Renoir Paintings and Drawings at the Art Institute of Chicago

Technical Report

Technical Summary

Vase of Flowers was executed in [glossary:graphite] on smooth, grayish–off-white [glossary:wove] paper. The smoothness of the paper perfectly suited this detailed composition, enabling the graphite to glide over the surface. The paper was formerly bound in a sketchbook along the bottom, as evidenced by the irregular edge and binding holes (fig. 1.1). Using a relatively hard graphite, Renoir outlined the forms and, with a series of fine parallel lines, modeled the container and the flowers in the foreground (fig. 1.2). Under magnification, the darkest lines reveal a slight embossing—the result of pressing the graphite tip more firmly into the paper. Renoir employed fewer and fewer strokes of graphite as he worked outward from the center of the composition, suggesting the foot of the container with a bare minimum of lines. The drawing technique is direct, with no visible compositional revisions or alterations.

Media and Support

Support Characteristics

Primary paper type

Grayish–off-white, medium-thick, smooth wove paper, taken from a bound sketchbook.6

Furnish

Uniform, without visible inclusions or colored fibers.

Formation

Even, machine made.

Other characteristics

The bottom edge was torn from a former binding, producing an irregular edge with folds and creases and four binding holes, spaced 1.1 cm, 2.9 cm, 7.3 cm and 9.1 cm from the left edge. The left, top, and right edges are trimmed straight.

Dimensions

173 × 103 mm.

Preparatory Layers

No artistic surface alterations or coatings are visible under normal conditions or magnification. Under [glossary:UV] illumination, there is a pale-yellow visible-light [glossary:fluorescence] overall on the paper surface that is characteristic of a light gelatin surface [glossary:sizing].

Media Characteristics

The work was drawn directly in graphite. Examination under magnification reveals that modeling was created with thin strokes of hard graphite; there is no evidence of [glossary:stumping]. Erasure may have been used to create some small areas of highlights on the flowers and their container.

Compositional Development

No revisions or changes to the composition are visible under normal conditions or magnification.

Surface Treatment

No artistic surface fixative or coatings are visible under normal conditions, UV illumination, or magnification. A light gelatin sizing is visible under UV illumination.

Condition History

The drawing is in very good condition. There is a loss in the upper right corner of the support. Light discoloration is visible overall and is a little more pronounced at the edges. The support lifts slightly upward off the mat at the top and bottom edges. There is light smudging of the graphite medium overall. Mild surface soiling and smudges are evident around the perimeter of the drawing.

On the verso, there is a strip of transparent, colorless adhesive residue along the right edge. The center left edge exhibits a small area of [glossary:skinning].
Kimberly Nichols

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

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

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

Technical Report

Technical Summary

Workers’ Daughters on the Outer Boulevard (Illustration for Émile Zola’s “L’assommoir”) is one of three known drawings of the same subject.307 This work is executed in pen and dark-brown ink on ivory [glossary:laid paper]. [glossary:Infrared reflectography] has captured the faint, slightly smudged [glossary:underdrawing] in black chalk that Renoir used to lay out the composition. The final composition in ink follows the initial chalk underdrawing quite faithfully, providing great detail, as seen in an infrared overlay comparison (fig. 2.24). There are some additional lines at the upper center area, although they do not appear to form discrete elements in the composition (fig. 1.2).

The brown ink lines are thin and fairly consistent in length and thickness. Crosshatching and closely spaced lines are used to establish shading and modeling, and an absence of line creates areas of highlights (fig. 1.1). The ink lines bleed together in the dog’s spots at the left lower area to form the densest passages in the composition (fig. 2.20). The pen lines are generally oriented vertically or diagonally from the lower left to upper right, as is characteristic of right-handed artists. Changes in the direction of line distinguish the various elements in the composition: for instance, the lines delineating the tree foliage in the upper left corner are oriented diagonally/horizontally, whereas those establishing the background shop walls are straight and vertical. Slight deformations of the paper can be seen in the ink lines due to the pressure of the fine pen nib on the paper.

Signature

Renoir (recto, lower left corner, in pen and brown ink) (fig. 1.4).

Media and Support

Support Characteristics

Primary paper type

Ivory, medium-thick, slightly textured laid paper.308

Watermark

BFK (for Rives BFK [Blanchet, Freres, & Kiebler]; in shield with two flowers and a crescent above and possibly a golden fleece below, complete, in center of sheet; 14.8 × 7.5 cm) (fig. 2.23).

