A ghost of a portrait Authenticating Symphony in White. Girl in muslin dress
A
Elsemieke van Rietschoten
First supervisor dr. Arjan de Koomen│Second supervisor em. prof. Arie Wallert │ Department of Art History │ University of Amsterdam │ July 2017
0
A ghost of a portrait
Authenticating Symphony in White. Girl in muslin dress
Final thesis
In order to obtain the degree of ‘Master of Arts’ at the Department of Art History of the University of Amsterdam Written under supervision of dr. Arjan de Koomen and em. prof. Arie Wallert
July 2017
Elsemieke van Rietschoten 10120696
1
Plate 1: James McNeill Whistler (Circle off), Symphony in White. Girl in muslin dress, oil on canvas, Singer Laren, inv.56- 1-377.
2
INDEX
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 5
INTRODUCTION: ‘Predicting the Past’ 6
Whistler and his legacy 7 Cataloguing Whistler 8 Technical analysis in relation to the attribution of oil paintings 9 Structure 10
CHAPTER 1: ‘A three–quarter length of a lady in white’, Pedigree: art historical source research 11
1.1 Methodology 12 1.2 ‘A remarkable find’: 1910 13 1.2.1 Joseph and Elizabeth Pennell: The Whistler journal 13 1.2.2 ‘Fifty roles of canvases’: Dowdeswell and Dowdeswell Ltd 14 1.2.3 ‘The Lady’ and á second hand books dealer’ 15 1.3 ‘L’affaire Greaves’: 1911 16 1.4 ‘Arrangement in black and white a bankruptcy petition’: 1879 18 1.4.1 ‘A few intelligent people’: The Pennells and the disappearance of paintings 19 1.4.2 ‘Rags and destroyed canvases’: the destruction of canvases 19 1.4.3 The Paintings of James McNeill Whistler and the Dowdeswell pictures 20 1.5 ‘Symphony in White (The white girl in muslin dress) 21 1.6 Conclusion 23
CHAPTER 2: ‘The headless woman’, James Mc Neill Whistler: Technical examination and stylistic comparison 24
2.1 Methodology 26 2.2 Substrate 28 2.3 Ground 30 2.3.1 Composition and celestine as a material marker 30 2.4 Paint layers 33 2.4.1 The pink dress and paint handling 35 2.4.2 The curtain and difference in finish 36 2.5 Restorations 38 2.6 Conclusion 39
CHAPTER 3: ‘Miscellaneous Walter Greaves’, Stylistic comparison 40
3.1 Methodology 41 3.2 Walter Greaves in Whistler’s studio 42 3.2.1 The Satellites 43 3.3 Walter Greaves the artist 45 3.3.1 Greaves portraits 45 3.4 Conclusion 48
CONCLUSION: The past predicted? 49
3
BIBLIOGRAPHY 52 Online Sources 57
Attachment I, LC Whistler Collection 58 Attachment II, YMSM, Paintings involved in the bankruptcy 61 Attachment III, Visual Examination 67 Attachment IV, Digital Microscopy, surface examination 74 Attachment V, Infrared and X-ray image 83 Attachment VI, Macro X-ray Fluorescence Scanning 84 Attachment VII, X-ray fluorescence Spectrometry 92 Attachment VIII, Scanning Electron Microscopy with EDX attachment 93 Attachment IX, Gas chromatography–mass spectrometry 99 Attachment X, Examination of The Blue Girl 101 Attachment XI, Oil Paintings Exhibited in the 1911 Groupil Gallery Exhibition 102 Attachment XII, Witt Reference Library, The Courthold Intitute of Art 111 Attachment XIII, Visual examination, Whistler on the widow’s walk 117 Attachment XIV, Examination Nocturne 118 Attachment VX, Cross-sections 119
4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my gratitude to the people who have contributed to this study. At first I would like to thank Arie Wallert, who provided the opportunity to work on this project and guided me through it very patiently. Secondly I would like to thank Jan Rudloph de Lorm and Anne van Lienden from the Singer Laren. They entrusted this project to me and familiarised me with the Singer collection. I especially would like to thank Margaret MacDonald who shared her life time of Whistler knowledge with me. The Hunterian Art Gallery provided the opportunity to study their Whistlers. Erma Hermes assisted with the technical analysis on site and kindly shared the result of her students with us. Much of the technical research presented in this thesis would not have been possible without the guidance of specialist from the Rijksdienst voor Cultureel Erfgoed (RCE), University of Antwerp (UA) and the Rijksmuseum. Henk van Keulen (RCE) conducted the GS-MS analysis and explained the process to me very thoroughly. Ineke Jansen (RCE) helped me to answer some important questions by conducting GC-MS analysis. Geert van der Snickt and Stijn Legrand UA, conducted MA-XRF analysis which provided important information about the development of the picture. Furthermore I would like to thank all of the restorers and interns working at the Rijksmuseum during my internship for their interest in this project as well as their practical advice; especially Gwen Touber who guided me through the first difficult weeks. Margriet Eikema Hommes and Tatjana van Run very kindly provided me with their cross-section form, which made studying them much easier. Gwendolyn Boevé-Jones, Redivivus took a lot of time discussing the picture with me. Her findings were very helpful in understanding the condition of the picture. Although ultimately I have not been able to further the line of enquiry, I would like to thank Bianca du Mortier for helping me understand some of the fashion aspects of the picture. Jenny Reynaerts gave an introduction into pedigree research for which I am very grateful. I would like to thank Karen de Vries and Eric Keck for attentively reading and correcting some of my drafts. On a more personal note I would like to thank Dorien Rots who proved a safe haven during the process of writing this thesis.
5
INTRODUCTION ‘Predicting the Past’
In the documentary Jheronimus Bosch – Touched By the Devil (Pieter van Huystee 2016) John Oliver Hand, curator of northern Renaissance paintings at the National Gallery of Art, Washington remarks ‘what we do as art historians is predict the past’. Art history rarely deals in hard facts, but rather interprets fragments of history. The attribution of works of art is no exception and is often the result of intense scholarly debate. Symphony in White. Girl in muslin dress (unsigned) has been part of the Singer Laren collection since Anna Spencer-Brugh (1878-1962) founded the museum in 1956. The museum’s first catalogue, as well as the 1962 collection catalogue list the painting as ‘by James McNeill Whistler’.1 However when the Singer museum hosted a Whistler exhibition in 1976 the picture was omitted.2 In the most recent collection catalogue the ‘Lady in white’ has been classed as ‘Whistler, circle off’.3 Furthermore the Singer picture has not been included in the catalogue raisonné of Whistler’s oil paintings The paintings of James McNeill Whistler (1980).4 In 1997 prof. Margareth McDonald, prominent Whistler scholar and compiler of the oeuvre catalogue, visited the museum. She expressed doubt about the portrait and consequently it was de- attributed by the Singer museum. When Jan Rudolph de Lorm was appointed director of the museum in 2009 he discovered the painting in the museum’s depot and felt the de-attribution might have robbed the Singer of a Whistler. Together with prof. Arie Wallert, Rijksmuseumchair Atelier Practice, University of Amsterdam, De Lorm instigated new research into the attribution of girl in muslin dress. They asked the challenging question: Can we attribute Symphony in White. Girl in muslin dress to James Mc Neill Whistler? The phrasing of this question contains the hypothesis that the painting was indeed made by Whistler. The picture is exhibited in a reeded cushion frame.5 The gilding is applied directly onto the wood. This style of frame is usually associated with the works of Whistler. In The Art of the Picture Frame: Artists, Patrons and the Framing of Portraits in Britain (1997) Jacob Simons defines the Whistler frame as:
‘A reeded frame, named after the painter James McNeill Whistler, current from the1870s onwards, found either as a flat frame with inner and outer reeded bands, or as a reeded cushion frame, usually gilt directly onto oak’6
Sara Lawrence Parkerson’s PhD thesis Variations in gold: the stylistic development of the picture frames used by James McNeill Whistler (2007) details the function and development of the Whistler frame. The reeded cushion frame was produced from the 1890’s onward by Whistler’s frame maker Frederick Henry Grau. In 1892 Whistler described the Grau style frame as the 'true pattern' and 'worthy' of his work.7 When Arrangement in Grey and Black, No.2: Portrait of Thomas Carlyle entered the Glasgow City Museum Collection in 1891 Whistler stipulated the painting should always be exhibited within this style of frame since he considered it the only frame suitable for ‘a public gallery’.8
1 -, Singer memorial foundation museum catalogues, Laren 1956, cat. 140 fig, p 140. -, Singer memorial foundation museum catalogues, Laren 1962, cat. 538 fig. 20. 2 -, James Abbot McNeill Whistler, Schilderijen, tekeningen, pastels, aquarellen, etsen, litho’s uit de university art collections, Glasgow, Exh. Cat. Singer museum Laren n.h. 15 mei t/m 13 juni 1976. 3 See: Ann Blockland, Jaqueline de Raad, Emke Raassen-Kruimel et. All.., Collectie Singer Schilderijen, Singer museum, Zwolle 2002, cat. 643. 4 Andrew McLaren Young, Margaret MacDonald, Robin Spencer and Hamish Miles, The Paintings of James McNeill Whistler, London & New Haven 1980 [YMSM]. 5 See: Attachment III, Visual Examination, fig 1 and 2. 6 Sara Lawrence Parkerson, Variations in Bold: The Stylistic Development of the Pictures Frames used by James McNeill Whistler, Phd Thesis University of Glasgow 2007, p 253. 7 James Whistler to Edward Guthrie Kennedy, [13 June 1892], NYPL E.G. Kennedy 1119; Glasgow University: Whistler [GUW] 09685. 8 Lawrence Parkerson 2007: p 206. YMSM: 137.
6
The archetypal frame was one of the reasons to reinvestigate the attribution of the picture. The frame itself is altered to fit the painting. The corner blocks at the back of the frame have been shortened.9 The right sided rail of the frame shows dullness caused by dust, while the bottom rail is shinier . Dust usually accumulates on the bottom of the frame causing the guiding to go dull. Since within this frame the bottom rail is shinier than the side rail, it seems the frame is constructed from the parts of a much larger frame.10 Although certainly interesting, this thesis does not include the frame because in its earliest description the painting is described as part of a group of rolled-up canvases torn from their stretchers. James McNeill Whistler claimed he could distinguish a Velasquez from a fake just by looking at it. When someone showed him an alleged Velasquez he dismissed it after a glance and reportedly stated “I always swoon when I see a Velazquez.”11 However, swooning is not enough in attributing works of art. Technical analysis was used to study the material aspect of the Singer picture. As part of an internship with prof. Arie Wallert at the Rijksmuseum I have been involved in most of the scientific analysis. In this thesis I focus on the interpretation of these technical data in relation to the attribution of the Singer picture.
Whistler and his legacy
During his career the American born artist James McNeill Whistler travelled between two of the great art centres of nineteenth century Europe: London and Paris. His outspoken personality made him a central figure in a wide-ranging circle of artists, such as the French Realists, Pre-Raphaelites and Impressionists. His art was influenced by Japonism and the Aesthetic Movement as well as the works of Rembrandt, Halls and Velasquez. Whistler worked in different media. He experimented with lithography, pastel and watercolour, however he is most well-known for his etchings and works in oil.12 In 1878 Whistler sued the revered art critic John Ruskin for libel.13 Ruskin had accused Whistler of ‘flinging a pot of paint in the public’s face’.14 The court case centred around the relationship between labour and monetary value as well as the definition of ‘finish’ in painting. The Ruskin trail firmly established Whistlers reputation as a professional trouble maker. One can say he cultivated his talent for controversy. His published account of the Ruskin trail was titled The Gentle Art of Making Enemy’s (1890).15 He dedicated it to ‘the rare few, who early in life, have rid themselves of the friendship of the many’.16 Controversy and dispute followed the artist during his lifetime as well as after it. Whistler’s ward and executrix Rosalind Birnie Philip (1873–1958) and his biographers Joseph Pennell (1857-1926) and his wife Elizabeth Robins Pennell (1855-1936) disagreed on how to represent the diseased.17 The Pennell’s wanted to write an extensive biography that discussed Whistler the person, as well as his art. They argued Whistler authorised the biography during his life. However Birnie Philip believed Whistler never intended for his personal life to be discussed so explicitly. She remained adamant his dying wish had been ‘that no life should be written’.18 Both parties claimed precedence and the argument was settled in court. As his
9 Oral communication Huub Baija, Senior Conservator of Frames and Gilding, Rijksmuseum Amsterdam. See: Attachment III, Visual Examination, fig 3 and 4. 10 Oral communication, frame restorer Singer Laren. 11 See Donald D Spencer ed., The Expert Versus the Object: Judging Fakes and False Attributions in the visual art, Oxford 2004, p xv. 12 See: YMSM, Nesta Spink, Harriet Stratis and Martha Tedeschi, The Lithographs of James McNeill Whistler. A Catalogue Raisonné, Art Institute of Chicago, 1998. Margaret MacDonald, James McNeill Whistler: Drawings, Pastels and Watercolours. A Catalogue Raisonné, London & New Haven, 1995 [M]. Margaret MacDonald, Grischka Petri, Meg Hausberg, and Joanna Meacock, James McNeill Whistler: The Etchings, a catalogue raisonné, University of Glasgow, 2012, on-line edition at
7 ward Birnie Philip guarded Whistler’s personal correspondence. Therefore the lawsuit addressed two issues: The first being the nature of Whistler’s consent, and the second - the issue of copyright. The judge ruled in favour of the Pennell’s in the first issue however they were not allowed to ‘published Whistler’s correspondence verbatim’.19 The dispute brought about a permanent rift between those who had known Whistler during his life. Birnie Philip gained the support of Charles Lang Freer (1858-1919) a wealthy Detroit business man whom met Whistler in 1890. He would come to build the most extensive collection of works by Whistler.20 Additionally the Pennell’s were supported by many of Whistler’s surviving family and friends. Among them Hellen Euphrosyne Whistler (1817-1888) Whistlers sister in law and confidant and William Heineman (1863-1920) who published ‘The Gentle Art’ as well as ‘The Life’. Freer repeatedly referred to the ‘Freer Syndicated’ against the ‘Pennell-Heinemann Syndicate’.21 When Rosalind Birnie Philip lent pictures to the Metropolitan museum of Art, she wrote a letter to express her discontent. ‘The Life’ was mentioned in the exhibition catalogue against her explicit wishes.22
Cataloguing Whistler
The first attempt in cataloguing Whistlers paintings in oil was made by Elizabeth Luther Cary in The works of James McNeill Whistler (1907).23 She published an incomplete list of 528 works in ‘in oil and in water colour, pastels and drawings’. She explains her choices as follows:
‘In the subjoined list no claim is made either to comprehensiveness or to complete accuracy. In spite of the kindness of many owners of Whistler’s pictures in furnishing data concerning them, the reluctance of unresponsiveness of others has made it impossible to carry the list beyond what may be considered merely the nucleus for a better one’ 24 Bernard Sickert’s monography of the artist Whistler (1908) included an equally incomplete list of 190 oil paintings.25 Sickert explains his choices as follows:
‘It is not to be expected that a catalogue of Whistler’s oil pictures can be as yet drawn up, both complete and correct. I have not attempted to make it couplet, as the inclusion of all the slighter works, the “Notes, Harmonies, Caprices.” etc., would swell the book disproportionately.’26 The Pennells planned to supplement their biography with a catalogue of Whistler’s works. Their initial intention was to ‘publish one volume of biography and one dealing with Whistler’s work which naturally […] could not be complete if it did not include a catalogue’.27 According to Elizabeth their catalogue would distinguish itself from others because none of Whistler’s works would be included without a proper pedigree.28 However the catalogue never materialised29. Ultimately Elisabeth published The art of Whistler (1928). It appears to be written to guard Whistler’s position in a world of rapidly developing isms rather than as a critical discussion of his art.30 The publication does not include a list of works by Whistler, it discusses his works thematically.
