that landscape elements do not pass under the female figure’s head, and brushstrokes come up to and abruptly end around the figures, creating a kind of halo effect (fig. 2.27). The table in the center seems to be one of the earliest compositional elements, with the figures and much of the background brought in around it.

There is evidence that the artist made significant changes to this composition. Thick, directional brushwork visible in the lower left of the canvas does not match the final composition, suggesting that there are possible pentimenti in this area (fig. 2.28); these changes are clearer in [glossary:raking light] and X-radiography. The X-ray documents what appears to be a profile and head (perhaps corresponding with some of the underdrawing lines) situated between the two visible figures in the left half of the composition (fig. 2.29). The right arm of the figure in profile appears to extend to the table, along a line similar to that of the visible female figure. The thickness of the added paint layers in this area obscures the original colors of the underlying composition, making a clear identification difficult. [glossary:Cross-sectional analysis] in this area indicates that the lower part of the original figure’s costume was a light bluish-white, with areas of reddish and purple highlights, similar in tone to the clothing of the figure on the right side of the painting, but with greater impasto (fig. 2.30).51 The composition appears to have featured only two figures in this early stage: one on the right and one on the left (in profile). Examination of the left side of the painting in raking light calls attention to a ridge of paint that echoes the curved line of this figure’s back (though it is farther to the left). This may indicate movement of the original figure farther to the left or an adjustment to the position of the visible figure on the far left. Examination in raking light also suggests that Renoir painted out original compositional choices on the far left in thick, short, diagonal brushstrokes before he executed the almost forward-facing head of the figure in the final composition (fig. 2.31). The bulk of this original figure, however, does not appear to have been painted out, but merely covered in the process of executing the two visible figures.

Examination in raking light and X-radiography suggest that elements on the right side of the canvas may also have been altered. A horizontal, curvilinear form beginning just to the right of the figure and passing in front of his torso, with a smaller, horizontal element below it, suggests a change in the position of the chair. It is unclear how the placement of the chair would have affected the posture of the figure, and these elements appear to have been abandoned in their early stages (fig. 2.32). In natural light as well as in the X-ray, it appears that the angle of the right arm of this figure was also changed. The elbow was raised and the forearm made narrower in the final paint layers; however, the original position of the elbow is still visible on the surface (fig. 2.33). The exact placement of the figure’s left arm and hand also appear to have been slightly adjusted. Downward directional strokes through the torso as well as the thick strokes of background and [glossary:underpainting] across and around the head may hint at further changes to this figure’s posture.

In the top half of the composition, the background, the initial layers of the water, and the shoreline were painted first. The outline of the trellis opening was established next, followed by the boats and rowers, and finally the trellis and climbing foliage; each layer was allowed to dry before the subsequent elements were executed. Renoir developed the water with heavy, textured brushstrokes and added color throughout the process (generally before the trellis lattice and climbing foliage) (fig. 2.34); however, the initial layers seem relatively thin in most areas, passing under various compositional elements in the top half.

Overall, the paint was largely applied wet-in-wet over a few campaigns, and each layer was allowed to dry between sessions. Most of the colors were mixed directly on the canvas rather than on the palette (fig. 2.35). At times, the artist dipped his brush into two or three separate colors before applying a stroke to the canvas, and swirls of unmixed paint can be seen throughout the work (fig. 2.36).

The soft edges of the objects and figures—at times defined as much by the texture of the brushstroke, a physical ridge of paint, as by the color shift itself—indicate that Renoir alternated between thicker paint applied with a soft brush and more medium-rich or sometimes thinned paint applied with a stiffer brush (fig. 2.37). In some areas, soft, curled peaks of paint call attention not to the application of paint but to the lift of the brush (fig. 2.38). It is also noteworthy that he used medium-rich toning layers, sometimes called glazes. The glazes seem limited to the woman in the dark-blue dress, for which he layered translucent, oil-rich dark reds and greens over an opaque blue-and-white mixture to add tonal nuance and a sense of volume, incorporating pure blue, red lake, yellow, and perhaps black (fig. 2.39). This smoothness is countered by heavy brushwork elsewhere and by the artist’s manipulation of the canvas texture. Despite the smoother texture offered by a thick preparation, the artist accentuated the weave texture in many areas, dragging a loaded brush across the surface and catching only the thread tops (fig. 2.40).

Painting tools

Brushes, mostly soft to medium, flat and round, with strokes up to 1 cm wide.

Palette

Analysis indicates the presence of the following pigments:52 lead white, cobalt blue,53 chrome yellow, viridian, emerald green, vermilion, two red lakes, and possibly chrome orange.54

Stereomicroscopic examination of the surface suggests the presence of black.

The observation of a characteristic salmon-colored [glossary:fluorescence] under [glossary:UV] light indicates that Renoir used fluorescing red lake in areas of the female figure’s costume and chair, and mixed it with other colors in the signature and flesh tones (fig. 2.41).55 Cross-sectional analysis reveals that he used a second, nonfluorescing red lake in selected areas of the composition.56

Binding media

Oil (estimated).57

Surface Finish

Varnish layer/media

A [glossary:natural-resin varnish] was removed and replaced with the current [glossary:synthetic varnish] in 1971. Pretreatment photographs of the verso indicate that the natural-resin varnish had penetrated cracks in the paint layer and stained the back of the canvas (fig. 2.42). This suggests that either the natural-resin varnish was applied after the painting had aged, or the work was cleaned in the past, causing partially dissolved varnish and solvent to stain the canvas (see Conservation History). There are residues of the earlier natural-resin varnish around the areas of impasto. Because the paint is medium rich and the artist-applied ground is nonporous, the current [glossary:varnish] has probably had minimal impact on the overall tonality of the painting. The thin, synthetic surface coating only slightly saturates the painting, adds more gloss, and emphasizes the overall texture of the work.

Conservation History

The painting’s condition was first documented in 1921, when it was noted that the darks were cracking.58 In 1971 the painting was cleaned, restretched, lined, and revarnished.59 The 1971 pretreatment condition notes indicate that the work was stretched on a five-member stretcher and had brittle fabric and a discolored varnish. Before the lining was applied, grime and the natural-resin varnish were removed with solvents, while additional overpaint on the right figure’s pants was removed mechanically. The lining process involved facing the work with starch paste, and then adhering a new piece of linen with wax resin. The painting was restretched on a redwood ICA spring stretcher slightly larger than the composition, leaving a small, unpainted border around the perimeter. The changes to the dimensions are as follows: in the pretreatment report, the work measured 21 5/16 × 25 1/2 in., while in the posttreatment report it was listed as 21 5/8 × 25 7/8 in. After the painting had been restretched and the facing removed, it was 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) and retouched.

Condition Summary

The work is in good condition. It is wax-resin lined and attached to a four-member spring stretcher with tacks. The wax resin has saturated the commercial priming layer and, in conjunction with accumulated grime, has altered the ground color from white to taupe, while the heat and pressure of the lining process slightly increased the textural presence of the weave. Due to the thickness of the selective preparatory layer and subsequent paint layers, the overall tonality of the painting does not appear to be affected. Some areas of thinner paint, areas of exposed commercial priming, and thinner areas of artist-applied priming were slightly pushed into the canvas by the pressure and heat of the lining process (microcracking is visible under the microscope). The original tacking margins were flattened when the painting was lined, and much abrasion is present around the original edges of the work. Some of this abrasion, as well as other mild abrasion throughout the work, is likely a result of the prelining cleaning. The restretching increased the dimensions on all sides, leaving an unpainted border almost one-quarter-inch wide around the edges of the composition. The paint layer is in very good condition, with few areas of cracking and localized minor losses. Pronounced cracking is limited to the dark-blue dress of the female figure on the left, where Renoir apparently employed medium-rich glazes. The work has a glossy synthetic varnish, and minor residues of discolored natural-resin varnish are present around areas of impasto.
Kelly Keegan

Frame

Current frame (2008): The frame is not original to the painting. It is a French (Paris), mid-nineteenth-century, Neoclassical Revival, cove frame with cabled fluting, acanthus leaves at the miters, and a stepped frieze. The frame has water and oil gilding over red bole on gesso and compo ornament. The ornament and sight molding are selectively burnished; the cove is burnished and retains its original gilding and glue sizing. The pine molding is mitered and joined with angled, dovetailed splines. The molding, from the perimeter to the interior, is guilloche outer molding; cove side; fillet; torus with molded, centered, imbricated laurel-and-berry ornament and acanthus leaves at the miters; fillet; cove with cabled fluting and buds and acanthus leaves at the miters; and stepped frieze in three sections: ribbon and stave followed by fillet, leaf tip followed by fillet and cove, and fillet with cove sight edge (fig. 2.43).60

Previous frame (removed 2008): The painting was previously housed in an American (New York), mid-twentieth-century, French Regency, stylized frame of water-gilt, carved basswood with a décapé finish (fig. 2.44).61

Previous frame (installed by 1933, removed sometime between 1960 and c. 1975): The work was previously housed in a late-nineteenth–early-twentieth-century, Louis XIV Revival, convex frame with deeply recessed cast plaster ornament of alternating flowers and pendent bellflowers, bracketed by foliate scrolls, with acanthus leaves at the miters.62 The frame had water and oil gilding on a dark red-brown bole over gesso and cast plaster. The sides and frieze were burnished, and the ornament was selectively burnished. The gilding was toned with raw umber and a white wash and speckled overall with black and white. The molding was mitered and nailed. The molding, from the perimeter to the interior, was ovolo with leaf-tip ornament; scotia side; convex face with alternating flower and pendent bellflower ornament, bracketed by foliate scrolls, with acanthus leaves at the miters; hollow frieze; ogee with leaf-tip ornament; cove; and fillet with cove sight edge (fig. 2.45).
Kirk Vuillemot

Selected References

Catalogue de la 2e exposition de peinture, exh. cat. (Alcan-Lévy, 1876), p. 21, cat. 221.82

Émile Porcheron, “Promenades d’un flâneur: Les impressionnistes,” Le soleil, Apr. 4, 1876, pp. 2–3.83

Art Institute of Chicago, Paintings from the Collection of Mrs. Potter Palmer, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago, 1910), cat. 51.

Art Institute of Chicago, “Library Notes,” Bulletin of the Art Institute of Chicago 15, 5 (Sep.–Oct. 1921), p. 161 (ill.).

Art Institute of Chicago, Handbook of Sculpture, Architecture, and Paintings, pt. 2, Paintings (Art Institute of Chicago, 1922), p. 69, cat. 844.84

Art Institute of Chicago, “Accessions and Loans,” Bulletin of the Art Institute of Chicago 16, 3 (May 1922), p. 47.

Art Institute of Chicago, A Guide to the Paintings in the Permanent Collection (Art Institute of Chicago, 1925), pp. 67 (ill.); 150, cat. 844.85

M. C., “Renoirs in the Institute,” Bulletin of the Art Institute of Chicago 19, 3 (Mar. 1925), p. 33 (ill.).

Julius Meier-Graefe, Renoir (Klinkhardt & Biermann, 1929), p. 124, no. 102 (ill.).

Reginald Howard Wilenski, French Painting (Hale, Cushman & Flint, 1931), p. 262.

Daniel Catton Rich, “The Mrs. L. L. Coburn Collection,” in Exhibition of the Mrs. L. L. Coburn Collection: Modern Paintings and Watercolors, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago, 1932), p. 7.

Art Institute of Chicago, Catalogue of “A Century of Progress”: Exhibition of Paintings and Sculpture; Lent from American Collections, ed. Daniel Catton Rich, 3rd ed., exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago, 1933), p. 50, cat. 350.

Daniel Catton Rich, “Französische Impressionisten im Art Institute zu Chicago,” Pantheon: Monatsschrift für Freunde und Sammler der Kunst 11, 3 (Mar. 1933), pp. 77–78. 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, “The Rearrangement of the Paintings Galleries,” Bulletin of the Art Institute of Chicago 27, 7 (Dec. 1933), p. 115.

Pennsylvania Museum of Art, “Manet and Renoir,” Pennsylvania Museum Bulletin 29, 158 (Dec. 1933), pp. 16 (ill.), 19.

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. 40, cat. 239.

“Fourteen Notable Modern Paintings,” Fortune 9 (Jan. 1934), p. 33 (ill.).

Art Institute of Chicago, A Brief Illustrated Guide to the Collections (Art Institute of Chicago, 1935), p. 28.86

George Harold Edgell, Independent Painters of Nineteenth Century Paris, exh. cat. (Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 1935), pp. 30, cat. 45; 73 (ill.).

Arts Club of Chicago, Origins of Modern Art, exh. cat. (Arts Club of Chicago, 1940), cat. 13.

Reginald Howard Wilenski, Modern French Painters (Reynal & Hitchcook, [1940]), p. 338.87

Art Institute of Chicago, “The United States Now an Art Publishing Center,” Bulletin of the Art Institute of Chicago 36, 2 (Feb. 1942), p. 30.

Frederick A. Sweet, “Potter Palmer and the Painting Department,” Bulletin of the Art Institute of Chicago 37, 6 (Nov. 1943), p. 86.

Art Institute of Chicago, An Illustrated Guide to the Collections of the Art Institute of Chicago (Art Institute of Chicago, 1945), p. 36.88

Birmingham (Ala.) Museum of Art, Catalogue of the Opening Exhibition, exh. cat. (Birmingham Museum of Art, 1951), cover (ill.), p. 31.

Dorothy Bridaham, Renoir in the Art Institute of Chicago (Conzett & Huber, 1954), pl. 4.

Art Institute of Chicago, “The Artist Looks at People,” Art Institute of Chicago Quarterly 52, 4 (Dec. 1, 1958), p. 100.

Raymond Cogniat, Le siècle des impressionnistes (Flammarion, 1959), cover (ill.).

Ishbel Ross, Silhouette in Diamonds: The Life of Mrs. Potter Palmer (Harper & Bros., 1960), p. 155.

Art Institute of Chicago, Paintings in the Art Institute of Chicago: A Catalogue of the Picture Collection (Art Institute of Chicago, 1961), pp. 292 (ill.), 396.89

Kermit S. Champa, “Olympia’s Progeny,” in Wildenstein, Olympia’s Progeny: French Impressionist and Post-Impressionist Paintings (1865–1905); Loan Exhibition for the Benefit of the Association for Mentally Ill Children in Manhattan, Inc., exh. cat. (Wildenstein, 1965), n.pag.

Wildenstein, Olympia’s Progeny: French Impressionist and Post-Impressionist Paintings (1865–1905); Loan Exhibition for the Benefit of the Association for Mentally Ill Children in Manhattan, Inc., exh. cat. (Wildenstein, 1965), cat. 23 (ill.).

J. M., “Art Israel: 26 Painters and Sculptors,” Calendar of the Art Institute of Chicago 59, 3 (May 1965), p. 8 (detail).

Milwaukee Art Center, The Inner Circle, exh. cat. (Milwaukee Art Center/Arrow, 1966), cat. 81 (ill.).

Charles C. Cunningham, Instituto de arte de Chicago, El mundo de los museos 2 (Editorial Codex, 1967), pp. 11, ill. 31; 58, fig. 1.

Portland (Ore.) Art Museum, 75 Masterworks: An Exhibition of Paintings in Honor of the Seventy-Fifth Anniversary of the Portland Art Association, 1892–1967, exh. cat. (Portland Art Museum/Graphic Arts Center, [1967]), cat. 13 (ill.).

André Parinaud and Charles C. Cunningham, Art Institute of Chicago, Grands Musées 2 (Hachette-Filipacchi, 1969), pp. 36, fig. 1; 69, no. 31 (ill.).

Charles C. Cunningham and Satoshi Takahashi, Shikago bijutsukan [Art Institute of Chicago], Museums of the World 32 (Kodansha, 1970), pp. 47, pl. 33; 159.

William Gaunt, Impressionism: A Visual History (Praeger, 1970), pp. 236–37, pl. 91.

William Gaunt, The Impressionists (Thames & Hudson, 1970), pp. 236–37, pl. 91; 242; 291.90

John Maxon, The Art Institute of Chicago (Abrams, 1970), p. 86 (ill.).91

François Daulte, Auguste Renoir: Catalogue raisonné de l’oeuvre peint, vol. 1, Figures, 1860–1890 (Durand-Ruel, 1971), pp. 232–33, cat. 305 (ill.).

Elda Fezzi, L’opera completa di Renoir: Nel periodo impressionista, 1869–1883, Classici dell’arte 59 (Rizzoli, 1972), pp. 65, pl. IL; 108–09, cat. 452 (ill.).92

Art Institute of Chicago, Paintings by Renoir, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago, 1973), pp. 24; 84–85, cat. 28 (ill.).

John Rewald, “Theo van Gogh, Goupil, and the Impressionists,” Gazette des beaux-arts 81, 1248 (Jan. 1973), cover (detail); pp. 13, fig. 7; 14; 15.

John Rewald, “Theo van Gogh, Goupil, and the Impressionists—II,” Gazette des beaux-arts 81, 1249 (Feb. 1973), p. 103.

Mike Samuels and Nancy Samuels, Seeing with the Mind’s Eye: The History, Techniques, and Uses of Visualization (Random House, 1975), p. 71 (ill.).

Walter Pach, Auguste Renoir: Leben und Werk (M. DuMont Schauberg, 1976), pp. 115, fig. 51; 173.

Art Institute of Chicago, 100 Masterpieces (Art Institute of Chicago, 1978), pp. 20; 100–01, pl. 56.

Musée Toulouse-Lautrec and Art Institute of Chicago, Trésors impressionnistes du Musée de Chicago, exh. cat. (Musée Toulouse-Lautrec, 1980), pp. 15, no. 21 (ill.); 68.

Art Institute of Chicago, “Subscription Series,” Bulletin of the Art Institute of Chicago 74, 1 (Jan.–Mar. 1980), p. 18 (ill.).

Joel Isaacson, “Impressionism and Journalistic Illustration,” Arts Magazine 56, 10 (June 1982), p. 105, fig. 37.

Hayward Gallery, Galeries Nationales du Grand Palais, Paris, and Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Renoir, exh. cat. (Réunion des Musées Nationaux, 1985), pp. 166–67, cat. 47 (ill.); 168.

Hayward Gallery, Galeries Nationales du Grand Palais, Paris, and Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Renoir, exh. cat. (Arts Council of Great Britain, 1985), pp. 94, no. 48 (ill.); 216, no. 48 (ill.); 217.

Denys Sutton, “Renoir’s Kingdom,” Apollo 121, 278 (Apr. 1985), pp. 244; 247, fig. 8.

Charles S. Moffett, ed., with the assistance of Ruth Berson, Barbara Lee Williams, and Fronia E. Wissman, The New Painting: Impressionism, 1874–1886, exh. cat. (Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, 1986), p. 164.

Richard R. Brettell, French Impressionists (Art Institute of Chicago/Abrams, 1987), pp. 30–31 (detail), 32 (ill.), 119.

Françoise Cachin and Bogomila Welsh-Ovcharov, with the assistance of Monique Nonne, Van Gogh à Paris, exh. cat. (Réunion des Musées Nationaux, 1988), p. 375 (ill.).

Robert L. Herbert, Impressionism: Art, Leisure, and Parisian Society (Yale University Press, 1988), cover (ill.); pp. 246–47, pl. 250; 253.

Raffaele De Grada, Renoir (Giorgio Mondadori, 1989), p. 72, pl. 49.

Gloria Groom and J. Russell Harris, Tour de France: Paintings, Photographs, Prints, and Drawings from the Collection of the Art Institute of Chicago, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago, 1989), fig. 8.

Sophie Monneret, Renoir, Profils de l’art (Chêne, 1989), p. 78, fig. 1.

Martha Kapos, ed., The Impressionists: A Retrospective (Hugh Lauter Levin/Macmillan, 1991), p. 183, pl. 55.

Russell Ash and Bernard Higton, eds., The Impressionists’ River: Views of the Seine (Universe, 1992), p. 12 (ill.).

James Yood, Feasting: A Celebration of Food in Art; Paintings from the Art Institute of Chicago (Art Institute of Chicago/Universe, 1992), pp. 15 (detail); 50–51, pl. 16.

Anne Distel, “Pierre-Auguste Renoir, The Luncheon (Le déjeuner),” in Richard J. Wattenmaker et al., Great French Paintings from the Barnes Foundation: Impressionist, Post-Impressionist, and Early Modern (Knopf/Lincoln University Press, 1993), p. 54, fig. 1.

Anne Distel, Renoir: “Il faut embellir,” Découvertes Gallimard: Peinture 177 (Gallimard/Réunion des Musées Nationaux, 1993), pp. 73 (detail), 169. Translated by Lory Frankel as Renoir: A Sensuous Vision (Thames & Hudson, 1995), pp. 73 (detail), 169.

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), pp. 10, 64 (ill.).

Gerhard Gruitrooy, Renoir: A Master of Impressionism (Todtri, 1994), pp. 47 (ill.), 49, 73.

Tom Frederickson, Culinary Art: Recipes from Great Chicago Restaurants Illustrated with Works of Art from the Collections of the Art Institute of Chicago (Art Institute of Chicago, 1995), p. 17 (ill.).

Ruth Berson, ed., The New Painting: Impressionism, 1874–1886; Documentation, vol. 1, Reviews (Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco/University of Washington Press, 1996), pp. 51, 103.

Ruth Berson, ed., The New Painting: Impressionism, 1874–1886; Documentation, vol. 2, Exhibited Works (Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco/University of Washington Press, 1996), pp. 44–45, 63 (ill.).

Francesca Castellani, Pierre-Auguste Renoir: La vita e l’opera (Mondadori, 1996), p. 129 (ill.).

Stephen Kern, Eyes of Love: The Gaze in English and French Paintings and Novels, 1840–1900 (Reaktion, 1996), pp. 59, ill. 25; 60.

Eliza E. Rathbone, “Renoir’s Luncheon of the Boating Party: Tradition and the New,” in Eliza E. Rathbone, Katherine Rothkopf, Richard R. Brettell, and Charles S. Moffett, Impressionists on the Seine: A Celebration of Renoir’s “Luncheon of the Boating Party,” exh. cat. (Phillips Collection/Counterpoint, 1996), p. 32.

Eliza E. Rathbone, Katherine Rothkopf, Richard R. Brettell, and Charles S. Moffett, Impressionists on the Seine: A Celebration of Renoir’s “Luncheon of the Boating Party,” exh. cat. (Phillips Collection/Counterpoint, 1996), pp. 198, pl. 40; 258.

Katherine Rothkopf, “From Argenteuil to Bougival: Life and Leisure on the Seine, 1868–1882,” in Eliza E. Rathbone, Katherine Rothkopf, Richard R. Brettell, and Charles S. Moffett, Impressionists on the Seine: A Celebration of Renoir’s “Luncheon of the Boating Party,” exh. cat. (Phillips Collection/Counterpoint, 1996), p. 73.

Colin B. Bailey, with the assistance of John B. Collins, Renoir’s Portraits: Impressions of an Age, exh. cat. (National Gallery of Canada/Yale University Press, 1997), pp. 186; 308, n. 8. Translated by Danielle Chaput and Julie Desgagné, with support from Nada Kerpan for the texts by Linda Nochlin, as Les portraits de Renoir: Impressions d’une époque, exh. cat. (Gallimard/Musée des Beaux-Arts du Canada, 1997), pp. 186; 308, n. 8.

Douglas W. Druick, Renoir, Artists in Focus (Art Institute of Chicago/Abrams, 1997), pp. 6; 8 (detail); 27–28; 30; 35; 47–48; 59; 72; 83, pl. 2; 109.

Charlotte Gere and Marina Vaizey, Great Woman Collectors (Philip Wilson/Abrams, 1999), p. 133.

Kawamura Memorial Museum of Art, Miyagi Museum of Art, and Hokkaido Museum of Modern Art, Runowāru ten/Renoir: Modern Eyes, exh. cat. (Hokkaido Shinbunsha, 1999), p. 185, fig. 5.

Chris Stolwijk and Richard Thomson, with a contribution by Sjraar van Heugten, Theo van Gogh (1857–1891): Art Dealer, Collector, and Brother of Vincent, exh. cat. (Van Gogh Museum/Waanders, 1999), p. 216, cat. 125.

Richard Thomson, “Theo van Gogh: An Honest Broker,” in Chris Stolwijk and Richard Thomson, with a contribution by Sjraar van Heugten, Theo van Gogh (1857–1891): Art Dealer, Collector, and Brother of Vincent, exh. cat. (Van Gogh Museum/Waanders, 1999), pp. 123; 125, cat. 125 (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), pp. 9, 43, 45 (ill.), 50, 71, 77.

Gilles Néret, Renoir: Painter of Happiness, 1841–1919, trans. Josephine Bacon (Taschen, 2001), p. 130 (ill.).

Sylvie Patin, L’impressionisme (Bibliothèque des Arts, 2002), p. 119.

Christie’s, London, Impressionist and Modern Art Evening Sale, sale cat. (Christie’s, Feb. 3, 2003), p. 31 (ill.).

Robert L. Herbert et al., Seurat and the Making of “La Grande Jatte,” exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago/University of California Press, 2004), pp. 112, cat. 107 (ill.); 113; 277.

Norio Shimada, Inshoha bijutsukan [The history of Impressionism] (Shogakukan, 2004), pp. 144–45 (ill.).

Eleanor Dwight, ed., The Letters of Pauline Palmer: A Great Lady of Chicago’s First Family (M. T. Train/Scala, 2005), pp. 301, 302–03 (ill.).

Kyoko Kagawa, Runowaru [Pierre-Auguste Renoir], Seiyo kaiga no kyosho [Great masters of Western art] 4 (Shogakukan, 2006), p. 70 (ill.).

Colin B. Bailey, “‘The Greatest Luminosity, Colour, and Harmony’: Renoir’s Landscapes, 1862–1883,” in Renoir Landscapes, 1865–1883, ed. Colin B. Bailey and Christopher Riopelle, exh. cat. (National Gallery, London, 2007), pp. 58, fig. 38; 59. Translated as Colin B. Bailey, “‘Un maximum de luminosité; de coloration, et d’harmonie”: Les paysages de Renoir, 1862–1883,” in Les paysages de Renoir, 1865–1883, ed. Colin B. Bailey and Christopher Riopelle, trans. Marie-Françoise Dispa, Lise-Éliane Pomier, and Laura Meijer, exh. cat. (National Gallery, London/5 Continents, 2007), pp. 58, fig. 38; 59.

Colin B. Bailey and Christopher Riopelle, eds., Renoir Landscapes, 1865–1883, exh. cat. (National Gallery, London, 2007), pp. 168; 170–71, cat. 34 (ill.); 210; 214. Translated by Marie-Françoise Dispa, Lise-Éliane Pomier, and Laura Meijer as Les paysages de Renoir, 1865–1883, exh. cat. (National Gallery, London/5 Continents, 2007), pp. 168; 170–71, cat. 34 (ill.); 210; 214.

Guy-Patrice Dauberville and Michel Dauberville, with the collaboration of Camille Frémontier-Murphy, Renoir: Catalogue raisonné des tableaux, pastels, dessins et aquarelles, vol. 1, 1858–1881 (Bernheim-Jeune, 2007), p. 262, cat. 218 (ill.).

Robert McDonald Parker, “Topographical Chronology 1860–1883,” in Renoir Landscapes, 1865–1883, ed. Colin B. Bailey and Christopher Riopelle, exh. cat. (National Gallery, London, 2007), p. 275. Translated as Robert McDonald Parker, “Chronologie,” in Les paysages de Renoir, 1865–1883, ed. Colin B. Bailey and Christopher Riopelle, trans. Marie-Françoise Dispa, Lise-Éliane Pomier, and Laura Meijer, exh. cat. (National Gallery, London/5 Continents, 2007), p. 275.

Peter Bürger, “Media Differences: Caillebotte and Maupassant as Storytellers,” in Anne Birgitte Fonsmark, Dorothee Hansen, and Gry Hedin, Gustave Caillebotte, exh. cat. (Hatje Cantz, 2008), pp. 24; 25, fig. 3.

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), cover (detail); pp. 20 (ill.); 64–65, cat. 23 (ill.); 73; 111. 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), front cover (detail); pp. 20 (ill.); 64–65, cat. 23 (ill.); 73; 111.93

Anne Distel, Renoir (Citadelles & Mazenod, 2009), pp. 118–19, ill. 101; 190; 192.

Adrien Goetz, Comment Regarder . . . Renoir (Hazan, 2009), pp. 160–61 (ill.).

John House, The Genius of Renoir: Paintings from the Clark, with an essay by James A. Ganz, exh. cat. (Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute/Museo Nacional del Prado/Yale University Press, 2010), p. 59.

John House, “Catalogue 4: Luncheon (Le Déjeuner),” in Martha Lucy and John House, Renoir in the Barnes Foundation (Barnes Foundation/Yale University Press, 2012), p. 75, fig. 1.

Stefanie Manthey, “Chronology,” in Renoir: Between Bohemia and Bourgeoisie; The Early Years, ed. Nina Zimmer, exh. cat. (Kunstmuseum Basel/Hatje Cantz, 2012), p. 286.

Stefanie Manthey and Nina Zimmer, “Catalogue of Exhibited Works,” in Renoir: Between Bohemia and Bourgeoisie; The Early Years, ed. Nina Zimmer, exh. cat. (Kunstmuseum Basel/Hatje Cantz, 2012), pp. 114–15; 200–01, cat. 40 (ill.).

Christopher Lloyd, “Coastal Adventures, Riparian Pleasures: The Impressionists and Boating,” in Christopher Lloyd, Daniel Charles, and Phillip Dennis Cate, with a contribution by Giles Chardeau, Impressionists on the Water, exh. cat. (Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco/Skira Rizzoli, 2013), pp. 28; 29, ill. 24.

12) Lunch at the Restaurant Fournaise (The Rowers’ Lunch) (Daulte 305) corresponds to François Daulte, Auguste Renoir: Catalogue raisonné de l’oeuvre peint, vol. 1, Figures, 1860–1890 (Durand-Ruel, 1971), pp. 232–33, cat. 305 (ill.). Lunch at the Restaurant Fournaise (The Rowers’ Lunch) (Dauberville 218) corresponds to Guy-Patrice Dauberville and Michel Dauberville, with the collaboration of Camille Frémontier-Murphy, Renoir: Catalogue raisonné des tableaux, pastels, dessins et aquarelles, vol. 1, 1858–1881 (Bernheim-Jeune, 2007), p. 262, cat. 218 (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). This title is an English translation of the title given to the painting when it was exhibited in 1876 in the second Impressionist exhibition. The painting had the following titles during the lifetime of the artist:

Apr. 1876: Déjeûner chez Fournaise (Catalogue de la 2e exposition de peinture, exh. cat. [Alcan-Lévy, 1876], p. 21, cat. 221; confirmed by 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.)

July 8, 1881: Conversation (bords de la Seine) (Durand-Ruel, Paris [no. 1452]; according to Colin B. Bailey, with the assistance of John B. Collins, Renoir’s Portraits: Impressions of an Age, exh. cat. [National Gallery of Canada/Yale University Press, 1997], p. 308, n. 8; and John Collins to the Art Institute of Chicago, July 28, 1997, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.)

Nov. 21, 1887: Canotiers (Boussod, Valadon & Cie, Paris, stock book 12, 1887–91 [no. 18877]. The Goupil & Cie/Boussod, Valadon & Cie Stock Books are located at the Getty Research Institute’s Research Library, Special Collections, Los Angeles; the stock books have been digitized and are available on the Getty Research Institute’s website. A photocopy of this page is in the curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago. This painting is identified as Boussod, Valadon & Cie stock no. 18877 in Chris Stolwijk and Richard Thomson, with a contribution by Sjraar van Heugten, Theo van Gogh [1857–1891]: Art Dealer, Collector, and Brother of Vincent, exh. cat. [Van Gogh Museum/Waanders, 1999], p. 216, cat. 125.)

Mar. 21, 1892: Déjeuner de canotiers (Durand-Ruel, Paris, stock book for 1891 [no. 2064]; 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.)

Apr. 9, 1892: Déjeuner de canotiers (Durand-Ruel, New York, stock book for 1888–93 [no. 932]; 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 10, 1910: Breakfast by the river (Art Institute of Chicago, Paintings from the Collection of Mrs. Potter Palmer, exh. cat. [Art Institute of Chicago, 1910], cat. 51.)