Chain line orientation and frequency

Horizontal, 2.7 cm.

Laid line frequency

7–8 per cm.

Furnish

Uniform, without significant inclusions or colored fibers.

Formation

Even, likely machine made.

Other characteristics

All edges appear to have been trimmed and are slightly irregular.

Dimensions

275 × 399 mm.

Preparatory Layers

No artistic surface alterations or coatings are visible in normal conditions or under magnification. Under [glossary:UV] illumination, there is a light-yellow visible-light [glossary:fluorescence] overall on the paper surface that is characteristic of light gelatin surface [glossary:sizing]; the fluorescence is most pronounced around the perimeter where the window mat protected it from exposure to light.

Media Characteristics

The drawing was created in pen and brown ink over traces of black-chalk underdrawing; the ink lines are thin and fairly consistent in length and thickness.

Compositional Development

Black-chalk underdrawing is visible in the overall composition, as it was used initially to establish and define the figures before the drawing was worked out in pen and brown ink (fig. 2.24).

Surface Treatment

No artistic surface alterations or coatings are visible in normal conditions or under magnification. There is a light-yellow visible-light fluorescence that suggests the presence of light gelatin surface sizing.

Condition History

There are numerous losses and skinned areas along the edges on the verso, which may have resulted from the removal of a former edge mounting; the losses are filled. There is also light discoloration and staining from adhesive along the edges, visible on the recto. Soft undulations are visible in the sheet at the sides. There are faint inscriptions or smudges along the bottom edge. A strong vertical crease is visible through the center of the sheet; it is most evident on the verso. Dense areas of ink in the dog at the lower left penetrated through to the verso.
Kimberly Nichols

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

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

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

Technical Report

Technical Summary

Renoir began this painting with a large, no. 60 portrait ([glossary:figure]) standard-size canvas with a commercially applied white [glossary:ground]; a [glossary:radio-opaque] area in the [glossary:X-ray] as well as areas of visible palette-knife texture may indicate that either the artist or the [glossary:color merchant] added more ground material locally or overall to the compositional area.540 Renoir executed a gestural contour drawing of the figures in deep-blue paint, making many alterations and adjustments to each figure before settling on the final composition.541 There are also indications that finer drawing, perhaps in [glossary:graphite], is present in the faces of the figures. The figure on the right appears to have been more forward-facing and slightly bent at the waist, while the figure on the left may have stood with her legs closer together, slightly to the left of their current position, and with a more arched back and curved arms. Though some of these changes were painted out, others (such as the hands of the figure on the left) remain visible under normal viewing conditions due to the translucence of the background paint. In the background and upper portion of the composition, thinned [glossary:oil] paint, translucent [glossary:pigments] such as red lake, and the artist’s use of wiping and scraping combine to create an overall lightness and render the ground visible. The two figures were executed in a series of [glossary:wet-in-wet] campaigns over, in some areas, a still-wet [glossary:underdrawing]. Often the underdrawing functions as a cool shadow along the edges of forms, as in the figures’ tights. Final touches of opaque paint and [glossary:impasto] appear only on selected areas of the figures, mostly in the embellishments on their costumes.

Multilayer Interactive Image Viewer

The multilayer interactive image viewer is designed to facilitate the viewer’s exploration and comparison of the technical images (fig. 2.36).542

Signature

Signed: Renoir. (lower left, in blue-purple paint) (fig. 1.2, fig. 1.1).543

Structure and Technique

Support

Canvas

Flax (commonly known as linen).544

Standard format

The original dimensions of the canvas were approximately 130.5 × 97 cm, measuring from the original [glossary:foldover]. This is close to pretreatment measurements that list the painting at 130.8 × 97 cm, which closely correspond to a no. 60 portrait (figure) standard-size (130 × 97 cm) canvas.545

Weave

[glossary:Plain weave]. Average [glossary:thread count] (standard deviation): 28.1V (1.2) × 29.4H (0.6) threads/cm. The horizontal threads were determined to correspond to the [glossary:warp] and the vertical threads to the [glossary:weft].546

Canvas characteristics

The canvas is relatively fine, especially considering its size, and has extremely faint [glossary:cusping] along all four sides, corresponding to the placement of the original tacks. The [glossary:warp-angle map] (horizontal threads) indicates [glossary:primary cusping] along the lower edge from the commercial preparation process (fig. 2.35).547

Stretching

Current stretching: When the painting was relined in 1972, the original dimensions were increased slightly on all sides.