19 Ibid, p 346. 20 On the Freer/Sacler Whistler collection see: Thomas Lawton and Linda Merrill, Freer, A Legacy of Art, Washington D.C. 1993, p 31-59. 21 Kimberly Morse Jones, Elizabeth Robins Pennell, Nineteenth-Century Pioneer of Modern Art Criticism, Dorchester 2015, p. 113. 22 Rosalind Birnie Philip to Edward Robinson, [June 21, 1910], Glasgow University Library (GUL), MS Whistler P540. 23 Elisabeth Luther Cary, The works of James McNeill Whistler, New York and London 1907, p 149-231. 24 Ibid, p 149. 25 Bernhard Sickert, Whistler, London and New York, 1908, p 137-175. 26 Ibid, p 137. 27 YMSM, p XIV. 28 Morse Jones 2015: p 114. 29 Ibid, p 113. 30 Elizabeth Robins Pennell, The Art of Whistler, New York 1928, p ix-xiv.
8
In 1945 Joseph Whistler Revillon (1886-1955), Whistler’s great-nephew, started to compile a list of Whistler’s paintings in oil. With the help of Frederic Coburn (d. 1953), the curator of the Whistler House at Lowell, Massachusetts, Revillon listed most of the paintings by, or ascribed to Whistler. Additionally he collected a mass of data and photographs. Due to his untimely death on 1955 the catalogue remained unpublished. The date compiled by Revillon formed the basis of the 1908 catalogue. The Paintings of James McNeill Whistler includes 595 paintings. The compilers explain their criteria for including or excluding pictures as follows:
‘It has been our aim to record all the oil paintings Whistler can be shown to have started, including those which are no longer extant and those which Whistler either abandoned or destroyed. We have catalogued all paintings by Whistler exhibited in his lifetime-and in the memorial exhibition of 1904 and 1905 – also all paintings ascribed to him during his lifetime, as recorded by photographs or in manuscripts, press cuttings and other published sources of first-hand information in addition, we have included a number of paintings not recorded, but which on visual evidence, we believe to be his work. We have not, however catalogued paintings first recorded after Whistler’s death, which have since disappeared, and for which there is no corroboration of authenticity.’31 The criteria for inclusion seem to be based on provenance research as well as stylistic connoisseurship.
Technical analysis in relation to the attribution of oil paintings.
When the provenance of a picture is questionable or incomplete the attribution of paintings enters the domain of the connoisseur. Traditional connoisseurship relies on the ability, acquired by experience, to distinguish the hand of a painter. By recognising idiosyncrasies particular to a given artists work the connoisseur establishes a mental image of the signature style characteristic for a given artist. Scientific analyses provided new tools in regard to the attribution of paintings.32 However science is often better at excluding than including. For example by comparing pigment analyses with pigment chronologies it is possible to distinguish between originals and fakes or forgeries. Deciding if a work is by the master or by one of his students or followers is infinitely more difficult. In the attribution of works of art, art-historical documentation, (stylistic) connoisseurship and technical or scientific analysis are complementary, all steps are necessary aspects of best practices in authentication and attribution. One should realise that scientific data often relies as much on interpretation and context, as do more traditional methods of art historical research do. Technical analysis will however enable us to understand peculiarities that are specific to a given artist. Daniel Varny Thompson accurately described technique in relation to the art of painting in ‘The Materials and Techniques of Medieval Painting’:
‘for techniques means materials and tools in action, and the essence of technical study is the recognition of those systematic methods which combine taste and knowledge and competence, born of professional and individual experience.’33 Within this thesis stylistic features are treated as a direct result of materials and technique. This means composition, the use of colour and the balance of light and shade receive less attention.
31 YMSM, p XV. 32 On the use of scientific analysis in relation to the attribution of paintings see: Rustin S. Levenson, ‘Examining the Techniques and Materials of Paintings’ in: Donald D. Spencer (ed.), The Expert Versus the Object: Judging Fakes and False Attributions in the visual art, Oxford 2004, p 11-125. Sylvana Barrett and Dusan C. Stulik, ‘An Integrated Approach for the Study of Painting Techniques’, in: Erma Hermens and Arie Wallert (ed.), Historical painting techniques materials and studio practice, Los Angeles 1995, p 6-11. College Art Association, ‘Authentications and Attributions’, online edition
9
Structure
Chapter 1 discusses the provenance and the history of attribution of Symphony in White. Chapter 2 details the results of technical analysis focusing on the condition of the picture as well as stylistic features associated with Whistler’s painting technique. Chapter 3 discusses a second possible author of the picture.
10
CHAPTER 1
‘A three–quarter length of a lady in white’
Pedigree: art historical source research
The entries of the 1956 and 1962 Singer collection catalogues suggest Symphony in White. Girl in muslin dress entered the Singer Laren collection as a Whistler. The museum was founded in 1956 by Anna Singer-Burgh (1878-1962) in memory of her late husband William Singer (1868-1943) who was an art collector and artist in his own right. Together the Singers amassed a large collection of figurative art. Between 1900 and 1940 they collected 3000 paintings as well as works on paper and sculptures. Anna bequeathed a large part of their private collection to the museum in 1956. Symphony in White was part of that original bequest. The Singers mainly collected the work of artist friends. They became interested in American impressionism when they visited the artist colony of Old Lyme in 1907. They met leading impressionists such as Childe Hassam (1859-1935).34 Among others they bought works by Willard Leroy Metcalf (1858- 1925) and Lawton Parker (1868-1954).35 Both Hassam and Metcalf were influenced by Whistler.36 When he died in 1903 Whistler had reached the status of ‘a modern old master’. Lawton Parker briefly was a student of Whistler when he studied at the Académie Carmen where Whistler was a visiting professor.37 William and Anna must have seen the works of Whistler at the Annual Internationals held at the Carnegie institute in Pittsburgh. The first time William Singer himself was elected to exhibit was at the International of 1900. He was represented by Evening Landscape (cat. no. 223) and A Spring Freshet (cat. no. 224) while Whistler exhibited his Trouville Beach (cat. no. 259).38 From 1897 to 1901 Whistler was part of the Paris foreign advisory committee that helped to select the paintings chosen for exhibition.39 Furthermore the Singer collection houses four etching’s ascribed to Whistler.40 Within the museum archive very little information about the provenance of the picture is preserved. The museum records yielded no clue into when, where and from whom the picture was acquired. This first chapter will discuss the pedigree of Girl in muslin dress as well as the history of attribution. Who owned the picture and to whom was the picture attributed in the past?
34 Helen Schretlen, Loving Art, De William & Anna Singer Collection, Zwolle 2006, p 116. 35 For a summary of the works by Childe Hassam, Willard Leroy Metcalf and Lawson Parker in the Singer collection see Schretlen 2006: p 219, 224 and 226. 36 See: Linda Merrill, Robyn Asleson, Lee Glazer, Lacey Taylor Jordan, (et. al.), After Whistler, The Artist and His Influence on American Painting, Exh. Cat. High Museum of Art, Atlanta 2003, p 106, 126, 128, 178, 194-197, 218 and 252 n 239. For Whistler’s influence of Childe Hassam see: Helene Barbara Weinberg and Elizabeth E. Barke, Childe Hassam, American Impressionist, exh. cat. Metropolitan Museum of Art New York 2004, p 31, 59, 122, 129, 144, 179, 205, 212, 262, 273, 279, 302, 327, 347-48 and 355. 37 See: Merrill, Asleson,Glazer and Taylor Jordan 2003: p 84 n 30. 38 Schretlen 2006: p 112. Cat. Fifth Annual Exhibition, Carnegie Institute Pittsburgh 1900, p 75 and 87. 39 Cat. The Second Annual exhibition, Carnegie Institute Pittsburgh 1897, p 6. Cat. The Third Annual Exhibition, Carnegie Institute Pittsburgh 1898, p 6. Cat. The Fourth Annual Exhibition, Carnegie Institute Pittsburgh 1899, p 6. Cat. The Fifth Annual Exhibition, Carnegie Institute Pittsburgh 1900, p 6. The Sixth Annual Exhibition, Carnegie Institute Pittsburgh 1901, p 6. 40 The Sick Person 1858, Etching on paper, 14.4x9.2 cm, SL56-1629. Mealtime 1859, Etching on paper 15,2x22,7 cm, SL 56-1-628. Woman in an Interior 1858, Etching on paper, 20,6x14,7 cm, SL 56-1-630. Sailboats 1878, Etching on paper, 20,6x14,7 cm, 56-1- 711. G: none of these etchings appears to be included.
11
1.1 Methodology
As in many cases the back of the painting seemed to hold the best clue into uncovering who previously owned the painting as well as to whom it was ascribed in the past. Four labels are attached to the back of the stretcher (see attachment III). One label originates from the Singer museum collection. The other labels suggest the painting was exhibited at the Grosvenor Gallery, the United Art Gallery and an exhibition titled Exhibition of Paintings, Watercolours, Pastels, Etchings and Lithographs, by the late James Mc Niell Whistler. The latter even mentions the name of a previous owner E. Ellis. However, the label also misspelled the artists name in print. It reads McNiell instead of McNeill. Harmony in White and Blue, a painting with a similar history as the Girl in muslin dress and currently ascribed to Whistler, reportedly carries the same Grosvenor and United Art Gallery labels as the Singer picture.41 However, the painting could not be traced in the Grosvenor exhibition catalogues. Additionally, there are no records of the Exhibition of Paintings, Watercolours, Pastels, Etchings and Lithographs that I know off. The authenticity of these labels must therefore be called into question. Art historical source research provided insight into the provenance of the picture. In What is a Whistler? Margaret McDonald describes the ‘network of association’ that is important in establishing the artist signature style. Provenance, technique and documentation are considered as important factors in attribution. 42 Although Whistler kept no records his works and life are well documented. McDonald mentions ‘ten thousand letters, hundreds of books, thousands of articles, exhibition catalogues, and press cuttings, as well as the catalogues raisonné’.’43 Most of the primary material relating to Whistler is housed in the Glasgow University Library. Rosalind Birnie Philip bequeathed Whistler’s estate to the University in 1935 and 1958 respectively. The estate contained works of art as well as Whistler’s personal correspondence and catalogues, press cuttings and photographs.44 Together with the Freer Gallery of Art at the Smithsonian institute, the Hunterian Art Gallery at the University of Glasgow hold the foremost collections of works of art by James McNeill Whistler.45 These institutions work in partnership to further research and publication on Whistler and his art. After the outcome of the legal proceedings the Pennell’s decided to start their own collection of Whistler correspondence. It is housed in the Library of Congress together with the material the Pennell’s amassed while studying the artist.46 This material provides the backbone of all Whistler studies. This thesis uses The Correspondence of James Mc Neill Whistler which is published online. The database contains the surviving correspondence from and to the artist. The database covers the period from 1855 to 1903. Letters from the University of Glasgow as well as the Library of Congress and other institutions world-wide are represented in the database.47 A visit to the University of Glasgow provided additional information. Other relevant sources are discussed in the text as well as in the footnotes.
41 Harmony in White and Blue, oil on canvas, 209.5 x 87,5 cm, Leeds City Art Gallery, YMSM No 126. According Margaret MacDonald A grey day, Battersea by Walter Greaves, from the Art Gallery, New south Wales (inv. 8060 ) has the same labels on the back. However, after contacting the Museum, they informed me these labels are not on the back of the picture. Email 17-02- 2016. 42 Margaret MacDonald, ‘What is a Whistler?’ in: Lee Glazer, Margaret F, MacDonald, Linda Merrill and Nigel Thorp (ed.), James Mc Neill Whistler in context, essays from the Whistler centenary symposium university of Glasgow, 2003, Freer Gallery of Art occasional papers, New series vol. 2, Washington D.C. 2008, p 1-19. 43 Ibid, p1. 44 Whistler Archive, University of Glasgow Library Glasgow, Special collections, call number MS Whistler. 45 See: Glazer, MacDonald, Merrill and Thorp (ed.) 2008: I-VI. 46Pennell-Whistler collection 1597-1937, Library of Congress Washington D. C., Manuscript Division, call number 20540. 47 The Correspondence of James McNeill Whistler, The University of Glasgow, 2003-2010, online edition [GUW],
12
1.2 ‘A remarkable find’: 1910
The first tangible evidence into uncovering the past of the picture is a passage within the Whistler journal by Joseph and Elisabeth Pennell. The record of Monday the nineteenth of September 1910 records the Pennell’s visit to a restorer’s studio where they see a ‘three-quarter length of a lady in white’. They recall the dark hair ‘rolled up on top of her head’ and short upper lip of the woman portrayed as well as the greenish/black curtain in the background.
On a smaller canvas was a three-quarter length of a lady in white, the dress in the fashion of the Sixties. She is standing in the centre of the canvas, turned full face, she is dark, her short upper lip shows her teeth, and her black hair is rolled up on the top of her head […] Her arms hang at her sides and around the wrists are curious deep cuffs or wristbands of some thicker and heavier white muslin. She stands against a greenish black curtain, rather elaborately finished in comparison with the figure which is not carried very far, and the face which is hardly more than rubbed in.48
The Pennell’s description of the three-quarter length of a lady accurately describes the Singer picture.
