Claude Monet, Snow Effect at Argenteuil, 1875

Read more about this painting at the associated catalogue entry.

Snow Effect at Argenteuil (20215.13.14) provides us with important information about the working style of Claude Monet and his use of materials, not only from the year this painting was completed, but also the years prior. Completed on fine-weave canvas, the painting corresponds with a standard-format no. 15 paysage, and likely retains its original size and format.¹ Paper tape on all four tacking margins limits visibility; however, there is pronounced cusping on at least the right and bottom margins.² The current stretcher, which was commercially planed and has mortise and tenon joins, appears to be original to the painting.

Compositionally, this painting is nearly identical to Snow at Argenteuil (Fig. 16; about 1874), located at The Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Painted from the same vantage point, the Boston version depicts figures walking through a snow flurry early in the winter season, while the Nelson-Atkins painting is later in the season, with snow on the ground but the warmth of the coming spring present.³ Although the Boston version may have been painted earlier in the winter season, it is slightly larger,⁴ corresponding to a standard-format paysage no. 20,⁵ and it appears somewhat more rendered and detailed than the later Nelson-Atkins version.

Pentimenti found throughout the Nelson-Atkins painting reveal that Monet abandoned an earlier composition and reused the canvas. Within the trees on the right, there is a vertical structure beneath the paint layer, still visible in normal viewing light (Fig. 17). Through infrared reflectography (IRR), two additional vertical shapes were found: one near the right edge of the painting, and one in the center left, peeking out from behind the trees (Fig. 18). In all instances, these shapes are mostly covered with sky and landscape paint, though glimpses of them are visible between compositional elements.

When examining the painting under a microscope, it is clear that these structures were the first elements painted on the Nelson-Atkins version, directly on top of the ground layer, along with other shapes not clearly identifiable with a microscope or IRR. Consulting Monet’s oeuvre for the years prior to 1875 when this composition was completed, the vertical underlying shapes closely resemble his depictions of ship masts in maritime scenes. While it is unlikely the pentimenti in Snow Effect at Argenteuil directly correspond to a specific painting, of his completed and known maritime scenes the proportions and placements of these shapes echo masts in Ships in a Harbor (Fig. 19; about 1873; The Museum of Fine Arts, Boston).⁶ Similar in size, though a different format,⁷ this scene portrays several large ships near one another and filling the canvas so that no view of a distant horizon or land is visible. The ships’ masts span half the height of the canvas or more, similar to the vertical shapes found beneath the paint layers of Snow Effect at Argenteuil.

The similarities between the two compositions become even clearer when accounting for unidentifiable large, dark central shapes detected in IRR. X-radiography revealed some changes in the composition, mostly to the center and left. Although these changes could not be positively identified in relation to compositional forms, their placement falls in line with the hull of a ship. In a digital overlay illustrating the findings in Snow Effect at Argenteuil (Fig. 20), blue lines indicate shapes detected in IRR and red lines indicate shapes detected in x-radiography. While the underlying image appears to be only a painted initial sketch, if the overlay is placed on Ships in a Harbor, the similarities between the shapes becomes clear, with the blue signifying the masts and the red likely signifying the structure of a ship’s hull (Fig. 21).

Monet began work on this canvas by sketching the underlying maritime scene in paint over an off-white ground layer, likely commercially applied.⁸ A few black strokes beneath the foreground paint, identified with a microscope and IRR, may also relate to the earlier composition (Fig. 22). Neither the ship masts nor these black strokes, some of which are “zigzag” in application and may have been placed to reference water,⁹ intermix with the upper paint layers of the current composition. This indicates that enough time had passed between uses of the canvas for the lower paint to dry fully and prevent wet-over-wet application.¹⁰ With the ground layer somewhat visible throughout Snow Effect at Argenteuil, it is clear Monet had only just started the underlying scene before setting the canvas aside. During the years prior to his time in Argenteuil, Monet found himself struggling financially, likely prompting him to retain and reuse a canvas of a composition he had abandoned.^11,12

While there is no overall underdrawing, thin black lines are found throughout the painting and likely relate to a partial underdrawing. These lines appear to have been created with charcoal,¹³ possibly oiled vine charcoal since the lines have been so well preserved.¹⁴ Some pressure was used to apply these lines, as the surrounding oil paint was displaced as they were drawn. In Figure 23, the green overlay corresponds to the charcoal lines and indicates that most relate to the present wintertime scene. Along the building at the left, they appear to relate directly to the current compositional elements of the snow scene, and lie between the blue and brown paint layers of the buildings (Fig. 24). It is not as clear how the charcoal lines on the right side relate to the painting. On this side, they appear to lie below the blue paint of the sky of the current composition and above a lower gray-blue that could relate to the early maritime scene. However, they do not clearly follow any compositional elements of Snow Effect at Argenteuil.