Original stretching: Based on cusping visible in the X-ray, the original tacks were placed approximately 7–8.5 cm apart.

Stretcher/strainer

Current [glossary:stretcher]: Four-member redwood [glossary:ICA spring stretcher]. Depth: 2.5 cm.

Previous stretcher: Six-member keyable stretcher with vertical and horizontal crossbars. Depth: Unknown. Since the painting was lined at some point before this stretcher was removed in 1972, it is unclear whether it was the original stretcher.

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 very thin, brownish layer of material between the ground and the [glossary:canvas] that closely follows the canvas texture. This material has a blue fluorescence in UV, is organic in nature, and is estimated to be glue (fig. 2.49).548

Ground application/texture

The canvas is coated with a commercial [glossary:priming] layer approximately 5–75 µm thick, that fills the [glossary:weave] and extends to the edges of the [glossary:tacking margins].

Renoir or a color merchant may have added more ground material in some areas, or perhaps an overall but very uneven layer.549 A horizontal band just above the center of the painting appears more radio-opaque in the X-ray, suggesting thicker application. Elsewhere, rough palette-knife marks appear in this white layer, creating a play of texture beneath the thinly painted surface (fig. 2.20). The artist painted the background largely in thin, translucent layers with a stiff-bristle brush that cut through to the ground beneath, exploiting its light, reflective qualities.

Color

The ground is white, with no additional particles visible under stereomicroscopic or cross-sectional examination (fig. 1.3).

Materials/composition

The commercial ground is a single layer, predominantly lead white with a small amount of calcium-based white (including calcium sulfate) and trace amounts of alumina, silica, and iron-containing complex silicates. The additional selective [glossary:preparatory layer] is also mostly lead white with some calcium sulfate and barium sulfate.550 The [glossary:binder] for both layers is estimated to be oil.551

Compositional Planning/Underdrawing/Painted Sketch

Extent/character

Infrared examination suggests that Renoir sketched some of the major features of the figures, including the heads, hands, and legs, in long, sometimes very gestural lines (fig. 2.22). These contours appear to constitute the initial phase of the paint layer and in some areas were worked wet-in-wet into the flesh tones, where they appear as shadows (fig. 1.4). The brushstrokes vary greatly in thickness and assurance, with longer lines along the figures’ legs and shorter, broader, more gestural strokes made with a wider brush in other areas, such as the left figure’s hands and arms. Looking closely at the infrared image, it is also possible to see finer drawing throughout the figures’ faces (fig. 2.23).552

Medium/technique

The contour sketch was executed in fluid, blue paint, while the finer drawing may be in a dry medium such as graphite.

Revisions

It is unclear to what extent the underdrawing lines were worked into the paint layer and thereby obscured, but there are visible changes to both figures. The speed with which the artist executed the many iterations of each figure resulted in a series of underdrawing lines in relatively close proximity that can be difficult to decipher.553

Underdrawing lines for the right figure suggest that she may have originally been shown somewhat bent at the waist, leaning slightly to her left, and holding a mound of oranges topped by four of the fruits rather than three (fig. 2.42).554 Lines sketching wider legs and a fuller costume around the waist and hips can also be discerned. Around the head, Renoir painted out his changes, and thus it is unclear to what extent the head was realized before he executed its final position. Eventually he straightened the figure’s posture and rotated her left shoulder and hip backward. The arms and the placement of the elbows and fingers were adjusted numerous times. A set of lines also indicates that this figure’s legs may have been positioned side by side, rather than slightly overlapping, so that the shadow between the legs as well as the outer edge of the figure’s left leg were both further to the right. A combination of turning the figure’s upper body and moving her left leg slightly in front of her right, into ballet’s third position, resulted in legs that appear slimmer and more compact.555

The artist also made changes to the arms and legs of the left figure; he adjusted the precise angle of the arms at each of the major joints (shoulder, elbow, and wrist) numerous times before arriving at the final placement (fig. 2.43). The nature of the underdrawing lines indicating the left figure seems more gestural, aimed at determining the pose and general placement of the figure rather than delineating specific anatomical features. The lines for the figure’s hands, arms, and lower legs, for example, appear impossibly curved and likely served to work out the sense of movement in her pose. Lines visible in the infrared image also suggest that the figure’s left leg was initially further to the left, directly below and in line with her ear and the back of her head.556 Renoir moved the left leg away from the right, into ballet’s fourth position, in line with the figure’s profile; the angle of her right foot was also turned out further, so that her laces face the viewer. A painted line further to the right that echoes the shape of this leg may indicate yet another previous placement, or that the leg was once wider.