13) The painting was dated 1875 based on research conducted for the publication Douglas W. Druick, Renoir, Artists in Focus (Art Institute of Chicago/Abrams, 1997). Previously, the painting had been dated c. 1880 based on its relation to Luncheon of the Boating Party (1880–81; Phillips Collection, Washington, D.C. [Daulte 379; Dauberville 224]). See Medieval to Modern European Painting and Sculpture cataloguing card dated July 31, 1997, in curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago. Daulte and Dauberville refer to the Renoir catalogues raisonnés: François Daulte, Auguste Renoir: Catalogue raisonné de l’oeuvre peint (Durand-Ruel, 1971); Guy-Patrice Dauberville and Michel Dauberville, Renoir: Catalogue raisonné des tableaux, pastels, dessins et aquarelles, vols. 1-5 (Bernheim-Jeune, 2007-14).

17) The landscapes include The Bridge at Chatou (Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute, Williamstown, Mass. [Dauberville 136]) and The Skiff (National Gallery, London [Dauberville 141]), both undated. Colin B. Bailey provides a comprehensive argument for redating the Chatou landscapes to 1875 in his essay “‘The Greatest Luminosity, Colour, and Harmony’: Renoir’s Landscapes, 1862–1883,” in Renoir Landscapes, 1865–1883, ed. Colin B. Bailey and Christopher Riopelle, exh. cat.(National Gallery, London, 2007), pp. 58–59. Daulte and Dauberville refer to the Renoir catalogues raisonnés: François Daulte, Auguste Renoir: Catalogue raisonné de l’oeuvre peint (Durand-Ruel, 1971); Guy-Patrice Dauberville and Michel Dauberville, Renoir: Catalogue raisonné des tableaux, pastels, dessins et aquarelles, vols. 1–5 (Bernheim-Jeune, 2007–14).

33) The identification of Lauradour remains speculative. He may be the bearded model of the same name who inspired Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec twenty years later in M. de Lauradour (1897; Museum of Modern Art, New York). See Henri Perruchot, Toulouse-Lautrec, trans. Humphrey Hare (Perpetua Books, 1960), p. 234. The possibility that Lauradour was a doctor from a noble family in Poitou is tantalizing, as it would place him in Renoir’s circle of ex-military men, including Baron Paul Barbier and Prince Georges Bibesco, an important early patron of Renoir’s who met the artist in the 1860s at La Grenouillère. See references to Marie-Albert de Lauradour in L’écho des jeunes, Nov. 15, 1896, p. 217 (“Le Dîner du Poitou”); Guide Rosenwald (1900), p. 347 (“Docteurs du département: Lauradour, Batignolles, 80, St. Ouen (Seine)”); Annuaire de l’armée française (1903), p. 239 (“médecin aide-major de 1re classe, De Lauradour, M.A.”); Gil Blas, Dec. 21, 1897, p. 4 (Lauradour won a “2e poule” in fencing).

37) 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.

52) [glossary:Pigments] were identified using the following methods: lead white, cobalt blue, vermilion, emerald green ([glossary:XRF], [glossary:SEM/EDX]); viridian, chrome yellow, chrome orange (XRF); and two red lakes (SEM/EDX). XRF analysis also suggested the presence of zinc in selected areas. The detection of zinc in the area of the female figure’s right arm (in the dark-blue dress) could be due to the presence of zinc yellow, though it should be noted that no potassium was detected. It is possible that zinc yellow is present in very small amounts, as small amounts of potassium would be below the detection limit of the instrument. The presence of zinc could also indicate zinc soaps (present as a manufacturer’s additive) or zinc white, which may have been incorporated into the tube paint to lighten the hue. See Kimberley Muir, “Ren_RowersLunch_22_437_XRF_results,” June 29, 2009; Inge Fiedler, “1922_437_Renoir_analytical_report,” May 15, 2013, both 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.

55) 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 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 [glossary:fluorescence] under [glossary: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.

64) According to John Rewald, “Theo van Gogh, Goupil, and the Impressionists,” Gazette des beaux-arts 81, 1248 (Jan. 1973), p. 14; and Rewald, “Theo van Gogh, Goupil, and the Impressionists—II,” Gazette des beaux-arts 81, 1249 (Feb. 1973), p. 103. In the February 1973 article, Rewald identifies Legrand as “Legrand. 40, rue Blanche, Paris; a dealer at 122bis, rue Laffitte. As early as 1876 lent one painting each by Renoir and Sisley to the second Impressionist group exhibition. As a competitor of Durand-Ruel, worked closely with Goupil in Paris and Knoedler in New York.” See Rewald, “Theo van Gogh II,” p. 107. According to Boussod, Valadon & Cie, Paris, stock book 12, 1887–91 (no. 18877, as Canotiers) the painting was sold by Legrand to Boussod, Valadon & Cie on Nov. 21, 1887, for 200 francs. The Goupil & Cie/Boussod, Valadon & Cie Stock Books are located at the Getty Research Institute’s Research Library, Special Collections, Los Angeles; the stock books have been digitized and are available on the Getty Research Institute’s website. A photocopy of this page is in the curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.

65) According to John Rewald, “Theo van Gogh, Goupil, and the Impressionists,” Gazette des beaux-arts 81, 1248 (Jan. 1973), p. 14; and Rewald, “Theo van Gogh, Goupil, and the Impressionists—II,” Gazette des beaux-arts 81, 1249 (Feb. 1973), p. 103. This transaction is recorded in Boussod, Valadon & Cie, Paris, stock book 12, 1887–91 (no. 18877, as Canotiers) and includes a price code “RNX,” decoded by the Getty Research Institute’s online database as 200 francs. The Goupil & Cie/Boussod, Valadon & Cie Stock Books are located at the Getty Research Institute’s Research Library, Special Collections, Los Angeles; the stock books have been digitized and are available on the Getty Research Institute’s website. A photocopy of this page is in the curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago. This painting is identified as Boussod, Valadon & Cie stock no. 18877 in Chris Stolwijk and Richard Thomson, with a contribution by Sjraar van Heugten, Theo van Gogh (1857–1891): Art Dealer, Collector, and Brother of Vincent, exh. cat. (Van Gogh Museum/Waanders, 1999), p. 216, cat. 125. The dimensions recorded in the stock book are 50 × 32 cm; the dimensions for the Art Institute’s painting are 55 × 65.9 cm.

66) According to John Rewald, “Theo van Gogh, Goupil, and the Impressionists,” Gazette des beaux-arts 81, 1248 (Jan. 1973), p. 14; and Rewald, “Theo van Gogh, Goupil, and the Impressionists—II,” Gazette des beaux-arts 81, 1249 (Feb. 1973), p. 103. In the February 1973 article, Rewald identifies Guyotin as “&aps;Guyotin. ‘Marchand-amateur,’ rue Grange-Batelière, Paris.” See Rewald, “Theo van Gogh II,” p. 106. This transaction is recorded in Boussod, Valadon & Cie, Paris, stock book 12, 1887–91 (no. 18877, as Canotiers) and includes a price code “EAN,” decoded by the Getty Research Institute’s online database as 350 francs. The Goupil & Cie/Boussod, Valadon & Cie Stock Books are located at the Getty Research Institute’s Research Library, Special Collections, Los Angeles; the stock books have been digitized and are available on the Getty Research Institute’s website. A photocopy of this page is in the curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago. This painting is identified as Boussod, Valadon & Cie stock no. 18877 in Chris Stolwijk and Richard Thomson, with a contribution by Sjraar van Heugten, Theo van Gogh (1857–1891): Art Dealer, Collector, and Brother of Vincent, exh. cat. (Van Gogh Museum/Waanders, 1999), p. 216, cat. 125. The dimensions recorded in the stock book are 50 × 32 cm; the dimensions for the Art Institute’s painting are 55 × 65.9 cm.

fig. 1.2
Photomicrograph of the signature in Renoir’s *Lunch at the Restaurant Fournaise (The Rowers’ Lunch)* (1875) showing the mixture of black and red lake pigments. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1922.437.

fig. 1.1
Detail of the signature in Renoir’s *Lunch at the Restaurant Fournaise (The Rowers’ Lunch)* (1875). The Art Institute of Chicago, 1922.437.

fig. 2.20
Pretreatment image from 1971 of the verso of Renoir’s *Lunch at the Restaurant Fournaise (The Rowers’ Lunch)* (1875) showing the original stretcher. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1922.437.

fig. 1.3
Detail of the verso of the canvas of Renoir’s *Lunch at the Restaurant Fournaise (The Rowers’ Lunch)* (1875), from a 1971 pretreatment image. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1922.437.

fig. 1.4
Transmitted-infrared (Fuji, 1.0–1.1 µm) image of Renoir’s *Lunch at the Restaurant Fournaise (The Rowers’ Lunch)* (1875). The Carpentier canvas stamp on the verso is visible at left. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1922.437.

fig. 2.22
Photomicrograph of the right edge of Renoir’s *Lunch at the Restaurant Fournaise (The Rowers’ Lunch)* (1875) showing the edge of the artist-applied ground. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1922.437.

fig. 2.23
Photomicrograph of the background in Renoir’s *Lunch at the Restaurant Fournaise (The Rowers’ Lunch)* (1875). The tint of the ground is especially apparent when it is seen next to white paint. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1922.437.

fig. 2.24
Detail of the background in Renoir’s *Lunch at the Restaurant Fournaise (The Rowers’ Lunch)* (1875) showing an area of exposed ground and the artist’s exaggeration of the canvas texture. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1922.437.

fig. 2.25
Infrared reflectogram (Fuji, 1.0–1.1 µm) of Renoir’s *Lunch at the Restaurant Fournaise (The Rowers’ Lunch)* (1875). The Art Institute of Chicago, 1922.437.

fig. 2.26
Infrared-reflectogram (Fuji, 1.0–1.1 µm) detail of Renoir’s *Lunch at the Restaurant Fournaise (The Rowers’ Lunch)* (1875) showing the media used for the underdrawing. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1922.437.

fig. 2.27
X-ray detail of Renoir’s *Lunch at the Restaurant Fournaise (The Rowers’ Lunch)* (1875) showing the background paint coming up to and around the currently visible female figure’s head. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1922.437. X-ray digitally composited by Robert G. Erdmann, University of Arizona.

fig. 2.28
Detail of the bottom left quadrant of Renoir’s *Lunch at the Restaurant Fournaise (The Rowers’ Lunch)* (1875). Heavy brushstrokes from the earlier figure are visible under normal viewing conditions. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1922.437.

fig. 2.29
X-ray, raking-light, and natural-light details of the figures on the left in Renoir’s *Lunch at the Restaurant Fournaise (The Rowers’ Lunch)* (1875). The Art Institute of Chicago, 1922.437. Interactive image.

fig. 2.30
Photomicrograph of a cross section from Renoir’s *Lunch at the Restaurant Fournaise (The Rowers’ Lunch)* (1875) showing the lighter blue from the earlier figure’s costume below the currently visible dark blue. Original magnification 200×. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1922.437.

fig. 2.31
Detail of the far left figure in Renoir’s *Lunch at the Restaurant Fournaise (The Rowers’ Lunch)* (1875) showing heavy underlying brushwork where the artist painted out previous compositional choices. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1922.437.

fig. 2.32
X-ray and natural-light details of Renoir’s *Lunch at the Restaurant Fournaise (The Rowers’ Lunch)* (1875) showing changes to the figure on the right. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1922.437. Interactive image.

fig. 2.33
Detail of the hand and arm of the figure on the right in Renoir’s *Lunch at the Restaurant Fournaise (The Rowers’ Lunch)* (1875). The Art Institute of Chicago, 1922.437.

fig. 2.34
Detail of the background in Renoir’s *Lunch at the Restaurant Fournaise (The Rowers’ Lunch)* (1875) showing thick strokes of the water under the trellis and foliage. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1922.437.

fig. 2.35
Detail of the chair on the left in Renoir’s *Lunch at the Restaurant Fournaise (The Rowers’ Lunch)* (1875) showing wet-in-wet paint mixing. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1922.437.

fig. 2.36
Detail of the foliage in the upper right of Renoir’s *Lunch at the Restaurant Fournaise (The Rowers’ Lunch)* (1875). The Art Institute of Chicago, 1922.437.

fig. 2.37
Detail of the bottles and glassware in Renoir’s *Lunch at the Restaurant Fournaise (The Rowers’ Lunch)* (1875). The Art Institute of Chicago, 1922.437.

fig. 2.38
Detail of the flowers on the trellis in Renoir’s *Lunch at the Restaurant Fournaise (The Rowers’ Lunch)* (1875). The Art Institute of Chicago, 1922.437.

fig. 2.39
Detail of the female figure’s dress in Renoir’s *Lunch at the Restaurant Fournaise (The Rowers’ Lunch)* (1875) showing the artist’s use of medium-rich, glaze-like paint. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1922.437.

fig. 2.40
Detail of the background in Renoir’s *Lunch at the Restaurant Fournaise (The Rowers’ Lunch)* (1875) showing the artist’s manipulation of the canvas texture. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1922.437.

fig. 2.41
Ultraviolet image of Renoir’s *Lunch at the Restaurant Fournaise (The Rowers’ Lunch)* (1875). Fluorescing red lakes can be seen in the female figure’s costume and in the signature and flesh tones. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1922.437.

fig. 2.42
Pretreatment image from 1971 of the verso of Renoir’s *Lunch at the Restaurant Fournaise (The Rowers’ Lunch)* (1875) showing the original stretcher. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1922.437.

fig. 2.43
Renoir’s *Lunch at the Restaurant Fournaise (The Rowers’ Lunch)* (1875) in its current frame. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1922.437.

fig. 2.19
Renoir’s *Lunch at the Restaurant Fournaise (The Rowers’ Lunch)* (1875). The Art Institute of Chicago, 1922.437. Interactive image.

fig. 2.5
Pierre-Auguste Renoir (French, 1841–1919). *Luncheon of the Boating Party*, 1880–81. Oil on canvas; 130.2 × 175.6 cm (51 1/4 × 68 1/8 in.). The Phillips Collection, Washington, D.C., acquired 1923, 1637. Bridgeman Images.

fig. 2.8
Pierre-Auguste Renoir (French, 1841–1919). *The Skiff (La yole)*, 1875. Oil on canvas; 71 × 92 cm (16 1/8 × 36 1/4 in.). The National Gallery, London, NG 6478. © National Gallery, London/Art Resource, NY.

fig. 2.9
Pierre-Auguste Renoir (French, 1841–1919). *Monsieur Fournaise (Man with a Pipe)*, 1875. Oil on canvas; 55.9 × 47 cm (22 × 18 1/2 in.). Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute, Williamstown, Mass., 1955.55. The Bridgeman Art Library.

fig. 2.10
Pierre-Auguste Renoir (French, 1841–1919). *La promenade*, 1870. Oil on canvas; 81 × 65 cm (32 × 25 1/2 in.). The J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles. Digital Image courtesy of the Getty’s Open Content Program.

fig. 2.11
Pierre-Auguste Renoir (French, 1841–1919). *Bather with a Griffon Dog*, 1870. Oil on canvas; 184 × 115 cm (72 7/16 × 45 5/16 in.). Museu de Arte de São Paulo, Brazil. The Bridgeman Art Library.

fig. 2.14
Pierre-Auguste Renoir (French, 1841–1919). *Portrait of Edmond Renoir*, 1879. Oil on canvas; 32.8 × 24.5 cm (12 15/16 × 9 5/8 in.). Private collection. Courtesy of Galerie Schmit, Paris.

fig. 2.17
Detail of Renoir’s *Lunch at the Restaurant Fournaise* (1875) showing the head of the male figure on the left. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1922.437.

fig. 2.18
Detail of Renoir’s *Lunch at the Restaurant Fournaise* (1875) showing the shirt of the male figure on the right. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1922.437.

fig. 2.6
View of the Restaurant Fournaise on the island of Chatou, from the bridge, c. 1905. Black and white postcard; 9 × 14 cm (3 9/16 × 5 1/2 in.). © Musée Fournaise de Chatou, © Service des Musées de France, 2011, © Vincent de la Faille, 2009—use subject to authorization.

fig. 2.7
Pierre-Auguste Renoir (French, 1841–1919). *The Luncheon (Le déjeuner)*, 1875. Oil on canvas; 49.2 × 60 cm (19 3/8 × 23 5/8 in.). The Barnes Foundation. Image © 2014 The Barnes Foundation.

fig. 2.12
Victor Coindre (French, 19th century). Title page illustration for sheet music of *Chanson des canotiers*, part of the Théâtre de l'Ambigu-comique production of *Les étudiants*, a drama by Frédéric Soulié with music by Amédée Artus, 1845. Lithograph on paper; 29.5 × 23 cm (11 5/8 × 9 1/16 in.). Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris.

fig. 2.13
J. Pelcoq, “Physionomies Parisiennes. Les Canotiers (autrefois). La flottille de Bercy,” *Le journal amusant*, no. 943 (Sept. 25, 1874), p. 6.

fig. 2.16
J. Pelcoq, “Physionomies Parisiennes. Les Canotiers (aujourd’hui),” *Le journal amusant*, no. 943 (Sept. 25, 1874), p. 7. Courtesy The Getty Research Institute.

fig. 2.15
X-ray of Renoir’s *Lunch at the Restaurant Fournaise (The Rowers’ Lunch)* (1875). X-ray digitally composited by Robert G. Erdmann, University of Arizona. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1922.437.

fig. 2.47
Installation of Renoir’s *Lunch at the Restaurant Fournaise (The Rowers’ Lunch)* (1875) in *Renoir’s Portraits: Impressions of an Age*, Art Institute of Chicago, Oct. 17, 1997–Jan. 4, 1998. Institutional Archives, Art Institute of Chicago.

fig. 2.46
Installation of Renoir’s *Lunch at the Restaurant Fournaise (The Rowers’ Lunch)* (1875) in *“A Century of Progress”: Loan Exhibition of Paintings and Sculpture,* Art Institute of Chicago, May 23–Nov. 1, 1933. Institutional Archives, Art Institute of Chicago.

fig. 2.45
Renoir’s *Lunch at the Restaurant Fournaise (The Rowers’ Lunch)* (1875) in a previous frame, installed in *“A Century of Progress”: Loan Exhibition of Paintings and Sculpture*, Art Institute of Chicago, May 23–Nov. 1, 1933. Institutional Archives, Art Institute of Chicago.

fig. 2.44
Renoir’s *Lunch at the Restaurant Fournaise (The Rowers’ Lunch)* (1875) in a previous frame. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1922.437.

fig. 2.21
Photomicrograph of a cross-section from Renoir’s *Lunch at the Restaurant Fournaise (The Rowers’ Lunch)* (1875) showing the canvas and ground layer. Original magnification: 100×. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1922.437.

With its elevated vantage point giving an unobstructed view of the woman’s hands on the keyboard, Woman at the Piano invites the viewer to associate the sensual act of listening with the visual harmony of the beautiful redhead wearing a luxurious, brilliantly lit peignoir.104 The woman—likely Renoir’s favorite model of the late 1870s, Nini Lopez—plays an upright piano appropriate for modest living quarters. The interior furnishings depicted in this painting are not opulent but are typical of a bourgeois home of the 1870s: an oriental carpet, subdued wall coverings in dark colors, and a fringed portiere to divide rooms. In the background on the left, a large, glazed ceramic planter with a footed base, remarkable for its iridescence, may be of chinoiserie design. Above the piano hangs a pastel or print framed in a mat, another sign of middle-class living. The bound volumes of music on top of the piano, piled together with loose, illustrated sheets that often accompanied popular tunes, hint at the pianist’s broad repertoire. As the writer Émile Zola related in his novel Nana of 1879, learning to play the piano was a common element of a middle-class French girl’s education, along with English lessons.105 The comfortable ambience of the room in Woman at the Piano places it outside Renoir’s rue Saint-Georges studio, which was described as a rectangular room furnished with old armchairs, where three walls were covered in gray wallpaper and a third was entirely glazed for maximum light.106

Sensuality and the Parisienne

Sensuality was often an aspect of Renoir’s paintings of the Parisienne—a woman dressed in the latest fashion—which were intended primarily for the enjoyment of the wealthy male viewer.107 Woman at the Piano can be considered an image of the Parisienne because the peignoir is the star of the painting, occupying most of the picture and making the canvas the equivalent of a fashion plate. The raised viewing angle opens up the foreground to accommodate the full extent of the flowing skirt. The artist made adjustments to the piano, which in overall profile appears more foreshortened in the [glossary:X-ray], suggesting that he stepped back from the subject in order to encompass the woman’s entire figure in the composition; the artist also lowered his point of view to a slightly less steep angle (fig. 2.57). Demonstrating an expressive and gestural technique, Renoir rendered the peignoir to appear as a willowy mass of brushwork over an off-white or beige underlayer painted over with white, blue, and some light green, all blended together to convey the garment’s voluminous folds (fig. 2.58). The only lines are the dark blue decorative trim. Blended blue shadow becomes more dominant toward the bottom of the peignoir, in keeping with a diminishing light source. Originally painted over a larger area, the peignoir was slimmed and the line of the woman’s lower back was adjusted to include more of the piano seat (see Application/technique and artist’s revisions in the technical report). The flattened perspective and graphic outline of the peignoir that result from Renoir’s elaborate handling recall the gowns of female saints in altarpieces of the Northern Renaissance artist Jan van Eyck.108

Comparable sensuality in an interior setting can be seen in A Girl Crocheting (fig. 2.19 [Daulte 154; Dauberville 390]).109 This painting is a genre scene with little emphasis on the fashion or urbanity present in the image of the Parisienne. The woman shares the long red hair of the figure in Woman at the Piano and might also be Nini Lopez, whom Renoir employed from 1875 to 1880 and who was known for being “punctual, serious, and discreet.”110 By showing her in A Girl Crocheting with a bared shoulder and her hair unbound and flowing down her back, Renoir introduced eroticism into an otherwise traditional genre painting—not unlike the effect he achieved with the peignoir in Woman at the Piano. With its iridescent blue vase and mantel ornaments that include a framed picture, the dark interior of A Girl Crocheting is also comparable to that in Woman at the Piano. In both works comfortable, fashionable surroundings are combined with an alluring image of femininity. Renoir heightened the sensuality of Woman at the Piano with subtle adjustments to the figure. In the X-ray the woman’s face is profil perdu (fig. 3.60). In the final placement of the figure in full profile Renoir showed her youthful features to better advantage. The X-ray also indicates that the woman’s hair was at an earlier stage gathered low at the back of her head, while in the final composition it is swept up to reveal more of her neck.

One can get a good sense of how Renoir transformed the subject of the woman at the piano into an image of the Parisienne by comparing it to a contemporary work by Frédéric Samuel Cordey, Captive Audience of 1877 (fig. 2.5).111 In this painting the instrument is also placed in the corner of a room decorated with wallpaper and framed pictures; however, both the plain design of the pianist’s day dress and the meditative pose of her companion place this scene some distance from the sensual retreat of Renoir’s painting. The dull wall color, uniform ambient lighting, and mundane furnishings of Cordey’s interior are pedestrian and undistinguished compared to the elegance and visual appeal displayed in Woman at the Piano.112

A New Direction for Renoir’s Genre Painting

While the emphasis on fashion and femininity in Woman at the Piano marks it as a representation of the Parisienne, the depiction of a woman playing the piano alone in an interior setting defines it as a genre painting or a view of everyday life. The theme of young women at the piano was one that Renoir would make his own in the 1890s, when the French State acquired Young Girls at the Piano (fig. 2.8 [Dauberville 993]), the first work by the artist to enter the collection of contemporary art housed in the Musée du Luxembourg, the occasion that marks the beginning of the artist’s official recognition.113 Such a significant career milestone makes Woman at the Piano all the more compelling, as it is the artist’s first treatment of a piano-playing subject.114 It was his only example of the theme until 1888, when he painted the portrait commission The Daughters of Catulle Mendès (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York [Daulte 545; Dauberville 966]).115

Renoir seems to have come late to the theme of the woman at the piano compared to his Impressionist colleagues.116 Certainly there was a commercial necessity to expand the range of his successful Parisienne images and genre repertoire. Alternatively it could be argued that his growing social circle of poets and musicians in the mid-1870s may have alerted him to the broader context in which painting, music, and the arts coexisted. What kinds of tunes are shown in the stack of music in Woman at the Piano: popular operettas, classical sonatas, works by German composer Richard Wagner?117 The relative merits of these musical styles would have been as passionate a point of discussion as painting technique and color for many of Renoir’s friends in the 1870s. In his biography of Renoir, Georges Rivière devoted an entire chapter to Ernest Cabaner, a pianist and early supporter of the Impressionists who lived in Montmartre on the rue de Clichy until his death in 1881.118 Renoir’s inner circle also included gifted pianists Edmond Maître and Emmanuel Chabrier. In the larger salons, where dozens of socialites would gather for gossip and conversation, music had a substantial role in the entertainment of guests. Renoir’s caricature of the novelist Alphonse Daudet at the piano wearing an evening jacket (fig. 2.9) suggests a command performance at one of these events.119 The more intimate surroundings in Woman at the Piano evoke the idea of an active listening experience on the part of the viewer. It is a painting addressed to a client drawn to the fashionably dressed Parisienne, yet one who may also have supported progressive music as openly as progressive art.

Woman at the Piano at the Second Impressionist Exhibition

It is fairly certain that Woman at the Piano was the work exhibited at the second Impressionist exhibition in April 1876 as Femme au piano, since it is the only work of that title dating from the 1870s.120 Renoir submitted eighteen works to the exhibition, including Lunch at the Restaurant Fournaise (The Rowers’ Lunch) (1875; cat. 2). This work received only a brief mention by the critics, and Woman at the Piano was passed over completely. Much of the commentary about Renoir’s work focused on his controversial female torso, titled Étude (fig. 2.10 [Daulte 201; Dauberville 603]).121 Art critics more comfortable with the academic nude in historic or mythological contexts found Renoir’s provocative play of light and shadow on human flesh in a garden setting deeply disturbing. The powerful and influential critic of Le figaro, Albert Wolff, compared the nude to a mass of decomposing flesh.122 Woman at the Piano is equally innovative in its lighting of the figure. The brilliant whites of the flowing peignoir and the woman’s glowing flesh tones visible through the sheer fabric of her sleeve suggest conditions of bright sunlight seemingly at odds with the somber tones of the apartment’s interior. Direct sunlight from a window would presumably cast distinct shadows, but no such shadows are apparent.

One of the few positive comments about Renoir’s work at the 1876 exhibition came from Zola, who had been a supporter of the Impressionists for a decade. Zola’s review was sympathetic: “M. Renoir is above all a figure painter. He favors a blonde palette of colors that lighten and blend with an admirable harmony. One would say these are works by Rubens lit by the strongest sunlight of Velázquez.”123 While Zola did not mention Woman at the Piano, his review nevertheless raises the question of Renoir’s engagement with the Old Masters in 1875–76 and how these sources might have played a role in the inspiration for the painting. The theme of the woman at the piano can be traced to seventeenth-century Dutch artists such as Gabriel Metsu, whose Lady at the Virginals (1662; Petit Palais, Musée des Beaux-Arts de la Ville de Paris) was reproduced in Charles Blanc’s Histoire de peintres de toutes les écoles: École hollandaise in 1862. Another Dutch work, Johannes Vermeer’s A Young Woman Standing at a Virginal (fig. 2.11), appeared in an exhibition of Old Master paintings from private collections held in Paris in 1866.124 Vermeer’s work had not been previously seen in a Paris exhibition and was just beginning to be understood by French art historians.125 In 1870 the Louvre acquired its first painting by Vermeer, The Lace Maker of 1669/70, which later became a highlight of Renoir’s visits to the museum.126 While it is uncertain how familiar Renoir would have been with Vermeer’s work in the mid-1870s, Woman at the Piano succeeds magnificently in updating the traditional paradigm of painting’s relationship to music by merging Impressionist concerns with color and light with references to history, tradition, and the attentive listener.
John Collins

Technical Report

Technical Summary

Renoir began with a [glossary:commercially primed] [glossary:canvas] and roughly separated broad areas of the compositional space with thin layers of opaque paint; a thin, dark-red [glossary:wash] was used to define the piano on the right. This dark red extends past the apparent [glossary:foldover] edge and may indicate that the artist began his composition on an unstretched canvas or on a canvas on a slightly larger, nonstandard [glossary:stretcher] that he later moved to a smaller stretcher. With a relatively limited [glossary:palette], Renoir created textural differences by manipulating the paint in many ways, including thin washes, scraping, thick [glossary:impasto], [glossary:wet-in-wet] [glossary:modeling], and dragging a stiff brush across wet paint. [glossary:X-radiography] indicates compositional changes to both the figure and the piano. Renoir established the initial forms of these elements and brought the background in around them before making subsequent changes to the composition. He altered the figure’s pose—originally in profile, in the final composition she is turned slightly toward the viewer—as well as her dress and hairstyle. After executing the figure in her initial form, Renoir slimmed her overall silhouette and greatly diminished the volume of her skirt. Her hair was altered from a simple, downswept roll to an upswept style with added volume at the crown. The piano was widened, perhaps painted from a different perspective. Initially the overall profile of the piano was more foreshortened, projecting farther into space; however, the top of the piano was slightly less foreshortened, signaling a change in vantage not only farther to the left with respect to the subject, but perhaps also slightly lower. Once the figure and the piano were executed in their final forms, the artist smoothed the transition between figure and ground with a combination of wet-in-wet modeling and working thin, translucent layers over dry paint.

Multilayer Interactive Image Viewer

The multilayer interactive image viewer is designed to facilitate the viewer’s exploration and comparison of the technical images (fig. 1.2).127

Signature

Signed: Renoir. (lower left, in warm-black paint) (fig. 1.1, fig. 2.20).128

Structure and Technique

Support

Canvas

Flax (commonly known as linen).129

Standard format

Measuring from a ridge around the perimeter that appears to be a flattened foldover, the original dimensions appear to be approximately 91.5 × 73 cm; cusping visible in the [glossary:X-ray] corresponds to tack placement for this size. This most likely corresponds to a no. 30 portrait ([glossary:figure]) standard-size (92 × 73 cm) canvas.130

Determining the original size of the canvas is complicated by many factors, as the dimensions may have been changed by the artist and the original foldover edge does not appear to be a straight line. Additional canvas was left exposed around the perimeter when the painting was lined, and during the same treatment it was mounted slightly askew.131

Aspects of the painting’s construction suggest that Renoir may have changed the size of the canvas himself after beginning his composition off the stretcher or stretched to a larger secondary support. The work features uneven edges on all sides, the straightest of which appears to be the left. Folding the painting at the apparent foldover on the right would also make it correspond to a no. 30 portrait (figure) standard-size canvas; some sense of the original dimensions and the nature of the original edges are more apparent in clean-state photos from the 1972 treatment (fig. 1.3). The artist appears to have lined up the painting for stretching on a standard stretcher by the left side, folding over a small portion of the scraped-back, dark-red piano paint (fig. 1.4). After numerous compositional changes, small margins of background paint on the lower left and upper right were likely added by Renoir to square the composition to fit a standard size.

Weave

[glossary:Plain weave]. Average [glossary:thread count] (standard deviation): 22.4V (0.8) × 26.1H (0.5) threads/cm. The horizontal threads were determined to correspond to the [glossary:warp] and the vertical threads to the [glossary:weft].132

Canvas characteristics

The canvas has mild [glossary:cusping] on the top, bottom, and left edges, corresponding to the placement of the original tacks. On the right, cusping corresponds to the inner set of tack holes (visible along the foldover edge) rather than to the secondary set of tack holes on the current tacking margin (fig. 2.28). There is a double thread fault on the lower left (fig. 2.18).

Stretching

Current stretching: When the painting was lined in 1937, it was placed slightly askew, and the original dimensions were increased on all sides by up to 1 cm. It is possible that the right margin was also extended as part of this treatment (see Conservation History).133

Original stretching: Based on cusping visible in the X-ray, the original tacks were placed approximately 3.5–7 cm apart.

Stretcher/strainer

Current stretcher: Five-member keyable stretcher with a horizontal [glossary:crossbar]. This stretcher is not believed to be original to the painting and probably dates from the 1937 treatment (see Conservation History).

Original stretcher: Unknown.

Manufacturer’s/supplier’s marks

No manufacturer’s or supplier’s marks were observed during the current examination or documented in previous examinations.

Preparatory Layers

Sizing

[glossary:Cross-sectional analysis] indicates a thin, brownish layer of material between the canvas and the [glossary:ground] that closely follows the canvas texture. This material is organic, based on its characteristic bluish [glossary:fluorescence] in UV light, and is estimated to be glue (fig. 2.22).134

Ground application/texture

There is a smooth, single-layer, commercially applied ground, approximately 10–40 µm thick, that extends to the edges of the [glossary:tacking margins] (fig. 2.23).