1.2.1 Joseph and Elizabeth Pennell: The Whistler journal
The Whistler journal was begun in 1900 when Whistler granted the Pennell’s permission to write his biography. They regularly met with the artist to discuss his life and work until his death in 1903. After Whistler’s death the Pennells appealed to many members of his family, friends and acquaintances to share with them all they remembered about the artist. Elizabeth kept notes of their activities within her journal. The Pennells considered the journal ‘the foundation upon which the biography was built’ and as such they believed it contained much information that had not been relevant to the biography, but might be of interest to the reader.49 The original journal was edited and published as The Whistler journal (1921). To the Pennells Whistler was no mere mortal, he was a god among men, an artist above artist. Their biography does not describe a life, but The Life. In referring to Vasari’s famous Le Vite, the Pennells imply the historiography of contemporary art only needed one biography, that of James McNeill Whistler. Daniel V. Sutherland ends his recent biography Whistler a life for art’s sake (2014) not in 1903 the year of Whistler’s death, but in 1908 the year the Pennells published their biography.50 The Life has been accused of being a hagiography rather than a biography.51 Katharine A. Lochnan argued it was time to release Whistler from the grip off the Pennells however she acknowledged The Life and The Whistler Journal contain much good information.52 The extensive nature of The Life makes it the factual basis for many Whistlerian studies.53 The Whistler journal is arranged by subject in a loosely chronological manner. It is centred around the journal entries from 1900-1903 but it also contains relevant notes from before and after this period. The entries are supplemented by contemporary reflections of the authors. Although The Whistler Journal was published in 1921, eleven years after seeing the painting, it is based on the original writings by Elisabeth. The description of the ‘three quarter length of a ‘lady in white’ has been included unaltered.54 The portrait of a woman in white was part of a group of about fifty roles of canvas acquired by the
48 Elisabeth Robins Pennell and Joseph Pennell, The Whistler journal, Philadelphia 1921, p 132. Record for Monday, September 19th, 1910. 49 Elisabeth Robins Pennell and Joseph Pennell 1921: p v. 50 Sutherland 2014: p 343-47. 51 Katherine A. Lochnan, ‘Understanding Whistler’, Newsletter of the Victorian Studies Association of Western Canada 10, vol 10 no 1 1984, p 3. 52 Ibid. 53 See for instance: Roy McMullin, Victorian Outsider: A Biography of J.A.M. Whistler, New York 1973, p 13. YMSM, I. 54 ‘Entry for 19-09-1910, The Whistler Journal; unpublished catalogue manuscript, Box 353, Pennell-Whistler collection, 1597-1937, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress Washington, D.C. See Attachment I.
13
London art dealer Walter Dowdeswell (1858-1929).55 Walter had written to Elisabeth that ‘he had something of extraordinary interest’ that he wished to show the Pennells. He had come into the possession of ‘some fifty canvases’ he believed to be by Whistler. The journal entry of Thursday September the 15th 1910 records their first visit to his gallery. They viewed several paintings that day. In the following week they would regularly meet with Dowdeswell to inspect other paintings that at the time were being restored. Among them Symphony in White.
1.2.2 ‘Fifty roles of canvases’: Dowdeswell and Dowdeswell Ltd.
Charles William Dowdeswell (1832- 1915) - Walters father - had operated a frame making and print shop until he opened his own gallery. Walter worked with his father until 1912 when he left to work with the London art dealer Joseph Duveen.56 The Dowdeswells knew Whistler personally.57 The firm had dealt in his pictures during his life time.58 The gallery hosted two of Whistlers one-man shows 'Notes' - 'Harmonies' - 'Nocturnes' in 1884, and An Arrangement in Brown and Gold in 1886. Walter Dowdeswell even wrote an article simply titled Whistler.59 Mortimer Menpes who became Whistler’s pupil in 1880 described the father and son’s commitment to furthering Whistler’s career: ‘I must mention the splendid way in which the Messrs. Dowdeswell […] fought for Whistler in those early days, when his work was misunderstood and undervalued.’60 The firm left no archival records, but the Pennells recorded their visits to the Dowdeswells in the Whistler Journal.61 On their first visit to the gallery the Pennells expressed doubt about some of the paintings. Elizabeth sums up her husband’s findings. There was no doubt about the authenticity of some of the paintings but he didn’t believe in others and was ‘doubtful’ and ‘more skeptical’ about some of the others.62 On first seeing the ‘three quarter length of a lady in white’ they describe it as ‘much less interesting’ than the other picture present in the restorer’s studio, but they do not seem to doubt the attribution to Whistler explicitly. In their contemporary reflection the Pennells note these canvases were submitted to several ‘people who know him [Whistler]’. According to the Pennells they were ‘bewildered, certain that some were Whistler’s, uncertain about others, struck […] by the difference in quality, many of the paintings being as commonplace as many were masterly.’ 63 When Dowdeswell bought the pictures they had been in ‘a shocking bad condition and had had to be cleaned and restored’.64 The Pennell’s did not favor the restoration of these paintings complaining ‘Restoration usually means destruction’.65 They note their hesitation in attributing some of these works to Whistler might be due to the restoration they had undergone.66 It appears the pictures had already been removed from their stretchers because the journal consistently mentions roles of canvas.67 Furthermore
55 Elisabeth Robins Pennell and Joseph Pennell 1921: p 125 56 About Dowdesewell and Dowdeswell see: Pamela Fletcher and David Israel, London Gallery Project, 2012*2007, [LGP], ‘Dowdeswell and Dowdeswell Ltd.’
14 the Pennells reported paintings returning from the liner.68 It appears most of the pictures were lined during this period.
1.2.3 ‘The Lady’ and ‘a second-hand book dealer’.
The Dowdeswell’s acquired these canvases through Frida Strindberg born Uhl (1872-1943). The lady, as she is first called within the journal, has had a tumultuous life. The former wife of the Swedish playwright August Strindberg (1849-1912) resorted to London after firing a pistol in a Viennese hotel on New Year’s Day 1908. She appears to have supplemented her income by buying and selling art.69 The transaction as described by Walter Dowdeswell is included in The Whistler Journal.
At last Dowdeswell told the story. A lady who brings them things occasionally, told them of rolls which she had bought for nothing from a second-hand book seller for the sake of one old English picture which she recognized for what it was and sold to somebody in Munich. The Dowdeswell’s looked over the rolls. The paintings were shockingly dirty but they saw passages that were unmistakably Whistler and they bought them and she brought more which they bought too; they have about fifty in all; and, really, it was difficult to know how to pay her for she didn’t know the value and asked nothing, and they knew the value and felt they should pay her more than she asked, and the end was she felt as if they made her fortune for her, thought I gathered that her eyes were enough opened to make them pay more for the second than the first lot.70
Mrs. Strindberg had bought the paintings from ‘a second- hand book seller’ in New Oxford street. This second-hand book seller is later revealed to be Walter Thomas Spencer (1883-1925), an expert on Dickens and self-confessed admirer of Whistler.71 In his autobiography Forty years in my bookshop (1923) Spencer states he is ‘always willing to purchase anything by or relating to the celebrated painter and etcher’.72 Next to selling rare books he appears to have dealt in art occasionally.73 Spencer reported the sale of some ‘one hundred canvases’ to ‘the lady’ – Strindberg - in his autobiography.74 The painting’s lay there ‘acquiring dust’ in his upper room when his luck turned and ‘the Lady’ bought the canvases. However, she came to regard them as a bad bargain. She begged Spencer to take the paintings back several times. Spencer reports: ‘My customer made a final vain appeal to me. With tears in her eyes she told me that they took up so much room that she had to sleep on them!’75 Ultimately Strindberg would sell some of the paintings to Dowdeswell and Dowdeswell and others to William Marchant, the proprietor of the Goupil Gallery. Spencer does not mention the Dowdeswell canvases but he does describe ‘the next event in this strange, not to say mysterious, development’ that would be the exhibition Walter Greaves: Pupil of Whistler hosted by the Goupil Gallery in 1911.76 The exhibition triggered what Walter Sickert would coin as L’affaire Greaves.77
68 Ibid, p 130. 69 Monica Straus, Cruel Banquet, The Lives and Loves of Frida Strindberg, New York, San Diego and London 2000, p 166-168. 70 Robins Pennell and Pennell 1921: p 127. 71 Ibid, p 234. Walter Thomas Spencer, Forty years in my bookshop, London 1923, p 257, 258. 72 Spencer 1923: p 259 . 73 Ibid, p 230. 74 Ibid, p 265-266. 75 Ibid, p 266. 76 Ibid. 77 Walter Sickert, ‘L’affaire Greaves’, The New Age, 15 June 1911. Annotated version in: Anna Gruetzner Robins (ed.), Walter Sickert: The Complete Writings on Art, Oxford 2003, p 282-285.
15
1.3 ‘L’affaire Greaves’: 1911
In his autobiography Spencer claims he bought these canvases from a local furniture dealer (unidentified). Walter Greaves (1846-1930), Whistler’s first pupil, had deposited a large group of paintings with the dealer to try and sell the work.78 Spencer noted the canvases were signed Walter Greaves, some bore the inscription ‘pupil of Whistler’ just below the signature.79 Despite initial hesitation there was something that appealed to him and Spencer bought the pictures. Stating: ‘Eventually I found myself the possessor of hundreds!’.80 Walter came to the shop to make Spencer’s acquaintance and Greaves continued to produce work for him.81 Spencer does not mention the Dowdeswell pictures, or the fact that the Pennell’s attribute some of these paintings to Whistler. However, he remarks ‘After hearing him talk, I came to the conclusion that I might rely absolutely on his authority on all matters Whistlerian’ he continues ‘I know no truer authority upon Whistler’s work than he [Walter Greaves].’82 Unknown to Spencer, Strindberg had sold some of the canvases to William Stephen Marchant, (1868-1925). Marchant had dealt in Whistler’s pictures during his life time.83 Like Spencer, Marchant discovered the signature ‘Walter Greaves’ on some of the pictures. After inspecting the canvases, Greaves confirmed he was the sole author of these paintings. In the introduction to the exhibition catalogue Greaves stated his Passing Under Old Battersea Bridge (whereabouts unknown) was painted in 1862 ten years before Whistler painted his famous Nocturne: Blue and Gold - Old Battersea Bridge in 1872-5.84 The exhibition was a success. After the first private viewing The Times review of the exhibition was titled ‘An unknown master’.85 The early date of Passing Under Old Battersea Bridge tempted some art critics into appointing Greaves as the inventor of Whistler’s most well-known theme the Nocturne. The Daily Mail inquired:
‘How much of the astounding talent shown in these paintings was due to Whistler’s teaching, and –on trembles to utter the blasphemy: how much did Whittler learn from his pupil?’86
According to the introduction of the exhibition catalogue Passing Under Old Battersea Bridge was exhibited in ‘the Great Exhibition of 1862’.87 By consulting the Official Catalogue, Fine Art Department of South Kensington - now the Victoria and Albert museum - Joseph Pennell conclusively proved the painting could not have been painted in 1862. Greaves only exhibited in 1873 and 1874.88 The Pennells and Marchant embarked upon a war of words combating each other in newspapers. The dispute not only covered the question of who inspired whom, it would become a disagreement about attribution as well. The Pennells were convinced that Passing Under Old Battersea Bridge was started by Whistler and finished by Greaves. Joseph Pennell argued the composition was ‘obviously derived from Whistler’ and ‘the distant sky and water were undoubtedly painted by him [Whistler]’. He continued ‘some of the reflections in the river were also put in by Whistler’.89 In attributing these paintings the Pennells relied on their trained eye in recognizing the artist handling.90 In turn, Marchant contended that - as Whistler’s pupil, Walter was well acquainted with Whistler’s manner of painting.91 Stating:
78 Spencer 1923: p 262. 79 Ibid, p 162. 80 Ibid, p 263. 81 Ibid, p 163. 82 Ibid. 83 See for instance: James McNeill Whistler to Rosalind Birnie Philip [February 20, 1900], GUW 04773, accessed 20-07- 2016. YMSM 484. 84 YMSM 140. 85 -, ‘An Unknown master, Exhibition at the Goupil Gallery’, The Times 5 May 1911, p 3. Reprinted in: Marchant 1911: p 11-13. 86 P.G.K., ‘Unknown Master’, Daily News, 6 May 1911, p 588. Reprinted in: Morse Jones 2015: p 116. 87 William Marchant & Co., the Goupil Gallery, Catalogue of oil paintings, a water colour and etchings, by Walter Greaves, pupil of Whistler, London 1911. 88 Elisabeth Robins Pennell and Joseph Pennell 1921: p 139. William Marchant, A Reply to an Attack, London 1911, p 15-21. 89-, ‘Art. Whistler and Greaves’, The Nation, 8 June 1911. Reprinted in: William Marchant 1911: p 36-38. 90 Morse Jones 2015: p 114-115. 91 Marchant 1911: p 57-58.
16
This kind of brushwork, which is to be found in several of Whistler’s “Nocturnes” was perfectly well- known to Mr. Greaves who it happens, had previously explained to us how Whistler specially prepared his brushes for the purpose, so as to make them more rigid.92
The Greaves affair would oppose the word of Walter Greaves to the connoisseurship of the Pennells. In an interview for the Sun (28 January 1912), Joseph Pennell refers to what could only be the paintings in Dowdeswell’s possession.
I don’t accuse Greaves of trying to deceive any one, but there are a number of pictures about attributed to Whistler, some signed, others unsigned and as certain of Greave’s pictures which he says he painted entirely bear such a resemblance in certain parts to Whistlers, the greatest confusion is resulting. Narrowed down, the thing is this: a number of Whistlers pictures and drawings disappeared at the time of his bankruptcy. One roll of pictures that had been removed from the stretchers, and that was covered with dirt, was afterwards returned to Whistler. Many were not returned. The pictures now in a London art dealer’s possession, to which I have referred as well as others that have gone to America, came from the same place.93
Pennell seems sure that at least some of the Dowdeswell pictures belong to paintings that disappeared during the time of Whistler’s bankruptcy. In The Whistler Journal, the Pennells report Greaves inspected the Dowdeswell paintings and claimed them as his own.94 On Wednesday February 7, 1917 ‘the Valuable Stock of Ancient & Modern Pictures and water colours Drawings of Messers Dowedeswell & Dowdeswell Ltd.’ was auctioned off at Christies due to ‘the death of Mr. C. W. Dowdeswell’. Forty-four of the original fifty paintings were sold as works of Walter Greaves.95 The ‘three quarter length of a Lady in White’ however was not among the pictures sold that day. In her recent discussion of The Greaves Affair, Kimberly Morse Jones states:
What exactly transpired with regard to the Greaves affair will probably never be known in its entirety, as there is no exact evidence to prove or disprove the Pennells’ theory.96
92 Ibdem. p 58. 93 Anon, ‘Puzzle of Whistler and his pupil’, Sun 28 January 1912, p 2. Reprinted in: Morse Jones 2015, p 139. 94 Robins Pennell and Pennell 1921: p 140. 95 -, Messers. Christe, Manson and Wood, Catalogue of The Valuable Stock of Ancient & Modern Pictures and water colour Drawings of ,Messers Dowedeswell & Dowdeswell Ltd, auction cat. 7 February 1717, cat. no. 291- 334. Elisabeth Robins Pennell and Joseph Pennell 1921: p 145. 96 Morse Jones 2015: p 120.