Paint Layer

Application/technique and artist’s revisions

Renoir executed a contour sketch of the figures in blue paint, adjusting their postures many times before settling on the visible composition. In many areas, these sketched lines appear to have been wet when the upper paint layers were added, and as a result they were partially, and in some cases entirely, incorporated into these layers. Transmitted- and reflected-infrared imaging and [glossary:X-radiography] indicate that many of the changes were made in the underdrawing stage and not executed in heavier paint before additional alterations were made. The artist exploited the coolness of these lines in relation to the other colors in the painting, bringing smooth, blended figure-ground transitions over them to create a blue shadow around the edges of the figures, especially in the flesh tones and tights (fig. 2.24). In other areas, where the contours of the underdrawing deviate greatly from the surface composition, the lines can be seen under normal viewing conditions as echoes of existing forms or dark, somewhat muddy areas. For instance, on each side of the right figure’s legs, parallel curving lines are visible, evidence of previous compositional forays. In some areas, the underdrawing material was swept into the upper layers to varying degrees, necessitating a more opaque application of background colors to completely cover the white ground, as in the area around the left figure’s hands (fig. 2.25). In other places, the visibility of changes between the underdrawing and the surface composition is diminished by the addition of white or very light-colored paint before the application of the background, for example, above and to the right of the right figure’s head (fig. 2.26).

The artist made minor changes to the two figures in the painting stage, slimming the legs and lowering the eyelids of both. The pointed chin of the figure on the right was softened, her neck was widened on the left side, and the costume embellishment was brought up around the nape of her neck; the overall effect of these alterations is that the once heart-shaped face now looks more elongated and oval-shaped. The left figure’s profile in the underdrawing and early paint stages appears fine featured, with a diminutive nose and small chin. The chin was preserved, but the nose was enlarged and the lips brought forward so that the figure now appears to have an overbite in profile.

The work is very thinly painted, and the paint was applied using stiff-bristle brushes that scratched through the paint layers to the ground. Renoir used wiping and scraping, especially in the background, to increase this effect and give the paint layer additional translucency, making use of the reflective qualities of the ground. The almost watercolor-like appearance of the paint in some areas indicates that the artist thinned his paints with turpentine or a turpentine-and-oil mixture. In contrast with much of the background, the figures are painted in flat, medium-rich layers of opaque paint and feature smooth transitions, both between light and shadow and between figure and ground. The figures were executed in a series of wet-in-wet campaigns with soft brushes, and Renoir sometimes used an array of colors in a single area (fig. 2.27). The upper portion of the painting seems to have been executed mostly freehand and wet-in-wet, with an initial campaign of broader [glossary:modeling] primarily with translucent browns, black, and red lake, followed by a campaign of details, contours, and patches of opaque paint (fig. 2.28). In some areas showing the audience, the paint appears to have been partially rubbed away with a cloth or other soft material, leaving a thin film of paint, mostly in the interstices of the weave. In the left figure’s hair, for example, a thin [glossary:reserve] was created for the bow; after the hair was painted, the artist seems to have wiped away some of this paint before adding heavier, opaque details for the bow (fig. 2.29). The final touches of white and yellow impasto are generally limited to decorative details on the figures’ costumes (fig. 2.30).

Painting tools

Soft- and stiff-bristle brushes with strokes up to 1 cm wide; cloth and/or [glossary:palette knife] for wiping and scraping; small palette knife for specific details such as the orange rinds.

Palette

Analysis indicates the presence of the following pigments: lead white, cobalt blue, cerulean blue, vermilion, emerald green, chrome yellow, red lake, iron oxide red and/or yellow, and bone black.557

The observation of a characteristic salmon-colored [glossary:fluorescence] under [glossary:UV] light suggests the presence of a fluorescing red lake in the flesh tones, details of the figure’s boots, and parts of the background (fig. 2.31).558

Cross-sectional analysis also suggests that some of the pigment mixtures employed in this painting were quite complex. A sample from the orange on the ground between the two figures, for example, contains a mixture of vermilion, red lake, chrome yellow, lead white, and cobalt blue, with traces of iron oxide red and/or yellow.559

Binding media

Oil (estimated).560

Surface Finish

Varnish layer/media

The work has a [glossary:synthetic varnish] with residues of [glossary:natural-resin varnish] in areas of impasto. The synthetic varnish dates from the 1971–72 treatment, and the previous natural-resin varnish may date from a 1922 cleaning. Though the work was varnished in 1922, it is unclear whether it had been varnished prior to that time.