Color

The ground appears to be warm white, with dark particles visible under [glossary:stereomicroscopic examination] (fig. 2.24). Small percentages of black and iron oxide yellow and red were found in cross-sectional analysis and contribute to this warm appearance. This layer is porous and has darkened over time due to the combined effects of accumulated grime and saturation by the [glossary:wax-resin lining] material (see Conservation History and Condition Summary).

Materials/composition

The ground is predominantly lead white, with small amounts of calcium-based white, iron oxide yellow and red (and associated silicates), and traces of bone black, complex silicates, and barium sulfate extenders.135 The [glossary:binder] is estimated to be [glossary:oil].136

Compositional Planning/Underdrawing/Painted Sketch

Extent/character

No [glossary:underdrawing] was observed with [glossary:infrared reflectography] or under stereomicroscopic examination.

Paint Layer

Application/technique and artist’s revisions

Renoir began the painting by laying in localized colors, some in opaque layers, and loosely defining various areas of the composition. On the upper left and across much of the top, a bright-white underlayer serves to visually brighten the top half of the painting (fig. 2.25). Underneath the figure and foreground, however, the underlayers appear thick and beige, a color very similar to that of the ground. It is unclear whether this beige layer was intended to function like the white in the top half of the composition or was used to cover previous compositional choices in certain areas. Comparatively wide strokes (up to 3 cm wide) of this warm beige are seen in raking-light and X-ray images throughout the left foreground rug, on either side of the dress (fig. 2.26).

On the right, the artist used a dark-red wash for the piano that extends past the apparent original foldover edge.137 The paint along this edge is very thin, appears scraped back and abraded, and includes only the lower layers of paint and none of the upper details of the gold ornament on the side of the piano or the music books on top of the piano.138 It is possible that Renoir began the work off the stretcher or on a larger, nonstandard stretcher and later shortened it to correspond to a standard-size stretcher. The paint layers present on the far right edge suggest that this change was made before the upper layers of the piano were added. The artist scraped back the paint along the right side and may have changed the size of the work before changing the angle of the piano and adding details such as the gold decorative ornament and the sheet music (fig. 2.27). Once the work was stretched, he “squared” the composition on the upper right and lower left with additional background paint. As these areas lack the previously mentioned opaque underpaints that define their surroundings, they appear quite different in color and texture than the rest of the canvas, but they do appear to be original.

Renoir made substantial changes to both the figure and the piano in this composition. The X-ray indicates that the piano originally appeared thinner and taller. The top of the piano was painted from a slightly downward perspective, with more of the surface visible and featuring additional sheet music and a curved decorative element. The top now appears more foreshortened, and the overall profile of the piano is wider and angled more toward the viewer (fig. 2.28). The sheet music just above the keyboard appears longer and curved in the X-ray, possibly indicating turning or buckling pages, and a [glossary:radio-opaque] form just under the music suggests that a music ledge was articulated at this stage. The X-ray also suggests that the artist raised the position of the candlesticks and altered the curve along the side and legs of the piano in the foreground.

Renoir made numerous changes to the figure’s hairstyle, dress, and profile. Originally her hair, swept down smoothly along the side of her head, was tucked back in a simple roll. Brushstrokes in the hair indicate that the artist simply layered thin strokes in a different direction over the previous arrangement to suggest a more upswept style with added volume at the crown (fig. 2.29). Traction cracking in this area resulted from the thinness of these layers compared to the heavier paint underneath, a trait also visible in [glossary:raking light]. In the X-ray, the figure’s dress appears more voluminous, bowing out around the knees and coming in atop a larger ruffled bottom. The skirt seems to bend in on itself, and the piano seat is almost entirely hidden by it. A [glossary:radio-transparent] band along this inward fold of the skirt indicates that it was originally higher than it appears in the visible composition. In the final arrangement, Renoir reduced the volume of the skirt on both sides of the piano seat, revealing more of the seat and cushion and giving definition to the bottom half of the figure. The artist slimmed her overall silhouette, straightened her neck, and brought up her neck and chin slightly to suggest a more upright posture. The figure appears in full profile, with her head angled more toward the viewer. To accomplish this, Renoir moved her forehead, chin, eyes, and hairline slightly to the left with respect to her nose (fig. 2.30). A visible buildup of the paint in the flesh tones, where the artist subtly altered the head, can be seen in raking light. The figure’s arms remain in the same position in the X-ray and the final composition, but her left hand was moved farther back in space, and paint revealed by cracking in this area indicates that the ruffle at the cuff of her sleeve was probably extended after the wrist was executed (fig. 2.31). Similar cracks also reveal that the artist added flesh tones over the white of the sleeve to create the illusion of a translucent garment.

Renoir established both the female figure and the piano before bringing in the background. In the X-ray, heavy strokes of background paint come up to and around these elements; this is especially noticeable around the figure’s head, where a kind of radio-opaque halo is visible. After the artist settled on the final composition, he softened the transition between figure and ground with additional background paint applied either wet-in-wet or in thin, translucent layers over dry paint.

Renoir’s paint application varies in thickness and texture, from washes and areas scraped with a palette knife, to heavy impasto and visible brushwork (fig. 2.32). The artist mixed many hues directly on the surface of the painting, working wet-in-wet to varying degrees to produce smooth blending, as seen in the figure’s dress and flesh (fig. 2.33). In some areas, short strokes of color or highlights pick up a small amount of the surrounding paint, as on the vase on the left (fig. 2.34). To create the illusion of individual strands of hair framing the figure’s face, Renoir dragged a stiff brush across wet paint, allowing the bristles to cut through and reveal the light underpaint (fig. 2.35). The artist also added details in very dry paint, dragging his brush across the surface, as in the foliage, highlights on the candlesticks, parts of the vase, and upper details of the foreground rug (fig. 2.36).

Painting tools

Soft- and stiff-bristle brushes (strokes up to 1 cm wide); [glossary:palette knife] for scraping; possible wider brushes (strokes about 3 cm wide) used in the foreground underlayers.

Palette

Analysis indicates the presence of the following [glossary:pigments]:139 lead white, zinc white, cobalt blue, cerulean blue, emerald green, viridian, chrome yellow, zinc yellow, bone black, vermilion, madder lake, carmine lake,140 iron oxide red, and red lead.

Analysis suggests that the paint mixtures vary in their complexity, with some simpler mixtures of two or three pigments and other more complex combinations. The flesh tones, for example, contain lead white, vermilion, and red lake.141 The dark-blue ribbon running through the lower portion of the figure’s dress, however, is more complex; in addition to cobalt blue, there is some cerulean blue and chrome yellow, with traces of bone black, zinc yellow, and possibly red lake. The observation of a characteristic bright orange fluorescence under UV light indicates that the artist used a fluorescing red lake in the flesh tones, parts of the front of the piano, and the figure’s hair (fig. 2.37).142 It is likely that Renoir used a different red lake for the main body of the piano. Cross-sectional analysis of a sample from the piano indicates that the artist mixed both lakes; in UV light, the fluorescing and nonfluorescing red lakes are visible side by side (fig. 2.38).143

Binding media

Oil (estimated).144

Surface Finish

Varnish layer/media

The current [glossary:synthetic varnish] was applied in 1972, replacing a natural-resin [glossary:varnish]. It is unclear whether the natural-resin varnish dates from the 1937 lining or from a proposed 1940 treatment (see Conservation History).

Conservation History

The painting was treated by Chicago private conservator Leo Marzolo just before it was acquired by the Art Institute in 1937.145 Treatment at this time included wax-resin lining to a secondary canvas and mounting the lined canvas onto Masonite before restretching the entire structure on a five-member keyable stretcher.146 The painting was minimally scratched in transit in 1940 and repaired in November of the same year by Marzolo.147 The examination report for this treatment confirmed that the work was already wax-resin lined, “then placed onto Masonite.” This record also indicated dissatisfaction with the surface coating and recommended removing the excess wax and replacing it with a wax-damar-mastic mixture. As there is no further documentation, both the specific nature of the previous coating and whether this treatment was completed remain unclear.

The work was superficially treated in 1969, including grime removal with detergent water, thinning of the surface coating, toning of discolored [glossary:retouching], and resaturation of the surface 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).148 The painting was treated again in 1972 in preparation for exhibition.149 An aged natural-resin varnish and extensive retouching along the edges were removed, along with the 1969 synthetic varnish system, at this time with a combination of solvent and mechanical cleaning. The painting was again given a three-layer varnish (an isolating layer of polyvinyl acetate [PVA] AYAA, followed by methacrylate resin L-46, and a final coat of AYAA) and retouched. Heavy retouching along the edges compensates for the slightly skewed lining and the abraded paint along the right edge.

Condition Summary

The painting is in good condition, planar and with few losses. It is wax-resin lined to a secondary canvas and is secure. A piece of Masonite was inserted between the lined painting and the restoration stretcher, but it is unclear at this time whether the Masonite panel is attached to the painting with adhesive or held in place by the pressure of the stretching. The overall flatness and planarity of the painting and increased textural presence of the weave are the result of the lining process. The original tacking margins were flattened during the lining process, making the original dimensions somewhat unclear and causing abrasion and minor losses around the perimeter. The work was stretched slightly askew and has been retouched along the left edge near the bottom, the bottom edge on the right, parts of the upper edge, and the entire right side to compensate. Cracking appears to be limited to the figure’s dress, along the arms and shoulders and at the knee, and along areas of dark blue, including the ribbon detail and the shadowed piano seat. The work is slightly saturated by a combination of lining material and a somewhat glossy synthetic varnish.
Kelly Keegan

Frame

Current frame (installed 2008): The frame is not original to the painting. It is a French (Parisian), late-seventeenth-century, Louis XIV convex frame with alternating acanthus leaves, scrolls, and flowers on a hazzled bed with ribbon-and-leaf sight molding. The frame has water gilding over red and red brown bole on gesso. The ornament and sight moldings are selectively burnished; all other gilding is matte. The frame retains its original gilding and glue [glossary:sizing]. The carved oak molding is mitered and joined with angled, dovetailed splines. The molding, from the perimeter to the interior, is ovolo with flowers outer molding; scotia side; convex face with alternating acanthus leaves, scrolls, and flowers on a hazzled, recut bed; cove frieze; and torus with ribbon-and-leaf sight molding (fig. 2.39).150

Previous frame (installed sometime after 1937, removed 2008): The painting was previously housed in an American, twentieth-century, Louis XVI reproduction, fluted scotia frame with corner acanthus leaves, made of carved basswood with a distressed gilt finish (fig. 2.40).

Previous frame (installed prior to or upon the 1911 purchase by the Ryerson family; removed after 1937): The work was previously housed in a late-nineteenth-century, Louis XIV Revival, reverse ogee frame with straight sides and projecting cast plaster fleur-de-lis corner cartouches connected by a symmetrical rhythm of scroll-linked fleurs-de-lis on a quadrillage bed. The frame had an outer leaf-tip and inner linked-bellflower molding with cove sight edge, and an independent fillet liner with cove sight edge (fig. 2.41, fig. 2.17).
Kirk Vuillemot

Selected References

Catalogue de la 2e exposition de peinture, exh. cat. (Alcan-Lévy, 1876), p. 21, cat. 219.175

Possibly Dowdeswell and Dowdeswell/Société des Impressionnistes, Catalogue of Paintings, Drawings and Pastels by Members of “La société des impressionnistes,” exh. cat. (Dowdeswell and Dowdeswell, 1883), p. 9, cat. 13.176

Possibly unsigned review of Paintings, Drawings and Pastels by Members of “La société des impressionnistes,” Standard, Apr. 25, 1883, p. 2.177

“Good Prices Realized. Close of the Durand-Ruel Sale of Paintings,” New York Times, May 7, 1887, p. 5.178

Durand-Ruel, New York, Exhibition of Paintings by Claude Monet and Pierre Auguste Renoir, exh. cat. (Durand-Ruel, 1900), no. 39.179

“Art Notes and News,” New York Times, Apr. 8, 1900, p. 9.

Durand-Ruel, New York, Exhibition of Paintings by Pierre Auguste Renoir, exh. cat. (Durand-Ruel, 1908), no. 5.180

Possibly Durand-Ruel, New York, Exhibition of Paintings by Renoir, exh. cat. (Durand-Ruel, 1912), cat. 19.181

“Renoir at Durand-Ruel’s,” American Art News 10, 19 (Feb. 17, 1912), pp. 2, 9 (ill.).

Renaissance Society of the University of Chicago, Some Modern Primitives: International Exhibition of Paintings and Prints, Summer 1931, exh. cat. (Renaissance Society of the University of Chicago, 1931), cat. 73.

Renaissance Society of the University of Chicago, Renaissance Society of the University of Chicago Bulletin (Spring and Summer 1931), p. 33 (ill.).

Renaissance Society of the University of Chicago, Commemorative Exhibition from the Martin A. Ryerson Collection, exh. cat. (Renaissance Society of the University of Chicago, 1932), cat. 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. 48, cat. 337; pl. 56/cat. 337.

Art Institute of Chicago, “The Century of Progress Exhibition of the Fine Arts,” Bulletin of the Art Institute of Chicago 27, 4 (Apr.–May 1933), p. 67.

Art Institute of Chicago, “The Rearrangement of the Paintings Galleries,” Bulletin of the Art Institute of Chicago 27, 7 (Dec. 1933), p. 115.

Pennsylvania Museum of Art, “Manet and Renoir,” Pennsylvania Museum Bulletin 29, 158 (Dec. 1933), p. 19.

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. 38, cat. 226.

Toledo (Ohio) Museum of Art, French Impressionists and Post-Impressionists, exh. cat. (Toledo Museum of Art, 1934), cat. 16.

Albert C. Barnes and Violette de Mazia, The Art of Renoir (Minton, Balch, 1935), pp. 261, no. 97 (ill.); 401, no. 97; 451.

Henry McBride, “The Renoirs of America: An Appreciation of the Metropolitan Museum’s Exhibition,” Art News 35, 31 (May 1, 1937), p. 158.

Toledo (Ohio) Museum of Art, Paintings by French Impressionists and Post-Impressionists, exh. cat. (Toledo Museum of Art, 1937), cat. 24 (ill.).

Metropolitan Museum of Art, Renoir: A Special Exhibition of His Paintings, exh. cat. (Metropolitan Museum of Art/Bradford, 1937), no. 27 (ill.).

Josephine L. Allen, “Paintings by Renoir,” Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art 32, 5 (May 1937), p. 112.

Art Institute of Chicago, “Annual Report of the Director,” Bulletin of the Art Institute of Chicago Report for the Year Nineteen Hundred Thirty-Seven 32, 3, pt. 3 (Mar. 1938), p. 46.

Art Institute of Chicago, “Exhibition of the Ryerson Gift,” Bulletin of the Art Institute of Chicago 32, 1 (Jan. 1938), front cover (ill.), p. 4.

Josephine L. Allen, “The Entire Ryerson Collection Goes to the Chicago Art Institute,” Art News 36, 21 (Feb. 19, 1938), pp. 10 (ill.), 11.

Lionello Venturi, Les archives de l’impressionnisme: Lettres de Renoir, Monet, Pissarro, Sisley, et autres; Mémoires de Paul Durand-Ruel; Documents, vol. 2 (Durand-Ruel, 1939), p. 258.

Alfred M. Frankfurter, “Master Paintings and Drawings of Six Centuries at the Golden Gate,” Art News 38, 38 (July 13, 1940), pp. 11 (ill.), 14.

Julia G. Andrews, “Rare Paintings Displayed,” San Diego Union, Oct. 13, 1940, p. 7C.

Golden Gate International Exposition, Art, Official Catalog, exh. cat. (Recorder/H. S. Crocker/Schwabacher-Frey, 1940), pp. 20, cat. 292; 66, cat. 292 (ill.).

Reginald Howard Wilenski, Modern French Painters (Reynal & Hitchcook, [1940]), p. 337.182

Duveen Galleries, Renoir: Centennial Loan Exhibition, 1841–1941; For the Benefit of the Free French Relief Committee (Vilmorin/Bradford, 1941), pp. 36, cat. 14 (ill.); 123–124, cat. 14.

Art Institute of Chicago, “The United States Now an Art Publishing Center,” Bulletin of the Art Institute of Chicago 36, 2 (Feb. 1942), p. 30.

“Chicago Perfects Its Renoir Group,” Art News 44, 16, pt. 1 (Dec. 1–14, 1945), p. 18.

Bruno F. Schneider, Renoir (Safari, [1957]), pp. 24, 26 (ill.). Translated into English by Desmond and Camille Clayton as Renoir (Crown, 1978), pp. 26 (ill.), 34.

Art Institute of Chicago, Masterpieces in the Art Institute of Chicago (Art Institute of Chicago, 1952), (ill.).

Charles Fabens Kelley, “Chicago: Record Years,” Art News 51, 4 (June–Aug. 1952), p. 107.

Dorothy Bridaham, Renoir in the Art Institute of Chicago (Conzett & Huber, 1954), pl. 1.

Art Institute of Chicago, Paintings in the Art Institute of Chicago: A Catalogue of the Picture Collection (Art Institute of Chicago, 1961), pp. 277 (ill.), 394.183

Frederick A. Sweet, “Great Chicago Collectors,” Apollo 84, 55 (Sept. 1966), pp. 200, fig. 28; 202.

Charles C. Cunningham, Instituto de arte de Chicago, El mundo de los museos 2 (Editorial Codex, 1967), pp. 11, ill. 32; 58, ill. 2.

André Parinaud and Charles C. Cunningham, Art Institute of Chicago, Grands musées 2 (Hachette-Filipacchi, 1969), pp. 36, fig. 2; 69, no. 32.

Charles C. Cunningham and Satoshi Takahashi, Shikago bijutsukan [Art Institute of Chicago], Museums of the World 32 (Kodansha, 1970), pp. 50, pl. 36; 159.

John Maxon, The Art Institute of Chicago (Abrams, 1970), p. 84 (ill.).184

François Daulte, Auguste Renoir: Catalogue raisonné de l’oeuvre peint, vol. 1, Figures, 1860–1890 (Durand-Ruel, 1971), pp. 170–71, cat. 187 (ill.).

Elda Fezzi, L’opera completa di Renoir: Nel periodo impressionista, 1869–1883, Classici dell’arte 59 (Rizzoli, 1972), p. 99, cat. 232 (ill.).185

Art Institute of Chicago, Paintings by Renoir, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago, 1973), pp. 26; 68–69, cat. 20 (ill.); 74; 138; 210; 211; 214.

Wildenstein, Renoir: The Gentle Rebel; A Loan Exhibition for the Benefit of the Association for Mentally Ill Children, with a foreword by François Daulte, exh. cat. (Wildenstein, 1974), cat. 10 (ill.).

Art Institute of Chicago, 100 Masterpieces (Art Institute of Chicago, 1978), pp. 22; 98–99, pl. 55.

Patricia Erens, Masterpieces: Famous Chicagoans and Their Paintings (Chicago Review, 1979), p. 36.

J. Patrice Marandel, The Art Institute of Chicago: Favorite Impressionist Paintings (Crown, 1979), pp. 68–69 (ill.).

Isetan Museum of Art and Kyoto Municipal Museum, Exposition Renoir, exh. cat. (Isetan Museum of Art/Kyoto Municipal Museum/Yomiuri Shimbun Sha, 1979), cat. 16 (ill.).

Charles F. Stuckey, with the assistance of Naomi E. Maurer, Toulouse-Lautrec: Paintings, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago, [1979]), p. 158, fig. 2 (ill.).

Diane Kelder, The Great Book of French Impressionism (Abbeville, 1980), pp. 259 (ill.), 438.186

Diane Kelder, The Great Book of French Impressionism, Tiny Folios (Abbeville, 1980), p. 156, pl. 16.

Musée Toulouse-Lautrec and Art Institute of Chicago, Trésors impressionnistes du Musée de Chicago, exh. cat. (Musée Toulouse-Lautrec, 1980), pp. 38, no. 19 (ill.); 68.

Possibly Kate Flint, ed., Impressionists in England: The Critical Reception (Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1984), pp. 58, 361.187

Anne Distel, “Renoir’s Collector: The Pâtissier, the Priest and the Prince,” 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. 27, n. 22.

Anne Distel, “Les amateurs de Renoir: Le prince, le prêtre et le pâtissier,” in Hayward Gallery, Galeries Nationales du Grand Palais, Paris, and Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Renoir, exh. cat. (Réunion des Musées Nationaux, 1985), p. 32, n. 22.

Hayward Gallery, Galeries Nationales du Grand Palais, Paris, and Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Renoir, exh. cat. (Arts Council of Great Britain, 1985), pp. 80, cat. 35 (ill.); 208, cat. 35 (ill.); 256.

Hayward Gallery, Galeries Nationales du Grand Palais, Paris, and Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Renoir, exh. cat. (Réunion des Musées Nationaux, 1985), pp. 136–137, cat. 34 (ill.).

Denys Sutton, “Renoir’s Kingdom,” Apollo 121, 278 (Apr. 1985), pp. 244; 245, pl. 10.

Phillippe Ariès and Georges Duby, eds., Histoire de la vie privée: De la Révolution à la Grande Guerre, vol. 4 (Éd. du Seuil, 1987), p. 487 (ill.). Translated by Arthur Goldhammer as A History of Private Life: From the Fires of Revolution to the Great War, vol. 4 (Belknap Press/Harvard University Press, 1990), p. 532 (ill.).

Richard R. Brettell, French Impressionists (Art Institute of Chicago/Abrams, 1987), pp. 31, 33 (ill.), 119.

Horst Keller, Auguste Renoir (Bruckmann, 1987), pp. 56, fig. 41; 165.

Ministry of Culture; State Hermitage Museum; Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts; Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; and Art Institute of Chicago, Ot Delakrua do Matissa: Shedevry frantsuzskoi zhivopisi XIX–nachala XX veka, iz Muzeia Metropoliten v N’iu-Iorke i Khudozhestvennogo Instituta v Chikago [From Delacroix to Matisse: Masterpieces of French painting of the nineteenth to the beginning of the twentieth century from the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, and the Art Institute of Chicago], trans. from English by Iu. A. Kleiner and A. A. Zhukov, exh. cat. (Avrora, 1988), cat. 20.

Robert Trachtenberg, “Great Art Where You Least Expect It: The Pioneers of Hollywood Art Colleting,” Spy (Sept. 1988), pp. 97–98.

Art Institute of Chicago, Master Paintings in the Art Institute of Chicago, selected by James N. Wood and Katharine C. Lee (Art Institute of Chicago/New York Graphic Society Books/Little, Brown, 1988), pp. 9, 56 (ill.).

Birger Carlström, Hide-and-Seek: Text and Picture in the Pictures; Impressionists from Turner from [sic] Gainsborough (Carlström, 1989), pp. 42; 164, pl. 36; 165, pl. 36.

Raffaele De Grada, Renoir (Giorgio Mondadori, 1989), p. 48, pl. 27.

Sophie Monneret, Renoir, Profils de l’art (Chêne, 1989), pp. 64–65, fig. 3.

Violette de Mazia, “Form and Matter: The Form of Renoir’s Color,” Vistas (V.O.L.N./Barnes Foundation) 5, 2 (1991), pp. 15; pl. 38.

M. Therese Southgate, “The Cover,” JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association 270, 18 (Nov. 10, 1993), front cover (ill.), p. 2145.

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. 56 (ill.).

Art Institute of Chicago and Niigata Prefectural Museum of Modern Art, Shikago bijutsukan ten: Kindai kaiga no 100-nen [Masterworks of modern art from the Art Institute of Chicago], exh. cat. (Asahi Shinbunsha, 1994), pp. 50–51, cat. 6 (ill.).

Anne Distel, Douglas Druick, Gloria Groom, and Rodolphe Rapetti, Gustave Caillebotte: Urban Impressionist, exh. cat. (Réunion des Musées Nationaux/Musée d’Orsay/Art Institute of Chicago/Abbeville, 1995), p. 193, fig. 1. Translated into French by Jeanne Bouniort as Gustave Caillebotte: 1848–1894, exh. cat. (Réunion des Musées Nationaux, 1994), p. 231, fig. 1.

Gerhard Gruitrooy, Renoir: A Master of Impressionism (Todtri, 1994), p. 29 (ill.).

Michael Shapiro, ed., Rings: Five Passions in World Art, exh. cat. (High Museum of Art/Abrams, 1996), pp. 298–99 (ill.).

Karin Sagner-Düchting, Renoir: Paris and the Belle Époque, trans. Fiona Elliott (Prestel, 1996), p. 72 (ill.).

Douglas W. Druick, Renoir, Artists in Focus (Art Institute of Chicago/Abrams, 1997), pp. 6; 15 (detail); 28; 30; 46; 84, pl. 3; 109.

Charlotte Nalle Eyerman, “The Composition of Femininity: The Significance of the ‘Woman at the Piano’ Motif in Nineteenth-Century French Culture from Daumier to Renoir” (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Berkeley, 1997), pp. 143; 245, fig. 58.

James Elkins, Why Are Our Pictures Puzzles? On the Modern Origins of Pictorial Complexity (Routledge, 1999), opp. p. 1, pl. 1; pp. xviii; 1; 4; 5, pl. 3; 8–9; 49; 78; 228.

Renaud Temperini, “Estetiche della modernità,” in La pittura Francese, vol. 3, ed. Pierre Rosenberg, trans. Cosima Campagnolo, Valentina Palombi, and Stefano Salpietro (Electra, 1999), pp. 816, fig. 832; 818.188

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), pp. 9, 52 (ill.).

Patrick Shaw Cable, “Questions of Work, Class, Gender, and Style in the Art and Life of Gustave Caillebotte” (Ph.D. diss., Case Western Reserve University, 2000), pp. 47; 258, fig. 15.

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), p. 84, fig. 40.

Gilles Néret, Renoir: Painter of Happiness, 1841–1919, trans. Josephine Bacon (Taschen, 2001), pp. 84–85 (ill); 110.

Michael Marrinan, “Caillebotte as Professional Painter: From Studio to the Public Eye,” in Gustave Caillebotte and the Fashioning of Identity in Impressionist Paris, ed. Norma Broude (Rutgers University Press, 2002), pp. 50; 51, fig. 21.

Sylvie Patin, L’impressionisme (Bibliothèque des Arts, 2002), pp. 119; 120–21, fig. 88.

John House, Impressionism: Paint and Politics (Yale University Press, 2004), pp. 56, 57, pl. 44.

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. 51, 52, 54.

Ann Dumas, “Renoir and the Feminine Ideal: An Introduction to Renoir’s Women,” in Ann Dumas and John Collins, Renoir’s Women, exh. cat. (Columbus Museum of Art/Merrell, 2005), pp. 26; 29, fig. 18.

Richard R. Brettell, “Gauguin’s Paintings in the Impressionist Exhibition of 1882,” in Richard R. Brettell and Anne-Brigitte Fonsmark, Gauguin and Impressionism, exh. cat. (Kimbell Art Museum/Ordrupgaard, 2005), pp. 158; 159, fig. 123.

Kyoko Kagawa, Runowaru [Pierre-Auguste Renoir], Seiyo kaiga no kyosho [Great masters of Western art] 4 (Shogakukan, 2006), p. 25 (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. 16 (ill.); 66–67, cat. 24 (ill.); 69. Simultaneously published as Gloria Groom and Douglas Druick, with the assistance of Dorota Chudzicka and Jill Shaw, The Age of Impressionism at the Art Institute of Chicago (Art Institute of Chicago/Yale University Press, 2008), pp. 16 (ill.); 66–67, cat. 24 (ill.); 69.189

Gloria Groom, “The Social Network of Fashion,” in Impressionism, Fashion, and Modernity, ed. Gloria Groom, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago/Metropolitan Museum of Art/Musée d’Orsay/Yale University Press, 2012), p. 35.

Gloria Groom, “Les réseaux mondains de la mode,” in L’impressionnisme et la mode, ed. Gloria Groom, exh. cat. (Musée d’Orsay/Skira Flammarion, 2012), p. 77.

Gloria Groom, ed., Impressionism, Fashion, and Modernity, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago/Metropolitan Museum of Art/Musée d’Orsay/Yale University Press, 2012), p. 289, cat. 55 (ill.).

Gloria Groom, ed., L’Impressionnisme et la mode, exh. cat. (Musée d’Orsay/Skira Flammarion, 2012), p. 301, cat. 100.

Justine de Young, “Fashion and Intimate Portraits,” in Impressionism, Fashion, and Modernity, ed. Gloria Groom, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago/Metropolitan Museum of Art/Musée d’Orsay/Yale University Press, 2012), pp. 120; 121, cat. 55 (ill.).

Justine de Young, “La mode en portraits intimes,” in L’impressionnisme et la mode, ed. Gloria Groom, exh. cat. (Musée d’Orsay/Skira Flammarion, 2012), pp. 150; 158, cat. 100 (ill.).

Janet Whitmore, “Whitmore Reviews: Impressionism, Fashion and Modernity,” Nineteenth-Century Art Worldwide 13, 1 (Spring 2014), p. 20, fig. 8.

102) Woman at the Piano (Daulte 187) corresponds to François Daulte, Auguste Renoir: Catalogue raisonné de l’oeuvre peint, vol. 1, Figures, 1860–1890 (Durand-Ruel, 1971), pp. 170–71, cat. 187 (ill.). Woman at the Piano (Dauberville 372) corresponds to Guy-Patrice Dauberville and Michel Dauberville, with the collaboration of Camille Frémontier-Murphy, Renoir: Catalogue raisonné des tableaux, pastels, dessins et aquarelles, vol. 1, 1858–1881 (Bernheim-Jeune, 2007), p. 403, cat. 372 (ill.). The Art Institute currently uses a title that is an English translation of the title that was given to the painting when it was exhibited at the second Impressionist exhibition. The painting had the following titles during the lifetime of the artist:

Apr. 1876: Femme au Piano (Catalogue de la 2e exposition de peinture, exh. cat. [Alcan-Lévy, 1876], p. 21, cat. 219; confirmed by 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.)

Possibly Apr. 1883: Femme au piano (Dowdeswell and Dowdeswell/Société des Impressionnistes, Catalogue of Paintings, Drawings and Pastels by Members of “La société des impressionnistes,” exh. cat. [Dowdeswell and Dowdeswell, 1883], p. 9, cat. 13. The Durand-Ruel Archives cannot confirm that the Art Institute’s painting was the one exhibited in London in April–July 1883. According to 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: “Il est possible qu’il s’agisse du même tableau mais nous n’avons aucun document nous le prouvant.”)

Sept. 8, 1886: La Femme au piano (Durand-Ruel, Paris, stock book for 1884–90 [no. 1200]; 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.)

Apr. 1900: Jeune Femme au Piano (Durand-Ruel, New York, Exhibition of Paintings by Claude Monet and Pierre Auguste Renoir, exh. cat. [Durand-Ruel, New York, 1900], no. 39; confirmed by 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.)

Nov. 14, 1908: Jeune femme au piano, 1878 (Durand-Ruel, New York, Exhibition of Paintings by Pierre Auguste Renoir, exh. cat. [Durand-Ruel, New York, 1908], no. 5; confirmed by 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.)

Dec. 16, 1911: Jeune femme au piano (Durand-Ruel, New York, stock book for 1888–93 [no. 112]; 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.)

Possibly Feb. 14, 1912: Fillette en robe bleue, 1876 (Durand-Ruel, New York, Exhibition of Paintings by Renoir, exh. cat. [Durand-Ruel, New York, 1912], cat. 19; according to “Renoir at Durand-Ruel’s,” American Art News 10, 19 (Feb. 17, 1912), pp. 2, 9 (ill.), the Art Institute’s painting, which had recently been purchased by Martin A. Ryerson, was included in this exhibition. The article does not specify under which catalogue number or title the painting was exhibited, but it is possible that it was cat. 19, Fillette en robe bleue, 1876.)

113) See Monique Nonne, “Young Girls at the Piano (Jeunes filles au piano),” in Los Angeles County Museum of Art and Philadelphia Museum of Art, Renoir in the 20th Century, exh. cat. (Los Angeles County Museum of Art/Philadelphia Museum of Art/Hatje Cantz, 2010), pp. 171–73. The poet Stéphane Mallarmé heralded the acquisition as a “definitive canvas, so calm and so free, a work of maturity.” Stéphane Mallarmé to Henri Roujon, May 12, 1892, in Stéphane Mallarmé, Correspondance, ed. Henri Mondor and Lloyd James Austin (Gallimard, 1981), vol. 5, pp. 77–78; translated in John House, “Young Girls at the Piano,” 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. 261. 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).