17
1.4 ‘Arrangement in black and white a bankruptcy petition’: 187997
The disappearance of paintings during the time of the bankruptcy is only discussed in length by the Pennells. Most biographies quote The Life and mention the disposal of paintings fleetingly.98 However, the paintings involved in the bankruptcy are detailed in the catalogue raisonné (see appendix ….). The Pennells secured legal documents relating to Whistler’s bankruptcy from James Anderson Rose (1819- 1880), Whistler’s lawyer who would become a major creditor in the bankruptcy proceedings.99 Unfortunately, no inventory list detailing the paintings in Whistler’s possession at the time is preserved. The Freer archive houses a copy of legal papers relating to Whistler’s bankruptcy, presumably made for one of the creditors.100 All are accessible through the online edition of The Correspondence of James McNeill Whistler. The following paragraphs provides a preliminary discussion of what happened to the paintings in Whistlers bankrupt estate. Whistler filed for bankruptcy on May 8 1879.101 Several creditors had issued for execution of his affects. The next day the London Bankruptcy court made an injunction: ‘restraining the Creditors […] from taking any further action until after June 9th’.102 James Waddell (b. 1838) of Messrs. Waddell and Co was named receiver tasked with protecting the estate. He took immediate possession. On a meeting of June, the 4th, the creditors decided that Whistler’s affairs should be liquidated by arrangement rather than in bankruptcy.103 James Waddell was made trustee tasked with managing the sale of the estate. A committee of inspection consisting of three creditors was appointed. The committee consisted of Charles August Howell (1840-1890) entrepreneur, dealer and collector listed as creditor for ‘money lent’, Thomas Way who was not listed as a creditor in Whistler’s bankruptcy papers, but recorded as member of the committee, and finally Frederick Richard Leyland (1831-1891), Whistler’s former patron, listed as creditor for ‘money payed’.104 The committee was tasked with advising and superintending the trustee. Only two identifiable paintings are registered within the bankruptcy papers. On the 7th of May Whistler named Harmony in Yellow and Gold: The Gold Girl - Connie Gilchrist ‘A picture Painted by me called The Gold Girl’ and Arrangement in Grey and Black: Portrait of the Painter's Mother ‘A portrait of my mother painted by me’ as his assets.105 Both had an estimated value of £500,-. Harmony in Yellow was sold in a sale at Sotheby’s, London on the 12th of February 1880 (cat no 87).106 The sale consisted of Whistler’s china and prints, but also include at least one other oil painting The Gold Scrab (cat no 88).107 ‘The mother’ was left with Graves and co. a London print dealer, as security for an advance. 108 Whistler also listed two unfinished paintings at the house of his brother William McNeill Whistler (1836-1900).109 The trustees cash account records J. E. Hine (unidentified) paid £5.0.0 ‘for purchase of canvases & unfinished
97 Dante Gabriel Rossetti referred to Whistlers bankruptcy petition as ‘an arrangement in black and white’. See: McMullen 1973: p 194. 98 In The World of James Mc Neill Whistler Horace George includes the story about the Bailiffs drinking beer in Whistler’s garden that the Pennells record in The Life. Horace George, The World of James McNeill Whistler, London 1961 p 145-146. In Victorian outsider Roy Mc Mullen only records: ‘Leyland, Howell and Way were chosen to act as examining and inventorying committee, and their activity was delayed, intentionally or not, long enough to allow the destruction or secret disposal of a number of pictures in the White House.’ McMullen 1973: p 194. 99 London Bankruptcy court to James Anderson Rose? [May 7, 1879- October 5, 1880], GUW 11711, p 917a, 920a, accessed 20- 07-2016. James Anderson Rose to unknown [May/June 1879] GUW 11926, accessed 20-07-2016. George Henry Lewis (1833- 1911) a well-known society lawyer took over as counsel when Anderson Rose became one of Whistler’s creditors. See: Sutherland 2014: p 163-165. 100 London Bankruptcy court to James Anderson Rose? [May 7, 1879- October 5, 1880], GUW 11711, accessed 20-07-2016. 101 The London Bankruptcy Court to James Anderson Rose?, [May 7, 1879-October 5, 1880], GUW 11711, accessed 20-07-2016, p 916a. 102 Ibid. p 917a. 103 Ibid. p 918a. 104 Ibid. p 9210a. 105 Ibid. p 921a. YMSM: 190 and 101. 106 Robins Pennell and Pennell, The life of James McNeill Whistler, London p 259. 107 YMSM 190 and 208. See also: YMSM 95. 108 YMSM 181 and 183 were also deposited with Graves and Co. during the time of the bankruptcy. 109 Possibly YMSM 88 or 89, 122 or 207.
18 paintings’.110 The official records provide little information about the paintings still in Whistler’s possession during the time of the bankruptcy.
1.4.1 ‘A few intelligent people’: The Pennells and the disappearance of paintings.
In the Whistler Journal, the Pennells note that ‘[Whistler’s] bankruptcy was the opportunity for the greatest carelessness and, apparently, the greatest advantage was taken of it’111. In The Life the Pennell’s recorded stories about the disappearance of paintings that range from the plausible to the farfetched. Mrs. Edwin Edwards – Elizabeth Ruth Edwards (1833-1907), Fatin Latour’s British agent - had written to them: ‘[…] that when three men were in possession he [Whistler] treated them while his friends carted away his pictures out of the back door’.112 Others claimed Whistler had dosed the beer of no less than seven bailiffs.113 The bailiffs had been invited into the garden, but when they tasted their drinks ‘down went their heads on the table round which they sat’. The story continues: ‘All evening it rained and it snowed, and it thundered, and it lightened, and it hailed. All night they slept’. The following day they woke up and asked for more as if nothing had happened. Although David Sutherland criticized the Pennells for manipulating their source, the story about Whistler’s friends smuggling pictures out of the house has been included in his recent biography of the artist.114 On September 18, 1897, the White house was sold and a public sale of Whistler’s property followed. In the first edition of The Life (1908) the Pennells describe ‘Bundles of rubbish’ that were ‘carried off for only a few shillings’.115 According to the Pennells these bundles of rubbish contained paintings such as The Blue Girl: Portrait of Miss Elinor Leyland and sketches for the Six project.116 The Pennells seemed sure that at least some of the Dowdeswell pictures were among those ‘carried off’. In the fifth revised edition of The Life published in 1911, one year after seeing the Dowdeswell paintings they note: ‘For a few intelligent people were present at the sale’ and the ‘bundles of rubbish’ are replaced by ‘roles of painting’.117 They add: ‘ […] pictures went astray or disappeared temporarily […] But they are turning up now!’118
1.4.2 ‘Rags and destroyed canvases’: the destruction of canvases.
According to the Pennells, Waddel - ‘the receiver’ - gave Whistler permission to destroy unfinished works still in his possession at the time of the bankruptcy ‘so they might not be displayed to the public’. They add:
Copper plates were scratched over, and pictures painted out with gum, stripped off their stretchers, and rolled up.119
110 London Bankruptcy court to James Anderson Rose? [May 7, 1879- October 5, 1880], GUW 11711, accessed 20-07-201, p 924a. 111 Robins Pennell and Pennell 1921: p 134. 112 Elizabeth Robins Pennell and Joseph Pennell, The life of James McNeill Whistler, London 1908,p 253. 113 Ibid. 114 Sutherland 2014 (see noter …), p 165. For Sutherlands critique on the Pennells see: Daniel E. Sutherland, ‘Getting Right with Whistler: An Artist and His Biographers’ in Lee Glazer, Margaret F, MacDonald, Linda Merill and Nigel Thorp (ed.), James Mc Neill Whistler in context, essays from the Whistler centenary symposium university of Glasgow, 2003, Freer Gallery of Art occasional papers, New series vol. 2, Washington D.C. 2008, p 169-183. 115 Robins Pennell and Pennell 1908: p 257. 116 See YMSM 111 and 82-87. Both the sketches for the Six project and The blue Girl: Portrait of Miss Elinor Leyland were probably bought by Thomas Way. 117 Elizabeth Robins Pennell and Joseph Pennell, The life of James McNeill Whistler, fifth and revised edition, Londen 1911, p 186. 118 Ibid, p 186. 119 Elizabeth Robins Pennell and Joseph Pennell 1908: p 257.
19
Whistler’s correspondence provides additional information about the destruction and disappearance of paintings during the time of the bankruptcy. In a letter to his sister in law of March the 22th 1880, Whistler states ‘surely Waddell said that all the scratched and destroyed stretchers &c &c &c were to be left out [of the bankruptcy’s settlement]’.120 In another letter to the same recipient, Whistler mentions ‘rags and destroyed canvases’ that were left at the studio and finally brought to the residence of Whistler’s brother.121 Further on in the letter Whistler apologizes for the canvases left about the place and proposes they would be taken off their stretchers so they might be put ‘quite out of the way in a corner’. The paintings of James Mc Neill Whistler lists five paintings as destroyed or lost during the bankruptcy.122 Their existence is only recognized through photographs and contemporary descriptions. Thomas Way bought about thirty of those canvases ‘more or less destroyed’.123 In a letter to Whistler, Thomas Way reports ‘My offer for the canvases &c [is] accepted’.124 His son Thomas Robbert Way later records the sale of these paintings.125 Way jr. states: ‘they were bought by a picture dealer for my father’.126 According to Thomas Robert Way, Whistler destroyed his canvases before he handed them over to his creditors as assets. Consequently, they were deemed unsalable by the auctioneers. The pictures appeared to have been severely damaged. One of these pictures is described as a painting with ‘three or four pictures painted on it […] in considerable impasto’. It had been rolled up and was ‘badly crushed, so that there were holes through to the canvas, right on the figure itself’.127 The pictures are regularly described as unfinished.128 Furthermore Way remarks that ‘a number of these canvases seemed to be just primed for painting upon’.129 To the Pennells the condition of the Dowdeswell paintings was significant since it matched the description of paintings that had been ‘more or less destroyed’ during the time of Whistler’s bankruptcy. They report:
The condition of the canvases before the restorer had touched them naturally interested us, as it did the Dowdeswell’s for they were exactly as T. R. Way had already, and now again described the canvases bought by his father when he served with Howell and Leyland on the Committee of Examiners to settle Whistler’s affairs at the bankruptcy.130
1.4.3 The Paintings of James McNeill Whistler and the Dowdeswell pictures.
It remains unclear what precisely happened to all of the (unfinished) paintings still in Whistler’s possession. Paintings certainly appear to be destroyed and lost. From Venice Whistler wrote to his sister- in -law to express his concerns about the whereabouts of certain pictures.131 The paintings of James McNeill Whistler list thirteen paintings of which it remains unclear what happened to them at the time of the bankruptcy.132 They are painted before 1879 but most of them reappear in Whistler’s possession after the
120 James Mc Neill Whistler to Hellen Euphrosyne Whistler, [March 22, 1880], GUW 06688, accessed 20-07-2016. 121 James Mc Neill Whistler to Hellen Euphrosyne Whistler, [March, 1880], GUW 06689, accessed 20-07-2016. 122 YMSM: 59, 94, 88, 186, 192. 123 T.R. Way specifically named see: YMSMS 164, 93, 109-11, 96, 131, 209-10. Some paintings have been left to T.R Way after the death of his father see: YMSM 74, 81, 93, 132, 164, 184. Some may have been retrieved by Whistler in 1883 when he was looking for canvas to paint YMSM 228-30 see: YMSM 82-86. A number of paintings painted before 1879 and sold by Whistler after 1892 might have been retrieved from Way see: YMSM 120, 144, 152, 156. In 1896 Way and Whistler quarrelled and as the settlement of their final account Way agreed to return ten canvases to Whistler. It remains unclear which canvases he returned exactly. According to Pennell Way returned: 107, 109, 110, 127, 180. Some painting’s that remained in Whistler’s estate have been painted before 1879 they may have been returned by Way see: YMSM 57, 79-80, 121, 139, 172, 191. YMSM 179 was reworked after 1896. 124 Thomas Way to James McNeill Whistler [15 April 1880], GUW 06081, accessed 20-07-2016. 125 Thomas R. (Robert) Way, Memories of James McNeill Whistler the artist, London/New York 1912, p 135-136. 126 Could this be J. E. Hine listed in the bankruptcy papers? 127 Way 1912: p 135-136. 128 Idem. p 130, 135, 139. See also: Robins Pennell and Pennell 1921: p 133, 134, 135. 129 Way 1912: p 137. 130 Robins Pennell and Pennell 1921: p 133. 131 James Mc Neill Whistler to Hellen Euphrosyne Whistler, [February/March 20, 1880], GUW 06690, accessed 20-07-2016. 132 YMSM (* paintings that reappear in the possession of Whistler possibly acquired by Way): 44, 56*, 80*, 90, 112, 120*, 121*, 144*, 152*, 156*, 163*, 172*, 191*, 195, 197*. See note 84.
20 bankruptcy. Only one painting is officially returned to Whistler after the settlement of his affairs. Due to its unfinished nature The Blue Girl: Portrait of Connie Gilchrist, was reserved as worthless and returned to the artist.133 Three paintings left by the London banker W. A. Alexander were only recovered just after Whistler’s passing in 1903 by Rosalind Birnie Philip.134 The Dowdeswells were personally aware of the lack of clarity regarding the liquidation of Whistler’s estate. Father and son thought Blue and Silver: Screen, with Old Battersea Bridge was given as commission on a sale before the bankruptcy, however Whistler asked to have it back in 1890.135 Four of the paintings bought by Dowdeswell in 1910 are included in the Catalogue raisonné as ‘doubtful’.136 Within the introduction the compilers explain:
Several paintings are catalogued which appear to have been started by Whistler but continued or partly reworked by others such as his pupil Walter Greaves. A number of paintings which Joseph Pennell believed Whistler to have had a hand in were sold as the work of Greaves by Messers Dowdeswell at Christies in 1917. In most cases there is not sufficient evidence of Whistler’s hand to catalogue them as even partly autograph works.137
The compilers must not have seen enough of the hand of Whistler in the painting to include the Singer picture in the catalogue. Except for the paintings themselves there is no evidence linking Walter Greaves to the disappearance of paintings during the time of the bankruptcy. Stylistic arguments became the main criteria to attribute or de-attribute paintings in the Dowdeswell group.
133 YMSM: 207. 134 YMSM: 55, 58, 75. 135 YMSM: 139. See also YMSM: 90. Charles William Dowdeswell to James McNeill Whistler [December 6, 1890], GUW 00918, accessed 20-07-2016. Walter Dowdeswell to James McNeill Whistler [December 7, 1890], GUW 00919, accessed 20-07-2016. 136 YMSM: 51, 126, 133-4. 137 YMSM, p xv.
21
1.5 ‘Symphony in White (The white girl in Muslin dress)’: 1940’s
After the Pennells saw the painting in 1910, it again disappeared into obscurity. The portrait of a lady in white resurfaces in the 1945 as ‘Symphony in White (The white girl in muslin dress)’ when the art dealer Max de Beer (fl. 1948) contacts Joseph Whistler Revillon.138 All De Beer would reveal about the provenance of the picture was that he bought it from ‘the heirs of a very great devotee of Whistler who died several years ago in London’. De Beer states he acquired about ten paintings from this ‘devotee’, but did not disclose the name to Revillon. Among the paintings he acquired was Harmony in White and Blue discussed earlier. Both ‘The white girl in muslin dress’ and Harmony in White and Blue were in what Revillon refers to as ‘the Dowdeswell bunch’.139 Although his address is listed as Picadilly 54/55 within the correspondence, there are no records relating to De Beer’s practice as an art dealer. The Daily Mail (Saturday, October 22, 1949) reports a Max de Beer ‘formally in business in Piccadilly as a fine art’s dealer’ is sentenced to twelve months in prison for fraud.140 After De Beer contacted Revillon, The Springfield Museum of Art proposed to buy the painting in the spring of 1948.141 The Revillon archive contains correspondence between Coburn, Revillon and Fredrick B Robinson (fl. 1948), director of the Springfield museum. In a letter to Coburn, Revillon described the portrait as an ‘old friend’. He saw the painting some years earlier when it was in the shop of De Beer. After Harmony in White and Blue was sold to the Temple Newman museum in Leeds he thought it was the most interesting picture ‘of that lot’.142 Ultimately, the Springfield museum decided against buying the portrait. After thorough examination, the Springfield museum concluded the picture to be ‘the tragic ghost of a picture at least begun by the artist’.143 Robinson could not trace any of the exhibitions in which the portrait had been according to the labels on the back. He therefore concludes ‘that the labels seem doubtful and one of them definitely spurious’.144 Revillon initially intended to include the painting in his catalogue, but ultimately decided not to ‘pending more information about it’.145 William Singer died in 1943, 5 years before the Springfield museum considered buying it. The painting must have been added to the collection after his death. The painting therefore must have been acquired by Anna. After the Second World War, Anna travelled to the United States often. She was involved in building a new wing for the Washington Country Museum of Fine Arts, the museum William and Anna founded in 1931.146 She might have acquired the painting during that time since it appears to have been offered for sale in the United States. However, it remains unclear how and when Anna bought the picture.147 The Singer Library notably houses The Whistler journal instead of the more extensive The Life of James McNeill Whistler. Since the journal contains the description of the ‘three quarter length of a lady in white’ it seems likely that Anna must have known of the questionable provenance of the picture.