After returning to the canvas, Monet began with the placement of the trees, both to the right and left, covering much of the masts. Initially these trees were laid in quickly with thin scumbles, allowing the off-white ground to show through. The buildings on the left were blocked in but were revisited with the mauve strokes and snowy rooftops added with wet-over-dry application and no blending to the lower paint. The town, sky, and foreground were likely painted together, with each of these elements displaying wet-over-wet paint application at their neighboring junction. At this time, Monet added to the outer branches of the trees, pulling through the still wet paint in the sky (Fig. 25). Within the town, Monet rendered the buildings two different ways. To the left, the windows were added as final details. But to the right, it appears the brown windows were painted first, and then the surrounding yellow of the building was painted, dragging the brown with it in many places (Fig. 26).

The painting is in good condition overall, with a glue-based lining likely from an early date, though there are no records of when this was performed. There is minimal retouching present, with most relating to abrasions along the edges. In 1988, a synthetic varnish was applied, which remains in good condition.

Notes

1. David Bomford, Jo Kirby, John Leighton, and Ashok Roy, Art in the Making: Impressionism (London: Yale University Press, 1991), 46. For more information on French canvas weaves, see also Anthea Callen, The Art of Impressionism: Painting Technique and the Making of Modernity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000), 31–32.

2. Because of the paper tape, it is difficult to determine if cusping is present on the top and left tacking margins.

3. For more information on the series of Argenteuil snow paintings, see the accompanying curatorial entry by Glynnis Napier Stevenson.

4. The Nelson-Atkins painting measures 50.2 x 64.5 centimeters. The Museum of Fine Arts Boston painting measures 54.6 x 73.7 centimeters. “Snow at Argenteuil,” The Museum of Fine Arts Boston, accessed July 27, 2020, https://collections.mfa.org/objects/31899/snow-at-argenteuil?ctx=509c6320-c57a-4933-b444-74faf1e92736&idx=18.

5. Callen, The Art of Impressionism, 15.

6. From the mid-1860s to the mid-1870s, Monet moved frequently, often finding himself in port cities such as Honfleur and Le Havre. During this time, he painting many scenes of ships and shipyards, with Ships in a Harbor being one example. Monet: The Early Years (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2017), 71–77.

7. The Museum of Fine Arts Boston painting Ships in a Harbor measures 49.8 x 61.0 centimeters, which roughly corresponds to a standard-format no. 12 portrait. “Ships in Harbor,” The Museum of Fine Arts Boston, accessed August 8, 2020, https://collections.mfa.org/objects/31270/ships-in-a-harbor?ctx=521deba2-9cf4-4795-84a9-c9560ca94b83&idx=5. See also Callen, The Art of Impressionism, 15.

8. Monet frequently purchased canvases with commercial grounds. Although he often applied a second tinted ground, paper tape around the tacking margins of the Nelson-Atkins painting makes it difficult to definitely state whether he followed this practice on Snow Effect at Argenteuil. The painting’s ground layer is off-white in color, and it is possible that no second layer was added by the artist. Bomford et al., Art in the Making: Impressionism, 144–45.

9. Wavy or “zigzag” brushstrokes are not uncommon for Monet’s representation of water and have been previously described in relation to his Bathing at La Grenouillère (1869; National Gallery, London). Anthea Callen, Techniques of the Impressionists (London: Tiger Books International, 1988), 56.

10. Most of the black strokes found in the foreground are beneath the current composition and thus have wet-onto-dry application. However, there is one black stroke in the center of the foreground that was painted contemporaneous to the current composition.

11. During the late 1860s Monet had immense financial struggles, frequently borrowing money from family and attempting suicide in 1868 because of his debts. Kermit Swiler Champa, Studies in Early Impressionism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1973), 22–24. It was not until Monet fled to London in 1870 that he met the dealer Paul Durand-Ruel and became more financially stable. George T. M. Shackelford, Monet: The Early Years (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2017), 174. For a more complete timeline of Monet’s career, see pages 72–79.

12. Although Monet had become more financially stable after meeting Durand-Ruel, he continued to struggle with sales. For a discussion on Monet’s financial status in the 1870s, see the accompanying curatorial entry by Glynnis Napier Stevenson.

13. While the academic tradition of underdrawing was not a fundamental concern for Monet, quick and sporadic charcoal lines for shape placements are present on some of his paintings, such as Houses by the Bank of the River Zaan (1871; Städel Museum). Felix Kramer, ed., Monet and the Birth of Impressionism (Munich: Prestel, 2015), 261–62.

14. Oiled vine charcoal has stronger binding properties than compressed charcoal, allowing for its possible preservation through restoration or conservation campaigns. Paul Goldman, Looking at Prints, Drawings and Watercolours (Los Angeles: The British Museum Press, 2006), 20.