118) Outside the mainstream, Cabaner made a living by playing piano at café concerts and dance halls, but he also composed music himself and gained a reputation for putting the poetry of Jean Richepin, Charles Baudelaire, and others to music. Before Cabaner’s premature death in August 1881, a diverse group would often gather at his apartment to hear these songs and to listen to recitals by other young French composers. It was there that Emmanuel Chabrier performed czardas (Hungarian folk tunes), as well as his own lyrical compositions, to the delight of an elite audience including Rivière and Renoir. Georges Rivière, Renoir et ses amis (H. Floury, 1921), p. 117. For more on this fascinating character on the margins of Impressionism, see Jean-Jacques Lefrère and Michael Pakenham, Cabaner, poète au piano (L’Échoppe, 1994).

127) 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.

135) The presence of lead was confirmed with [glossary:XRF], [glossary:SEM/EDX] and [glossary:PLM]. SEM/EDX and PLM detected lead white with barium sulfate extenders, and small percentages of iron oxide yellow and red and bone black. Associated complex silicates and calcium sulfate were identified with SEM/EDX. Isolated particles of calcium sulfate, or gypsum, were found in the interstices of the [glossary:weave], at the juncture between the [glossary:canvas] and the [glossary:ground] layer, and may be part of the [glossary:sizing]; more research and analysis would be needed to confirm this. See Anna Vila-Espuña and Gwénaëlle Gautier, “Renoir_Piano_37_1025_XRF_Results,” Sept. 18, 2009; Inge Fiedler, “1937_1025_Renoir_analytical_report,” Nov. 29, 2013, both on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

139) [glossary:Pigments] were identified using the following methods: lead white, cobalt blue, viridian, chrome yellow ([glossary:XRF], [glossary:PLM], [glossary:SEM/EDX]); zinc white (XRF, SEM/EDX); emerald green, vermilion, bone black (XRF, PLM 2012 [identified as unspecified black in PLM 1972]); red lakes (PLM, [glossary:SERS]); magnesium-containing cerulean blue, zinc yellow, iron oxide red (SEM/EDX); red lead (PLM). PLM results from June 1972 were published in Marigene H. Butler, “Technical Note,” in Paintings by Renoir (Art Institute of Chicago, 1973), p. 211. See also Butler, microscopy notes, June 1972. PLM results were confirmed and amended by Inge Fiedler. See Fiedler, microanalysis summary, Jan. 5, 2012. Both documents are on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago. For more detailed results and specific conditions used, see Anna Vila-Espuña and Gwénaëlle Gautier, “Renoir_Piano_37_1025_XRF_Results,” Sept. 18, 2009; Federica Pozzi, “Ren_WomanAtPiano_1937_1025_SERS_Results,” May 14, 2013; Inge Fiedler, “1937_1025_Renoir_analytical_report,” Nov. 29, 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.

140) The presence of two different red lakes was noted in [glossary:PLM] (1972, 2012); these were later identified as carmine lake and madder lake with [glossary:SERS]. [glossary:SEM/EDX] indicated that one of the lakes was on a hydrated alumina-type substrate. See Marigene H. Butler, microscopy notes, June 1972; Anna Vila-Espuña and Gwénaëlle Gautier, “Renoir_Piano_37_1025_XRF_Results,” Sept. 18, 2009; Federica Pozzi, “Ren_WomanAtPiano_1937_1025_SERS_Results,” May 14, 2013; Inge Fiedler, microanalysis summary, Jan. 5, 2012, all on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago. See also Jo Kirby, Marika Spring, and Catherine Higgit, “The Technology of Red Lake Pigment Manufacture: Study of Dyestuff Substrate,” National Gallery Technical Bulletin 26 (2005), pp. 71–87.

142) Though small areas on the front of the piano show characteristic orange [glossary:fluorescence] in [glossary:UV] light, it appears that the rest of the piano was painted with a different red lake. [glossary:PLM] and [glossary:cross-sectional analysis] confirm the presence of two red lakes of slightly different shades, one fluorescing and the other nonfluorescing. Identifying the specific type of lake used only by its autofluorescence under 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 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.

151) See Catalogue de la 2e exposition de peinture, exh. cat. (Alcan-Lévy, 1876), p. 21, cat. 219, which lists Femme au piano as “appartient à M. Poupin.” According to Hayward Gallery, Galeries Nationales du Grand Palais, Paris, and Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Renoir, exh. cat. (Arts Council of Great Britain, 1985), p. 208, Poupin had premises at 8, rue La Fayette, was a business associate of Durand-Ruel’s, and “perhaps may simply have been acting on Durand-Ruel’s behalf, as the title of the painting he lent in 1876 (Femme au piano) is identical to that of a canvas listed as being in the dealer’s stock in 1876.” Hayward Gallery, Renoir, further states that “Durand-Ruel’s stock lists for 1876 also include a Femme au piano, which was deposited with a M. Cottineau of the rue Rambuteau on 3 July 1880, but there is no further record of it.” See also Ruth Berson, ed., The New Painting: Impressionism, 1874–1886; Documentation, vol. 2, Exhibited Works (Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco/University of Washington Press, 1996), pp. 44, 63 (ill.), which also identifies cat. 219 as the Art Institute’s painting.

152) In the exhibition catalogue, cat. 13 is listed as Femme au piano with an asking price of £100; see Dowdeswell and Dowdeswell/Société des Impressionnistes, Catalogue of Paintings, Drawings and Pastels by Members of “La société des impressionnistes,” exh. cat. (Dowdeswell and Dowdeswell, 1883), p. 9, cat. 13. According to Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vol. 2, Nos. 1–968 (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), pp. 283–84, cat. 758; and Frances Fowle, “Making Money out of Monet: Marketing Monet in Britain 1870–1905,” in Monet and French Landscape: Vétheuil and Normandy, ed. Frances Fowle (National Galleries of Scotland, 2006), p. 145, this exhibition was organized by Durand-Ruel. The Durand-Ruel Archives cannot confirm that the Art Institute’s painting was the one exhibited in London in April–July 1883. According to 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: “Il est possible qu’il s’agisse du même tableau mais nous n’avons aucun document nous le prouvant.”

154) According to Guy-Patrice Dauberville and Michel Dauberville, with the collaboration of Camille Frémontier-Murphy, Renoir: Catalogue raisonné des tableaux, pastels, dessins et aquarelles, vol. 1, 1858–1881 (Bernheim-Jeune, 2007), p. 403, cat. 372 (ill.). See also Moore’s Art Galleries, New York, The Durand-Ruel Collection of French Paintings, sale cat. (Moore’s Art Galleries, May 5–6, 1887), p. 28, lot 93. A sale price is listed in “Good Prices Realized. Close of the Durand-Ruel Sale of Paintings,” New York Times (May 7, 1887), p. 5. However, according to the Durand-Ruel Archives, “Le tableau n’a pas été vendu en 1887 lors de la vente à la ‘Moore’s Art Galleries’: il s’agissait d’une vente fictive (aucun tableau n’a été vendu) destinée à faire de la publicité pour les tableaux apportés par Durand-Ruel à New York.” 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.

156) This transaction is record in the Durand-Ruel, New York, stock book for 1888–93 (no. 112, as Jeune femme au piano): “vendu à Martin A. Ryerson le 16 décembre 1911 pour $16,000, Jeune femme au piano,” as confirmed by 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. This corrects information previously published by François Daulte and by Guy-Patrice Dauberville and Michel Dauberville that the painting was purchased by Ryerson for 16,000 francs; see François Daulte, Auguste Renoir: Catalogue raisonné de l’oeuvre peint, vol. 1, Figures, 1860–1890 (Durand-Ruel, 1971), pp. 170, cat. 187 (ill.), and Guy-Patrice Dauberville and Michel Dauberville, with the collaboration of Camille Frémontier-Murphy, Renoir: Catalogue raisonné des tableaux, pastels, dessins et aquarelles, vol. 1, 1858–1881 (Bernheim-Jeune, 2007), p. 403, cat. 372 (ill.). This also updates information provided to the Art Institute of Chicago by Caroline Durand-Ruel Godfroy, Dec. 14, 1994, which states that Ryerson purchased the painting for $15,000, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.

159) In the exhibition catalogue, cat. 13 is listed as Femme au piano with an asking price of £100. See Dowdeswell and Dowdeswell/Société des Impressionnistes, Catalogue of Paintings, Drawings and Pastels by Members of “La société des impressionnistes,” exh. cat. (Dowdeswell and Dowdeswell, 1883), p. 9, cat. 13. According to Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vol. 2, Nos. 1–968 (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), pp. 283–84, cat. 758; and Frances Fowle, “Making Money out of Monet: Marketing Monet in Britain 1870–1905,” in Monet and French Landscape: Vétheuil and Normandy, ed. Frances Fowle (National Galleries of Scotland, 2006), p. 145, this exhibition was organized by Durand-Ruel. The Durand-Ruel Archives cannot confirm that the Art Institute’s painting was the one exhibited in London in April–July 1883. According to 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: “Il est possible qu’il s’agisse du même tableau mais nous n’avons aucun document nous le prouvant.”

176) According to Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Catalogue raisonné/Werkverzeichnis, vol. 2, Nos. 1–968 (Taschen/Wildenstein Institute, 1996), pp. 283–84, cat. 758; and Frances Fowle, “Making Money out of Monet: Marketing Monet in Britain 1870–1905,” in Monet and French Landscape: Vétheuil and Normandy, ed. Frances Fowle (National Galleries of Scotland, 2006), p. 145, this exhibition was organized by Durand-Ruel. In the exhibition catalogue, cat. 13 is listed as Femme au piano with an asking price of £100. The Durand-Ruel Archives cannot confirm that the Art Institute’s painting was the one exhibited in London in April–July 1883. According to 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: “Il est possible qu’il s’agisse du même tableau mais nous n’avons aucun document nous le prouvant.”

fig. 1.2
Renoir’s *Woman at the Piano* (1875/76). The Art Institute of Chicago, 1937.1025. Interactive image.

fig. 1.1
Detail of the artist’s signature in Renoir’s *Woman at the Piano* (1875/76). The Art Institute of Chicago, 1937.1025.

fig. 2.20
Photomicrograph of the signature in Renoir’s *Woman at the Piano* (1875/76) showing the mixture of translucent black and red paint. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1937.1025.

fig. 1.3
Clean-state photograph from the 1972 treatment of Renoir’s *Woman at the Piano* (1875/76). The Art Institute of Chicago, 1937.1025.

fig. 1.4
Photomicrograph of the piano in Renoir’s *Woman at the Piano* (1875/76). The original dark red paint that the artist scraped back can be seen between strokes of the heavier impasto of later layers. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1937.1025.

fig. 2.22
Photomicrograph in UV light of a cross section of the ground and canvas in Renoir’s *Woman at the Piano* (1875/76). The thin sizing layer between the canvas and the ground exhibits a bluish fluorescence. Original magnification: 500×. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1937.1025.

fig. 2.23
Photomicrograph of a cross section of the ground and canvas in Renoir’s *Woman at the Piano* (1875/76). Original magnification: 200×. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1937.1025.

fig. 2.24
Photomicrograph of the warm-white ground in Renoir’s *Woman at the Piano* (1875/76). The Art Institute of Chicago, 1937.1025.

fig. 2.25
Detail of the upper left portion of Renoir’s *Woman at the Piano* (1875/76). The overall brightness of this area is the result of the artist’s use of bright white underpaint. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1937.1025.

fig. 2.26
Raking-light detail of the lower left corner in Renoir’s *Woman at the Piano* (1875/76) showing the residual texture from the wide strokes of underpainting. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1937.1025.

fig. 2.27
Photomicrograph of the impasted, yellow details on the side of the piano in Renoir’s *Woman at the Piano* (1875/76). The Art Institute of Chicago, 1937.1025.

fig. 2.28
X-ray of Renoir’s *Woman at the Piano* (1875/76). The Art Institute of Chicago, 1937.1025. X-ray digitally composited by Robert G. Erdmann, University of Arizona.

fig. 2.29
Detail of the figure’s hair in Renoir’s *Woman at the Piano* (1875/76) showing the artist’s layering of contrasting, directional strokes. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1937.1025.

fig. 2.30
X-ray, raking-light, and natural-light details of the figure’s head in Renoir’s *Woman at the Piano* (1875/76). The Art Institute of Chicago, 1937.1025. Interactive image.

fig. 2.31
Detail of the figure’s arm in Renoir’s *Woman at the Piano* (1875/76) showing the sequence of paint layers. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1937.1025.

fig. 2.32
Photomicrograph of the piano in Renoir’s *Woman at the Piano* (1875/76) showing the artist’s use of scraping. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1937.1025.

fig. 2.33
Detail of the figure’s face in Renoir’s *Woman at the Piano* (1875/76) showing the smooth modeling used in the flesh tones. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1937.1025.

fig. 2.34
Photomicrograph of the bright highlight on the vase in Renoir’s *Woman at the Piano* (1875/76). The Art Institute of Chicago, 1937.1025.

fig. 2.35
Photomicrograph of the figure’s hair in Renoir’s *Woman at the Piano* (1875/76) showing the artist’s use of stiff-bristle brushes. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1937.1025.

fig. 2.36
Photomicrograph of the rug in Renoir’s *Woman at the Piano* (1875/76). Bright and saturated details like this were added throughout the painting as a final step. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1937.1025.

fig. 2.37
Ultraviolet image of Renoir’s *Woman at the Piano* (1875/76). The Art Institute of Chicago, 1937.1025.

fig. 2.38
Photomicrograph in UV light of a cross section of the ground and paint layers in Renoir’s *Woman at the Piano* (1875/76). The paint mixture shows the artist’s use of fluorescing and nonfluorescing red lakes side by side. Original magnification: 500×. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1937.1025.

fig. 2.39
Renoir’s *Woman at the Piano* (1875/76) in its current frame. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1937.1025.

fig. 2.40
Renoir’s *Woman at the Piano* (1875/76) in a previous frame. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1937.1025.

fig. 2.41
Renoir’s *Woman at the Piano* (1875/76) in a previous frame, second from left, installed in *“A Century of Progress”: Loan Exhibition of Paintings and Sculpture*, Art Institute of Chicago, May 23–Nov. 1, 1933. Institutional Archives, Art Institute of Chicago.

fig. 2.56
Installation of Renoir’s *Woman at the Piano* (1875/76) in *“A Century of Progress”: Loan Exhibition of Paintings and Sculpture*, May 23–Nov. 1, 1933. Institutional Archives, Art Institute of Chicago.

fig. 2.57
X-ray of Renoir’s *Woman at the Piano* (1875/76) showing artist’s changes to the piano. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1937.1025. X-ray digitally composited by Robert G. Erdmann, University of Arizona.

fig. 2.58
Detail of the peignoir in Renoir’s *Woman at the Piano* (1875/76). The Art Institute of Chicago, 1937.1025.

fig. 2.19
Pierre-Auguste Renoir (French, 1841–1919). *A Girl Crocheting*, c. 1875. Oil on canvas; 73.3 × 60.5 cm (28 7/8 × 23 13/16 in.). Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute, Williamstown, Mass., 1955.603. Bridgeman Images.

fig. 3.60
X-ray detail of the figure’s head in Renoir’s *Woman at the Piano* (1875/76) showing its previous position as *profil perdu*. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1937.1025. X-ray digitally composited by Robert G. Erdmann, University of Arizona.

fig. 2.5
Frédéric Samuel Cordey (French, 1854–1911). *Captive Audience*, 1877. Oil on canvas; 114.3 × 146.7 cm (45 × 57 3/4 in.). Private collection. Photo © Christie's Images / The Bridgeman Art Library.

fig. 2.8
Pierre-Auguste Renoir (French, 1841–1919). *Young Girls at the Piano*, 1892. Oil on canvas; 116 × 90 cm (45 1/2 × 35 1/2 in.). Musée d’Orsay, Paris, RF755. © RMN-Grand Palais/Art Resource, NY. Photograph: Hervé Lewandowski.

fig. 2.9
Pierre-Auguste Renoir (French, 1841–1919). *Ornamental Letter D (Alphonse Daudet)*, c. 1878. Photomechanical reproduction of a pen and ink drawing, from Alphonse Daudet’s “Les salons bourgeois,” *Les chefs-d’oeuvre d’art à l’exposition universelle* (Ludovic Baschet, 1878), p. 29. Photograph: The National Gallery of Canada, Ottawa.

fig. 2.10
Pierre-Auguste Renoir (French, 1841–1919). *Study of a Torso (Sunlight Effect)*, 1875/76. Oil on canvas; 81 × 65 cm (31 7/8 × 25 5/8 in.). Musée d’Orsay, Paris, France, RF2740. © RMN-Grand Palais/Art Resource, NY.

fig. 2.11
Johannes Vermeer (Dutch, 1632–1675). *A Young Woman Standing at a Virginal*, 1670/72. Oil on canvas; 51.7 × 45.2 cm (20 3/8 × 17 3/4 in). The National Gallery, London. © National Gallery, London/Art Resource, NY.

fig. 2.17
Renoir’s *Woman at the Piano* (1875/76) in a previous frame, on display in the home of Mr. and Mrs. Martin A. Ryerson. Institutional Archives, Art Institute of Chicago.

fig. 2.18
X-ray detail of Renoir’s *Woman at the Piano* (1875/76) showing the double thread fault. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1937.1025.

Renoir and Sisley

In this painting of a close friend, Renoir dispensed with the formality typical of male portraiture in favor of an audacious originality of pose and execution. Comparing this work to his first portrait of Alfred Sisley (fig. 2.58 [Daulte 37; Dauberville 525]) and his picture of Alfred’s father, William Sisley (fig. 2.19 [Daulte 11; Dauberville 524]), makes clear how much Renoir’s pursuit of Impressionism over more than a decade opened up innovative paths of exploration.199 The elder Sisley moved to Paris from London in 1839 to manage a company dealing in luxury goods, with a specialty in imported gloves. Alfred was born on October 30 of the same year.200 Renoir’s portraits of the two Sisley men, depicted at the height of their prosperity, were important early commissions for the young artist, and he did not stray far from convention in pose, handling, and color. The image of William was accepted at the Salon of 1865 and ably proclaimed Renoir’s competence and skill as a portraitist to the Parisian public.

Eleven years later, in 1876, Renoir presented Alfred in a very different aspect. No longer is he the self-assured son of a comfortable bourgeois family, confident of his future. Instead he sits casually, facing the back of a mass-produced, bamboo-style side chair, with a distracted gaze that conveys a thoughtful introspection uncharacteristic of representations of men in nineteenth-century France, which for the most part coded authority and action. In 1926, near the end of his life, Claude Monet remembered the circumstances of the portrait’s creation: “I know of only one portrait of Sisley by Renoir. It’s the one he did at my house at Argenteuil, where he’s sitting astride my chair.”201 This would have been Monet’s second home in the riverside town of Argenteuil, the newly built Pavillon Flament, into which he moved with his family in October 1874.202 Monet, Renoir, and Sisley’s gathering there in 1876 was undoubtedly the occasion for earnest discussion of the future of Impressionist group exhibitions. Alfred Sisley is a fundamentally Impressionist painting in its freedom of handling and novel treatment of subject. While not intended as a manifesto for the movement, the portrait nevertheless acted as an affirmation of shared aesthetic goals that the three artists had cultivated over a decade and a half.203

Though the Chicago portrait would be the last of Renoir’s paintings for which Sisley posed, it was not the first time he had appeared in a painting that implied shared aesthetic views between the artist and the sitter. During the 1860s, he posed for a number of Renoir’s genre paintings. In 1868 he modeled with Renoir’s mistress Lise Tréhot for The Couple (fig. 3.60 [Daulte 34; Dauberville 256]), a bold demonstration of the artist’s awareness of the latest fashion trends and his mastery of colorful design.204 Firm adherents of the plein air school, Renoir and Sisley painted landscapes together in the forest of Fontainebleau during the summer of 1866. The occasion became the subject of Renoir’s first monumental group portrait, The Inn of Mère Antony (fig. 2.5 [Daulte 20; Dauberville 229]), in which Sisley is joined by fellow artist Jules Le Coeur and an unidentified figure.205 Sisley, dapper in a white felt hat and dark suit, engages his attentive companions in conversation. On the table before him sits a copy of L’événement, for which Émile Zola had been the art critic until that spring. The presence of the journal likely signifies Sisley’s involvement in progressive art debates of the day.206 His portrayal as a member of the avant-garde in The Inn of Mère Antony thus provides meaningful context for Renoir’s representation of him in the same capacity ten years later, though in the later work the point was made through provocative use of Impressionistic brushwork.

Monet, Renoir, and Sisley’s friendship began in 1862 in the studio of Charles Gleyre, where they first discovered that they shared common artistic interests. Recalling the first time she saw her future husband, probably in 1878 or 1879, Aline Charigot said that he was walking with Sisley and Monet on the rue Saint-Georges.207 Her description of the three as wearing their hair long and causing a spectacle by their appearance belies Sisley’s reputation for sporting elegant attire; in Renoir’s portrait he looks the perfect English gentleman, complete with starched shirt, cuff links, and lavaliere. Indeed, a photograph of Sisley usually dated to the early 1880s shows him meticulously clothed (fig. 2.8). Though Sisley may not have dressed the part of the struggling artist, there was no question about his aesthetic allegiances, allying himself as he did with Monet and Renoir to form a bloc within the Impressionist movement. In 1879 Renoir and Sisley declined to participate in the fourth Impressionist exhibition, choosing instead to send their paintings to the Salon that year (which Renoir had also done the year before). In 1880 Monet followed their example, exhibiting a landscape at the Salon (The Seine at Lavacourt, 1880; Dallas Museum of Art) rather than contributing to the fifth Impressionist exhibition in April. Sisley’s refusal by the Salon jury of 1879 weighed heavily on Renoir, whose portrait Madame Georges Charpentier and Her Children (1878; Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York [Daulte 266; Dauberville 239]) encountered no such resistance.208 In June 1879 Renoir wrote a letter to Georges Charpentier encouraging the publisher to hold an exhibition of Sisley’s work at the offices of La vie moderne, but this did not come about until November 1881.209 Possibly feeling betrayed by what he perceived as careerism trumping group ideals, Sisley grew distant from Renoir, eventually becoming so bitter and withdrawn that he preferred to cross the road rather than meet his former friend on the sidewalk.210

The Sisley Portrait in the Context of Impressionism

Though the art dealer Paul Durand-Ruel had been buying Sisley’s paintings since 1872, the commencement of the Impressionist exhibitions in April 1874 brought Sisley critical attention and hopes of an improved financial situation, much needed after his father’s bankruptcy following the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War. The second Impressionist exhibition in April 1876 also proved salutary for Sisley’s career. His submission consisted of eight landscape views of his home at the time, Marly-le-Roi, located fifteen miles west of Paris near Bougival. They included two winter scenes and a view of the notorious floods that struck in March. The paint could hardly have been dry, but the works were already on the market; all of Sisley’s paintings in the exhibition were borrowed from art dealers, suggesting a growing appreciation of and demand for his work. Indeed, at least two critics of the exhibition singled him out as an artist of notable talent.211 A sense of Sisley’s rising star is conveyed in Renoir’s portrait, which first appeared as part of Renoir’s submission to the third Impressionist exhibition in April 1877. That exhibition was also the occasion of an ambitious display of work by Sisley. The catalogue listed seventeen Sisley landscapes, eleven of which had owners, including some of the most important Impressionist collectors: Georges Charpentier, Théodore Duret, and Georges de Bellio.

The portrait of Sisley probably remained in Renoir’s studio until it was sent to the exhibition. There is no evidence that Sisley himself ever owned the work. Indeed, an inscription on the original stretcher, portrait du peintre Sisley—par Renoir, displays characteristics of Renoir’s hand (in the formation of the p, for example) and may date from this time (fig. 2.7). The 1877 Impressionist exhibition included Renoir’s masterpiece Dance at the Moulin de la Galette (1876; Musée d’Orsay, Paris [Daulte 209; Dauberville 211]) and was pivotal to establishing his reputation as the preeminent Impressionist figure painter and portraitist.212 The portrait of Sisley was one of several to demonstrate Renoir’s ability in this genre. The others he exhibited represented a virtual assembly of the select members of Parisian society who supported him, including many of the same patrons who purchased work by Sisley: Marguerite Charpentier, wife of Georges (1876–77; Musée d’Orsay, Paris [Daulte 226; Dauberville 465]); Jeanne Samary (fig. 2.9 [Daulte 229; Dauberville 462]), actress of the Comédie Française; and Jacques-Eugène Spuller (c. 1877; private collection [Daulte 71; Dauberville 545]), a Republican politician who had been elected deputy of the Seine in March 1876.213 The emphasis on portrait painting in the context of an Impressionist exhibition was not simply self-promotion for Renoir; it was also an attempt to establish a new interest in the genre as an art form. Georges Rivière, one of Renoir’s closest friends at the time and his future biographer, provided one of the few contemporary comments on the Sisley portrait, highlighting its importance to Renoir’s development as an artist: “The series of portraits ends with one of Sisley, one of the establishment regulars. This portrait achieves an extraordinary likeness and possesses great value as a work of art.”214

In claiming that the Sisley portrait was not only an accurate likeness but also artistically significant, Rivière expanded the usual critical discourse surrounding portraiture at the Salon, which was limited in breadth as the genre did not invite progressive approaches to painting. Renoir’s example at the 1877 exhibition also inspired critics close to the Impressionists to reconsider portraiture’s validity as a pursuit for progressive artists. In a brief but pioneering historical survey of Impressionism published as a brochure in 1878, Duret alluded to Renoir’s gifts as a portrait painter: “Renoir excels at portraits. Not only does he catch the external features, but through them he pinpoints the model’s character and inner self.”215 Duret’s comments suggest that there existed a level of familiarity between the sitter and the artist in Renoir’s work that was unusual in nineteenth-century portrait painting. Sisley’s pose, as if he has been caught in a moment of reflection, is remarkably original, but it also reveals that Renoir looked to the past in developing his innovative approach: Alfred Sisley shares the psychological awareness and spontaneity of pose visible in the work of Frans Hals and Dutch seventeenth-century portraiture more generally (see fig. 2.10).

Renoir did not arrive easily at Sisley’s pose, however. [glossary:X-ray] and transmitted infrared images of the painting show that the artist made many changes to the position of the arms. It is possible that both arms were initially folded over the chair back (fig. 2.11; see Paint Layer in the technical report). But once resolved, the pose must have satisfied Renoir, as he returned to it in late 1877 for the commissioned portrait of the collector Eugène Murer (fig. 2.14 [Daulte 246; Dauberville 547]).216

It was in 1876 or early 1877 that Renoir and Sisley made the acquaintance of Murer, a pastry cook turned artist, who became one of Sisley’s most devoted patrons.217 Alfred Sisley was among eleven Renoir paintings that Murer apparently purchased in a lot for 500 francs, probably not long after the close of the third Impressionist exhibition at the end of April 1877.218 This transaction had taken place by early 1883, when the artist approached Murer about borrowing the portrait for his retrospective exhibition, organized by Durand-Ruel and scheduled to open April 1 of that year. But the portrait is not identified in the catalogue of the retrospective, nor is Murer credited as a lender to that exhibition, and thus it may not have been on display or may have been exhibited but not catalogued.219 Renoir’s request for the Sisley portrait suggests that he still felt kindly toward his friend, though little is known about their relationship during this period.220 Sisley’s own show of some seventy works, held June 1–25, 1883, followed the solo exhibitions of Monet, Renoir, Eugène Boudin, and Camille Pissarro and completed the series of Impressionist exhibitions at Durand-Ruel’s boulevard de la Madeleine location. Sisley remained an important member of the Impressionist circle of artists promoted by Durand-Ruel and kept up regular contact with Pissarro.221

Renoir’s Stipple-Brush Technique

This undated portrait has been assigned dates ranging from 1874 to 1879, but it was most likely made shortly after the second Impressionist exhibition of 1876, for a variety of reasons.222 First, an earlier date would be inconsistent with Renoir’s tendency in the mid-1870s to exhibit his paintings soon after they were finished. Second, the distinctive stippled appearance of the work, in which short brushstrokes rich with paint were used to create a highly textured surface, is shared by many works executed in 1876 and 1877, including the five other oil portraits in the 1877 Impressionist exhibition. This visually dynamic technique did not sit well with one art critic: “Some of Renoir’s Portraits look all right—at a distance—so that you do not notice too much his way of applying brushstrokes like pastel hatchings and the peculiar scratches that make his style seem so painful.”223 The comparison of Renoir’s brushstrokes to “pastel hatchings” can most readily be read as referring to the crisscross strokes in the arms and the overall lighter tone of Jeanne Samary (fig. 2.9). The brazen handling of the pale flesh tones in Sisley’s face, where, in addition to fine brushes, the artist used a palette knife to bring up the bright reddish-orange hues below (fig. 2.17), contrasts with the impeccably bourgeois presentation of the sitter and identifies Renoir irrefutably as a member of the Impressionist circle.

In 1902 Camille Mauclair suggested that Alfred Sisley anticipated the pointillism of the Neo-Impressionists, but the portrait displays little of the controlled construction of form and scientific approach to color that define that movement.224 Rather, Renoir achieved volume and depth by using a small brush to apply a wide range of colors. This is particularly noticeable in the small directional strokes of the beard (fig. 2.18). In addition, Renoir assigned as much importance to the layering of colors as to their juxtaposition. Around the eyes, for example, he applied the paint using several different methods in order to produce a variety of surface textures, from visible canvas weave to thick impasto that yields a sculptural effect (fig. 2.6). This technique of unifying the entire canvas with a stippled effect is frequently seen in Renoir’s more experimental painting style during the mid-1870s and is especially evident on close examination, where the details seem so gestural.

Renoir’s portrait of Sisley has long been recognized as an honorable tribute to an important friendship and artistic alliance. A photograph of the portrait, reproduced en lettre (in the body of the paragraph), was the opening illustration for a lengthy obituary of Sisley published in the March 1899 issue of the Gazette des beaux-arts.225 Appearing at a sensitive time following the Musée du Luxembourg’s acceptance of Gustave Caillebotte’s collection of Impressionist paintings, the obituary included an assessment of Impressionism’s place in art history.
John Collins

Technical Report

Technical Summary

Renoir’s portrait of Alfred Sisley is heavily worked, making use of the various textures afforded by the [glossary:oil] medium. Beginning with a standard-size, commercially prepared [glossary:canvas], the artist appears to have sketched the initial contours of the figure in blue paint; some of these blue contours also initiated the painting process. Crosshatching and the play of competing textures and colors layered over one another are common throughout the background and the figure’s coat. The flesh tones show the heaviest working, especially in the face, where Renoir employed a [glossary:palette knife] to model the features, scraping away the paler layers to reveal the brighter paint beneath. The paint is often of a stiff consistency and contrasts with more traditional [glossary:wet-in-wet] modeling through its pronounced texture and limited intermixing. For the figure’s beard, the artist used a wide array of colors and very small brushes to create the sense of volume and depth. Lastly, small touches of bright color were added to the beard, eyes, and highlights of the chair.

Renoir made alterations to the main contours of the figure’s body, widening both arms, moving both cuffs, and raising the right shoulder. Evidence in the [glossary:transmitted-infrared] and [glossary:X-ray] images also suggests that Sisley may initially have been portrayed with his right hand crossed over his left across the top of the chair back. The chair itself was also changed: the vertical stiles were moved slightly to the left, and the curved, horizontal rails were tapered and curved further downward on the right side. The X-ray, raking-light, and infrared images show a number of unidentified forms around Sisley’s right hand and on the far right, which may indicate other changes.226 The work is coated with a thin [glossary:natural-resin varnish], which serves to saturate the colors and visually differentiate them, especially in the coat, hair, and dark background, but it is not original to the 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. 2.52).227

Signature

Signed: Renoir. (lower right, in dark-red paint) (fig. 1.2, fig. 1.1).228

Structure and Technique

Support

Canvas

Flax (commonly known as linen).229

Standard format

The original dimensions of the canvas were approximately 65 × 53.8 cm, measuring from the original foldover. This is consistent with a no. 15 portrait ([glossary:figure]) standard-size (65 × 54 cm) canvas; this is also the number stenciled on the verso of the original [glossary:stretcher] (fig. 2.20, fig. 1.3).230

Weave

[glossary:Plain weave]. Average [glossary:thread count] (standard deviation): 22.6V (0.7) × 16.8 (1.3) threads/cm. The vertical threads were determined to correspond to the [glossary:warp] and the horizontal threads to the [glossary:weft].231

Canvas characteristics

There is [glossary:cusping] around the perimeter of the canvas corresponding to the placement of the original tacks; cusping along the vertical warp threads is particularly pronounced. In addition, the canvas is marked by irregular thread thickness, especially the horizontal threads, resulting in a wide variation in thread density (6.9–32.9 threads/cm) (fig. 2.53).232

Stretching

Current stretching: When the painting was lined in 1972, the original dimensions were increased by approximately 0.25 cm (1/10 in.) on all sides (see Conservation History).