138 M. De Beer to Joseph Whistler Revillon, [October 10, 1945], University of Glasgow, Special Collections (GUL), MS Revillon 3/47. 139 See: Robins Pennell and Pennell 1921: p 128. 140 -, Art dealer Jailed for 12 months’, Daily Mail, October 22, 1949. Courtesy of Margret McDonald. 141 Fredrick B Robinson to Frederick W. Coburn [April 1, 1948], GUL MS Revillon 2/205/1. 142 Joseph Whistler Revillon to Frederick W. Coburn, [April 28, 1948], GUL MS Revillon 2/46. 143 Robinson to Coburn [April 1, 1948 ], GUK MS Revillon 2/205/1. 144 Ibid. 145 Revillon to Coburn, [April 28, 1948 ], GUL MS Revillon 2/46. 146 Schretlen 2006: p 185-95. 147 Anna van Lienden, conservator at the Singer Laren, contacted the Washington Country Museum of Fine Arts however they do not know more about the provenance of the picture (Verbal communication).
22
1.6 Conclusion
There is a significant gap within the provenance of ‘the girl in the muslin dress’. We know the Pennells saw the painting while in the possession of the Dowdeswells. There is an unbroken chain of ownership from Spencer, to Strindberg to the Dowdeswells. However, there is no archival evidence to link the pictures to Whistler, since the pictures were discovered after his passing. Although Greaves claimed the authorship of these paintings, the Pennells remain adamant some of them are by Whistler upon stylistic reasoning. Paintings certainly have disappeared during the time of the bankruptcy however it remains unclear what happened exactly to the works still in Whistler’s possession. There are no records to connect Symphony in White to the time of the bankruptcy. Although the pictures in the Dowdewsell’s possession have not been included in the Goupil collection they share the same provenance. The Goupil Gallery exhibition of 1911 fuelled the debate about the authorship of these canvases. The word of Walter Greaves was opposed by the connoisseurship of the Pennells. The authors of the oeuvre catalogue included some paintings form ‘the Dowdeswell bunch’ however they are included as questionable. Symphony in White was not included at all apparently on stylistic grounds. Until the correspondence of the 1940’s the Pennell’s description remains the only source directly relating to the Singer picture. After the Pennells saw the portrait in a restorer’s studio the history of ‘the portrait of a woman in white’ is unclear. When it resurfaced in the 1940’s, Robinson and Revillon were hesitant in attributing the painting to Whistler. Though Robinson states he believes the portrait is at least begun by the master. Furthermore, it remains uncertain how the picture entered the Singer collection. The painting must have been acquired after 1948 when the picture was offered to the Springfield Museum of Art and no later than 1956 when it appeared in the first collection catalogue of the Singer museum. Pedigree research revealed three possible scenarios for the provenance of the picture. The picture was either painted by Walter Greaves or painted by Whistler, saved from his bankrupt estate and possibly repainted by another artist.
23
CHAPTER 2
‘The headless woman’
James Mc Neill Whistler: Technical examination and stylistic comparison
In his lifetime James McNeill Whistler was known as a quick witted dandy. At times, his eccentric and combative personality overshadowed his artistic achievements, however as an artist Whistler was dedicated to the perfection of his art. The American artist William Merritt Chase (1849-1916) observed: ‘There were two distinctive sides to Whistler. One was Whistler in public – the fop, the cynic, the brilliant, vain and careless idler; the other was Whistler in the studio – the earnest, tireless, sombre worker.’148 This chapter will discuss the tireless worker: Whistler the artist. How does the Singer picture compare to authentic Whistlers in terms of painting technique? If Girl in muslin dress was painted by Whistler, it must have been painted before he was declared bankrupt in 1879. Therefore, this chapter will focus on the portraits Whistler produced in the 1870s. Within this period Whistler made his first serious efforts into to the art of portraiture. His portraits show his aesthetic sensibilities.149 To emphasise the formal qualities of his painting, Whistler employed musical terminology in naming his pictures.150 The portrait of his mother Arrangement in Grey and Black No1: The Artist's Mother (1871) established his reputation as a portrait painter. It was the first picture exhibited as an ‘arrangement’.151 In the Gentle art of making Enemies Whistler remarks:
Take the picture of my mother, exhibited at the Royal Academy as an "Arrangement in Grey and Black." Now that is what it is. To me it is interesting as a picture of my mother; but what can or ought the public do to care about the identity of the portrait?152
When the Springfield museum sought to acquire the Singer picture they examined it ‘under powerful light with a magnifying glass’, by ultraviolet light and with x-ray photography. They report: ‘To our horror we discovered that the portrait had no head at all showing in the x-ray plate’.153 This was reason for concern since the x-ray of Little Rose of Lyme Regis (1895) - an undisputed Whistler- showed reflections in this area, or as the letter states ‘definite underpainting’.154 After examination the museum could do no more than to conclude that the picture is ‘the tragic ghost of a portrait’.155 Again the painting is examined by those techniques described within the Springfield letter as well as more advanced analytical techniques. The painting was subsequently restored by Gwendolyn Boevé -Jones, Redivivus restoration. Celestine - a mineral consisting of strontium sulphate (SrSO4)- was identified as a possible material marker. XRF analysis consistently showed the presence of strontium (Sr) within the painting.156 The use of celestine as a pigment appears to be characteristic for the works of Whistler. Erma Hermens and Arie Wallert conclusively proved the use of celestine in Arrangement in Yellow and Grey: Effy Deans (Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam). It is the only recorded occurrence of the mineral as a pigment in easel painting.157 According to Hermens and Wallert the presence of celestine in the Effy Deans might be
148 Katherine Metcalf Roor, The Life and art of William Merritt Chace, New York 1917, p 124. See: Erma Hermens and Arie Wallert, ‘James McNeill Whistler, fluidity, finish and accident’, in Marika Spring (ed.), Studying Old Master Paintings - Technology and Practice: The National Gallery Technical Bulletin 30th Anniversary Conference, 16th – 18th September 2009, proceedings. London 2011, p 229. 149 Richard Dorment and Margaret MacDonald, James McNeill Whistler, exh. cat. Tate Gallery, London 1994, p 177. Denys Sutton, Nocturne: The Art of James McNeill Whistler, London 1963, p 71-79. 150 Merrill 1992: p 30-31. 151 Margret MacDonald, Whistler’s Mother: An American Icon, Aldershot/Burlington 2003, p 58-59. 152 Whistler 1890: p 128. 153 Fredrick B Robinson to Frederick W. Coburn [April 1, 1948], GUL MS Revillon 2/205/1. 154 YMSM: 449. 155 Fredrick B Robinson to Frederick W. Coburn [April 1, 1948], GUL MS Revillin 2/205/1. 156 Attachment VII, XRF. 157 Hermens and Wallert 2011: p 229-236.
24 related to the use of Orr Duresco house paint a lithophone mixture (ZnS·BaSO4) with added celestine. When the Singer portrait would also contain this uncommon pigment, it would be a significant material link between Arrangement in Yellow and Grey and Symphony in White.158 Like understanding peculiarities in technique, understanding the specific materials used by a given artist helps us attribute paintings more accurately.159
158 The concept of material markers was introduced by Erma Hermens. Erma Hermens, Technical Art History and Materials as Markers, a 16th-Century Material Travel Log, conference presentation, Technical Art History Talk Sessions, Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, 16-01-2016. 159 The use of tin white (SnO2) and bismuth white (Bi(OH)2No3) in the pastel paintings of LJean-Etienne Liotard can be considered as an example of an material marker. See: Arie Wallert, Joan Vaz Pedroso and Jolanda van Ipere, ‘Remarkable white pigments on Liotard’s pastel paintings’ in: Arie Wallert (ed.), Painting Techniques, History, Materials and Studio Practice, 5th International Symposium, Rijksmuseum Amsterdam 18-20 December 2013, p 168-173.
25
2.1 Methodology
The painting has been examined by visual examination through the naked eye (see attachment III), digital microscopy (see attachment IV), by x-ray fluorescence spectrometry (XRF)(see attachment VII), macro x- ray fluorescence scanning (MA-XRF scanning) (see attachment VI), x-ray photography and infrared reflectography (IRR).(see attachment V)160 Additionally paint-samples have been taken and studied under the microscope (see attachment IV ). Some samples have been examined by scanning electron microscope with energy dispersive x-rays spectroscopy (SEM-EDX.) by Ineke Joosten Rijksdienst voor Cultureel Erfgoed (RCE) (see attachment: VIII). The technical analysis of the painting has been concluded before the restoration of the painting, however the results have been discussed with the restorer during restoration. Additionally, gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC-MS) has been conducted by Henk van Keulen, RCE (see attachment IX). When the picture was first examined the edges of the canvas were covered with paper masking tape. The examination of the edges only became possible when the tape was removed during restoration There has been no systematic scientific analysis in relation to the attribution of oil paintings by James Mc Neill Whistler. However, in The paintings of James McNeill Whistler technical details of individual paintings are often included. Furthermore, in the introduction the study of x-rays is indicated as useful in confirming alterations.161 Unfortunately there are no comparative x-rays from other portraits by Whistler available to consult for this study. Despite the lack of systematic analysis Whistler’s methods and materials have been documented relatively thoroughly by modern conservators. They are summarised by Lance Mayers and Gay Mayers in American painters and Technique:1860-1945.162 They conclude: ‘The methods used by James McNeill Whistler were as unique as the artist’s flamboyant personality’.163 Most of the scientific research has been conducted in focussed projects on specific subjects such as Tate Britain’s ‘Nocturnes’ and what Joyse Hill Stoner described as ‘weavism’.164 As an individual group, the full length portraits Whistler painted in the 1870’s and 1880’s have received less attention in terms of technical description. The only published examination available for consultation of one of these full-lengths is Arrangement in Yellow and Grey: Effy Deans.165. A visit to the Hunterian Art Gallery made it possible to further study Whistler’s full length portraits. The Blue Girl: portrait of Connie Gilchrest (c. 1879) and Harmony in Flesh Colour and Black: Portrait of Mrs Louise Jopling (1877) have been examined by IRR and XRF.166 Both portraits have been painted before Whistler was declared bankrupt in 1879 and were in his studio on his death in 1903. The Blue Girl was the only portrait that was officially returned to Whistler. It is not known if Whistler retained or regained possession of Harmony in Flesh Colour and Black. This chapter is arranged following the different layers within the painting; substrate, ground layer and paint layers. Previous restorations are discussed as well. Each paragraph starts with significant results
160 X-ray photography: 40Kv -2.0mA - ’30, digitally stitched. Infrared reflectography was carried out with an Osiris scanning InGaAs camera provided with a 16x16 tile system based on a 512 x512 focal plane array, with a sensitivity of lightly beyond 1700nm. Visible light wavelengths were filtered with an 875 nm infrared filter. 161 YMSM, p xix. 162 Lance Mayers and Gay Mayers, American painters and Technique: 1860-1945, Los Angeles 2013, p 156-171. 163 Ibid p 157. 164 On the Tate nocturnes see: Stephen Hackney, ‘Colour and tone in Whistler’s “nocturnes” and “harmonies” 1871-1872’, The Burlington Magazine 136 1994 p 695-699. Stephen Hackney ‘Art for art’s sake: the materials and techniques of James McNeill Whistler (1834-1903)’ in Arie Wallert (ed.) and Erma Hermens (ed.), Historical painting techniques, Materials and Studio Practice, Los Angeles 1995, p 186-190. Joyce H. Townsend, ‘Whistler’s oil painting materials’, The Burlington Magazine 136 1994, p 690-695. Stephen Hackney (ed.), Rica Jones (ed.), and Joyce H. Townsend (ed.). Paint and Purpose, A study of technique in British art, London …, p 86-156. On Weavism see: Joyce Hill Stoner. ‘Texture and Friendship: Canvas weave patterning and other surface characteristics in works by Whistler and the ‘société des trois’, in Nigel Torp (ed.) Studies on James McNeill Whistler and Nineteenth- Century Art Vol I Glasgow 1999, p 20-26. Joyce Hill Stoner ‘Whistler’s Views on the Restoration and Display of His Paintings’, Studies in Conservation, v 42 n 2 1997, p 107-114. Joyce Hill Stoner ‘Materials for Immateriality’ in: Mark Simpson (ed.) Like Breath on Glass: Whistler, Inness, and the Art of Painting Softly, Exh cat. Clarck Art Instituet 2008, p 92-109. Joyce Hill Stoner, Textured Surfaces: Technique, Facture, and Friendship in the Work of James McNeill Whistler, PhD thesis University of Delaware, 1995 was not available for consultation. 165 Erma Hermens and Arie Wallert 2011: p 229-236. Jeanne Brouilette, ‘Microscopic analysis of Whistler’s “Rose et Vert l’Iris: Portrait of Miss Kinsella’ The Microscope, 38 1990. 271-27 was not available for consultation. 166 YMSM: 207 and 191. Students from the master ‘Art History: Making & Meaning’ of the University of Glasgow have examined these paintings however unfortunately these results were not available for consultation before this thesis was finished.
26 of technical analyses that will be compared to Whistler’s working method as established in the literature described above.