Conservation History

Early documentation indicates that the work was first treated, cleaned, and varnished on April 20, 1922.561 A 1937 document requests an estimate for a wax [glossary:lining] from Chicago conservator Leo Marzolo; there is, however, no evidence that this treatment was ever completed.562 A 1955 loan condition report notes a “gouge” along the left side near the bottom and heavy abrasion on the lower right.563 The work was treated again in 1971–72, when it was recorded as having an [glossary:aqueous lining] and a discolored natural-resin varnish.564 Before this 1971–72 treatment, the work also had small holes with associated vertical abrasion, as if it had fallen or scraped against an unidentified surface. During this treatment, grime, varnish, and the lining were removed, and the work was faced with mulberry-fiber paper and starch paste in preparation for lining. The old six-member stretcher was discarded when the work was wax-resin lined, and the lined painting was tacked onto a four-member redwood ICA spring stretcher of slightly larger dimensions (131.1 × 99.1 cm). The work was inpainted and given a synthetic varnish (an isolating layer of polyvinyl acetate [PVA] AYAA, followed by methacrylate resin L-46, [glossary:inpainting], and a final coat of L-46). In 2008 part of the original tacking margin was found to be delaminating from the lining; this area was consolidated.565

Condition Summary

The painting is in good condition: it is planar with a stable [glossary:wax-resin lining] and an even synthetic varnish. The work is damaged in a few places, and there is some minor age cracking intermittently throughout the figures’ costumes. The overall abraded look of the background is the combined effect of the artist’s wiping away paint layers and damage to the thinly painted areas due to the lining procedure. The lining process also increased the weave impression overall. There are a few minor losses that have been retouched, and there is slightly discolored [glossary:retouching] around the perimeter related to the expansion of the painting’s dimensions during lining.
Kelly Keegan

Frame

Current frame (installed 2003–04): The frame is not original to the painting. It is a French, mid-seventeenth-century, Louis XIII–Louis XIV, carved gilt convex frame with alternating pendent bellflower and flower ornament, bracketed by foliate scrolls connected by strapwork, with acanthus leaves at the miters. The frame has water gilding over red-brown bole on gesso and retains its original gilding, though it has been abraded. The ornament and sight molding are selectively burnished, and the cove is burnished. The carved oak molding is mitered and joined with angled, dovetailed splines. The molding, from the perimeter to the interior, is ovolo with undulating scroll and bellflowers (a miniature version of the inner molding); scotia side; convex face with alternating pendent bellflower and flowers, bracketed by foliate scrolls connected by strapwork, with acanthus leaves at the miters, on a quadrillage bed; hollow frieze; and ogee sight molding with undulating scroll and bellflowers and acanthus leaves at the miters (fig. 2.55).566

Previous frame (installed mid-1960s, removed 2003–04): The painting was previously housed in an American, mid-twentieth-century, Louis XVI reproduction, gilt architrave frame with leaf-tip sight molding and a wide, independent gilt liner. The frame was basswood, mitered and nailed, with heavily rubbed and selectively burnished water gilding over red bole on sprayed gesso (fig. 2.53).567

Previous frame (installed by 1933, removed mid-1960s): The painting was previously housed in a late-nineteenth–early-twentieth-century, Louis XIV reproduction, convex frame with alternating flower and pendent bellflower ornament bracketed by foliate scrolls, and anthemia corner cartouches and floral center cartouches. The frame had water and oil gilding over gesso and cast plaster. The sides were burnished, and the ornament was selectively burnished. The molding was mitered and nailed. The molding, from the perimeter to the interior, was square outer edge; scotia side; convex face with alternating flower and pendent bellflower ornament bracketed by foliate scrolls, and anthemia corner cartouches and floral center cartouches; sanded frieze; ovolo with dentil; cove sight; and an independent fillet liner with cove sight edge (fig. 2.50, fig. 2.54).
Kirk Vuillemot