Original stretching: Based on cusping visible in the X-ray, the original tacks were placed approximately 4.5–6.5 cm apart.

Stretcher/strainer

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

Original stretcher: Five-member keyable stretcher with blind mortise-and-tenon construction and a horizontal [glossary:crossbar]. Depth: 0.8 cm.233

Manufacturer’s/supplier’s marks

Stamp
Location: original stretcher (discarded); 1972 photograph in conservation file
Method: ovular stamp
Content: TOILES ET COULEURS FINES / REY & Cie / PARIS. / x [5]1 RUE DE LA ROCHEFOUCAULD x (fig. 1.4)234

Stamp
Location: original stretcher (discarded); 1972 photograph in conservation file
Method: stamp
Content: 15 (fig. 1.3)

Stamp
Location: verso of original canvas (covered by lining)
Method: ovular stamp
Content: [. . .] / RE[Y] & [. . .] / PARI[S] / [. . .] RUE [. . .] (fig. 2.22)235

Preparatory Layers

Sizing

Not determined (probably glue).236

Ground application/texture

The canvas has a commercial [glossary:ground] layer that extends to the edges of the [glossary:tacking margins]. The preparation is smooth and thin, ranging from approximately 10–105 µm in depth, and partially fills the canvas [glossary:weave] (fig. 2.24).

Color

The commercial preparation appears to be almost white, with dark particles visible under [glossary:stereomicroscopic examination] (fig. 2.23).237 The ground remains visible in selected areas of the background, especially on the right (fig. 2.12).

Materials/composition

The ground is predominantly lead white with small amounts of barium sulfate; iron oxide yellow, orange, and/or brown; and associated silicates and clay minerals, calcium-based compounds, and traces of alumina.238 The binder is estimated to be oil.239

Compositional Planning/Underdrawing/Painted Sketch

Extent/character

Reflected- and transmitted-infrared examinations indicate that Renoir outlined the figure’s coat and major contours; however, microscopic examination suggests that these contours also initiated the painting stage (fig. 2.54).240

Medium/technique

Blue paint.

Revisions

No compositional changes noted in drawing stage; see Paint Layer.

Paint Layer

Application/technique and artist’s revisions

Renoir vigorously worked the paint throughout this composition, using various textures and exercising his ability to manipulate the medium. The work seems to have been executed in a number of stages, probably beginning with Sisley’s sitting for the artist while he established the basic composition, followed by further working up of the paint layers either with additional sittings or later in the studio; the paint layers appear to have mostly dried between painting campaigns. The paint in many areas is rather stiff, paste-like, and thick, reinforcing the textures of the canvas weave and underlying paint with each brushstroke. This is very evident on the upper right, where Renoir began with a heavy zigzag pattern in an ocher-beige color before layering blues and light greens over it (fig. 2.25). These cooler colors, which caught only the upper ridges of the texture beneath, contrast with the warmer undertones and create an interesting play of competing textures and directional strokes. A similar style of paint application, while less pronounced, can be seen in the background on the upper left (fig. 2.26). The crosshatched effect visible in the background, created with heavy strokes of a stiff-bristle brush, is characteristic of the modeling used throughout the work, and a comparable pattern of strokes in much flatter paint can be seen across the coat. As a finishing highlight on the figure’s left sleeve, the artist applied paint in thin, diagonal strokes that run against the curved contours of the arm. Here he allowed the bulk of the paint to load on one side of a flat brush, creating a thin line akin to that made by the edge of a palette knife.

The flesh tones were heavily worked, especially in the face, where Renoir employed very thick paint that he scraped back with a palette knife in some areas. The artist began these areas with thin strokes using a fine brush and almost-dry paint; the paint in these areas—under the eyes, for example—skipped the depressions in the canvas weave and left the ground exposed. Once the contours were established, he applied strong reddish-orange and blue hues in selected areas of the face, over which he put down thin layers of pale-pink and peachy colors for the flesh; then he scraped the flat surface of the palette knife across the upper, still-soft paint layers, revealing the brighter colors below (fig. 2.27). The stiffer paint consistency overall lent itself to a different kind of wet-in-wet [glossary:modeling], in which each stroke with a soft-bristle brush picked up less of the surrounding and underlying colors, but more of the texture. This is very evident in the figure’s beard, where the artist seems to have used all the colors on his [glossary:palette] with very small brushes in a series of small, directional strokes that blend with one another to varying degrees. Within the beard, traditional wet-in-wet modeling with paint of a more liquid consistency appears side by side with the stiffer paint (fig. 2.28), and a few bright touches were applied as final details once the majority of the paint was dry. Renoir used similar small dabs of bright color or white throughout the work, for example, the bright orange-reds and white highlights on the bamboo chair in the foreground and the blue, green, and yellow in the figure’s eyes (fig. 2.13).

The artist changed some of the major contours in this composition, adjusting Sisley’s pose and the space he occupies. The head and the hair immediately around it were established early in the process and the background brought in before the feathering curls on the right were added. The X-ray suggests that there may have been slight changes to the figure’s face and the placement of the nose and eyes; however, the nature of these revisions is unclear. The figure’s right shoulder was raised, and his right arm widened along its outer edge. Comparing the finished painting with the X-ray and infrared images suggests that Renoir altered this outer contour more than once. Similarly, the figure’s left sleeve was also widened along the forearm; this and a slight repositioning caused the elbow to largely obscure the top right corner of the chair. The X-ray suggests that the cuff of this sleeve may originally have been farther away from the face and farther down, which may have affected the position of the hand. The cuff was then moved up toward the face, making the sleeve longer, and the heel of the hand and the cuff in their current position were widened to make them proportionate to the sleeve. The X-ray and transmitted- and reflected-infrared images show other forms near the dangling right hand and on the far right that suggest that the artist may have made other compositional changes; for instance, it is possible that Sisley was initially portrayed with both elbows out and hands crossed over the back of the chair. In the transmitted-infrared image it looks as if the top edge of the figure’s right arm might have been higher than its final placement, while the [glossary:infrared reflectogram] shows the faint outline of his elbow out toward the right edge of the painting. The area around the fingers in the infrared and X-ray images suggests that both hands were once toward the center of the work, possibly with the right hand crossed over the left; as there is little evidence of the top edge of the figure’s left arm in any of the technical images, this idea appears to have been abandoned early in the process in favor of the current pose.241

While the thin, vertical spindles of the chair were executed over Sisley’s finished form, the larger elements—the vertical stiles and the horizontal rails—seem to have been established before Renoir brought in the dark-blue surroundings. After initially placing the two outer stiles and adjusting the figure’s coat and the background paint, the artist moved the chair slightly to the left. Under normal viewing conditions, the left edges of both stiles pass over the textured, diagonal strokes of the figure’s costume (fig. 2.29). The curved, horizontal rails of the chair back were also subtly altered; in front of the figure’s dangling right hand, the forms were slimmed and angled slightly further downward, to make them more symmetrical with the left side.

Painting tools

Stiff- and soft-bristle brushes with strokes up to 1 cm wide; small, round brushes; palette knife for scraping/removal of paint.

Palette

Analysis indicates the presence of the following [glossary:pigments]:242 lead white, cobalt blue, cerulean blue, chrome yellow,243 cadmium yellow,244 iron oxide yellow-brown, viridian, emerald green, carbon black, vermilion, madder lake, and a second red lake.

The observation of a characteristic salmon-colored [glossary:fluorescence] under [glossary:UV] light indicates that Renoir used fluorescing red lake in the flesh tones, hair, chair, and some areas of the coat (fig. 2.55). [glossary:Cross-sectional analysis] reveals that he used a second, nonfluorescing red lake in other areas (fig. 2.30). A small section from a sample containing both fluorescing and nonfluorescing red lakes was analyzed and found to contain madder lake.245

Binding media

Oil (estimated).246

Surface Finish

Varnish layer/media

The current very thin natural-resin varnish (damar) was applied during the 1996–97 treatment. UV examination reveals residues of an earlier natural-resin varnish around areas of thick [glossary:impasto] throughout the painting.

The work has been varnished at least three times in its history. The current [glossary:varnish] replaced a [glossary:synthetic varnish] applied during the 1972 treatment (see Conservation History). During that treatment, a discolored natural-resin varnish was removed. A 1968 condition report notes the presence of cleaning abrasions and subsequent “glazing” to hide them.247 Such abrasions indicate that the work was treated and cleaned prior to 1968, and therefore the natural-resin varnish present at that time was not original to the painting. In 1996 a very thin damar varnish was applied, locally blotted, and dry brushed to produce a lean surface while maintaining proper saturation.248

Conservation History

The painting has been treated on three documented occasions since the Art Institute acquired it in 1933. In 1968 the work was observed to have a yellowed natural-resin varnish and to be generally abraded, with retouched glazes to minimize the appearance of damage.249 The abraded appearance noted at this time is thought to be the result of a previous, undocumented cleaning, possibly prior to acquisition. A pulpboard insert was placed between the canvas and the stretcher at an unknown date; however, labels and stamps indicate that the painting retained its original stretcher. During the 1968 treatment, the work was cleaned of grime, and the heavy varnish was slightly thinned with solvents. The more noticeable losses and abrasions were inpainted, and the painting was varnished 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).

The next treatment, in 1972, sought to address both structural and aesthetic issues.250 The work was cleaned of grime, varnish, and [glossary:overpaint] with solvents, then faced with starch paste in preparation for lining. The painting was wax-resin lined and attached to a new ICA spring stretcher of slightly larger dimensions. Pretreatment dimensions were listed as 65.5 × 54 cm, and the replacement stretcher measured 66 × 54.6 cm (26 × 21 1/2 in.). Before it was discarded, the original stretcher was photographed, labels were preserved, and stamps were documented with tracings. The work was inpainted and varnished with three coats of synthetic varnish, using the methods and materials of the 1968 treatment.

In 1996 the painting was treated in preparation for exhibition, and the synthetic surface coatings, [glossary:inpainting], and residual starch paste were removed.251 The painting was examined in its unvarnished state by a group of curators and conservators, who decided that the work was not intended to be completely unvarnished (see Surface Finish). While the flesh tones seemed improved by the cleaning, modeling of the figure’s dark coat and the background was obscured in the unvarnished state. The work was lightly varnished with damar, locally blotted, and dry brushed to achieve proper saturation and balance; finally, it was retouched.

Condition Summary

The work is in good condition, wax lined, planar, and stable. The ground layer has darkened slightly due to the combined effects of grime, age, and saturation of the fabric by the lining material. There is cracking in and around more thickly painted areas, including parts of the coat, flesh tones, and background on the upper left, and there is a concentric impact crack near the figure’s elbow on the lower right. Small, localized losses, some inpainted, occur throughout, and the work has some [glossary:retouching] along the edges. The painting has a thin natural-resin varnish, which imparts saturation and an even gloss.
Kelly Keegan

Frame

The current frame appears to be original to the painting.252 It is a French, late-nineteenth–early-twentieth-century, Louis XIV reproduction, gilt torus frame with cast plaster anthemia corner cartouches and fleur-de-lis center cartouches linked by foliate scrolls and strapwork. The frame has oil and water gilding over red bole on cast plaster and gesso. The sight moldings are burnished, and the ornament is selectively burnished. The gilding is heavily rubbed and toned with a casein or gouache raw umber wash with a gray overwash. The molding is constructed of several woods, including oak, pine, and possibly linden, and is mitered and nailed. 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 torus with dentil outer molding; sanded back frieze bordered with fillets; scotia side; torus face with anthemia corner cartouches and fleur-de-lis center cartouches on diamond beds, linked by scrolls and strapwork with flower heads on a quadrillage bed; fillet; sanded front frieze; ogee with leaf-tip ornament linked by c-scrolls and strapping on a recut bed; and quirked ogee sight molding (fig. 2.57, fig. 2.44).
Kirk Vuillemot

Selected References

Catalogue de la 3e exposition de peinture, exh. cat. (E. Capiomont et V. Renault, 1877), p. 13, cat. 190.271

Georges Rivière, “L’exposition des impressionnistes,” L’impressionniste 1 (Apr. 6, 1877), p. 4.

Paul Sébillot, “Exposition des impressionnistes,” Le bien public, Apr. 7, 1877, p. 2. Reprinted in Ruth Berson, ed., The New Painting: Impressionism, 1874–1886; Documentation, vol. 1, Reviews (Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco/University of Washington Press, 1996), p. 190.272

“Exposition des impressionnistes: 6, rue Le Peletier; 6,” La petite republique française, Apr. 10, 1877, p. 2. Reprinted in Ruth Berson, ed., The New Painting: Impressionism, 1874–1886; Documentation, vol. 1, Reviews (Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco/University of Washington Press, 1996), p. 176.

Émile Bergerat, “Revue artistique: Les impressionistes et leur exposition,” Journal officiel de la république française 105 (Apr. 17, 1877), p. 2918.

Trublot [Paul Alexis], “La collection Murer,” Le cri du peuple 43 (Oct. 21, 1887). Reprinted in Paul Gachet, Le docteur Gachet et Murer: Deux amis des impressionnistes (Musées Nationaux, 1956), p. 172.

Julien Leclercq, “Alfred Sisley,” Gazette des beaux-arts 21, 3 (Mar. 1899), pp. 227 (ill.), 534.

“Collection d’un amateur,” Gazette de l’hôtel Drouot 86–87 (Mar. 27–28, 1900), n. pag.

Camille Mauclair, “L’oeuvre d’Auguste Renoir,” L’art décoratif 41, pt. 1 (Feb. 1902), pp. 180, 182 (ill.).

Camille Mauclair, L’impressionnisme: Son histoire, son esthétique, ses maîtres, 2nd ed. (Librairie de l’Art Ancien et Moderne, 1904), pp. 112, 229. Translated by P. G. Konody as The French Impressionists (1860–1900) (Duckworth/E. P. Dutton, [1903]), p. 120.273

Grossen Kunstausstellung, Offizieller Katalog der Grossen Kunstausstellung Dresden 1904, exh. cat. (Alwin Arnold & Gröschel, Apr. 30, 1904), p. 123, cat. 2246.274

Henry Morrison, “Auguste Renoir, Impressionist,” Brush and Pencil 17, 5 (May 1906), p. 202.

Louis Vauxcelles, “Portraits contemporains,” L’art et les artistes 6 (Oct. 1907–Mar. 1908), p. 536 (ill.).

Durand-Ruel, Paris, Portraits par Renoir, exh. cat. (Durand-Ruel, Paris, 1912), p. 5, cat. 34.

Ambroise Vollard, La vie and l’oeuvre de Pierre-Auguste Renoir (A. Vollard, 1919), p. 48. Translated by Harold L. Van Doren and Randolph T. Weaver as Renoir: An Intimate Record (Knopf, 1925), pp. 53, 237.275

Georges Lecomte, “L’oeuvre de Renoir,” L’art et les artistes 4, 14 (Jan. 1920), p. 146 (ill.).

Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek Malerisale, Copenhagen, August Renoir: Udstilling af hans Arbejder I Skandinavisk Eje samt Udlaan fra Franske Samlere, exh. cat. (Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek Malerisale, 1921), p. 7, cat. 5.

Georges Rivière, Renoir et ses amis (H. Floury, 1921), opp. p. 50 (ill.).

Théodore Duret, Renoir (Bernheim-Jeune, 1924), p. 72. Translated into English by Madeleine Boyd as Renoir (Crown, 1937), p. 54.276

Gustave Geffroy, Sisley (G. Crès, 1927), p. 4 (ill.).

Julius Meier-Graefe, Renoir (Klinkhardt & Biermann, 1929), pp. 99–100, no. 1; 136, no. 106 (ill.).

Reginald Howard Wilenski, French Painting (Hale, Cushman & Flint, 1931), p. 262.

Hans Heilmaier, “Alfred Sisley,” Die Kunst 63, 5 (Feb. 1931), p. 137 (ill.).

Art Institute of Chicago, Exhibition of the Mrs. L. L. Coburn Collection: Modern Paintings and Watercolors, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago, 1932), pp. 6; 22, no. 31; 53, no. 31 (ill.).

“Mrs. Coburn Leaves 83 Pictures, $200,000 Funds, to Chicago,” Art Digest 6, 18 (July 1, 1932), p. 5 (ill.).

Daniel Catton Rich, “The Bequest of Mrs. L. L. Coburn,” Bulletin of the Art Institute of Chicago 26, 6 (Nov. 1932), p. 68.

Ulrich Thieme and Felix Becker, “Renoir,” in Allgemeines Lexikon der Bildenden Künstler, vol. 28, Ramsden–Rosa (Seemann, 1934), p. 170.

Great Portraits from Impressionism to Modernism, with a foreword by Frank Crowninshield, exh. cat. (Wildenstein and Co./Marchbanks, 1938), p. 35, cat. 39.

Lionello Venturi, Les archives de l’impressionnisme: Lettres de Renoir, Monet, Pissarro, Sisley, et autres; Mémoires de Paul Durand-Ruel; Documents, vol. 2 (Durand-Ruel, 1939), opp. p. 52 (ill.); pp. 261, 310.

Lo Duca, “Il centenario di Alfred Sisley (1839–1939),” Emporium 90, 539 (Nov. 1939), p. 236 (ill.).

Rosamund Frost, Pierre Auguste Renoir, ed. Aimèe Crane, Hyperion Art Monographs (Hyperion/Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1944), p. 21 (ill.).

John Rewald, The History of Impressionism (Museum of Modern Art/Simon & Schuster, 1946), pp. 296 (ill.), 313. Translated by Nancy Goldet-Bouwens as Histoire de l’impressionisme (A. Michel, 1955), p. 243.

Milwaukee Art Institute, Masters of Impressionism (Milwaukee Art Institute, 1948), cat. 39.

Marcelle Berr de Turique, Renoir (Phaidon, [1953]), pl. 34.

Paul Gachet, Le docteur Gachet et Murer: Deux amis des impressionnistes (Musées Nationaux, 1956), opp. p. 28, fig. 19; pp. 172; 176.

Paul Gachet, Lettres impressionnistes: Pissarro, Cézanne, Guillaumin, Renoir, Monet, Sisley, Vignon, Van Gogh, et autres . . . (Grasset, 1957), opp. p. 120 (ill.); p. 92.

François Daulte, Alfred Sisley: Catalogue raisonné de l’oeuvre peint (Durand-Ruel, 1959), p. 33, fig. 3.

Art Institute of Chicago, Paintings in the Art Institute of Chicago: A Catalogue of the Picture Collection (Art Institute of Chicago, 1961), p. 395.277

François Fosca, Renoir: L’homme et son oeuvre (A. Somogy, 1961), p. 114. Translated by Mary I. Martin as Renoir: His Life and Work (Prentice-Hall, 1962), p. 114.

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

Charles C. Cunningham and Satoshi Takahashi, Shikago bijutsukan [Art Institute of Chicago], Museums of the World 32 (Kodansha, 1970), p. 163 (ill.).

François Daulte, Auguste Renoir: Catalogue raisonné de l’oeuvre peint, vol. 1, Figures, 1860–1890 (Durand-Ruel, 1971), pp. 136–37, cat. 117 (ill.).

Elda Fezzi, L’opera completa di Renoir: Nel periodo impressionista, 1869–1883, Classici dell’arte 59 (Rizzoli, 1972), p. 95, cat. 138 (ill.).278

Art Institute of Chicago, Paintings by Renoir, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago, 1973), pp. 26; 60–61, cat. 16 (ill.); 66; 210; 211; 214.

Raymond Cogniat, Sisley, trans. Alice Sachs (Crown, 1978), pp. 3–4 (ill.).279

J. Patrice Marandel, The Art Institute of Chicago: Favorite Impressionist Paintings (Cross River, 1979), pp. 66–67 (ill.).

Diane Kelder, The Great Book of French Impressionism (Abbeville, 1980), pp. 255 (ill.), 438.280

Diane Kelder, The Great Book of French Impressionism, Tiny Folios (Abbeville, 1980), p. 152, pl. 12.

Sylvie Gache-Patin and Jacques Lassaigne, Sisley (Nouvelles Éd. Françaises, 1983), pp. 51; 52, ill. 57.

Barbara Ehrlich White, Renoir: His Life, Art, and Letters (Abrams, 1984), pp. 51, 54 (ill.), 74.

Daniel Wildenstein, Claude Monet: Biographie et catalogue raisonné, vol. 4, Peintures, 1899–1926 (Bibliothèque des Arts, 1985), p. 421, letter 2623.281

Richard R. Brettell, “The ‘First’ Exhibition of Impressionist Painters,” in The New Painting: Impressionism, 1874–1886, ed. Charles S. Moffett, with the assistance of Ruth Berson, Barbara Lee Williams, and Fronia E. Wissman, exh. cat. (Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, 1986), p. 194.

Melissa McQuillan, Impressionist Portraits (Thames & Hudson, 1986), pp. 110–11 (ill.), 197.

Richard R. Brettell, French Impressionists (Art Institute of Chicago/Abrams, 1987), pp. 36 (ill.), 37, 119.

Nicholas Wadley, ed., Renoir: A Retrospective (Hugh Lauter Levin/Macmillan, 1987), p. 211 (ill.).

Sophie Monneret, Renoir, Profils de l’art (Chêne, 1989), p. 150, cat. 17 (ill.).

David Bomford, Jo Kirby, John Leighton, and Ashok Roy, Art in the Making: Impressionism, exh. cat. (National Gallery, London/Yale University Press, 1990), p. 203, fig. 94.

Isabelle Cahn, “Documentary Chronology,” in Alfred Sisley, ed. MaryAnne Stevens, exh. cat. (Royal Academy of Arts, London/Musée d’Orsay/Walters Art Gallery/Yale University Press, 1992), p. 264, fig. 140.

Vivienne Couldrey, Alfred Sisley: The English Impressionist (David & Charles, 1992), p. 47.282

Iain Gale, Sisley (Studio, 1992), p. 28 (ill.).

Richard Shone, Sisley, Impressionists/Post-Impressionists (Phaidon, 1992), pp. 108–09, pl. 80; 110; 112; 122–23. Translated into French by Atelier d’Édition Européen as Richard Shone, Sisley (Phaidon, 2004), pp. 108–09, pl. 80; 110; 112; 122.

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. 66 (ill.).

Anne Distel, Renoir: “Il faut embellir,” Découvertes Gallimard: Peinture 177 (Gallimard/Réunion des Musées Nationaux, 1993), pp. 38 (ill.), 168. Translated by Lory Frankel as Renoir: A Sensuous Vision (Thames & Hudson, 1995), pp. 38 (ill.), 168.

Akiya Takahashi and Ruth Berson, 1874 nen—Pari: (dai ikkai inshoha ten) to sono jidai/Paris en 1874: L’année de l’impressionnisme, exh. cat. (Kokuritsu Seiyo Bijutsukan/Yomiuri Shimbunsha, 1994), pp. 113, cat. 44 (ill.); 206.

Ruth Berson, ed., The New Painting: Impressionism, 1874–1886; Documentation, vol. 1, Reviews (Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco/University of Washington Press, 1996), pp. 120, 129, 176, 180, 190.

Natalia Brodskaïa, Auguste Renoir: He Made Colour Sing, trans. Paul Williams, Great Painters (Parkstone/Aurora Art, 1996), p. 28 (ill.).

Colin B. Bailey, “Portrait of the Artist as a Portrait Painter,” in Colin B. Bailey, with the assistance of John B. Collins, Renoir’s Portraits: Impressions of an Age, exh. cat. (National Gallery of Canada/Yale University Press, 1997), pp. 21; 51, n. 224. Translated as Colin B. Bailey, “Portrait de l’artiste en portraitiste,” in Colin B. Bailey, with the assistance of John B. Collins, Les portraits de Renoir: Impressions d’une époque, trans. Danielle Chaput and Julie Desgagné, exh. cat. (Gallimard/Musée des Beaux-Arts du Canada, 1997), p. 21.

Colin B. Bailey, with the assistance of John B. Collins, Renoir’s Portraits: Impressions of an Age, exh. cat. (National Gallery of Canada/Yale University Press, 1997), pp. 149–51, cat. 26 (ill.); 290, cat. 26. Translated by Danielle Chaput and Julie Desgagné, with support from Nada Kerpan for the texts by Linda Nochlin, as Les portraits de Renoir: Impressions d’une époque, exh. cat. (Gallimard/Musée des Beaux-Arts du Canada, 1997), pp. 50, n. 224; 149–51, cat. 26 (ill.); 290, cat. 26.

Douglas W. Druick, Renoir, Artists in Focus (Art Institute of Chicago/Abrams, 1997), pp. 10–11; 30; 82, pl. 1; 109.

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), pp. 51 (ill.), 65.

John B. Collins, “Seeking l’Esprit Gaulois: Renoir’s Bal du Moulin de la Galette and Aspects of French Social History and Popular Culture” (Ph.D. diss., McGill University, 2001), p. 143.

Gilles Néret, Renoir: Painter of Happiness, 1841–1919, trans. Josephine Bacon (Taschen, 2001), pp. 188 (ill.), 202.

Sylvie Patin, L’impressionisme (Bibliothèque des Arts, 2002), pp. 164; 168, no. 128 (ill.); 299.

Norio Shimada, Inshoha bijutsukan [The history of impressionism] (Shogakukan, 2004), p. 91 (ill.).

Sylvie Patry, “L’invention du modèle,” in Serge Lemoine and Serge Toubiana, Renoir Renoir, exh. cat. (Martinière, 2005), p. 29, n. 8.

Susan Roe, The Private Lives of the Impressionists (Chatto & Windus, 2006), p. 211 (ill.).

Nathalia Brodskaïa, Impressionism, trans. Rebecca Brimacombe and Richard Swanson (Parkstone, 2007), pp. 170–71 (ill.).

Frances Suzman Jowell, “Impressionism and the Golden Age of Dutch Art,” in Inspiring Impressionism: The Impressionists and the Art of the Past, ed. Ann Dumas, exh. cat. (Denver Art Museum/Yale University Press, 2007), pp. 93; 104, fig. 40.

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. 62 (detail); 63, cat. 22 (ill.). Simultaneously published as Gloria Groom and Douglas Druick, with the assistance of Dorota Chudzicka and Jill Shaw, The Age of Impressionism at the Art Institute of Chicago (Art Institute of Chicago/Yale University Press, 2008), pp. 62 (detail); 63, cat. 22 (ill.).283

Adrien Goetz, Comment Regarder . . . Renoir (Hazan, 2009), p. 28 (ill.).

Peter Kropmanns, “Renoir’s Friendships with Fellow Artists,” in Renoir: Between Bohemia and Bourgeoisie; The Early Years, ed. Nina Zimmer, exh. cat. (Kunstmuseum Basel/Hatje Cantz, 2012), pp. 247 (ill.); 253, fig. 58; 254.

David Pullins, “Renoir and the Arts of Eighteenth-Century France,” in Renoir: Between Bohemia and Bourgeoisie; The Early Years, ed. Nina Zimmer, exh. cat. (Kunstmuseum Basel/Hatje Cantz, 2012), p. 264.

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. 2.26).328

Signature/Distinguishing Marks

Signed (lower left, in warm blue paint): Renoir. (fig. 2.27 and fig. 2.28).329

Structure and Technique

Support

Canvas

Flax (commonly known as linen).330

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.331

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].332

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. 2.29).333

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. 2.30). 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.334

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. 2.31). 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. 2.32).335

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. 2.33).

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. 2.34).336 Both layers are estimated to be bound in an [glossary:oil] medium.337

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. 2.35); 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. 2.36), 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. 2.37). Some of the changes to the figure’s arms and hands were made quickly and remain visible on the work’s surface (fig. 2.38). 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. 2.26). [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. 2.39) 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. 2.40), 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. 2.41). 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]:338 lead white, vermilion, two red lakes,339 chrome yellow, cobalt blue, cerulean blue,340 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. 2.42).341 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).342

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.343 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.344 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.345 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).346

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. 2.43).347

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. 2.18).
Kirk Vuillemot

317) 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.)

318) 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.

328) 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.

338) [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.

341) 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.

348) 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.”

352) 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).

353) 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.).

361) 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.”

fig. 1.2
Pierre-Auguste Renoir (French, 1841–1919). *Workers’ Daughters on the Outer Boulevard (Illustration for Émile Zola’s “L’assommoir”)*, 1877/78. Pen and brown ink, over black chalk, on ivory laid paper; 275 × 399 mm. The Art Institute of Chicago, Regenstein Collection, 1986.420.

fig. 1.1
Detail of Renoir’s *The Laundress* (1877/79) showing the exposed ground. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1947.102.

fig. 2.20
Detail of the figure’s hair in Renoir’s *The Laundress* (1877/79) showing individual brushstrokes of unmixed color. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1947.102.

fig. 1.3
X-ray, natural-light, and infrared reflectogram (Goodrich, 1.0–1.7 µm) images of Renoir’s *The Laundress* (1877/79) showing changes made by the artist. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1947.102. Interactive image.

fig. 1.4
Detail of Renoir’s *The Laundress* (1877/79) showing the figure’s left forearm. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1947.102.

fig. 2.22
Pierre-Auguste Renoir (French, 1841–1919). *Le premier pas*, 1876. Oil on canvas; 111 × 80.5 cm (43 11/16 × 31 11/16 in.). Sold, Christie’s, London, Feb. 4, 2002, lot 17. Photograph © Christie’s Images/Bridgeman Images.

fig. 2.23
Pierre-Auguste Renoir (French, 1841–1919). *Alfred Sisley*, 1876. Oil on canvas; 66.2 × 54.8 cm (26 × 21 9/16 in.). The Art Institute of Chicago, Mr. and Mrs. Lewis Larned Coburn Memorial Collection, 1933.453.

fig. 2.24
Detail of the laundry basket in Renoir’s *The Laundress* (1877/79). The Art Institute of Chicago, 1947.102.

fig. 2.25
Pierre-Auguste Renoir (French, 1841–1919). *Mother and Child*, 1886. Pastel; 79.1 × 63.5 cm (31 1/8 × 25 in.). The Cleveland Museum of Art, bequest of Alexander Ginn 1977.167. Photograph © The Cleveland Museum of Art.

fig. 2.26
Renoir’s *The Laundress* (1877/79). The Art Institute of Chicago, 1947.102. Interactive image.

fig. 2.27
Detail of Renoir’s *The Laundress* (1877/79) showing the artist’s signature. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1947.102.

fig. 2.28
Photomicrograph of Renoir’s *The Laundress* (1877/79) showing the different paint colors used in the signature. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1947.102.

fig. 2.29
Weft-angle map of Renoir’s *The Laundress* (1877/79) showing areas of warp-thread repair with an X-ray detail showing an area of visible warp-thread repair. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1947.102.

fig. 2.30
Detail of Renoir’s *The Laundress* (1877/79) showing previous tack holes just beyond the current foldover. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1947.102.

fig. 2.31
Verso of Renoir’s *The Laundress* (1877/79) showing the keyable stretcher and labels. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1947.102.

fig. 2.32
Photomicrograph of a cross section of the ground and canvas in Renoir’s *The Laundress* (1877/79). Original magnification: 200×. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1947.102.

fig. 2.33
Photomicrograph of Renoir’s *The Laundress* (1877/79) showing areas of abrasion that reveal lower white ground layer and canvas threads. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1947.102.

fig. 2.34
Photomicograph of a cross section of the ground with blue and yellow paint layers in Renoir’s *The Laundress* (1877/79). Original magnification: 200×. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1947.102.

fig. 2.35
Raking-light detail of Renoir’s *The Laundress* (1877/79) showing the heavy paint application around the figure covering the changes made by the artist. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1947.102.

fig. 2.36
Photomicrograph of the figure’s waistband in Renoir’s *The Laundress* (1877/79) showing exposed red paint from an earlier compositional stage. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1947.102.

fig. 2.37
Infrared reflectogram (Goodrich, 0.9-1.7 µm), X-ray, infrared reflectogram (Fuji, 1.0-1.1µm), and natural-light details of Renoir’s *The Laundress* (1877/79) showing changes made by the artist to the position of the figure. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1947.102. Interactive image.

fig. 2.38
Detail of the figure’s left arm in Renoir’s *The Laundress* (1877/79) showing changes made by the artist that remain visible. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1947.102.

fig. 2.39
Detail of Renoir’s *The Laundress* (1877/79) showing the very fine brushwork used for the figure. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1947.102.

fig. 2.40
Detail of the figure’s hair in Renoir’s *The Laundress* (1877/79) showing individual brushstrokes of unmixed color. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1947.102.

fig. 2.41
Photomicrograph of Renoir’s *The Laundress* (1877/79) showing the artist’s use of impasto brushstrokes. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1947.102.

fig. 2.42
Ultraviolet and natural-light details of Renoir’s *The Laundress* (1877/79) showing fluorescing pigments. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1947.102. Interactive image.

fig. 2.43
Renoir’s *The Laundress* (1877/79) in its current frame. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1947.102.