27
2.2 Substrate
The picture is painted on a plain weave canvas and is lined with a courser - plain weave - canvas. The overlay of the original canvas and the lining canvas can be seen at the fold of the stretcher. The tacking margins of the original canvas have been cut, leaving a ragged edge.167 Cusping or scalloping is only visible on the right edge of the painting.168 Cusping should be visible at all four edges of the painting. Therefore, the painting appears to be cut down, at the top, bottom and left side of the painting. At the bottom edge of the painting the cuff of the proper left sleeve shows a brushstroke that is incomplete.169 The painting must have been shortened at least. Additionally, the stretcher appears to be reduced in size.170 By the 19the century most artists’ bought ready prepared canvases.171 Therefore primary cusping generally does not appear in 19th century paintings. Secondary cusping however, may appear.172 Whistler seems to have stretched and prepared at least some of his own canvases. When he was working on Symphony in Flesh Colour and Pink: Portrait of Mrs Frances Leyland and Portrait of Miss Florence Leyland (fig 1.) in 1871 he writes: […] I manage to stretch and prepare it [the canvas] myself easily enough […].173 Furthermore a bill from the colourmen Lechertier, Barbe and Co dated the second of October 1887 list’s: ‘2 yds 26 in Fine [Fet?] Canvas’.174 According to Hackney Whistler occasionally applied his own imprimatura over a commercially prepared canvas.175 Bernard Sickert confirmed Whistler initially uses ‘the usual full primed canvas from the colourmen’, but later he preferred ‘a canvas specially prepared’.176 During the 1870’s Whistler mainly painted monumental full-length portraits such as Arrangement in Yellow and Gray: Effy Deans (194 x 93 cm.) The Blue Girl: Connie Gilcrist (199,9 x 88,6 cm) and Harmony in Flesh Colour and Black: Portrait of Mrs Louise Jopling (192.5 x 90.0 cm).177 The only exception being his self- portrait now in the Detroit Institute of Art, Arrangement in Grey: Portrait of the Painter (74.9 x 53.3 cm) and the portrait of Mrs Jarvis (63,5 x 40,64 cm), which Whistler referred to as ‘the little head’.178 In 1877 Whistler contemplated painting ‘heads’ that he described as ‘portraits bon marché’. These smaller portraits were much cheaper than the usual full lengths. They were designed to appeal to a new clientele. This idea however, never materialised.179 Thomas Way recalled Whistler once explained to him that ‘the full-length portrait was the only real way to treat a portrait, so as to give a complete impression of the
167 The Blue Girl: Connie Gilchrest was lined by Blanchet. This is conveyed by a label attached to the back of the canvas: ‘BLANCHET / RUE SAINT BENOIT / PARIS’. The crudely cut tracking margins of Symphony in White. The girl in the white dress are consistent with the lining of The Blue Girl: Connie Gilchrest, however the lining canvas is distinctly different from the canvas used to line Symphony in White. Girl in muslin dress. 168 On cusping see: Ernst van de Wetering, Rembrandt, The Painter art Work, Amsterdam 2009 second revised edition, p 11-123. Andrea Kirsh and Rustin S. Levenson, Seeing Through Paintings: physical examination in art historical studies, Materials and meaning in the fine arts vol 1, p 44. Barbara A. Buckly, ‘Stretchers, tensioning and attachment’ in: Joyce Hill Stoner and Rebecca Rushfield ed, The conservation of easel paintings, Oxon/New York 2012, p 158. 169 See: Attachment III, Visual Examination, figure 05. 170 At the moment of investigation the edges of the stretcher were concealed by the lining canvas and paper masking tape making a thorough examination of the stretcher impossible. It could be determined however that the left bar of the stretcher is smaller than the right bar. At least the right corner of the top bar has been bevelled. Little strips of wood have been added to the bottom bar before the new lining canvas was attached. Based on the Pennell’s and Spencer’s descriptions of ‘roles of canvas’ this cannot be the original stretcher (see previous chapter). 171 Lesly Carlyle, The Artist's Assistant: Oil Painting Instruction Manuals and Handbooks in Britain, 1800-1900, with Reference to Selected Eighteenth-century Sources, London 2001, p 165. 172 Buckly 2012: p 158. 173 James McNeill Whistler to Walter Greaves, [October/November, 1871], GUW 11469, accessed: 21-04-2017. YMSM: 106, 107. 174 Lechertier, Barbe and Co. to James McNeill Whistler [October 2, 1878], GUW 08936, accessed: 21-02-2017. 175 Hackney 1994: p 695-696. Hackney 1995: p 186-187. On nineteenth century grounds in Britain see: Maartje Stoltz Witlox, ‘Grounds 1400-1900’ in: Joyce Hill Stoner (ed.) and Rebecca Rushfield, (ed.), The Conservation of Easelpainting, New York 2012, p 177-182. Carlyle 2010: p 165. 176 Sickert 1908:, p 102. 177 YMSM: 183, 207, 191. 178 YMSM: 206. James McNeill Whistler to Ada Maud Jarvis [September 6, 1879], GUW 09170, 21-04-2017. 179 James Mc Neill Whistler to Stephen Tucker [September 3, 1877], GUW 0596521-04-2017.
28 sitter’180. Since the Singer picture appears to be reduced in size it might originally have been a full-length portrait.
180 Thomas Robert Way, Memories of James McNeill Whistler, London 1912 p 115.
29
2.3 Ground
Cross-sections show the priming consists of two layers. First a white ground and secondly a grey/yellow ground or imprimatura. The white ground is present only in two of the samples and can be seen at the edge of the painting where the paint is chipped.181 The white priming appears to consist of a conventional lead white (2 PbCO3· Pb(OH)2) without any additional pigments.182 SEM-EDX analysis only shows the presence of lead (Pb) within this layer.183 The grey/yellow ground can be seen within the more abraded areas of paint such as the face and the curtain as well as at the edges of the painting.184 This layer is present in all of the samples and measures between 100 and 120 μm.185 The grey priming is applied freely, in broad visible brushstrokes. The Springfield letter already mentioned horizontal strokes ‘were the head was supposed to be’. The museum assumed the brushstrokes belonged to the seizing of the canvas, ‘either original or as a later repair’.186 These brushmarks can be seen in x-ray image as well as with the naked eye.187 The MA-XRF barium (Ba) elemental distribution map as well as the strontium (Sr) elemental distribution map show the same broad irregular brushmarks. The elements barium (Ba) and strontium (Sr) are only present in the grey ground, therefore the brushstrokes belong to the second grey/yellow ground.188 The brush marks are contained within the plane of the canvas suggesting the priming is applied by the artist. The application of a grey imprimatura appears to be consistent with Whistler’s studio practice.189 Both Hackney and Townsend found Whistler’s frequent use of a grey priming’s.190 The coloured ground played an important role in establishing colour and tonal harmony. The same principle applied for the decorative scheme of his brother’s house. In a letter to his sister in law Whistler stressed the importance of the coloured priming:
‘why on earth should the workmen think for themselves that after all two coats of the yellow upon white would do just as well as one coat of yellow on grey!’191
Menpes stated that Whistler used a low toned grey ground in his oils.192 Townsend found Whistler applied a thin grey imprimatur in both the portraits of Miss Cicely (1872-74) and her sister Miss May Alexander (1873).193 Mayers and Mayers on the other hand emphasize Whistler’s experimentation with different grounds and supports.194
2.3.1 Composition and celestine as a material marker.
The grey ground contains relatively large angular pigments that can best be distinguished in UV light.195 Their morphology seems consistent with that of Celestine however SEM-EDX mapping showed they contain barium (Ba) and sulphur (S) indicating the use of barium sulphate (BaSO4) instead of celestine
181 See CS: 227-4, 227-12 & 227-14 and Attachment IV, Digital Microscopy, 05. 182 Nicolas Eastaugh, Walsh, Chaplin and Siddall 2004: v. 2 p 233-234. 183 See: Attachment VIII, SEM- EDX: CS 227-14-01 PbL 184 See: Attachments IV, Digital Microscopy: 05 and 07 and Attachment III, Visual Examination: fig 07 and 08. 185 See CS: 227-12 & 227-14. 186 Fredrick B Robinson to Frederick W. Coburn [April 1, 1948], GUL MS Revillon 2/205/1. 187 See: Attachment III, Visual Examination: fig 07. 188 See: Attachment VI, MA-XRF: 04 and 21 SrK. and Attachment III, Visual Examination, fig 06. 189 See note 174. 190 Townsend 1994: p 692, Hackney 1994: p 695-696 and Hackney 1995: p 186-187 . See also: Hermens and Wallert 2011: p 233. 191 James Mc Neill Whistler to Helen Euphrosyne Whistler, (December 16, 1881], GUW 06695, 21-04-2017. Hermens and Wallert 2011: p 234. 192 Menpes 1904: p 73-74. 193 Townsend 1994: p 691-692. 194 Mayers and Mayers 2013: p 157-158. 195 See for instance CS: 227-10.
30
(SrSO4).196 EDX point measurements within some of the barium sulphate pigments showed emission lines for barium, sulphur and strontium (Sr).197 This suggest the use of the natural occurring mineral analogue barite. Mariono and Boon have identified strontium as an indication of the use of barite instead of the synthetic pigment.198 Barium can be replaced by strontium in a continuous solid solution series from barite to celestine. In producing artificial barium sulphate most of the impurities are removed. Therefore the presence of strontium indicates the use of the natural mineral. SEM-EDX mapping did not show the presence of zinc (Zn) excluding the use of lithophone and Duresco Ore house paint. SEM-EDX mapping identified lead in the grey priming, indicating the use of lead white as well as calcium (Ca) indicating the use of chalk (CaCO3) or gypsum (CaSO4 . 2H2O).199 The barium sulphate might have been used as an extender of conventional lead white. Permanent white or blanc fixe consisting of lead white and either synthetic barium sulphate or barite are mentioned by Church.200 Furthermore SEM-EDX mapping identified some pigments that contain silicon indicating the presence of quarts (SiO2) within the priming. Some sources of barite are associated with specific contaminants such as quarts however, quarts is also used an extender in and of itself.201 The grey ground is toned with charcoal black, a carbon based black char pigment. The SEM backscattered image shows the cellular structure of the base material.202 The structure closely resembles that of wood char.203 The ground contains a yellow pigment that looks semi-transparent under the microscope.204 The pigment is present in large aggregates. Individual pigments can only be distinguished under high magnification. SEM-EDX mappings of the grey ground shows the presence of Fe, Al and Si within the pigment indicating the use of yellow ochre. The principal colouring matter of yellow ochre is Goethite (α-FeOOH).205 Deposits are infrequently pure and can typically be associated with a range of other accessory minerals such as clay minerals (Al4[(Si,Al)8O20](OH)4.nH2O).206 The yellow ochre might have been added to provide a warmer grey however, it might also have been used as a filler. The composition of Whistler’s grounds has not been studied systematically. Menpes stated Whistler used ‘previously prepared canvases with a neural grey ground’ consisting of flake white and ivory black in his life-size portraits of the 1880’s.207 Townsend found Whistler chose a priming of lead white and ivory black for most of the nocturnes considered in the article.208 Only one priming examined by Townsend lacked ivory black altogether. In Nocturne in blue and gold: Old Battersea Bridge (1872-75) Whistler used lamp black instead. On occasion Whistler toned the basic grey of his priming with other pigments. Townsend mentions cadmium yellow, mars yellow, vermilion and Prussian blue.209 Elemental analysis of the ground used in the Effy Deans showed the presence of ‘strontium, barium and zinc, lead and small amounts of iron oxide and ivory black’.210
196 See: Attachment VIII, SEM-EDX, CS 227-14-01, BaL and SK. 197 Ibid. CS 227-12-01. 198 Beatrice Marino, Jaap J. Boon, Ella Hendriks, Francois Horreard and Francois Hillion: Imaging TOF-SIMS and NanoSIMS studies of Barite-Celestine particles in grounds from paintings by Van Gogh In: H.Mar Parking (ed.) AIC paintings specialty group postprints : papers pres. at the 34th annual meeting of the AIC of Historic & Artistic Works providence, Rhode Island, June 16-19, 2006, Washington: AIC, 2007. - p 118-128. On barium sulfate and barite see also: Nicolas Eastaugh Walsh, Chaplin and Siddall 2004, v 2, p 38-39 and 40-41. Robbert Feller, ‘Barium Sulfate-Natural and Synthetic’ in: Robbert Feller (ed.), Artists’ Pigments: A Handbook of Their History and Characteristics, vol 1, Washington D.C. 1986, p 47-64. 199 Marion, Boon, Hendriks, Horreard and Hillion 2006: p 92-93 and 178. See attachment VIII, SEM-EDX, CS 227-14-01 SK and CS 227-14-01 CaK. The sulphur mapping was not clear enough to determine if the calcium containing pigment contains sulphur. Point measurements have not been carried out. 200 Carlyle 2001: p 514. 201 Eastaugh Walsh, Chaplin and Siddall 2004: v 2, p 315. 202 See CS: 227-13 UV365 and Appendix VIII, SEM-EDX: CS 227-14 BEI. 203 Eastaugh Walsh, Chaplin and Siddall 2004 2004: v 2, p 770-771. 204 See for example CS: 227-08, 227-12, 227-13, 227-14 and 227-15. 205 Eastaugh, Walsh, Chaplin and Siddall 2004: v2 p 401-402. See also: Kate Helwig, Iron Oxide Pigments, Natural and synthetic in: Barbara Berrie (ed.), Artist pigments, A Handbook of Their History and Characteristic vol 4, London 2007, p 60-61. 206 Ibid. p 107. 207 Menpes 1904: p 69. 208 Townsend 1994: p 692. 209 Ibid. 210 Hermens and Wallert 2011: p 233.
31
Although the ground of Girl in muslin dress doesn’t contain Celestine, the presence of barite could be established. The use of the natural occurring mineral instead of synthetic barium sulphate is exceptional in itself.211 XRF-analysis Connie Ghilcirst consistently showed the presence of strontium as well as barium. However SEM-EDX analysis showed the ground contained the mineral barite just like Symphony in White.212 Next to celestine the ground of Effy Deans also contained small amounts of barite.213 Further study of Whistlers grounds could be a useful tool in attributing paintings in oil to the artist.
211 The use of barite has only been reported in the works of van Gogh. See: Marion, Boon, Hendriks, Horreard and Hillion 2006. 212 Oral communication Erma Hermens. 213 Hermens and Wallert 2011, p 234.