Image Inventory:
Curatorial	c. 5 x 7 B/W print	Dealer photo	Pre-1923	Normal, overall
C13961	8 x 10 B/W	--	c. 1938	Unknown “Donnelly negative”
Cons/C23335	8 x 10 B/W	During treatment	1956–57	Normal, partially clean
C23604	8 x 10 B/W	Before treatment	1956–57	Normal
C34256	8 x 10 B/W	After treatment	Feb. 1969	Normal
Cons	35mm color slides	--	1980	Normal, overall, detail, figure
E10651	4 x 5 color transparency	--	2002 (?)	Normal
G28516	Digital	Exhibition	Mar. 11, 2008	Normal
G28517	Digital	Exhibition	Mar. 11, 2008	Normal, detail, lower right
Cons/132372	Digital/scan	Exhibition	Nov. 2008	Annotated condition
Cons	Digital	OSCI	Nov. 3, 2009	Detail images of verso/ labels (10 total details)
Cons	X-radiograph	OSCI	Nov. 4, 2009	X-ray films scanned/digitally composited, overall
Cons	Digital	OSCI	Nov. 5, 2009	Normal
Cons	Digital	OSCI	Nov. 5, 2009	Raking light, overall
Cons	Digital	OSCI	Nov. 5, 2009	UV, overall
Cons	Digital	OSCI	Nov. 5, 2009	Infrared (Fuji, 1000B—2mm filter) overall
Cons	Digital	OSCI	Nov. 5, 2009	Macro details of surface (20 total details)
Cons	Digital	OSCI	Nov. 10, 2009	Infrared (Inframetrics, 1.5–1.73 filter) overall
Cons	Digital	OSCI	Nov. 11, 2009	Photomicrographs of surface (17 total details)
G32708	Digital	OSCI	Dec. 3, 2009	Normal
G32709	Digital	OSCI	Dec. 3, 2009	Normal, detail, lower-right quadrant
G32710	Digital	OSCI	Dec. 3, 2009	Normal, detail, laundry basket
G32711	Digital	OSCI	Dec. 3, 2009	Normal, detail, right shoulder
G32712	Digital	OSCI	Dec. 3, 2009	UV, overall
G32718	Digital	OSCI	Dec. 3, 2009	Normal, detail, signature
G32719	Digital	OSCI	Dec. 3, 2009	Normal, frame only
G32918	Digital	OSCI	Dec. 3, 2009	Composite, frame with painting
Cons	Digital	OSCI	Jan.–Feb, 2010	Photomicrographs of 3 cross sections (45 total details)
Cons	Digital	OSCI	May 21, 2010	Normal, verso, overall
Cons	Digital	OSCI	May 21, 2010	Infrared (Fuji, 100b—2mm filter), verso, overall
Cons	Digital	OSCI	Aug. 25, 2011	Infrared (Goodrich, 1000B—2mm filter), overall
Cons	Digital	OSCI	Aug. 26, 2011	Normal, macrophotographs of surface/tacking edges (6 total details)
Cons	Digital	OSCI	Aug. 26, 2011	UV, detail, figure’s face
Cons	Digital	OSCI	Aug. 26, 2011	Infrared (Fuji, 1000B—2mm filter) detail, figure’s face
G38546	Digital	OSCI	Sept. 15, 2011	Normal, detail, upper-left corner
G38547	Digital	OSCI	Sept. 15, 2011	Normal, detail, upper center
G38548	Digital	OSCI	Sept. 15, 2011	Normal, detail, upper-right corner
G38549	Digital	OSCI	Sept. 15, 2011	Normal, detail, upper mid-left
G38550	Digital	OSCI	Sept. 15, 2011	Normal, detail, upper center
G38551	Digital	OSCI	Sept. 15, 2011	Normal, detail, upper mid-right
G38552	Digital	OSCI	Sept. 15, 2011	Normal, detail, lower mid-left
G38553	Digital	OSCI	Sept. 15, 2011	Normal, detail, lower center
G38554	Digital	OSCI	Sept. 15, 2011	Normal, detail, lower mid-right
G38555	Digital	OSCI	Sept. 15, 2011	Normal, detail, lower-left corner
G38556	Digital	OSCI	Sept. 15, 2011	Normal, detail, lower center
G38557	Digital	OSCI	Sept. 15, 2011	Normal, detail, lower-right corner
G38558	Digital	OSCI	Sept. 15, 2011	Normal, composite overall

fig. 2.18
Renoir’s *The Laundress* (1877/79) in a previous frame, on display in the home of Charles H. and Mary F. S. Worcester. Photograph published in Art Institute of Chicago, “The Magnificent Worcester Gift,” *Bulletin of the Art Institute of Chicago*, 42, 2, pt. 3 (Feb. 1948), p. 4.

Young Woman Sewing as Part of a Tradition

Embroidering and sewing, along with music recitals and reading, feature prominently in Renoir’s repertoire of images depicting the daily life of the French bourgeois woman. The theme is one of a range of domestic genre subjects—also including the governess or servant and child, getting dressed, and playing games—that were carried over into the nineteenth century from past art and given a new sense of contemporaneity and psychological insight by the Realists and the Impressionists. In her biography of the artist, Jeanne Baudot (a student of Renoir’s from 1893 to 1895) reported on a visit to the Musée du Louvre with her mentor: “He particularly liked [Gerard] Terborch and [Pieter] de Hooch, but his favorite was the Lacemaker by Vermeer.”371 This small oil painting (fig. 2.41) entered the collection of the Louvre in 1870. In Vermeer’s novel treatment of natural light, representation of ephemeral moments of everyday life, and sensitivity to male and female spheres of experience, Renoir found a precedent for his own Impressionist enterprise.

The artist’s earliest representation of needlework, Lise Sewing (fig. 2.42 [Daulte 16; Dauberville 396]), portrays his mistress Lise Tréhot, who modeled for him frequently from 1866 until 1872.372 In other paintings, Lise played the role of sultry odalisque or nude bather, but here she is represented simply as herself, dressed in modest but elegant attire that is ambiguous as to class. There are signs of staged domesticity in this portrayal. Though unmarried, she wears a wedding ring, and her jeweled earrings with their distinctive teardrop stones may well have been studio props—they reappeared two years later on Lise in Woman in a Garden (1868; Kunstmuseum Basel [Daulte 83; Dauberville 286]).373 It is worth noting that the figure in Young Woman Sewing also wears teardrop earrings, but the lack of detail makes it difficult to tell whether they are of the same design.

The splendor of the asters and chrysanthemums arranged in a shimmering vase, possibly of glazed ceramic, has led Gloria Groom and Douglas Druick to conclude that Young Woman Sewing was painted late in the summer of 1879 during the final days of Renoir’s first stay at the Château de Wargemont, the Normandy home of his patron Paul Berard.374 It seems unlikely, however, that the artist would have executed such a large and stunningly provocative color work of an anonymous young woman when his commissioned portraits of the Berard family and staff members are conservatively composed and set against conventional dark backgrounds. Rather, the possibility should be entertained that Young Woman Sewing was executed after Renoir’s return to Paris in late September, where he could have acquired the flowers from one of the many Montmartre flower vendors.

The most remarkable aspect of Young Woman Sewing is the way Renoir was able to energize the traditionally subdued indoor subject with a brilliant flourish of natural light and a profusion of color in the bouquet. His Realist and Impressionist predecessors may have influenced this bold juxtaposition. For example, Gustave Courbet linked women and flowers in The Trellis (fig. 2.43), in which floral bounty verges on the fantastic and makes allegorical allusion to youth and love.375 Flowers also abound in Edgar Degas’s A Woman Seated beside a Vase of Flowers (fig. 2.49) to such an extent that the off-center figure appears to be a late addition, though this is probably not the case. Rather, Degas seized the opportunity to be visually innovative with the subject. The seemingly informal arrangement of blossoms in Young Woman Sewing dominates the composition less than the flowers in the works by Courbet and Degas, but the abundance of variety and texture allowed Renoir a certain freedom in handling that amply demonstrates his technical skill.

A Possible New Model for Renoir

No attempt has been made to identify Renoir’s beautiful young model with her round face, plump lips, and reddish hair. The artist lost his regular model, Alma-Henriette Leboeuf, called Margot, to smallpox in February 1879 and would have needed another Montmartre resident he could call on for figure paintings. Three additional models posed for Renoir in 1879 and 1880: Ellen Andrée, an aspiring actress; Angèle, a young florist in Montmartre whose last name is not known; and Aline Charigot, Renoir’s future wife. Both Andrée and Charigot had red hair and can be seen in Luncheon of the Boating Party (fig. 2.50 [Daulte 379; Dauberville 224]).376 Angèle, who appears in Sleeping Girl with a Cat (1880; Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute, Williamstown, Mass. [Daulte 330; Dauberville 487]), had darker hair and somewhat slimmer facial features.377

Though little is known of Aline’s early years in Montmartre or exactly when she met Renoir, it is likely that she had begun modeling for him by the fall of 1879.378 She was then twenty years old and working as a seamstress, and thus part of a milieu with which Renoir was already acquainted.379 According to her son Jean Renoir, at the time Aline lived with her mother on rue Saint-Georges, the street on which Renoir’s studio was located.380 By 1880 Renoir and Aline seem to have been on intimate terms. That summer he paid her board at the Maison Fournaise in Chatou, where she modeled for Luncheon of the Boating Party after Renoir arrived from Normandy in September.381 If Aline was the model for Young Woman Sewing, the difference between the tranquil concentration and demure costume of the figure in that painting and the coquettish, fashionably dressed canotière (rower) playing with her dog in Luncheon of the Boating Party could reflect Aline’s change in status from occasional model under the watchful eye of her mother to “my dear friend,” as Renoir addressed her in correspondence after their relationship began.382 In the fall of 1881, Aline accompanied Renoir to Italy. Most scholars agree that, while the couple was in Capri, she modeled for Blonde Bather (fig. 2.51 [Daulte 387; Dauberville 583]).383 No photographs of Aline from this period of her relationship with Renoir have yet come to light, but there is a compelling resemblance between the figures in Young Woman Sewing and Blonde Bather. Despite the title of the Italian work, there is some red in the woman’s hair, a strawberry-blonde color shared with the figure in Young Woman Sewing. In addition, the two have similar features, including rosy cheeks, wide-set eyes, and prominent noses.

Renoir and Embroidery

It may never be possible to confidently identify Renoir’s model, but Aline’s occupation as a seamstress would have lent additional significance to the artist’s choosing her as a model for this subject. This painting is usually referred to as Young Woman Sewing, or La couseuse, but an early handwritten label from a previous backing or stretcher reads Femme brodant et fleurs (Woman embroidering and flowers; fig. 2.48) and almost certainly dates to the period when Charles Deudon owned the painting, prior to his death in 1914.384 The brightly colored fabric that the figure holds in her hand suggests that she may be embroidering a pattern on white cloth. The distinction between sewing and embroidery is significant. Repairs to clothing and other fabrics were carried out by domestics or hired out to seamstresses, and undoubtedly Aline undertook such work. Decorative embroidery, however, was reserved for the middle and upper classes and was performed primarily on domestic linens, such as antimacassars and slipcovers, and clothing.

Embroidery acquired even greater status in the late nineteenth century as a form of craft, especially for artists such as Renoir. In 1884, he included embroiderers in his prospectus for a “Société des Irrégularistes,” whose members would also be drawn from the ranks of architects, goldsmiths, and decorators—all professions that shared a belief in the importance of the arts in everyday life.385 As Gloria Groom has suggested, acknowledging that embroidery was recognized as a craft enriches our understanding of Gustave Caillebotte’s painting of his very haute bourgeoise mother stitching a patterned cloth (1877; private collection).386 The portrait was shown at the third Impressionist exhibition in April 1877. In July of that year, Caillebotte, Renoir, and the art dealer Alphonse Legrand were collaborators in a business venture to paint decoration on a fine white plaster cement, used to make faux marbre. Though it dissolved in April 1878, the enterprise was indicative of how strongly both Caillebotte and Renoir felt about Impressionism’s involvement in the decorative arts.

Young Woman Sewing as an Exercise in Expressive Color

Young Woman Sewing is a vibrant, light-filled canvas in which Renoir exploited the expressive potential of color with a surprising freedom of handling. Cobalt blue dominates the deep shadows of the legged vase and the body of the commode and is present as well in blended glazes in the background and in the young woman’s costume. The blue makes a striking contrast against the red surface on which the vase sits. Touches of blue applied with a fine-tip brush appear throughout the hair, flesh, comb, and eyelashes (fig. 2.52). Shades of both red and blue run through the woman’s clothing, either applied with long strokes of a fine-tip brush or blended over existing underlayers, and merge into violet in the shadows (fig. 2.53), a velvety Impressionist equivalent of traditional chiaroscuro. With a more sparing use of yellows in the flowers, hair, flesh, and subtle highlights around the vase, Renoir managed to convey middle tones and a convincing verisimilitude through the optical mixing of primary colors (fig. 2.54).

The innovative exploration of color in Young Woman Sewing is evident when the painting is viewed in the context of Renoir’s more conservative portrait painting or compared to a work such as Madame Georges Charpentier and Her Children (fig. 2.55 [Daulte 266; Dauberville 239]),387 which was exhibited at the Salon of 1879.388 Renoir clearly considered black an important color and fully understood its aesthetic potential, as indicated by his virtuoso representation of the richly detailed black silk of the luxurious couture dress seen in this painting.389 By contrast, the dominance of primary hues, especially blue, in Young Woman Sewing makes it the figural equivalent of the stormy Seascape (fig. 2.5 [cat. 8]). The artist established comparable textural patterns in both paintings by juxtaposing areas of translucent color washes with areas of minimally worked impasto. Using the same basic palette, however, Renoir evoked very different moods in the two paintings by varying the representation of light.

The light source in Young Woman Sewing is as ambiguous as that in Vermeer’s Lace Maker. In both paintings, it is presumably a window just outside the space of the picture. The vagueness of the source gave Vermeer latitude to bathe his image in light, giving it a mystical quality. The light in Renoir’s painting can be said to be as much the subject of the piece as the figure’s attentive work with the needle. She radiates warmth, and her features shine with reflected light. The inside of her collar and the top of her head are rendered in pure white, contributing to the intense luminosity of the picture. Even shaded areas away from the light source seem to glow, particularly the figure’s hair (see Palette in the technical report), with its reddish-orange tones (fig. 2.8). Renoir was able to achieve such dazzling effects by using very thin glazes over a thick white ground.

Critics who knew the Impressionists and supported their agenda in the press recognized the fundamental role of color in the group’s work. On the occasion of the second Impressionist exhibition in 1876, Edmond Duranty wrote a pamphlet titled The New Painting, which provided a justification for the kinds of issues Renoir sought to address in Young Woman Sewing: “Proceeding from intuition to intuition, they have little by little succeeded in breaking down sunlight into its rays, its elements, and [in] reconstituting its unity by means of the general harmony of spectrum colors—which they spread on their canvases.”390 Young Woman Sewing holds an important place in Renoir’s oeuvre not only by virtue of its subject matter, drawn from the Old Masters, but also because it reveals Renoir forging his independence as a modern colorist even as he sought greater commercial success at the Salon.
John Collins

Technical Report

Technical Summary

Renoir executed this painting on a fine-weave, standard-size [glossary:canvas] with a thick, white, commercially applied ground that fills the [glossary:weave], appears systematically textured with diagonal strokes, and extends to the edges of the [glossary:tacking margins]. The [glossary:X-ray] shows a large vertical form left of center that does not correspond to any visible element in the painting; it seems to be an artifact of an imperfectly applied [glossary:ground] layer.391

In most of the composition, Renoir layered thin veils of paint in glaze- and semiglaze-like layers in order to make use of the reflective qualities of the ground. To achieve this translucency, he alternately thinned and added fluid medium to his paint and used translucent [glossary:pigments] like red lake and cobalt blue. Some parts of the background and figure are so thin that they do not register in the X-ray, in contrast with the thicker, heavily textured application of paint in the flowers on the upper right. The artist appears to have made few compositional changes to the work, perhaps only lowering the profile of the woman’s right shoulder. The slightly shaded look of the area immediately to the right of the figure may also indicate changes to either the figure or the background that Renoir subsequently wiped away with a cloth, leaving a thin residue behind. In the foreground, the artist employed wiping as a painting technique; the remnants of paint left in the depressions of the textured ground create shadow and give the gathered fabric in the woman’s hand a soft edge. Toward the end of the process, Renoir firmly established the light source on the upper right with heavy white highlights on the vase and flowers, and in the comb in the figure’s hair.

The work has a [glossary:synthetic varnish] that imparts some saturation and gloss. The current [glossary:varnish] replaced an oil-resin varnish, but it is unknown whether that was original to the 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. 2.40).392

Signature

Signed and dated: Renoir. 79. (upper left, in blue paint).393

The signature was painted [glossary:wet-in-wet] with the upper layers of the background and picks up some of the surrounding red lake through the center. The n appears to have been reinforced by the artist during the process (fig. 1.2, fig. 1.1).

Structure and Technique

Support

Canvas

Flax (commonly known as linen).394

Standard Format

The original dimensions of the canvas were 61.1 × 50.2 cm, according to 1969 pretreatment measurements.395 An early exhibition label preserved from the original [glossary:stretcher] lists the painting as 61 × 50 cm (fig. 2.20), and a possibly related published exhibition record from 1922 lists the same measurements.396 This probably corresponds to a no. 12 portrait ([glossary:figure]) standard-size (60 × 50 cm) canvas.397

Weave

[glossary:Plain weave]. Average [glossary:thread count] (standard deviation): 29.8V (0.5) × 24.9H (1.2) threads/cm. The vertical threads were determined to correspond to the [glossary:warp] and the horizontal threads to the [glossary:weft].398

Canvas characteristics

There is very mild [glossary:cusping] corresponding to the placement of the original tacks. The canvas is also marked by numerous nubs and imperfections.

Stretching

Current stretching: When the painting was lined in 1969, the original dimensions were slightly increased on all sides (see Conservation History).

Original stretching: Based on cusping visible in the X-ray, the original tacks were placed approximately 4.5–6.5 cm apart.

Stretcher/strainer

Current stretcher: Four-member ICA spring stretcher. Depth: 2.5 cm.

Original stretcher: Five-member keyable stretcher with horizontal [glossary:crossbar]. Depth: Approximately 1.5 cm.399

Manufacturer’s/supplier’s marks

Stamp
Location: verso of original canvas (covered by lining)
Method: stamp
Content: C[OU]LEURS FINES TOILES PEINDRE / TABLEAUX / REY & PERROD / [5]1 Rue de la Rochefou[cauld] / PARIS (fig. 2.33)400

Preparatory Layers

Sizing

Not determined (probably glue).401

Ground application/texture

The canvas was prepared with a white ground that extends to the edges of the tacking margins and fills the fine canvas weave. The thickness of the [glossary:priming], averaging approximately 50–100 µm, suggests that there may have been multiple applications. [glossary:Cross-sectional analysis] indicates that the preparation is probably a double layer, with both layers of very similar composition and the second applied shortly after the first. The X-ray shows an apparent buildup of paint or ground material in a vertical section just left of center that does not correspond to any visible element in the painting. The haphazard, sometimes sharp-edged marks seen in the X-ray may indicate application of a (perhaps localized) preparatory layer with a [glossary:palette knife] (fig. 2.38). Toward the edges of this area, especially near the top, brushstrokes are visible, suggesting that this layer may initially have been applied with a palette knife, then worked into the surface with a brush. This layer also looks different from the surrounding areas: it is more heavily and unevenly textured and contains a number of large lead-containing protrusions (fig. 1.3).402 Elsewhere on the surface, however, a shallow, fine, diagonal texture can be seen, which may mean that the upper layer was applied or finished with a brush (fig. 1.4). This texture appears to go to the edges of the tacking margins, passing over the foldover on all sides. As the weave is very fine, such a thick ground application, had it been applied with a palette knife alone, would have resulted in an extremely smooth, almost glassy surface. Adding a systematic texture to the upper layer allowed the surface to hold more paint, something especially important in this work because the paint layers are so thin.

Reasons for the localized application of additional priming left of center are unclear. There are small scratches in the ground layers (visible in the X-ray as diagonal marks on the lower and center left) that seem to have occurred before the work was painted and possibly before the additional ground layer was applied.403 It is possible that the extra material was added to cover these marks. The increased texture in this area makes the colors appear darker, because of increased saturation as the thin, translucent paint layers sank into the depressions, pooling more thickly and thus appearing more intense. These darker areas where the paint has pooled more thickly do not correspond to, cover, or accentuate compositional forms; therefore, it is unlikely that this was an intentional effect desired or requested by the artist. However, Renoir would have been aware of the effect immediately, and while he may not have intended it, there is no evidence that he made any attempt to diminish it.

The ground is exposed throughout the painting, especially on the upper right. In many areas, the paint layers are very thin, allowing the lightness and texture of the ground to show through (fig. 2.22).

Color

Careful stereomicroscopic examination of the surface indicates a bright white ground with very few dark or colored particles visible (fig. 2.23).

Materials/composition

The commercial ground appears to be a double application of priming material containing predominantly lead white with barium sulfate and variable trace amounts of silica; calcium-based white; silicate minerals with associated iron oxides, including umber; alumina; and small particles of ultramarine blue. The area of apparent additional preparation, just left of center, was found to have the same composition.404 The [glossary:binder] is estimated to be [glossary:oil]; the upper layer of the ground application looks less dense in the backscattered electron ([glossary:BSE]) image, which may indicate that this layer contains slightly more medium (fig. 2.24).405

Compositional Planning/Underdrawing/Painted Sketch

No [glossary:underdrawing] was observed with [glossary:infrared reflectography] or under microscopic examination.

Paint Layer

Application/technique and artist’s revisions

The primary technique Renoir employed in making this painting was to layer very thin, translucent veils of paint in order to make use of the reflective qualities of the white ground. On the upper right, he left the ground mostly exposed to hint at the light source. On the left, the paint layers that make up the woman and her costume are so thin that they are not readily visible in the X-ray (fig. 2.38). The X-ray does show a few of the highly textured flower petals and white highlights, in addition to an apparent buildup of ground material as a vertical form left of center. To create the flesh tones, the artist mixed red lake and cobalt blue, sometimes with a small amount of yellow or vermilion, but generally without white, layering the colors so thinly that the highlights and glow of the flesh are largely a result of light reflecting off of the priming (fig. 2.25).406

Renoir both thinned and added fluid medium to his paints to achieve translucent washes and glazes. The thinness of the underlying washes is apparent throughout the background and contrasts with the more glaze-like handling of the figure’s dress and flesh tones (fig. 2.57). In some areas, the artist used a cloth to wipe paint away, leaving only a small amount in the depressions of the canvas weave. This technique can be seen in the cloth the woman holds in the foreground, where the shadow across the top curve is indicated by the residue of blue paint that has been largely wiped away (fig. 2.26). Renoir may also have employed this technique in the underlayers throughout the figure, especially in her hair and costume. The only obvious indication of a change to the figure is along the top of the woman’s right shoulder, which appears to have been slightly lowered before it was fully defined. Because the paint layers are so thin, evidence of this change is still visible on the left (fig. 2.27). The somewhat darkened appearance of the paint immediately to the right of the figure suggests that the artist made additional changes and wiped away some paint; however, the nature and subject of these changes are unclear.

In contrast to his handling of the rest of the picture, Renoir built up the flowers on the upper right with thicker paint and small dabs of heavy [glossary:impasto] (fig. 2.28). As a final touch, the artist added highlights in pure white on the vase (fig. 2.29) and on the comb holding the figure’s hair (fig. 2.30) to clarify the light source on the upper right.

Painting tools

Very fine, round brushes, some with wider strokes up to 1 cm wide; cloth for wiping.

Palette

Analysis indicates the presence of the following [glossary:pigments]:407 lead white, cobalt blue, iron oxide red, vermilion, madder lake, bone black, zinc yellow, chrome yellow, strontium yellow, and possibly barium yellow.408

Stereomicroscopic examination and cross-sectional analysis indicate that the dull yellow, almost ocher-colored paint used in some of the flowers and in the gathered fabric in the foreground is not the common earth pigment, but a complex mixture including zinc yellow, black, and madder lake (fig. 2.31).409

The observation of a characteristic orange [glossary:fluorescence] under UV light indicates that the artist used large amounts of fluorescing red lake, identified as madder lake, mixed with other colors to create the flesh tones, hair, and costume (fig. 2.32). In the UV image, the tabletop on the right appears to be painted almost entirely with this lake color (fig. 2.34).410

Binding media

Oil (estimated).411

Surface Finish

Varnish layer/media

The current synthetic varnish was applied during the 1969 treatment and replaced an oil-resin varnish. There are residues of this earlier varnish around areas of impasto (especially the signature). It is unknown whether this varnish was original to the painting; however, abrasion noted in the pretreatment report suggests that the painting had been cleaned previously (see Conservation History).

Conservation History

The painting’s only documented treatment was a 1969 [glossary:lining].412 Grime and a discolored oil-resin varnish were removed, and the work was taken off of its original stretcher. The painting was faced with mulberry-fiber paper and starch paste and wax-resin lined to a secondary piece of linen. The lined painting was restretched on an ICA spring stretcher of slightly larger dimensions, leaving a margin of exposed ground around the perimeter. The work was inpainted and given three coats of synthetic varnish (an isolating layer of polyvinyl acetate [PVA] AYAA, followed by [glossary:inpainting], a layer of methacrylate resin L-46, and a final coat of AYAA).

Condition Summary

The work is in good condition, planar with a stable [glossary:wax-resin lining]. Heavy [glossary:craquelure] can be seen throughout the work, especially in [glossary:raking light], and includes stretcher-bar marks corresponding to the original stretcher. There is a small loss along the line of buttons just under the figure’s left hand and a loss of impasto in the flowers to the right of her hair. Long diagonal creases, which extend from the left edge behind the figure’s head down toward her hands, seem to have occurred during the preparation of the canvas, and original paint settled into the depressions associated with them. The inpainting is discolored and visible in many areas of the face, hair, and hands, and around the edges. In most cases, the [glossary:retouching] addresses areas of abrasion and traction cracking. The work has a synthetic varnish imparting even saturation and gloss; there are two large, matte surface drips in the lower left quadrant.
Kelly Keegan

Frame

The current frame appears to be original to the painting.413 It is a French, late-nineteenth–early-twentieth-century, Louis XIV reproduction, gilt ogee frame with cast plaster anthemia corner cartouches and fleur-de-lis center cartouches, linked by fleurs-de-lis surrounded by scrolls and strapwork. The frame has oil and water gilding over red bole on cast plaster and gesso. The ornament and sight molding are selectively burnished. The gilding is heavily rubbed and toned with a casein or gouache raw umber wash with a gray overwash and dark flecking. The pine molding is mitered and nailed. 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 torus with dentil outer molding; scotia side; ogee face with anthemia corner cartouches and fleur-de-lis center cartouches on diamond-punched beds, linked by fleurs-de-lis surrounded by foliate scrolls and strapwork on a quadrillage bed; sanded front frieze bordered with fillets; and ogee sight molding with leaf-tip ornament linked by scrolls and strapping on a recut bed (fig. 2.10, fig. 2.17).
Kirk Vuillemot

Selected References

“La curiosité: La collection Deudon,” Le bulletin de la vie artistique 1, 11 (May 1, 1920), p. 306 (ill.).

Jacques-Émile Blanche, “La technique de Renoir,” L’amour de l’art 2, 2 (Feb. 1921), opp. p. 33 (ill.).

Paul Rosenberg, Paris, Exposition d’oeuvres de grands maîtres du dix-neuvième siècle, exh. cat. (Frazier-Soye, 1922), p. 23, cat. 74.

Julius Meier-Graefe, Renoir (Klinkhardt & Biermann, 1929), pp. 99, n. 1; 122, no. 108 (ill.).

“French Masterpieces That One Day Will Belong to Art Institute,” Chicago Daily News, June 1931, p. 14 (ill.).

Reginald Howard Wilenski, French Painting (Hale, Cushman & Flint, 1931), p. 262.

Art Institute of Chicago, Exhibition of the Mrs. L. L. Coburn Collection: Modern Paintings and Watercolors, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago, 1932), pp. 6; 22–23, no. 32.

Daniel Catton Rich, “The Bequest of Mrs. L. L. Coburn,” Bulletin of the Art Institute of Chicago 26, 6 (Nov. 1932), p. 68.

Art Institute of Chicago, “The Rearrangement of the Paintings Galleries,” Bulletin of the Art Institute of Chicago 27, 7 (Dec. 1933), p. 115.

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), pp. 39–40, cat. 235.

Art Institute of Chicago, A Brief Illustrated Guide to the Collections (Art Institute of Chicago, 1935), p. 28.423

Hans Tietz, ed., Meisterwerke europäischer Malerei in Amerika (Phaidon, 1935), pp. 295 (ill.), p. 345.

Metropolitan Museum of Art, Renoir: A Special Exhibition of His Paintings, exh. cat. (Metropolitan Museum of Art/Bradford, 1937), no. 25 (ill.).

Harry B. Wehle, “The Painting of Renoir,” in Metropolitan Museum of Art, Renoir: A Special Exhibition of His Paintings, exh. cat. (Metropolitan Museum of Art/Bradford, 1937), p. 7.

Josephine L. Allen, “Paintings by Renoir,” Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art 32, 5 (May 1937), p. 112.

Columbus (Ohio) Gallery of Fine Arts, “Six Paintings by Renoir,” Monthly Bulletin 9, 1 (Oct. 1938), front cover (ill.); no. 1.

Lionello Venturi, Les archives de l’impressionnisme: Lettres de Renoir, Monet, Pissarro, Sisley, et autres; Mémoires de Paul Durand-Ruel; Documents, vol. 1 (Durand-Ruel, 1939), p. 152.424

Reginald Howard Wilenski, Modern French Painters (Reynal & Hitchcok, [1940]), pp. 62, 337.425

Harry B. Wehle, “The Painting of Renoir,” in Duveen Galleries, New York, Renoir: Centennial Loan Exhibition, 1841–1941; For the Benefit of the Free French Relief Committee, exh. cat. (Vilmorin/Bradford, 1941), p. 18.

Paul Rosenberg, New York, Great French Masters of the Nineteenth Century: Corot to Van Gogh, exh. cat. (Rosenberg, 1942), pp. 24–25, no. 8 (ill.).

Art Institute of Chicago, An Illustrated Guide to the Collections of the Art Institute of Chicago (Art Institute of Chicago, 1945), p. 36.426

Isabel Bishop, “Concerning Edges,” Magazine of Art 38, 5 (May 1945), p. 172 (ill.).

Art Institute of Chicago, “Bulletin Board,” Bulletin of the Art Institute of Chicago 40, 1 (Jan. 1946), p. 6.

Art Institute of Chicago, “Bulletin Board,” Bulletin of the Art Institute of Chicago 40, 4, pt. 2 (Apr.–May 1946), p. 52.

“What the Piece Goods Buyer Can Learn from the Apparel Business,” American Fabrics 4 (Fall 1947), p. 88 (ill.).

Art Gallery of Toronto, Fifty Paintings by Old Masters, exh. cat. (Art Gallery of Toronto, 1950), cat. 37.

Dorothy Bridaham, Renoir in the Art Institute of Chicago (Conzett & Huber, 1954), pl. 2.

Art Institute of Chicago, Paintings in the Art Institute of Chicago: A Catalogue of the Picture Collection (Art Institute of Chicago, 1961), p. 395.427

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. 28 (ill.).

François Daulte, Auguste Renoir: Catalogue raisonné de l’oeuvre peint, vol. 1, Figures, 1860–1890 (Durand-Ruel, 1971), pp. 230–31, cat. 299 (ill.).

Elda Fezzi, L’opera completa di Renoir: Nel periodo impressionista, 1869–1883, Classici dell’arte 59 (Rizzoli, 1972), pp. 103, cat. 339; 104, cat. 339 (ill.).428

Art Institute of Chicago, Paintings by Renoir, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago, 1973), pp. 78–79, cat. 25 (ill.).

National Museum of Western Art, Tokyo, and Kyoto National Museum, Masterpieces of World Art from American Museums: From Ancient Egyptian to Contemporary Art, exh. cat. (National Museum of Western Art, Tokyo, 1976), no. 45 (ill.).

Patricia Erens, Masterpieces: Famous Chicagoans and Their Paintings (Chicago Review, 1979), n. pag. (ill.).

J. Patrice Marandel, The Art Institute of Chicago: Favorite Impressionist Paintings (Cross River, 1979), pp. 72–73 (ill.).

Joel Isaacson, The Crisis of Impressionism, 1878–1882, exh. cat. (University of Michigan Museum of Art, 1980), pp. 30; 178–79, cat. 47 (ill.).

Diane Kelder, The Great Book of French Impressionism (Abbeville, 1980), pp. 266 (ill.), 438.429

Diane Kelder, The Great Book of French Impressionism, Tiny Folios (Abbeville, 1980), p. 148, pl. 8.

Musée Toulouse-Lautrec and Art Institute of Chicago, Trésors impressionnistes du Musée de Chicago, exh. cat. (Musée Toulouse-Lautrec, 1980), pp. 39, no. 20 (ill.); 68.

Nicholas Wadley, ed., Renoir: A Retrospective (Hugh Lauter Levin/Macmillan, 1987), p. 66, pl. 18.

Anne Distel, “Charles Deudon (1832–1914) collectionneur,” Revue de l’art 86 (1989), p. 64, no. 10 (ill.).

Sophie Monneret, Renoir, Profils de l’art (Chêne, 1989), p. 152, cat. 23 (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. 77 (ill.).

Douglas W. Druick, Renoir, Artists in Focus (Art Institute of Chicago/Abrams, 1997), pp. 45–46; 88, pl. 7; 110.

Gilles Néret, Renoir: Painter of Happiness, 1841–1919, trans. Josephine Bacon (Taschen, 2001), pp. 124–25 (ill.).

John Collins, “Christine Lerolle Embroidering: Between Genre Painting and Portraiture,” in Ann Dumas and John Collins, Renoir’s Women, exh. cat. (Columbus Museum of Art/Merrell, 2005), pp. 102, 106.

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. 15 (ill.); 76, cat. 29 (ill.). Simultaneously published as Gloria Groom and Douglas Druick, with the assistance of Dorota Chudzicka and Jill Shaw, The Age of Impressionism at the Art Institute of Chicago (Art Institute of Chicago/Yale University Press, 2008), pp. 15 (ill.); 76, cat. 29 (ill.).430

Anne Distel, Renoir (Citadelles & Mazenod, 2009), pp. 154–55, ill. 138.

Toru Arayashiki et al., Renoir: Tradition and Innovation, trans. Stanley N. Anderson, Martha J. McClintock, and Cheryl A. Silverman, exh. cat. (National Museum of Art, Osaka/National Art Center, Tokyo/Yomiuri Shimbun, 2010), pp. 25 (ill.); 146–47, cat. 54 (ill.); 148–49 (detail); 249, cat. 54 (ill.).

379) Colin B. Bailey, “Aline Charigot, later Madame Renoir, 1885,” in Renoir’s Portraits: Impressions of an Age, exh. cat. (National Gallery of Canada/Yale University Press, 1997), p. 212. The milliner was a contemporary-life topic that intrigued both Renoir and his Impressionist colleague Edgar Degas. Renoir visited Parisian milliners’ shops for his painting At the Milliner’s (c. 1878; Fogg Art Museum, Harvard University Art Museums, Cambridge, Mass. [Daulte 274; Dauberville 238]). Margot was the model for that painting, so it must have been made before February 1879. For Degas and the milliner subject, see Gloria Groom, “Edgar Degas: The Millinery Shop,” in Impressionism, Fashion, and Modernity, ed. Gloria Groom, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago/Yale University Press, 2012), pp. 218–31. Daulte and Dauberville refer to the Renoir catalogues raisonnés: François Daulte, Auguste Renoir: Catalogue raisonné de l’oeuvre peint (Durand-Ruel, 1971); Guy-Patrice Dauberville and Michel Dauberville, Renoir: Catalogue raisonné des tableaux, pastels, dessins et aquarelles, vols. 1–5 (Bernheim-Jeune, 2007–14).

381) A number of letters from Renoir to Aline, many dating to the early years of their relationship, came to light as the result of a recent sale of Renoir archives: Pierre Auguste Renoir, 1841–1919: Personal Artifacts and Archives Collection, sold as one lot by Hantman’s, Potomac, Md., May 14, 2005. Letter 57 (undated, but here assigned to August 1880) refers to Aline’s staying a few days at the Maison Fournaise and requests that she tell Alphonsine Fournaise that Renoir would be coming around September 8 to finish Luncheon of the Boating Party. The work in progress was being stored with Baron Barbier, who also lodged at the Fournaise establishment and appears in the painting. (“Tu diras à Madame Alphonsine que je pense aller à Chatou vers le 8 septembre à peu près à moins de mauvais temps. Je voudrais terminer mon Canot qui chez le Baron.”) The letter continues by asking Aline to follow up on certain housekeeping tasks in Renoir’s studio.

383) John House, “Bather (known as Blonde Bather I),” 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. 232; Colin B. Bailey, “Aline Charigot, later Madame Renoir, 1885,” in Renoir’s Portraits: Impressions of an Age, exh. cat. (National Gallery of Canada/Yale University Press, 1997), p. 212; and more recently Anne Distel, Renoir, trans. John Goodman et al. (Abbeville, 2010), p. 205. Daulte and Dauberville refer to the Renoir catalogues raisonnés: François Daulte, Auguste Renoir: Catalogue raisonné de l’oeuvre peint (Durand-Ruel, 1971); Guy-Patrice Dauberville and Michel Dauberville, Renoir: Catalogue raisonné des tableaux, pastels, dessins et aquarelles, vols. 1–5 (Bernheim-Jeune, 2007–14).

384) After Deudon’s death, his collection passed to Paul Rosenberg. Young Woman Sewing was first reproduced as Femme cousant (Woman Sewing) after it had entered the Rosenberg collection. See “La curiosité: La collection Deudon,” Le bulletin de la vie artistique 1, 11 (May 1, 1920), p. 306. Deudon had been collecting Impressionist paintings since 1878, when he acquired Renoir’s The Dancer (1874; National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.) from Paul Durand-Ruel. See Anne Distel, “Charles Deudon (1832–1914) collectionneur,” Revue de l’art, no. 86 (1989), p. 59. As there is no record of Young Woman Sewing in the Durand-Ruel stock book, Deudon may have acquired it directly from Renoir at an early date. See Flavie Durand-Ruel and Paul-Louis Durand-Ruel, Durand-Ruel Archives, to the Art Institute of Chicago, Oct. 5, 2010, curatorial object file, Art Institute of Chicago.

391) This area appears to be a buildup of ground material and may have been a way of covering imperfections or damages in either the canvas or the preparatory layers. Scratches throughout the canvas, especially on the lower left, seem to have occurred during the preparation process. The extra material looks light, or radio opaque, in the [glossary:X-ray], indicating a heavier buildup of material, either paint or ground, in these areas. As the paint layers that make up the visible composition are extremely thin, this extra material can be attributed to the ground. The additional [glossary:priming] in this area was found to have the same components as the rest of the commercial preparation, suggesting that it was applied by the [glossary:color merchant] or manufacturer and not by Renoir. See Inge Fiedler, “1933_452_Renoir_analytical_report,” Apr. 30, 2014, on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago.

392) 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.

407) [glossary:Pigments] were identified using the following methods: lead white, cobalt blue, iron oxide red, zinc yellow, chrome yellow, strontium yellow, possibly barium yellow ([glossary:XRF], [glossary:SEM/EDX]); madder lake (aluminum-phosphorus substrate) (SEM/EDX, [glossary:SERS]); bone black (SEM/EDX); vermilion (XRF). For the yellow pigments, while evidence of zinc, chromium, and strontium is strong, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the trace of barium detected in conjunction with chromium could be related to a barium sulfate [glossary:extender]. See Kimberley Muir, “Ren_YWSewing_33_452_XRF results,” Dec. 8, 2009; Federica Pozzi, “Ren_WomSewing_1933_452_SERS_results,” Oct. 10, 2013; Inge Fiedler, “1933_452_Renoir_analytical_report,” Apr. 30, 2014, 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.

410) Madder lake was identified by [glossary:SERS]; [glossary:SEM/EDX] analysis of cross sections suggested that the artist used a single red lake pigment with an aluminum-phosphorus substrate. See Federica Pozzi, “Ren_WomSewing_1933_452_SERS_results,” Oct. 10, 2013; Inge Fiedler, “1933_452_Renoir_analytical_report,” Apr. 30, 2014, both on file in the Conservation Department, Art Institute of Chicago. 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.

415) According to François Daulte, Auguste Renoir: Catalogue raisonné de l’oeuvre peint, vol. 1, Figures, 1860–1890 (Durand-Ruel, 1971), pp. 230–31, cat. 299 (ill.). According to Anne Distel, “Charles Deudon (1832–1914) collectionneur,” Revue de l’art 86 (1989), p. 64 (ill.), Rosenberg acquired the work after Deudon’s death. Distel lists “cliché Rosenberg, no. 3411,” as associated with the Art Institute’s painting. See also “La curiosité: La collection Deudon,” Le bulletin de la vie artistique 1, 11 (May 1, 1920), pp. 306–07. Caroline Durand-Ruel Godfroy, Correspondance de Renoir et Durand-Ruel, 1881–1906, vol. 1 (Bibliothèque des Arts, 1995), p. 275, n. 51, suggests that Deudon’s collection was sold by Deudon’s wife to Rosenberg. Jacques-Émile Blanche, “La technique de Renoir,” L’amour de l’art 2, 2 (Feb. 1921), opp. p. 33 (ill.), lists the work as in the collection of Paul Rosenberg.

fig. 1.2
Detail of the signature in Renoir’s *Young Woman Sewing* (1879). The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.452.

fig. 1.1
Photomicrograph of the signature in Renoir’s *Young Woman Sewing* (1879). The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.452.

fig. 2.20
Image of an archival label from a previous stretcher or backing on Renoir’s *Young Woman Sewing* (1879), possibly from the *Exposition d’oeuvres de Grands Maitres du dix-neuvième siècle*, May 3–June 3, 1922. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.452.

fig. 1.3
Photomicrograph of the figure’s costume in Renoir’s *Young Woman Sewing* (1879). White lumps of ground were dragged through the preparation, causing scratches. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.452.

fig. 1.4
Photomicrograph of the ground in Renoir’s *Young Woman Sewing* (1879). The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.452.

fig. 2.22
Photomicrograph of the white cloth held by the figure in Renoir’s *Young Woman Sewing* (1879). The thin paint has been wiped away and remains only in the depressions of the ground. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.452.

fig. 2.23
Photomicrograph of a cross section from the canvas and ground of Renoir’s *Young Woman Sewing* (1879). Original magnification: 50×. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.452.

fig. 2.24
Backscattered electron image of a cross section of the ground in Renoir’s *Young Woman Sewing* (1879). A faint line differentiating what may be two applications of ground material can be discerned. Original magnification: 250×. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.452.

fig. 2.25
Detail of the figure’s face in Renoir’s *Young Woman Sewing* (1879) showing the artist’s use of thin, translucent paint layers. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.452.

fig. 2.26
Detail of the white cloth held by the figure in Renoir’s *Young Woman Sewing* (1879). The artist used wiping to leave paint only in the depressions of the ground to create a shadow. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.452.

fig. 2.27
Detail of the figure’s right shoulder in Renoir’s *Young Woman Sewing* (1879). The line of the previous position of the shoulder is visible just above the final placement. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.452.

fig. 2.28
Photomicrograph of an impasted, yellow flower in Renoir’s *Young Woman Sewing* (1879). The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.452.

fig. 2.29
Photomicrograph of the highlight on the vase in Renoir’s *Young Woman Sewing* (1879). The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.452.

fig. 2.30
Photomicrograph of the woman’s hair comb in Renoir’s *Young Woman Sewing* (1879). Thick white highlights were added as a final touch. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.452.

fig. 2.31
Photomicrograph of the ocher-colored paint in Renoir’s *Young Woman Sewing* (1879). Not ocher at all, this is actually a mixture of several colors. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.452.

fig. 2.32
Ultraviolet image of Renoir’s *Young Woman Sewing* (1879). The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.452.

fig. 2.33
Transmitted-infrared (Fuji, 1.0–1.1 µm) detail from the verso of Renoir’s *Young Woman Sewing* (1879) showing the ovular Rey & Perrod color merchant stamp. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.452.

fig. 2.34
Photomicrograph in UV light of a cross section from the woman's sleeve in Renoir’s *Young Woman Sewing* (1879) showing bright fluorescence of the madder lake. Original magnification: 200×. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.452.

fig. 2.38
X-ray of Renoir’s *Young Woman Sewing* (1879). The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.452. X-ray digitally composited by Robert G. Erdmann, University of Arizona.

fig. 2.40
Renoir’s *Young Woman Sewing* (1879). The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.452. Interactive image.

fig. 2.41
Johannes Vermeer (Dutch, 1632–1675). *The Lace Maker*, 1669/70. Oil on canvas laid down on wood; 31 × 24 cm (12 3/16 × 9 7/16 in.). Musée du Louvre, Paris, M.I. 1448. © RMN-Grand Palais/Art Resource, NY.

fig. 2.42
Pierre-Auguste Renoir (French, 1841–1919). Lise Sewing, 1866/67. Oil on canvas; 56 × 47 cm (22 × 18 1/2 in.). Dallas Museum of Art, The Wendy and Emery Reves Collection, 1985.R.59.

fig. 2.43
Gustave Courbet (French, 1819–1877). The Trellis, 1862. Oil on canvas; 109.8 × 135.2 cm (43 1/4 × 53 1/4 in.). The Toledo Museum of Art, Purchased with funds from the Libbey Endowment, Gift of Edward Drummond Libbey, 1950.309.

fig. 2.49
Edgar Degas (French, 1834–1917). *A Woman Seated beside a Vase of Flowers (Madame Paul Valpinçon?)*, 1865. Oil on canvas; 73.7 × 92.7 cm (29 × 36 1/2 in.). The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, H. O. Havemeyer Collection, Bequest of Mrs. H. O. Havemeyer, 1929, 29.100.128. Image copyright © The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Image source: Art Resource, NY.

fig. 2.50
Pierre-Auguste Renoir (French, 1841–1919). *Luncheon of the Boating Party*, 1880–81. Oil on canvas; 130.2 × 175.6 cm (51 1/4 × 68 1/8 in.). The Phillips Collection, Washington, D.C., Acquired 1923, 1637. Bridgeman Images.

fig. 2.51
Pierre-Auguste Renoir (French, 1841–1919). *Blonde Bather*, 1881. Oil on canvas; 81.8 × 65.7 cm (32 3/16 × 25 7/8 in.). Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute, Williamstown, Mass., 1955.609. Bridgeman Images.

fig. 2.48
Label with the inscription *Femme brodant et fleurs* (Woman embroidering and flowers) from a previous backing or stretcher of Renoir’s *Young Woman Sewing* (1879). The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.452.

fig. 2.52
Detail of the figure’s eyelash in Renoir’s *Young Woman Sewing* (1879). The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.452.

fig. 2.53
Detail of the figure’s shoulder in Renoir’s *Young Woman Sewing* (1879). The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.452.

fig. 2.54
Detail of Renoir’s *Young Woman Sewing* (1879) showing yellow highlights in a red flower. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.452.

fig. 2.55
Pierre-Auguste Renoir (French, 1841–1919). *Madame Georges Charpentier and Her Children*, 1878. Oil on canvas; 153.7 × 190.2 cm (60 1/2 × 74 7/8 in.). The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Catherine Lorillard Wolfe Collection, 07.122. Image copyright © The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Image source: Art Resource, NY.

fig. 2.57
Photomicrograph of the figure’s costume in Renoir’s *Young Woman Sewing* (1879) showing the translucency of the glaze-like paint layers. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.452.

fig. 2.5
Pierre-Auguste Renoir (French, 1841–1919). *Seascape*, 1879. Oil on canvas; 72.6 × 91.6 cm (28 1/2 × 36 in.). The Art Institute of Chicago, Potter Palmer Collection, 1922.438. See cat. 8.

fig. 2.8
Detail of the top of the figure’s head in Renoir’s *Young Woman Sewing* (1879). The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.452.

fig. 2.10
Renoir’s *Young Woman Sewing* (1879) in its original frame. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.452.

fig. 2.11
Installation of Renoir’s *Young Woman Sewing* (1879) in *“A Century of Progress”: Loan Exhibition of Paintings and Sculpture*, Art Institute of Chicago, May 23–Nov. 1, 1933. Institutional Archives, Art Institute of Chicago.

fig. 2.17
Renoir’s *Young Woman Sewing* (1879) in its original frame, on display in Mrs. Lewis Larned (Annie Swan) Coburn’s Blackstone Hotel apartment. Institutional Archives, Art Institute of Chicago.

The name Renoir is closely associated with paintings of dancers, boaters, women, the celebration of life, and the enjoyment of leisure, which makes Seascape and its storm-tossed ocean quite unusual and unexpected. For his landscapes, Renoir preferred sunny days with blue skies and calm winds; rarely do we see unsettled weather, and there are only four known winter scenes.438 Regarding his 1868 painting Skaters in the Bois de Boulogne (fig. 2.48 [Dauberville 110]), he commented to Ambroise Vollard, “I have never been able to stand the cold. . . . Even if you can bear the cold, why paint snow? It is a malady of Nature.”439 Nonetheless, in Seascape the bleak, overcast sky, churning surf, and dominant cool, blue tone convey a sense of vulnerable exposure and sea-drenched cold with astonishing effectiveness.

Renoir and Normandy in 1879

The year 1879 would prove pivotal in Renoir’s career. In May he sent four works to the Salon, achieving a major triumph with the monumental Madame Georges Charpentier and Her Children (1878; Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York [Daulte 266; Dauberville 239]), which received an excellent hanging position thanks to Madame Charpentier’s sway with the jury.440 It also won high praise from the critics, albeit tempered by some skepticism about an Impressionist’s return to the fold.441 This success was followed in June by his solo exhibition of pastels and paintings in the offices of La vie moderne, a journal published by Madame Charpentier’s husband. That summer he returned to Chatou and the Restaurant Fournaise on the Seine to paint landscapes and portraits, and in August he arrived via supply wagon at Château de Wargemont, the Norman estate of Paul Berard. This was the first of many visits to the banking heir, who was well placed to assist the artist in obtaining commissions and new patrons. Earlier that year, Renoir had painted portraits of Berard’s eldest daughter, Marthe, and his son, André, dressed for school and carrying books.442 Over the course of his stay at Wargemont, Renoir completed portraits of the Berard family and staff in addition to landscapes (see fig. 2.41 [Dauberville 77]), still-life decorations for the château that were in keeping with its eighteenth-century architecture, and two genre paintings of Roma children.443 Renoir sent one of the genre works, Mussel Fishers at Berneval (1879; Barnes Foundation, Philadelphia [Daulte 292; Dauberville 215]), set on the Berards’ private beach on the English Channel, to the Salon in May of the next year.444 Two decorative panels illustrating the opera Tannhauser for the Dieppe home of Dr. Émile Blanche, a fan of the composer Richard Wagner, rounded out this lucrative period of commissions.445

At this time Renoir also began mentoring Dr. Blanche’s eighteen-year-old son, Jacques-Émile, in painting. This relationship continued over the next two years, even though Madame Blanche had grave reservations about Renoir as a role model. During a visit Renoir made to Dieppe in July 1881, she became so disturbed by the artist’s table manners that she banished him from the household. At another point, she expressed exasperation when she learned that he had done a sunset in ten minutes, calling it a waste of paint.446

The Wave as Impressionist Subject

Whether the portraits became too routine, or the bourgeois company of Normandy too constraining, Renoir’s choice of subject in Seascape allowed him an artistic freedom he did not enjoy with figure paintings intended for exhibition or resulting from commissions.447 Ocean views were already associated with modernism and the avant-garde. The Realist painter Gustave Courbet is reported to have reinvented the storm as a modernist theme in 1869 with a depiction of seawater blowing against the windows of his Étretat beach house.448 In treating the subject that year, Courbet was aware that he was attempting something new.449 An ambitious work resulting from his Étretat campaign, Stormy Sea (fig. 2.42), was exhibited to critical acclaim at the Salon of 1870 and became the first of Courbet’s paintings to enter the collection of the Musée du Luxembourg, in 1878. An enormous canvas measuring more than four feet high and six feet wide, and extensively worked with a palette knife, Stormy Sea no doubt made an indelible impression on Renoir, as it did on writer and critic Émile Zola when it was exhibited as part of the French Paintings section of the Exposition Universelle, which opened in May 1878. Angered that Courbet was represented by only one work when multiple paintings by academic painters William Bouguereau and Jean-Léon Gérôme were on view in the next gallery, Zola identified Stormy Sea as a rallying point for the avant-garde in his review of the Exposition Universelle.450 Another of Courbet’s wave paintings, one of a smaller scale, was included in the exhibition of French “modern masters” at Durand-Ruel, June 20–October 15, 1878, an exhibition reportedly intended to compensate for the underrepresentation of the school at the Exposition Universelle.451

The sea took on profound metaphorical significance in the writings of Courbet’s contemporaries Charles Baudelaire, Victor Hugo, and Jules Michelet.452 Though inspired by direct observation, there is a literary sensibility to Courbet’s Stormy Sea, with its single powerful wave about to crash on the shore near wooden herring boats, thus emphasizing the potentially destructive power of nature. Renoir’s Seascape resists such narrative content. Rather, as John House has pointed out, Renoir “seems to have been more concerned with the visual spectacle before him than with any weightier significance in the theme.”453 Courbet maintained a certain distance from the shore, but Renoir dramatically shifted the point of view by placing the picture plane much closer to the water, thus transforming the viewing experience by emphasizing the visceral—a modern, secular approach to landscape akin to the idea of the individual “sensation,” which Camille Pissarro thought essential to an understanding of Impressionism.454

Renoir’s Impressionist colleague Claude Monet also placed the viewer close to the water’s edge in the sea paintings he made in the early 1880s. Though Renoir’s Seascape preceded the first of Monet’s wave paintings by two years, it is useful to compare the two artists’ treatments, as the sea and water are so prevalent in Monet’s work, and he is so closely identified with the wave theme. There are distinct differences in the two artists’ approaches to the wave painting. Monet’s Waves Breaking (fig. 2.43), for example, shows a moment when the clouds are dispersed, allowing the sunlight to create diverse color and light effects. Judging by the indicated wind direction and clouds on the horizon in Seascape, Renoir instead strove to capture the brooding, ominous atmosphere of an approaching storm. The difference in viewpoint of the two paintings is also significant. Renoir positioned the viewer at an angle to the shoreline, looking down, so that the waves are seen following one another to the shore from the left. He depicted waves in various aspects, such as the upward surge of spray on the lower left where seawater crashes into a rock. In contrast, Monet’s canvas looks directly out to sea, waves roll in with rhythmic regularity, and there are fewer reference points for identifying a specific viewing position. The elimination of the shoreline altogether in Waves Breaking represented a bold departure from traditional sea painting and may have owed something to Japanese prints by Hokusai, as well as to Renoir’s example.455 Monet and Renoir had the opportunity to compare notes on wave painting when they met in Pourville during the summer of 1882 with the art dealer Paul Durand-Ruel.456 Regardless of whether Renoir shared Monet’s opinions on wave painting at this meeting, his later treatment of the subject in 1882 (fig. 2.52 [Dauberville 798]) took further Monet’s gambit of the absent shoreline.457 Moreover, by devoting most of that picture to the crest of a single breaking wave, he produced a work that Christopher Riopelle has compared to twentieth-century action painting.458 Renoir’s 1882 Wave is like a detail of Seascape. The viewing angle is much more restricted, and the horizon has been raised so that the artist could take full advantage of the potential for painterly effects in the visual play of foam and sea spray. At this point, however, Renoir may have decided that the painting of waves lay on a path he did not want to pursue further. After 1882 he made no more pictures of the subject.

Seascape as a Modern Painting Intended for Exhibition and Sale

The anecdote about Renoir painting a sunset in ten minutes reinforces the common perception that the Impressionists worked rapidly and without concern for detail or accurate representation of the motif. But close examination of Seascape as outlined in the Technical Report reveals a surprisingly complex working process. In his choice of such a large canvas (corresponding to a no. 30 portrait [[glossary:figure]] standard-size canvas, turned horizontally), Renoir may have been emboldened by Courbet’s earlier wave painting. The size of Seascape’s canvas and its degree of finish suggest that it was intended for public view, possibly for the Salon, to which Renoir had returned in 1878. It seems unlikely that he could have worked in strong winds for any length of time on a canvas of this size without substantial shelter. Thus it seems possible that he only painted the wash-like underlayers of the scene on site and then worked from a smaller sketch, perhaps a second wave painting executed during his stay in Normandy in 1879 on a more diminutive no. 15 portrait (figure) standard-size canvas (fig. 2.49 [Dauberville 149]).459 This smaller work was painted in the cursory style of a preparatory sketch and shows different lighting conditions and possibly a different location. Most of the brushstrokes are clearly visible; they consist of long strokes with a flat brush, and little attempt was made to differentiate surface textures. Such treatment is typical of rapid execution. By contrast, Seascape displays an astounding variety of brush techniques and colors—subtleties that must have taken some time to consider and apply (fig. 2.53). Given the rather elusive nature of waves, the smaller work could have been executed as a preliminary study that later inspired the artist as he painted Seascape in his studio.

The sky in the top half of Seascape consists of broad washes of cobalt blue over a white ground, resulting in a brilliant atmospheric effect. Rain falling from low-hanging clouds on the horizon was rendered in a sure hand with diagonal strokes from a stiff-bristle brush (fig. 2.54). Renoir applied thicker layers of green and yellow paint over the blue washes along the horizon to suggest the depths of the sea. All these effects seem carefully considered and range dramatically in application technique. In the bottom half of the canvas, as the rolling surf approaches the shore and begins to form waves, the impasto layers gradually build and become more tactile. In the surging spout of foam in the left foreground, white paint was applied with such gusto that one can almost hear the hiss of the foam as it breaks from the cresting waves (fig. 2.55). Rich color accents are present throughout the canvas, including the red tones in the sand under the receding waves, and the rhythmic arcs of green and red defining the volumes of water that propel the frothy crests of the waves, masterfully linking the foreground with the deeper water near the horizon (see Palette in the technical report).

Whether Monet was aware of Renoir’s Seascape and influenced by it remains an unresolved question, as the history of the painting before 1890 is unknown. The first record of the painting is its sale by the art dealer Alphonse Legrand to Durand-Ruel on February 21, 1890, where it was listed simply as Marine and assigned the stock number 2637.460 Though the painting was an ideal size for the Salon, Renoir did not submit the work to its juries, nor did he include it in his 1883 retrospective on the boulevard de la Madeleine organized by Durand-Ruel. It is possible that Legrand held the work for years unsold or in reserve for his Impressionist painting venture with Knoedler and Company, New York. Alternatively, Legrand may not have acquired Seascape until later, as it is known that Renoir frequently held back his more experimental works, not showing them until they had been “bottled away” for at least a year.461 Renoir is not as closely identified with the sea as Monet, but like Monet he felt the burden of Courbet’s influence and, when he took on the motif, addressed it in an experimental way.
John Collins

Technical Report

Technical Summary

Renoir began this painting with a [glossary:commercially primed], standard-size [glossary:canvas] with a rich, white [glossary:ground]. Areas of the ground layer appear to have a fairly uniform, diagonal, brushy texture. In some places, a stronger diagonal texture appears in subsequent paint layers, as in the center, where the artist used strokes of thick white or light-blue paint that suggest rain, over which he applied a thin blue [glossary:wash] that sank into the depressions left by the brush. While the thin layers of paint in many parts of the background suggest a wider, stiff-bristle brush that scratched through the thin paint to reveal the ground, the foreground seems for the most part to have been articulated with fine, soft-bristle brushes that left very little impression on the thick paint. Many of the early layers are relatively thin, may have been wiped or rubbed, and were allowed to dry before the later layers were applied, suggesting a limited number of [glossary:wet-in-wet] campaigns. The sky is generally described through translucent films of color, while the foreground waves are smoothly blended, opaque combinations of pale pink, blue, and gray. Thinly painted deep blues and, sometimes, brown hint at the depth beyond the translucent waves. As a final step, Renoir employed heavy [glossary:impasto], often in pure white, to articulate the frothy, breaking waves.

Multilayer Interactive Image Viewer

The multilayer interactive image viewer is designed to facilitate the viewer’s exploration and comparison of the technical images (fig. 2.51).462

Signature

Signed and dated: Renoir. 79. (lower right, in purple paint) (fig. 1.2, fig. 1.1).463

Structure and Technique

Support

Canvas

Flax (commonly known as linen).464

Standard format

The original dimensions of the canvas were approximately 72 × 92.5 cm, measuring from the original foldover edge. This probably corresponds to a no. 30 portrait ([glossary:figure]) standard-size (92 × 73 cm) canvas, turned horizontally.465

Weave

[glossary:Plain weave]. Average [glossary:thread count] (standard deviation): 30.2V (0.7) × 24.3H (0.9) threads/cm. The vertical threads were determined to correspond to the [glossary:warp] and the horizontal threads to the [glossary:weft].466

Canvas characteristics

The [glossary:X-ray] shows mild [glossary:cusping] corresponding to the placement of the original tacks. There are also some thread irregularities and double thread faults. The strongest fault appears in the X-ray as a horizontal line across the top of the painting (parallel to and below the top stretcher bar). Here the irregularity of the canvas caught more of the ground layer during preparation, resulting in a denser, more [glossary:radio-opaque] area. Similar horizontal bands are visible throughout the top half of the painting.

Stretching

Current stretching: The painting was lined at an unknown date, and its dimensions appear slightly altered (extended horizontally and somewhat shortened vertically) as a result. In addition, a [glossary:hardboard] panel was placed between the lined painting and the stretcher; it is unclear whether the painting is attached to the hardboard (see Conservation History).

Original stretching: Based on cusping visible in the X-ray, the original tacks were placed approximately 6.5 cm apart.

Stretcher/strainer

Though the painting was lined as part of a previous, undocumented conservation treatment, it appears to have retained its original [glossary:stretcher] (see Conservation History).467 The canvas is tacked to a five-member, keyable, mortise-and-tenon stretcher with vertical [glossary:crossbar] (fig. 2.20). Depth: 1.5 cm.

Preparatory Layers

Sizing

Not determined (probably glue).468

Ground application/texture

The artist began with a commercially primed canvas, with the preparation extending to the edges of the tacking margin. The X-ray shows sweeping, radio-opaque forms that extend from the top edge and curve downward and to the right, possibly suggesting that additional ground material was added to the compositional area by the artist or a color merchant.469 The shape of the sweeps suggests application with a [glossary:palette knife] (fig. 2.39). Additionally, there is a ridge of ground material at the right foldover edge, where a strong, curving stroke visible in the X-ray—starting along the top edge at the center and sweeping to the right edge—appears to end; it may be excess ground material that was pushed over during application (fig. 1.3). A close look at the surface reveals evidence of a brushy, diagonal texture (fig. 1.4).470 This texture was probably applied lightly to the surface of the ground after initial application and working, but while the preparation was still wet.

In the cross section, a clear distinction between the separate layers of ground material is not evident; rather, the ground appears to be either a very thick, single layer or two or more layers of a similar composition applied in quick succession (fig. 3.60).471 The overall thickness of the ground is approximately 10–90 µm.

Color

The ground appears white; no additional colored particles were observed under stereomicroscopic examination of the surface or in cross section (fig. 2.50).

Materials/composition

The ground is predominantly lead white with barium sulfate and small amounts of silicates, calcium compounds, and traces of bone black.472 The [glossary:binder] is estimated to be [glossary:oil].473

Compositional Planning/Underdrawing/Painted Sketch

Extent/character

No [glossary:underdrawing] was observed with [glossary:infrared reflectography] or under microscopic examination.