32
2.4 Paint layers
The appearance of the painting is determined by the structure of the canvas. The weave is visible throughout the pictures.214 The paint of the face is applied so thinly that even though it is painted with lead containing paint it does not show in the x-ray.215 The Pennells already noted the paint of the face was ‘hardly more than rubbed in’.216 Although the picture is painted with a lean brush, the visibility of the weave might have been enhanced by the lining of the canvas. Microscopic examination shows that on the knots of the canvas support the upper paint layers of the face and curtain are rubbed away revealing the grey priming underneath.217 The paint of the white dress is also abraded however, there are much more layers in this area that makes interpreting the paint surface more complex.218 Visual examination shows this area is defined by the visibility of the brushstroke rather than the structure of the canvas.219 It is not possible to distinguish between damage caused by technique –rubbing and scraping- or over cleaning. There are several changes in the composition. The position of the figure is altered several times over. Originally the woman was depicted with a sloping shoulder and viewed more from the side. The IRR image shows three stages in which the upper body is slowly turned towards the viewer.220 It seems the position of the face has not been altered. The proper left arm of the woman appears to be scraped down before it was repainted.221 Within the IRR as well as the X-ray this area shows less absorption than the rest of the dress.222 The arm is defined by the dark paint of the curtain rather than by the white/grey paint off the dress itself.223 Rubbing and scraping are characteristics especially associated with Whistler’s painting technique. Mayer and Mayer have remarked upon the confusing this causes to conservators ‘because the rubbing often looks very much like damage from over cleaning during a previous conservation treatment’.224 From the 1870’s onward the visibility of the canvas weave became a distinct feature of Whistler’s portrait paintings as well as his painting in general.225 Joyce Hill Stoner introduced the term Weavism to describe ‘rubbed-down paint that reveals the weave of the canvas below as part of the overall visual effect.’226 According to Stoner this distinctive surface first appeared on the portrait of F. R. Leyland (1870-73). Both the portrait of Whistler’s mother (1871), the portrait of Frances Leyland (1871-73) as well as the portrait of Cicely Alexander (1872-73) are cited as examples.227 The rubbing enhanced the translucent, superimposed layers and created a soft and antic-academic appearance.228 Rubbing and scraping do not seem to be exclusive feature of Whistler’s paintings from the 1870’s only. In an effort to rework the composition of Symphony in White,No 1: The White Girl (1862) Whistler scraped, or sanded down the paint too far and damaged the canvas.229 However the surface texture of the picture is dominated by thick impasto.230 It seems Whistler Weavism developed by means of constant dissatisfaction. During the mid-1860’s Whistler went through a period of artistic crisis. He abandoned the depiction of modern life dictated by Courbet’s Realism. Instead he gradually adopted an Aesthetic attitude. In 1864 he wrote to his friend the artist Henri Fatin Latour ‘I am so discouraged. Always the
214 See: Attachment III, Visual Examination: fig 08 and 09. 215 See: Attachment VI, MA –XRF: 18. The head is clearly visible in the PbL MA-XRF image indicating it is painted with a lead containing paint. 216 Elisabeth Robins Pennell and Joseph Pennell 19: 21 p 132. 217 See: Attachment IV, Digital microscopy: 07. 218 See: CS: 227-2, 227-4, 227-6, 227-7 and 227-8 and Attachment IV: Digital Microscopy: 07 Abrasion. 219 See: Attachment III, Visual examination: fig 05 and 10-12. 220 See: Attachment V, IRR and X-Ray image. 221 See: Attachment VI, MA-XRF Macro X-ray Fluorescence Scanning: 04 and 21. 222 See: Attachment V, IRR and X-Ray image. 223 Ibid. See also: Attachment III, Visual examination: fig 10. 224 Mayer and Mayer 2013: p 159. 225 Hill Stoner 1999: p 24. 226 Hill Stoner 2008: p 92. 227 Hill Stoner 1999: p 24. YMSM: 97, 101, 106 and 129. 228 Mayer and Mayer 2013: p 159. 229 Robert Wilson Torchia, Deborah Chotner, and Ellen G. Miles (ed.). American Paintings of the Nineteenth Century Part 2, National Gallery of Art, Wachington, D. C. 1998, p 238. 230 Ibid.
33 same thing! Always a task so painful and uncertain! I am so slow … I produce so little because I efface so much.’231 The ‘Arrangement’ of a single person on canvas turned out to be tasking. Whistler only finished about two dozen full-length portraits.232 The history of many of Whistler’s pictures shows he often had trouble completing them.233 In the Gentle art of making Enemies Whistler states: ‘Industry in Art is a necessity- not a virtue’.234 During the 1879 Ruskin trail, Whistler boasted he ‘knocked off’ the mass of his nocturne pictures in a couple of days: ‘One day to do the work and another to finish it’.235 However in painting portraits Whistler usually took his time. Anecdotes of Whistler repeatedly reworking his pictures are recorded frequently.236 When he was dissatisfied with the result, he often rubbed down a day’s work, to start afresh the next day. The Pennells mark Frances Leyland’s recollections of her sittings:
At the end of the sitting, the portrait looked as if a few hours’ work the next day was all it needed. But, in the morning, she would find it scraped down, with the work to be done over again.237
The endless search for perfection meant Whistler’s unfortunate subjects had to pose for hours straight in countless sittings. Cicely Alexander described those ‘long and torturous’ days to the Pennells.238 It took Whistler at least one year to complete her portrait. In November 1872 Miss Cicely Alexander posed twice a week.239 In December that year William Alexander presumed the picture would be ready in only a few sittings however, the sittings extend well into 1873.240 According to the catalogue raisonné it ‘was apparent that the area of the skirt was rubbed down before the final paint was applied’.241 According to Hackney in some areas of the picture the paint was scraped down so vigorously the knots of the actual canvas are revealed.242 The compositional changes in the Singer picture appear to be in accordance with Whistler’s working method. Although he made preparatory sketches for some of his portraits, it appears he developed his composition during the painting process.243 In Arrangement in Grey and Black No1: The Artist's Mother he made several changes, varying the position and outline of the figure and its surroundings.244 Due to its unfinished nature The Blue Girl: portrait of Connie Gilchrest provides an insight in Whistler’s compositional search.245 According to the catalogue raisonné it is one of the few pictures ‘which he did not destroy or mutilate in any way’.246 It shows many adjustment in the posture of the figure. The proper right leg has been rubbed out and repositioned. The proper left arm appeared to be indicated at first. It seems Connie Gilchrest originally was holding a skipping robe. Furthermore, the contours of the skirt appear to be adjusted as well. The IRR shows the black in the background consists
231 James Mc Neill Whistler to Henri Fatin Latour [Jan.Feb 1864], GUW 08036, 21-04-2017. See also: Joyce Hill Stoner 2008: p 94. 232 Merrill 1992: p 31. 233 YMSM: p xv. See for instance YMSM: 88, 102 and 109. 234 Whistler 1890: p 115. 235 Ibid. 236 Harmony in Flesh Colour forms the only notable exception. According to Edward W. Goodwin it was painted in half an hour. See YMSM: 191. According to Alain Cole Whistler had painted Arrangement in Black, No. 3: Sir Henry Irvinga’s Philip II of Spain very rapidly. In 1876 Cole observed: ‘J.W quite & madly enthousiastic about his power of painting such full lengths in two sittings or so’. However Whistler worked on the picture until 1885. See YMSM: 187. 237 Robins Pennell and Pennell 1908: p 177. 238 Robins Pennell and Pennell 1908: p 173. 239 Anna Mathilda Whistler to James H Gamble [Nov 22, 1872],GUW 6553, 21-04-2017. 240 William Cleverly Alexander to James McNeill Whistler [Dec 21, 1872], GUW 138, 21-04-2017. .Anna Mathilda Whistler to Rachel Agnes Alexander [Aug 26, 1873], GUW 7571, 21-04-2017. 241 YMSM: 129. 242 Hackney 1994: p 699 and Hackney 1995: p 189. 243 See for instance Symphony in Flesh Colour and Pink: Portrait of Mrs Frances Leyland, YMSM: 106, M: 430, 431, 432, 433, 435, 437 and 438 as well as Arrangement in Black, No 2: Portrait of Mrs Louise Huth, YMSM: 125, M: 455 and 545 . 244 Margaret MacDonald, ‘The painting of Whistler’s Mother’, in: Margret MacDonald (ed.), Whistler’s Mother: An American Icon, Aldershot and Burlington 2003, p 54. 245 YMSM 207. 246 Ibid.
34 of two mixtures of black paint.247 This suggests the picture was painted in at least two different campaigns.
2.4.1 The pink dress and paint handling.
Originally the woman wore a dress with what appears to be a bustle. The bustle can be seen within the IRR and X-ray.248 Cross-sections from this area consistently show one layer of the pink paint.249 In some abraded areas the pink paint of the original dress can be seen as well.250 The paint of the pink dress contains vermilion (HgS), what appears to be red lake and lead white.251 The mercury (Hg) elemental distribution image clearly shows the broad brushstrokes used to paint the pink dress. With the naked-eye the impasto of what seems to be the end of one of these strokes can be distinguished.252 The IRR, X-ray and Hg elemental distribution map show a painted mass corresponding to the first dress at the proper right arm of the women that might have been a shawl or sleeve.253 The pink dress appeared to have had a more slanting collar. Ultimately the dress is painted over by the white ruffled dress that we see now. The white dress consists of a layer of grey paint and at least one thin layers of white.254 The second dress appears to be adjusted as well. The lead (Pb) elemental distribution image shows a second ruffle near the proper left shoulder of the woman that is scraped down or painted over. This change is not visible in the x-ray image. The paint of the dress is applied with clearly visible swirling brushstrokes. At the edges of the brush mark the paint is slightly raised making the brush marks more pronounced. Although the hairs of the brush can be distinguished almost separately, the medium appears to be quite fluid.255 The first dress and the second dress show distinct differences in handling. Joyce Hill Stoner defined Whistler’s technical development.256 Before Whistler started to create an overall rubbed oil paint skin, Whistler varied his technique. Originally he applied his paint thickly using a palette knife or used a ‘ribbon like brushstrokes’ with ‘a central trough clearly revealing the width of the brush he used’.257 The ‘ribbon brushstroke’ can be seen in The little white girl (1864) and Study of Draped Figures (1864-65), as well as some of Whistler’s later studies in oil (fig. 7 and 8).258 It resembles the swirling brushstrokes in the second dress. The original dress is painted with broad brushstrokes. They closely resemble the brushwork in Cicely Alexander. Although this is one of Whistlers ‘rubbed’ paintings, individual brush marks can be distinguished within the dress and the coat draped over the stool in the background (fig 5 and 6). This seems contradictory with his use of strongly diluted paints. Whistler strived to achieve a uniform paint skin.259 However, Hermens and Wallert have noted that in the early nocturnes associated with this technique ‘clear brushstrokes seem to be used as a compositional device’.260 In Whistler’s pictures from the beginning of the seventies at least, the attempt to achieve an uniform paint skin did not mean he totally eradicated the visibility of the brush mark. The broad brushstrokes of the pink dress as well as the swirling brushstrokes of the white dress correspond to the brushwork found in genuine works by Whistler.
247 See: Attachment X, Examination of The Blue Girl. 248 See: Attachment V, Infrared and X-ray image. 249 See CS: 227-2, 2227-6, 227-7 and 227-8. 250 See: Attachment III, Visual examination: fig 13, 14 and Attachment IV, Digital microscopy: 08. 251 See Attachment VI, MA-XRF: 12 and 06. See also: CS 227-2, 227-7, 227-8, 227-9 and 227-11. 252 See: Attachment III, Visual examination: fig 14 and 1. Attachment IV, Digital microscopy: 08. Attachment V, Infrared and X- ray imager. 253 See: Attachment V, Infrared and X-ray imager. Attachment VI, MA-XRF: 12. 254 See: CS: 227-2, 22-4, 227-6, 227-7, and 227-8. 255 See: Attachment III, Visual Examination: fig 05 and 10-12. 256 See: Hill Stoner 1999: p 20. 257 Ibid. 258 YMSM: 52, 58 and 324. Only YMSM 58 has been studied in real life. In the case of YMSM 52 and 324 I relied on photographs reprinted in the catalogue raisoné. 259 Hermens and Wallert 2011: p 230. Mayer and Mayer 2013: 169-161. Townsend 1994: p 693-695. Hill Stoner 2008: p 95. 260 Ibid.
35
2.4.2 The curtain and differences in finish When the Pennells describe the picture in 1911 they note the difference in finish between the face and the curtain. They write:
She stands against a greenish black curtain, rather elaborately finished in comparison with the figure which is not carried very far, and the face which is hardly more than rubbed in.261 This difference in finish does not reflect the condition of the painting before restoration. The curtain seems to be painted more crudely than the figure. Furthermore, the curtain was painted when the figure was completed. The IRR image shows the curtain follows the outline of the final figure, with the exception of the ruffle in the front and on the ruffle on the shoulder.262 When the masking tape was removed it revealed part of the curtain was painted over the margin of the original canvas and on to the lining canvas.263 During cleaning the restorer noted the curtain had the same solubility as the varnish, suggesting the curtain was added later.264 Cleaning tests from both the varnish and the black curtain – containing varnish and the black overpainting- were analysed. GCMS analysis showed both samples contain preheated and non-preheated oil as well as three types of resin: colophony, mastic and shellac.265 However, the sample from the black curtain contained more oil. During cleaning the restorer noted two layers of black paint in some area’s while others contained one layer of black paint. This was confirmed by samples taken during restoration.266 Ultimately it was decided to only remove the upper layer since it was not possible to prove beyond doubt that the first layer is an overpainting. Cross-sections suggest the curtain is painted directly on to the grey ground.267 The concept of finish would be one of the important issues addressed during the Whistler- Ruskin trail. His pictures were considered ‘mere sketches’.268 They lacked composition and detail. Elements that according to the Victorian public were paramount to art. During his testimony Whistler demonstrated the difference between completed pictures and sketches, or uncomplete pictures by comparing two of his Grovesnor exhibits. The notorious ‘falling rocket’ – the only picture on sale during the 1877 Grovesnor exhibition- he described as ‘a finished picture’ because it corresponded to his concept and possessed ‘all its essential parts’.269 Arrangement in Black ,No 3: Sir Henry Irving as Philip the II of Spain was characterised by Whistler himself as ‘a mere sketch, unfinished’. He quickly pointed out it had not been for sale.270 When it was exhibited in 1877a reporter for the Times noted the ‘entire absence of details, even details generally considered so important to full-length portraits as arms and legs’.271 Marie Spartalie observed ‘three different outlines of the figure’ when the picture was exhibited in 1877.272 In 1855 Whistler made further changes to the portrait before it was sold.273 The sketchy nature of Whistler’s pictures was often intentional. On Harmony in Amber and Black and Arrangement in Brown Whistler remarked:
‘These were impressions of my own. I make them my study. I suppose them to appeal to non to those who may understand the technical matter.’274
261 Robins Pennell and Pennell 1921: p 132. 262 See: Attachment V, IRR and X-Ray image. Attachment III, Visual examination: fig 13 and 17-20. Attachment IV, Digital Microscopy: 06. 263 See: Attachment III, Visual Examination, fig 22 and 23. Was removed before it could be sampled. 264 Oral communication Gwendolyn Boevé- Jones. 265 GCMS Henk van Keulen. 266 See CS: 227-12, 227-13, 22-14 and 227-15. 267 Ibid. 268 Merrill 1992: p 222-228. 269 Ibid. 225. 270 Ibid. 271 Robins Pennell and Pennell 1908: p 213. 272 Robins Pennell and Pennell 1911: p 144. The quote is not included in the 1908 edition of the Life. 273 YMSM: 191. See also: Nathaly Spasky et. all., American paintings in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Volume II, A Catalogue with Works of Artist Born between 1816 and 1845, col. cat. Metropolitan Museum of Art New York 1985, p 378-385. 274 Merrill 1992: p 143. Hermens and Wallert 2011: p 231. YMSM: 182 and 181.