Paint Layer

Application/technique and artist’s revisions

The work is very thinly painted in many areas, especially in the top half, where Renoir made use of the reflective qualities of the ground and [glossary:underpainting]. The thinness of the paint layer, the sketchy brushwork, and the impasto that is limited to the foreground suggest rapid execution and a limited number of wet-in-wet campaigns. The artist utilized translucent [glossary:pigments] such as red lake, emerald green, and cobalt blue, in addition to thinning his paint with turpentine for a wash (e.g., in the sky), and using additional medium for a glaze-like effect (fig. 2.22).474 Above the horizon line on the far right, Renoir may have used a cloth or similar tool to wipe away some of the paint, leaving an even thinner, more translucent film of color with a soft, indistinct edge. These kinds of thin applications also form the underlayers throughout most of the foreground, creating a play of colors between the translucent washes and the more opaque paints applied in later stages. In some areas, particularly in the center, Renoir used long, downward diagonal brushstrokes of white or light blue to establish texture and space, then crossed the pattern with dilute blue applied with a stiff-bristle brush. This directional underpaint can be seen in the X-ray, especially in the upper left quadrant (fig. 2.39). The fluid blue paint application produced two effects: first, the blue settled into the depressions of the underlying white paint, accentuating the diagonal texture; and second, the use of a stiff-bristle brush (which cut through the thin paint, exposing the white underpaint and ground) created a much finer, subtler set of diagonals, which sometimes run almost perpendicular to the textured strokes beneath (fig. 2.23). The effect was further complicated where the brush caught the thread tops, creating the illusion of droplets. In other areas of the sky and clouds, the artist applied paint with a stiff-bristle brush and used varying pressure to increase or decrease the presence of the stroke and overall texture.

In the foreground, Renoir seems to have initially established the space with thin, opaque, modulated blue-grays, over which he layered extensive impasto with soft-bristle brushes to describe the crash and froth of the waves (fig. 2.24). In some areas, he appears to have used a palette knife initially to spread the paint onto the canvas, and then worked it further with a soft brush (fig. 2.25). Along the bottom edge to the left of center, the artist dragged a brush or possibly a palette knife loaded with thick, dry paint horizontally across the surface, catching just the tops of the vertical threads, to create the illusion of water pulling away from the beach (fig. 2.26). While the painting appears somewhat monochromatic, with shades of blue and blue-green throughout punctuated by the white froth of the waves, Renoir chose to emphasize and add depth to specific locations in the waves with a riot of color applied with a fine-tip brush (fig. 2.27).

Painting tools

Soft- and stiff-bristle brushes with strokes up to 1.5 cm wide; palette knife; possibly cloth for wiping.

Palette

Analysis indicates the presence of the following pigments:475 lead white, cobalt blue,476 emerald green, iron oxide red and/or yellow, chrome-based yellow,477 bone black, and red lake.

The observation of a characteristic salmon-colored [glossary:fluorescence] under [glossary:UV] light suggests the presence of red lake in the upper right sky, foreground beach, and waves near the horizon on the left (fig. 2.40).478

Binding media

Oil (estimated).479

Surface Finish

Varnish layer/media

The work has a [glossary:synthetic varnish] with residues of natural resin in areas of impasto; these residues are readily visible under UV examination, appearing milky yellow-green. The current varnish was applied in 1962 and replaced a discolored [glossary:natural-resin varnish] applied in 1922. It is not clear whether the earliest documented natural-resin varnish was original to the painting.

Conservation History

The earliest documented treatment of the painting was near the time of its acquisition in 1922, when it was cleaned and varnished.480 A letter from 1921 recommending treatment suggests that the cleaning was a grime cleaning “to be sure the surface is free from smoke and dirt” and makes no mention of an existing varnish or varnish removal.481 The next documented treatment occurred in 1962.482 At this time, the painting was described as being lined with glue paste, stretched over a hardboard panel, and tacked to a five-member stretcher. The presence of French newspaper on the verso as an interleaf between the stretcher and a layer of brown paper tape may indicate that the work was first treated in France. Abrasions, [glossary:cleavage], and loss, especially on the right side of the painting, were also noted at this time, and the painting had a discolored natural-resin varnish. During the 1962 treatment, grime and varnish were removed, and areas of cleavage, mostly on the right, were consolidated with wax.483 Losses were retouched with oil methacrylate paints, and the work was given a synthetic varnish (an isolating layer of polyvinyl acetate [PVA] AYAA, followed by methacrylate resin L-46, inpainting, and a final spray of L-46).

Condition Summary

The work is in good condition, with a stable [glossary:aqueous lining] and hardboard backing between the canvas and the stretcher. The board is slightly warped, causing the bottom left corner of the canvas to pull away from the stretcher and giving the painting a somewhat concave appearance. The stretcher is tapped out slightly, to dimensions a bit larger than the hardboard, and covered almost entirely with brown paper tape. Beneath this tape in many areas are spots of red adhesive that appear to be vermilion- and iron oxide–containing sealing wax, used here to hold an interleaf of French newspaper between the stretcher and the paper tape (fig. 2.28).484 Cleavage and loss have been noted repeatedly throughout the painting’s history and seem to relate to the ground separating from the canvas (especially on the right). This is probably the result of canvas shrinkage either before or during the lining process. There is also abrasion along raised canvas threads and rebate abrasion.
Kelly Keegan

Frame

Current frame (2004): The frame is not original to the painting. It is an Italian, eighteenth-century, gilt torus frame with a scotia frieze. The frame has water gilding over yellow-orange bole on gesso. The gilding is burnished overall, highly on the torus and ovolos and lightly in other areas. The frame retains its original gilding and glue sizing. The poplar molding is face and side mitered and joined with blind-bridled tenons. Parchment was glued over the face miters prior to gessoing. The molding, from the perimeter to the interior, is ovolo outer molding; scotia side; torus face with a three-quarter-round profile; fillet; scotia-edged frieze; ovolo; and fillet sight molding (fig. 2.56).485

Previous frame (installed mid-1960s, removed 2004): The painting was previously housed in an American (New York), mid-twentieth-century reproduction of an Italian Baroque bolection frame with a centered, spiraled leaf outer molding and a fruit, flower, and husk sight molding. The frame had water gilding over red bole and gesso and was very heavily toned. The carved basswood molding was mitered and nailed (fig. 2.58).486

Previous frame (installed by 1933, removed mid-1960s): The work was previously housed in a late-nineteenth–early-twentieth-century, Louis XIV Revival, convex frame with very deeply recessed cast plaster ornament of acanthus leaves at the miters and floral and foliate-scroll centers bracketed by undulating foliage and pendent bellflowers. The frame had water and oil gilding on a dark red-brown bole over gesso and cast plaster. The sides and frieze were burnished, and the ornament was selectively burnished. The gilding was toned with dark raw umber and a white wash and speckled with black and white. The molding was mitered and nailed. The molding, from the perimeter to the interior, was ovolo with leaf-tip ornament; scotia side; convex face with acanthus leaves at the miters, floral and foliate-scroll centers bracketed by undulating foliage and pendent bellflowers on a quadrillage bed; hollow frieze; ogee with leaf-tip ornament; cove; and fillet with cove sight edge (fig. 2.57).
Kirk Vuillemot

Selected References

Possibly Durand-Ruel, Paris, Exposition A. Renoir, exh. cat. (Imp. de l’Art/E. Ménard, 1892), p. 47, no. 100.497

Art Institute of Chicago, Handbook of Sculpture, Architecture, and Paintings, pt. 2, Paintings (Art Institute of Chicago, 1922), p. 69, cat. 845.498

Art Institute of Chicago, “Accessions and Loans,” Bulletin of the Art Institute of Chicago 16, 3 (May 1922), p. 47.

Art Institute of Chicago, “The Potter Palmer Collection of Paintings,” Bulletin of the Art Institute of Chicago 16, 3 (May 1922), p. 38.499

Art Institute of Chicago, A Guide to the Paintings in the Permanent Collection (Art Institute of Chicago, 1925), p. 150, cat. 845.500

Ambroise Vollard, Renoir: An Intimate Record, trans. Harold L. Van Doren and Randolph T. Weaver (Knopf, 1925), p. 239.

M. C., “Renoirs in the Institute,” Bulletin of the Art Institute of Chicago 19, 3 (Mar. 1925), p. 32.

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

Julius Meier-Graefe, Renoir (Klinkhardt & Biermann, 1929), p. 120, no. 109 (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.

Ulrich Thieme and Felix Becker, “Renoir,” in Allgemeines Lexikon der Bildenden Künstler, vol. 28, Ramsden–Rosa (Seemann, 1934), p. 170.

Albert C. Barnes and Violette de Mazia, The Art of Renoir (Minton, Balch, 1935), pp. 74; 75; 451, no. 92.

Duveen Galleries, New York, Renoir: Centennial Loan Exhibition, 1841–1941; For the Benefit of the Free French Relief Committee, exh. cat. (Vilmorin/Bradford, 1941), p. 132.

Frederick A. Sweet, “Potter Palmer and the Painting Department,” Bulletin of the Art Institute of Chicago 37, 6 (Nov. 1943), p. 86.

Florence Hope, “A Late Renoir Recently Added to the Institute’s Collection,” Bulletin of the Art Institute of Chicago 39, 7 (Dec. 1945), p. 98.

Ishbel Ross, Silhouette in Diamonds: The Life of Mrs. Potter Palmer (Harper & Bros., 1960), p. 155.

Art Institute of Chicago, Paintings in the Art Institute of Chicago: A Catalogue of the Picture Collection (Art Institute of Chicago, 1961), p. 396.501

Charles C. Cunningham and Satoshi Takahashi, Shikago bijutsukan [Art Institute of Chicago], Museums of the World 32 (Kodansha, 1970), pp. 53, pl. 39; 160.

Art Institute of Chicago, Paintings by Renoir, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago, 1973), pp. 80; 82–83, cat. 27 (ill.).

Andrea P. A. Belloli, ed., A Day in the Country: Impressionism and the French Landscape, exh. cat. (Los Angeles County Museum of Art, 1984), p. 366.

Sylvie Gache-Patin and Scott Schaefer, “Impressionism and the Sea,” in A Day in the Country: Impressionism and the French Landscape, ed. Andrea P. A. Belloli, exh. cat. (Los Angeles County Museum of Art, 1984), pp. 288; 290; 291, no. 120 (ill.).

Sylvie Gache-Patin and Scott Schaefer, “La mer,” in Réunion des Musées Nationaux, L’impressionnisme et le paysage français, exh. cat. (Réunion des Musées Nationaux, 1985), pp. 308; 312–13, no. 120 (ill.).

Nicholas Wadley, ed., Renoir: A Retrospective (Hugh Lauter Levin/Macmillan, 1987), p. 195, pl. 65.

Michael Howard, ed., The Impressionists by Themselves: A Selection of Their Paintings, Drawings, and Sketches with Extracts from Their Writings (Conran Octopus, 1991), pp. 256 (ill.), 320.

Lesley Stevenson, Renoir (Bison Group, 1991), pp. 100–01 (ill.).

Shigenobu Kimura et al., Seikimatsu no yume / The Dream of Fin de Siècle, Meigo e no tabi / Journey into the Masterpieces 21 (Kodansha, 1992), pp. 70, pl. 3-24; 144.

Charles F. Stuckey, with the assistance of Sophia Shaw, Claude Monet, 1840–1926, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago/Thames & Hudson, 1995), p. 204, fig. 36.

Francesca Castellani, Pierre-Auguste Renoir: La vita e l’opera (Mondadori, 1996), pp. 73, 137 (ill.).

Douglas W. Druick, Renoir, Artists in Focus (Art Institute of Chicago/Abrams, 1997), pp. 33 (detail); 46; 72; 89, pl. 8; 110.

Gilles Néret, Renoir: Painter of Happiness, 1841–1919, trans. Josephine Bacon (Taschen, 2001), p. 121 (ill.).

Michael Clarke and Richard Thomson, Monet: The Seine and the Sea, 1878–1883, exh. cat. (National Galleries of Scotland, 2003), p. 165, cat. 89 (ill.).

Joseph J. Rishel, “Pierre-Auguste Renoir,” in Juliet Wilson-Bareau and David Degener, Manet and the Sea, exh. cat. (Philadelphia Museum of Art, 2003), p. 243.

Richard Thomson, “Looking to Paint: Monet 1878–1883,” in Michael Clarke and Richard Thomson, Monet: The Seine and the Sea, 1878–1883, exh. cat. (National Galleries of Scotland, 2003), p. 33.

Juliet Wilson-Bareau and David Degener, Manet and the Sea, exh. cat. (Philadelphia Museum of Art, 2003), pp. 248, pl. 117; 261.

Frank Whitford, “A Lasting Impression,” Sunday Times (Scotland), Aug. 10, 2003, p. 17.

Isabelle Cahn, L’impressionnisme, ou l’oeil naturel, L’aventure de l’art (Chêne, 2005), pp. 52 (ill.), 219.

Kyoko Kagawa, Runowaru [Pierre-Auguste Renoir], Seiyo kaiga no kyosho [Great masters of Western art] 4 (Shogakukan, 2006), pp. 33–34 (ill.).

Heather Lemonedes, Lynn Federle Orr, and David Steel, eds., Monet in Normandy, exh. cat. (Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco/North Carolina Museum of Art/Cleveland Museum of Art/Rizzoli, 2006), pp. 33; 34, fig. 21.

Colin B. Bailey, “‘The Greatest Luminosity, Colour and Harmony’: Renoir’s Landscapes, 1862–1883,” in Renoir Landscapes, 1865–1883, ed. Colin B. Bailey and Christopher Riopelle, exh. cat. (National Gallery, London, 2007), p. 65. Translated as Colin B. Bailey, “‘Un maximum de luminosité; de coloration, et d’harmonie”: Les paysages de Renoir, 1862–1883,” in Les paysages de Renoir, 1865–1883, ed. Colin B. Bailey and Christopher Riopelle, trans. Marie-Françoise Dispa, Lise-Éliane Pomier, and Laura Meijer, exh. cat. (National Gallery, London/5 Continents, 2007), p. 65.

Colin B. Bailey and Christopher Riopelle, eds., Renoir Landscapes, 1865–1883, exh. cat. (National Gallery, London, 2007), pp. 2–3 (detail); 4; 199–202, cat. 45 (ill.); 256. Translated by Marie-Françoise Dispa, Lise-Éliane Pomier, and Laura Meijer as Les paysages de Renoir, 1865–1883, exh. cat. (National Gallery, London/5 Continents, 2007), pp. 2–3 (detail); 4; 199–202, cat. 45 (ill.); 256.

Robert McDonald Parker, “Topographical Chronology 1860–1883,” in Renoir Landscapes, 1865–1883, ed. Colin B. Bailey and Christopher Riopelle, exh. cat. (National Gallery, London, 2007), p. 276. Translated as Robert McDonald Parker, “Chronologie,” in Les paysages de Renoir, 1865–1883, ed. Colin B. Bailey and Christopher Riopelle, trans. Marie-Françoise Dispa, Lise-Éliane Pomier, and Laura Meijer, exh. cat. (National Gallery, London/5 Continents, 2007), p. 276.

Charles Stuckey, “The Predications and Implications of Monet’s Series,” in The Repeating Image: Multiples in French Painting from David to Matisse, ed. Eik Kahng, exh. cat. (Walters Art Museum/Yale University Press, 2007), pp. 122–23, n. 22.

Richard R. Brettell and C. D. Dickerson III, From the Private Collections of Texas: European Art, Ancient to Modern (Kimbell Art Museum/Yale University Press, 2009), p. 302, fig. 2.

437) Seascape (Dauberville 152) corresponds to Guy-Patrice Dauberville and Michel Dauberville, with the collaboration of Camille Frémontier-Murphy, Renoir: Catalogue raisonné des tableaux, pastels, dessins et aquarelles, vol. 1, 1858–1881 (Bernheim-Jeune, 2007), p. 211, cat. 152 (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:

Feb. 21, 1890: Marine (Durand-Ruel, Paris, stock book for 1884–90 [no. 2637]; 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.)

Apr. 19, 1892: Marine or Stormy sea on the coast near Dieppe (Durand-Ruel, New York, stock book for 1888–93 [no. 900]; 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.)

Dec. 14, 1892: Marine (Durand-Ruel, New York, stock book for 1888–93 [no. 1011]; 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.)

Possibly May 1892: Marine (Galeries Durand-Ruel, Exposition A. Renoir, exh. cat. [Imp. de l’Art/E. Ménard, 1892], p. 47, no. 100; according to Guy-Patrice Dauberville and Michel Dauberville, with the collaboration of Camille Frémontier-Murphy, Renoir: Catalogue raisonné des tableaux, pastels, dessins et aquarelles, vol. 1, 1858–1881 [Bernheim-Jeune, 2007], p. 211, cat. 152 [ill.].)

438) The four known winter scenes are Skaters in the Bois de Boulogne (1868; Collection of William I. Koch [Dauberville 110]); Winter Landscape (1868; sold, Christie’s, New York, Nov. 10, 1987, lot 4 [Dauberville 172]); Snowy Landscape (c. 1875; Musée National de l’Orangerie, Paris [Dauberville 177]); and Snowy Landscape (1875; sold, Sotheby’s, London, Feb. 6, 2008, lot 326). See Colin B. Bailey’s discussion of Skaters in the Bois de Boulogne (1868) in Renoir Landscapes, 1865–1883, ed. Colin B. Bailey and Christopher Riopelle, exh. cat. (National Gallery, London, 2007), p. 91; and his entry on Seascape (there called The Wave) in the same publication, pp. 199–202. Daulte and Dauberville refer to the Renoir catalogues raisonnés: François Daulte, Auguste Renoir: Catalogue raisonné de l’oeuvre peint (Durand-Ruel, 1971); Guy-Patrice Dauberville and Michel Dauberville, Renoir: Catalogue raisonné des tableaux, pastels, dessins et aquarelles, vols. 1–5 (Bernheim-Jeune, 2007–14).

Loc/Neg#	Format	Purpose	Date	Lighting, Notes
40380	Digital		Unknown	Recto
G22529	Digital		Nov. 29, 2004	Recto
G40580	Digital		5-Jul-12	Recto
Conservation	Digital	OSCI	Dec. 10, 2012	Recto, detail

Loc/Neg #	Format	Purpose	Date	Lighting, Notes
C5699	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Normal, overall
Curatorial	8 × 10 B&W prints	Unknown	Unknown	Normal, overall and details: signature, figures, table, boats, trellis (12 total)
C24230	8 × 10 B&W negative	Conservation	1958	Normal, overall
M7273	35 mm B&W negative	Unknown	1959?
S1510	35 mm B&W negative	Unknown	1959?
Conservation	8 × 10 B&W negative	Pretreatment	Nov. 8, 1971	Normal, overall
Conservation	8 × 10 B&W negative	Pretreatment	Nov. 8, 1971	Infrared, overall
Conservation	8 × 10 B&W negative	Pretreatment	Nov. 8, 1971	Ultraviolet, overall
Conservation	8 × 10 B&W negative	Pretreatment	Nov. 8, 1971	Normal, verso
Conservation	8 × 10 B&W negative	Posttreatment	1971	Normal, overall
C37110	8 × 10 B&W negative	Posttreatment	Dec. 1971	Normal, overall
E09187	8 × 10 B&W negative	Unknown	Jan. 20, 1986	Normal, overall (also listed as E9187)
E10363	4 × 5 CT	Unknown	June 1986	Normal, detail: right figure
E40591	4 × 5 CT	Unknown	Oct. 1, 2003	Normal, overall
C37110	8 × 10 B&W negative	Posttreatment	Dec. 1971	Normal, overall
G28532	Digital	Loan/publication	Feb. 11, 2008	Normal, overall
G28353	Digital	Loan/publication	Feb. 11, 2008	Normal, detail: center figures
G28354	Digital	Loan/publication	Feb. 11, 2008	Normal, detail: man at table
Conservation	Digital	Conservation	Apr. 18, 2008	Normal, overall, framed in old frame and new frame
132371	Digital	Outgoing loan	Nov. 2008	Annotated conservation image E40591
Conservation	Digital	OSCI	June 23, 2009	Detail images of verso, labels (4 total)
Conservation	X-ray	OSCI	June 24, 2009	X-ray films scanned/digitally composited, overall
Conservation	Digital	OSCI	June 26, 2009	Photomicrographs of surface (11 total)
Conservation	Digital	OSCI	July 21, 2009	Normal, overall
Conservation	Digital	OSCI	July 21, 2009	Raking light, overall
Conservation	Digital	OSCI	July 21, 2009	Raking light, detail; L figures
Conservation	Digital	OSCI	July 21, 2009	Ultraviolet, overall
Conservation	Digital	OSCI	July 21, 2009	Infrared (Fuji, 1000B/2 mm filter), overall
Conservation	Digital	OSCI	Sep. 30, 2009	Macro details of surface (17 total)
Conservation	Digital	OSCI	Sep. 30, 2009	Infrared details (Fuji, 1000B/2 mm filter), (2 details)
Conservation	Digital	OSCI	Jan. 4, 2012	Infrared (Goodrich, 1.1–1.4 µm H filter), overall; composite
Conservation	Digital	OSCI	Jan. 4, 2012	Transmitted light, overall
Conservation	Digital	OSCI	Jan. 4, 2012	Transmitted infrared (Fuji, 1000B/2 mm filter), overall
G39103	Digital	OSCI	Jan. 6, 2012	Normal, overall; high-resolution composite of G39112–G39127
G39104	Digital	OSCI	Jan. 6, 2012	Ultraviolet, overall
G39105	Digital	OSCI	Jan. 6, 2012	Normal, frame only
G39112	Digital	OSCI	Jan. 6, 2012	Section
G39113	Digital	OSCI	Jan. 6, 2012	Section
G39114	Digital	OSCI	Jan. 6, 2012	Section
G39115	Digital	OSCI	Jan. 6, 2012	Section
G39116	Digital	OSCI	Jan. 6, 2012	Section
G39117	Digital	OSCI	Jan. 6, 2012	Section
G39118	Digital	OSCI	Jan. 6, 2012	Section
G39119	Digital	OSCI	Jan. 6, 2012	Section
G39120	Digital	OSCI	Jan. 6, 2012	Section
G39121	Digital	OSCI	Jan. 6, 2012	Section
G39122	Digital	OSCI	Jan. 6, 2012	Section
G39123	Digital	OSCI	Jan. 6, 2012	Section
G39124	Digital	OSCI	Jan. 6, 2012	Section
G39125	Digital	OSCI	Jan. 6, 2012	Section
G39126	Digital	OSCI	Jan. 6, 2012	Section
G39127	Digital	OSCI	Jan. 6, 2012	Section

Loc./Neg. #	Format	Purpose	Date	Lighting, Notes
C37737	8 × 10 B&W negative	Posttreatment	Unknown	Normal, overall
C15042.	8 × 10 B&W negative	Unknown	Unknown	Normal, overall
C50025	8 × 10 CT	Polaroid project	Unknown
E38834	4 × 5 CT	Unknown	Unknown	Normal, detail: center
E38835	4 × 5 CT	Unknown	Unknown	Normal, detail: hands
C5961	Unknown	Unknown	Dec. 1924?
Conservation	8 × 10 B&W negative	Pretreatment	Jan. 6, 1972	Normal, overall
Conservation	8 × 10 B&W negative	Pretreatment	Jan. 6, 1972	Infrared, overall
Conservation	8 × 10 B&W negative	Pretreatment	Jan. 6, 1972	Ultraviolet, overall
Conservation	8 × 10 B&W negative	Midtreatment	June 21, 1972?	Normal, overall; clean state
Conservation	35 mm slides	Posttreatment	June 1972	Normal (12 slides including varying light sources; details: hands, head, floor, lower skirt, candle/upper right piano)
Conservation	8 × 10 B&W negative	Midtreatment	Sept. 2, 1972?	Ultraviolet, overall; during cleaning
E9227	4 × 5 CT	Unknown	Feb. 5, 1986	Normal, overall
E13867	4 × 5 CT	Unknown	Dec. 1987	Normal, overall
E19335	4 × 5 CT	Unknown	Nov. 17, 1989	Normal, overall
E37884	4 × 5 CT	Unknown	Nov. 15, 1999	Normal, overall
G28505	Digital	Exhibition	Mar. 11, 2008	Normal, overall
132369	Digital	Exhibition	Nov. 2008	Annotated conservation image E37884
Conservation	Digital	OSCI	Sept. 14, 2009	Details of frame, verso, and labels (9 total)
Conservation	Digital	OSCI	Sept. 14, 2009	Infrared (Fuji, 1000B/2 mm filter), overall
Conservation	Digital	OSCI	Sept. 14–15, 2009	Details of surface (12 total)
Conservation	Digital	OSCI	Sept. 15, 2009	Raking light, overall
Conservation	Digital	OSCI	Sept. 15, 2009	Normal, overall
Conservation	Digital	OSCI	Sept. 15, 2009	Ultraviolet, overall
Conservation	X-ray	OSCI	Sept. 15, 2009	X-ray films scanned/digitally composited, overall
Conservation	Digital	OSCI	Sept. 16, 2009	Photomicrographs of sample sites and surface (24 total)
Conservation	Digital	OSCI	Sept. 21, 2009	Infrared (Inframetrics 1.5–1.73 µm filter), overall; composite
Conservation	Digital	OSCI	Sept. 28, 2009	Raking light details: lower left and figure face
G39028	Digital	OSCI	Feb. 23, 2012	Normal, overall; composite of G39729–G39753
G39030	Digital	OSCI	Feb. 23, 2012	Normal, frame only
G39729	Digital	OSCI	Feb. 23, 2012	Section
G39730	Digital	OSCI	Feb. 23, 2012	Section
G39731	Digital	OSCI	Feb. 23, 2012	Section
G39732	Digital	OSCI	Feb. 23, 2012	Section
G39733	Digital	OSCI	Feb. 23, 2012	Section
G39734	Digital	OSCI	Feb. 23, 2012	Section
G39735	Digital	OSCI	Feb. 23, 2012	Section
G39736	Digital	OSCI	Feb. 23, 2012	Section
G39737	Digital	OSCI	Feb. 23, 2012	Section
G39738	Digital	OSCI	Feb. 23, 2012	Section
G39739	Digital	OSCI	Feb. 23, 2012	Section
G39740	Digital	OSCI	Feb. 23, 2012	Section
G39741	Digital	OSCI	Feb. 23, 2012	Section
G39742	Digital	OSCI	Feb. 23, 2012	Section
G39743	Digital	OSCI	Feb. 23, 2012	Section
G39744	Digital	OSCI	Feb. 23, 2012	Section
G39745	Digital	OSCI	Feb. 23, 2012	Section
G39746	Digital	OSCI	Feb. 23, 2012	Section
G39747	Digital	OSCI	Feb. 23, 2012	Section
G39748	Digital	OSCI	Feb. 23, 2012	Section
G39749	Digital	OSCI	Feb. 23, 2012	Section
G39750	Digital	OSCI	Feb. 23, 2012	Section
G39751	Digital	OSCI	Feb. 23, 2012	Section
G39752	Digital	OSCI	Feb. 23, 2012	Section
G39753	Digital	OSCI	Feb. 23, 2012	Section
G39029	Digital	OSCI	July 24, 2012	Ultraviolet, overall

Loc/Neg #	Format	Purpose	Date	Lighting, Notes
C19245	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown
C33742	8 × 10 B&W negative	Posttreatment	1968	Normal, overall
Conservation	8 × 10 B&W negative	Pretreatment	Mar. 20, 1972	Normal, verso
C37614	8 × 10 B&W negative	Posttreatment	May 11, 1972	Normal, overall
Conservation	X-ray	Unknown	May 12, 1972	Normal, partial
Conservation	35 mm slide	Posttreatment?	May (1972?)	Normal, overall (2 slides)
E10561	4 × 5 CT	Pretreatment	1987	Normal, overall
Conservation	35 mm slide	Midtreatment	July 30, 1992	Normal, detail: cuff of sleeve (4 slides)
E32932	4 × 5 CT	Midtreatment	Dec. 31, 1996	Normal, overall
E32998	4 × 5 CT	Posttreatment	Jan. 13, 1997	Normal, overall
G28173	Digital	Publication	Feb. 6, 2008	Normal, overall
G28174	Digital	Publication	Feb. 6, 2008	Normal, detail: head
132370	Digital	Loan exam	Nov. 2008	Annotated conservation image E32998
Conservation	X-ray	OSCI	Oct. 15, 2009	X-ray films scanned/digitally composited, overall
Conservation	Digital	OSCI	Oct. 15, 2009	Normal, overall
Conservation	Digital	OSCI	Oct. 15, 2009	Raking light, overall
Conservation	Digital	OSCI	Oct. 15, 2009	Ultraviolet, overall
Conservation	Digital	OSCI	Oct. 15, 2009	Infrared (Fuji 1000B/2 mm filter), overall
Conservation	Digital	OSCI	Oct. 16, 2009	Detail images of verso, frame, and labels (17 total)
Conservation	Digital	OSCI	Oct. 19, 2009	Detail images of surface (13 total)
Conservation	Digital	OSCI	Oct. 23, 2009	Infrared (Inframetrics 1.5–1.73 µm filter), overall; composite
Conservation	Digital	OSCI	Oct. 29, 2009	Macro details (4 total)
Conservation	Digital	OSCI	Nov. 2, 2009	Raking light, overall
G32633	Digital	OSCI	Nov. 6, 2009	Normal, overall
G32634	Digital	OSCI	Nov. 6, 2009	Ultraviolet, overall
G32635	Digital	OSCI	Nov. 6, 2009	Normal, detail; signature
Conservation	Digital	OSCI	Nov. 9, 2009	Photomicrographs of sample sites and surface (22 total)
G39052	Digital	OSCI	Feb. 1, 2012	Normal, overall; composite of G39426–G39437
G39053	Digital	OSCI	Feb. 1, 2012	Ultraviolet, overall
G39054	Digital	OSCI	Feb. 1, 2012	Normal, frame only
G39426	Digital	OSCI	Feb. 1, 2012	Section
G39427	Digital	OSCI	Feb. 1, 2012	Section
G39428	Digital	OSCI	Feb. 1, 2012	Section
G39429	Digital	OSCI	Feb. 1, 2012	Section
G39430	Digital	OSCI	Feb. 1, 2012	Section
G39431	Digital	OSCI	Feb. 1, 2012	Section
G39432	Digital	OSCI	Feb. 1, 2012	Section
G39433	Digital	OSCI	Feb. 1, 2012	Section
G39434	Digital	OSCI	Feb. 1, 2012	Section
G39435	Digital	OSCI	Feb. 1, 2012	Section
G39436	Digital	OSCI	Feb. 1, 2012	Section
G39437	Digital	OSCI	Feb. 1, 2012	Section
Conservation	Digital	OSCI	Feb. 1, 2012	Transmitted light, overall
Conservation	Digital	OSCI	Feb. 1, 2012	Transmitted infrared (Fuji 1000B/2 mm filter), overall
Conservation	Digital	OSCI	Feb. 1, 2012	Transmitted infrared (Fuji 1000B/ 2mm filter), detail: stamp

Loc/Neg#	Format	Purpose	Date	Lighting, Notes
E10243	4 × 5 CT		Unknown	Recto
D14320	35 mm slide		Unknown	Recto
G40591	Digital		3-Jul-12	Recto
Conservation	Digital	OSCI	Sept. 10, 2012	Infrared (Fuji, 1000B/2 mm filter), recto, overall
Conservation	Digital	OSCI	Sept. 12, 2013	Transmitted infrared (Fuji, 1000B/2 mm filter), watermark

Renoir Paintings and Drawings at the Art Institute of Chicago

Collection Highlights

Cat. 1

Technical Report

Technical Summary

Media and Support

Support Characteristics

Primary paper type

Furnish

Formation

Other characteristics

Dimensions

Preparatory Layers

Media Characteristics

Compositional Development

Surface Treatment

Condition History

Provenance

Exhibition History

Other Documentation

Inscriptions and Distinguishing Marks

Recto

Examination Conditions and Technical Analysis

Raking Visible Light

Transmitted Visible Illumination

Ultraviolet-Induced Visible Fluorescence (365 nm)

Stereomicroscopy (80–100×)

Image Inventory

Cat. 2

The Dating of Lunch at the Restaurant Fournaise and Renoir at Chatou

Renoir and the Boating Theme

Renoir’s Models and Boating Fashion

Lunch at the Restaurant Fournaise as a Bold Step Forward in Renoir’s Use of Color

Technical Report

Technical Summary

Multilayer Interactive Image Viewer

Signature

Structure and Technique

Support

Canvas

Standard format

Weave

Canvas characteristics

Stretching

Stretcher/strainer

Manufacturer’s/supplier’s marks

Preparatory Layers

Sizing

Ground application/texture

Color

Materials/composition

Compositional Planning/Underdrawing/Painted Sketch

Extent/character

Medium/technique

Revisions

Paint Layer

Application/technique and artist’s revisions

Painting tools

Palette

Binding media

Surface Finish

Varnish layer/media

Conservation History

Condition Summary

Frame

Provenance

Exhibition History

Selected References

Other Documentation

Documentation from the Durand-Ruel Archives

Other Documents

Documentation from the Boussod, Valadon & Cie Archives

Labels and Inscriptions

Pre-1980

Post-1980

Examination and Analysis Techniques

X-radiography

Infrared Reflectography

Transmitted Infrared

Visible Light