36
The difference in finish between the face and dress of The girl in the muslin dress suggests the picture is unfinished. The difference between the brushwork in the original pink dress, as well as the white dress, are notably different. The second dress is painted in a manner associated with an earlier period. Furthermore the dress is constructed somewhat awkwardly. The chest seems out of proportion with the figure of the woman. This raises the question if the second dress might be an overpainting. However there is no direct technical evidence. Cross-sections from this area do not show a layer of varnish or dirt between the paint layers of both dresses.275 Part of the white dress has been painted over the black curtain.276 These areas have not been removed after restoration.277 There seems to be no compositional reason to change the dress. When indeed the curtain was painted directly onto the grey ground, this would mean that the pink dress was painted without defining the background.. The relation between these different components of the picture remains unclear. However, we should be open to the possibility that the painting was made to look more finished by adding the curtain in the background. Furthermore the white dress the woman wears now might be added much later. Girls in white are not an uncommon theme in Whistler’s oeuvre. During the sixties he depicted several girls in white.278 However the composition of Girl in muslin dress is notably different from the paintings Whistler produced in this period. Furthermore the curtain in the background differs from the stylized interiors Whistler depicted in portraits such as that of Frances Leyland and Cicely Alexander.279. Similarly, the monochrome backgrounds of portraits such as the Effy Deans and the portrait of Connie Ghilcrist differ from the Singer picture.280 Only three of his portraits in oil show a curtain in the background.281 The sloping shoulders of the original composition with pink dress appears to be closest to Arrangement in flesh colour and grey: the Chinese screen and Harmony in white and blue.282 Both pictures were part of the Dowdeswell lot and are included in the oeuvre catalogue as doubtful. Upon fist seeing the picture, the Pennells noted similarities between the model of Symphony in White and the Chinese screen.283 In the background of Symphony in White and Blue a long green stoke of the brush is visible on one side of the woman while two touches of blue are applied on the other. According to the Pennells the restorer at the time was thinking of cleaning them away.284 When the picture was bought by the Leeds gallery in 1944 they noted ‘a good deal of inferior painting had been done on the dress’.285 According to the catalogue raisonné the picture ‘has been scraped down, probably by Whistler, and reworked, probably by other hands.’286 The condition of the paintings acquired by Dowdeswell appears to be one of the main causes for the troubles in attributing these paintings.
275 See CS: 227-4, 227-6, 227-7, 227-8, 227-9 and 227-10. 276 See: Attachment III, Visual Examination: fig 17-20. CS: 227-6. 277 See: Attachment III, Visual Examination: fig 24 and 25. 278 YMSM: 38, 52, 61. It has not been possible to do any extensively study on the style of the dress. The standing ruffled collar of both the white dress is representative of the historic style fashionable in the 1870’s. However the ruffles on the shoulder and front of the dress do not correspond with this style of dress. The bustle and colour of the original pink dress appears to be more in sync with contemporary fashion. Oral communication Bianca du Mortier, Curator of Costume, Rijksmuseum. See also: Margaret MacDonald, Susan Grace Galassi and Aileen Ribeiro, Whistler Woman & Fashion, exh. cat. The Frick Collection, New York 2003, p110. 279 YMSM: 106 and 129. 280 YMSM: 183 and 207 281 See YMSM: 190 and 229. See also: M 454, 455, 506, 507, 709, 710, 717, 846, 852. 282 YMSM: 38, 51 and 126. 283 See: Attachment V, Infrared and X-ray image. 284 Robins Pennell and Pennell, 1921: p 128. 285 P. Hendy to Jospeh Revillon, [June 29, 1945], GUL MS Revillon 3/317. 286 YMSM: 126.
37
2.5 Restorations There appear to have been at least three restoration campaigns before the picture was restored by Gwendoly Boevé- Jones. When the Pennells describe the painting in 1910 the painting was in the process of restoration. 287 The transcript of the original gives more information about the restorer. It reports:
[…] a restorer in Brewer St. – Holder whom J recognized as the man who cleaned and pressed the Leyland at the time of the Whistler Memorial Show.288
Despite this description the restorer remains unidentified. The Pennells describe the paintings bought by the Dowdeswells as rolls of canvas. This is consistent with damage in the painting. The x-ray shows cracking of the paint layer near the ruffle of the proper left shoulder.289 This damage became more visible after cleaning.290 The cracks in the paint seems caused by mechanical pressure possibly from rolling the canvas.291 Since the Pennells mention some of the canvases in the Dowdeswell’s possession as ‘back from the liners’, it seems reasonable to assume that Symphony in White was lined during that period. The Pennells describe the picture as a three quarter-length portrait, therefore the picture must have been the size it is now. When the painting is indeed reduced in size it must have been cut down before the Pennells saw it. When the Springfield museum sought to acquire the picture, Revillon was consulted. He saw the portrait in London when it was in the possession of M. de Beer. Revillon noticed distinct differences between a photograph taken at the time and the photograph he was sent by the Springfield museum. He writes:
‘notice the background, the frill, the waist line and the high light on the head. Is she wearing a pink rose Pennell makes no mention of that, and what of the butterfly on the right, that seems odd for the sixties’.292
The mercury elemental distribution image shows paint corresponding to the original pink dress - under the ruffle of the white dress - that could have been interpreted as a pink rose.293 The butterfly is not described by the Pennells and seems to be added to sell the painting as an autographed Whistler. The pink rose as well as the butterfly are removed before the Springfield museum sought to acquire the picture since they write: ‘Incidentally there was no sign of any pink rose anywhere nor any butterfly on the right.’ 294 When the picture was viewed under UV light they noticed ‘an obvious manipulation of the surface running down the ruffles on the front of the dress’.295 This would be the spot where the pink rose was supposed to be. Previous restorers seem to have interpreted the painting differently. The correspondence between Revillon, Coburn and the Springfield museum demonstrates that the picture has been restored and altered considerably after the Pennells saw it. When the painting was again examined under UV light it showed clear overpainting within the dress as well as the black curtain in the background. During the recent restoration previous overpaintings have been removed. The frill at the front of the dress is perhaps the most notable difference between before and after restoration.296 Furthermore restoration revealed additional small curls at the forehead of the woman, which significantly changed the womans hair style. It appears that in the past the picture was altered to look more like a Whistler.
287 See Chapter 1. 288 See :Attachment I, LC Whistler Collection. 289 See: Attachment V, Infrared and X-ray image. 290 See: Attachment III, Visual Examination: fig 22. 291 Oral communication Gwen Tauber, Painting conservator at the Rijksmuseum. The damage is consistent with damage caused by mechanical pressure. However, it lacks the lateral folds associated with rolling the canvas. 292 Letter Fredrick B. Robinson to Frederick W. Coburn, May 17 1948, University of Glasgow Library, Special Collections Department, MS Revillon 2/206. 293 See: Attachment V, MA-XRF: 12. 294 Letter Fredrick B. Robinson to Frederick W. Coburn, May 17 1948, University of Glasgow Library, Special Collections Department, MS Revillon 2/206. 295 Ibid. 296 See: Attachment III, Visual Examination: fig 23.
38
2.6 Conclusion
Technical analysis could not prove beyond doubt if Whistler did, or did not painted the picture. It revealed characteristics that conform Whistler’s painting technique, as well as aspects that differ. The presence of celestine would have been an important facet in authenticating the picture. However, barium sulfate was used instead. The use of a grey priming conforms with Whistler’s usual practice. However in this case charcoal black is used instead of the ivory black Whistler typically used. The abraded paint surface is in accordance with Whistler’s habit of rubbing and scraping, however it can’t be determined if this effect is intentional or the result of over cleaning. The painting is constructed in several stages. The dress and posture of the woman are adjusted several times over. Whistler’s habit of continuous reworking his pictures is well recorded. Different types of paint handling are visible within the painting. Both types of paint handling can be found in authentic Whistlers. The original dress was painted with a broad brush. The paint is applied in free brushstrokes not unlike the brushwork in the portrait of Cicely Alexander. The Swirling brush marks of the white dress resemble the ‘ribbon like’ brush stroke described by Stoner. It could not be determined if the curtain was added later. However, the difference in finish between the face, dress and curtain seem to suggest the painting is unfinished and possibly partly overpainted. The picture seemed to be altered considerately during previous restorations. It appears to be reduced in size and at one point the woman wore a pink rose on her dress. A butterfly signature was added – and later removed- to make the picture look more like an authentic Whistler. Human interference appears to have drastically altered the appearance of the picture. It is difficult to distinguish between the original picture and possible later additions.
39
CHAPTER 3 ‘Miscellaneous Walter Greaves’
Stylistic comparison
In response to the Time’s article that named him An Unknown master, Walter Greaves appears to have said: ‘They call me an ‘unknown master’ […] but I’ve been known in Chelsea all my life’.297 The opposite of Whistler’s cosmopolitan lifestyle and outspoken personality, Greaves is remembered as a man of the quiet and simple life: a true Chelsea artist.298 The controversy caused by the 1911 Goupil exhibition would define the perception of the artist. His obituaries all recall his short-lived fame as ‘pupil of Whistler’.299 In more recent literature Greaves is described as elusive: ‘flittering through the biographies and autobiographies of Whistler and other artists.’300 The almost symbiotic relationship of Whistler and Walter Greaves is illustrated by Getcher and Markts annotated biography of Whistler, which contains a chapter titled Miscellaneous containing Walter Greaves.301 In an interview to the Sun, Joseph Pennell warns for the confusion caused by Greaves’ works. In it he refers to a picture both he and Théodor Duret (1838-1927) believed to be a genuine Whistler. Duret an eminent art critic and collector, owned several paintings by Whistler.302 The picture discussed by Pennell -presumably Nocturne: The Solent - came from ‘the same source’ [Walter Spencer] as the Greaves pictures acquired by Marchant:303
What I am particularly interested in is that Whistler’s work should not be confused with Greaves’, and there is a great danger of this coming about […]. There is a picture which last year was in Chicago, where I saw it, pronounced by Théodore Duret and myself to be a genuine Whistler. I still believe it is a genuine Whistler, but I know for a fact that this picture came from exactly the same source [Walter Spencer] from which Marchant obtained most of his Greaveses, and I also know that there are between forty and fifty more of these pictures which have never yet been publicly seen at present in the hands of another dealer [Walter Dowdeswell].304
Girl in muslin dress must have been among the ‘between forty and fifty’ pictures mentioned by Pennell. One could argue that the tenacity with which both Pennell and Marchant argued their cases, concealed rather than revealed the truth about the authorship of these pictures. Technical analysis of Symphony in White showed characteristics that are both consistent and inconsistent with Whistler’s technique. Understanding the works ascribed to Walter Greaves therefore seems important in attributing the Singer picture. There is no established oeuvre for Walter Greaves. This provided a serious problem in writhing this chapter, and therefore it will focus on defining his personal style. What distinguishes the works of Walter Greaves from the work of James McNeill Whistler and how do the works ascribed to Greaves compare to The girl in the muslin dress?
297 Christian Briton, Walter Greaves (pupil of Whistler), exh. cat. Cottier & Co. New York 1912, p 4. 298 -, WALTER GREAVES (Pupil of WHISTLER), a Memorial Exhibition, exh. cat. William Marchant & Co. Goupil Gallery, London, 1931 p 1. 299 See for instance: R. R. Tatlock, ‘Walter Greaves’, Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs, v. 58 no. 334 1931, p 261. -, ‘Walter Greaves’ paintings’, The Scotchman 10 January 1931, p 10. -, ‘The late Walter Greaves, A pupil of Whistler’, Yorkshire Post and Leeds Intelligencer 15 January 1931, p 6. 300 Tom Pocock, Chelsea Reach, The Brutal Friendship of WHISTLER and WALTER GREAVES, London 1970, p 7. 301 Robert H. Getscher and Paul G. Marks, James McNeill Whistler and John Singer Sargent, Two Annotated Bibliographies, New York & London 1986. 302 YMSM: 70, 156, 166, 173 and 437. 303 YMSM 71. 304 Anon., ‘Puzzles of Whistler and his Pupil’, Sun 28 January 1912, p 2. Reprinted in: Morse Jones 2015: 118-119.
40
3.1 Methodology
The most extensive study of Walter Greaves is Tom Pocock’s Chelsea Reach, The Brutal Friendship of Whistler and Walter Greaves.305 This biography focuses on the ‘brutal friendship’ between pupil and master as well as Greaves’ connection to his native Chelsea. Greaves’ art however is discussed only marginally. Except for six letters from James McNeill Whistler to Walter Greaves, there are no primary sources directly relating to Walter Greaves.306 Greaves’ claim of authorship is conveyed by others.307 The catalogue of Greaves’ first solo exhibition (Goupil Gallery, 1911) contains a letter from the artist to the public. When the predating of Passing under old Battersea bridge caused the Pennells to question the validity of Greaves’ statements, William Marchant revealed he had written the letter and paraphrased what Greaves had told him in person.308 With the publication of L’affaire Greaves in The New Age Walter Sickert became Greaves’ most well-spoken advocate.309 The catalogue of Greaves’ first American exhibition at the Cottier Gallery contains a discussion of his work by the American art historian Christian Briton (1870-1942).310 Several exhibition catalogues as well as the material contained in the Witt reference Library provide an insight into the works ascribed to Walter Greaves.311 Although the Pennells questioned the authorship of some of the paintings exhibited in the 1911 Goupil Gallery exhibition, they are considered to be the core of Greaves’ oeuvre.312 However, other paintings ascribed to Walter Greaves are featured as well. The signed dates of Greaves’ paintings are often demonstrably inaccurate, making the dating and attribution more difficult.313 It has not been possible to do any extensive technical research on paintings by Walter Greaves. Nocturne (undated) from the collection of the Hunterian Gallery of Art is the only painting attributed to Greaves that has been physically examined (IRR).314 James Abbott McNeill Whistler on the widow's walk at his house in Lindsey Row, Chelsea (Signed W. Greaves and dated 1869) has been visually inspected when it was exhibited at the European Fine Art Fair Maastricht 11-03-2016 to 20-03-2016.315 Therefore this chapter mainly relies on written sources and photographic evidence.
305 Pocock 1970. 306 James McNeill Whistler to Walter Greaves, [October/November 1871], GUW 11469, accessed 07-07-2017. James McNeill Whistler to Walter Greaves, [October/November 1871], GUW 11495, accessed 07-07-2017. James McNeill Whistler to Walter Greaves [November/December 14, 1871], GUW 11496, accessed 07-07-2017. James McNeill Whistler to Walter Greaves, [1871/1876], GUW 11494, accessed 07-07-2017. James McNeill Whistler to Walter Greaves, [1871/1876], GUW 11468, accessed 07-07-2017. James McNeill Whistler to Walter Greaves, [September 10, 1897], GUW 09125, accessed 07-07-2017. James McNeill Whistler to Walter Greaves, [January/ November 1900], GUW 11497, accessed 07-07-2017. 307 See chapter one, p 16-18. 308 Marchant 1911: p 38. 309 Geurtzner Robins 2003: p 282-285. 310 Briton 1912. 311 -, Catalogue of oil paintings, a water colour and etchings, by Walter Greaves, pupil of Whistler, exh. cat. William Marchant & Co. Goupil Gallery London, 1911. Christian Briton, Walter Greaves (pupil of Whistler), exh. cat. Cottier & Co. New York, January 11 to February 10 1912. -, Catalogue of oil paintings, drawings and etchings of Chelsea, Cremorne Gardens, Battersea and the river, by Walter and H. Greaves, pupils of Whistler, with notes on old Chelsea by Walter Greaves, and foreword by W.S. Marchant, William Marchant & Co. Goupil Gallery, 1922. -, WALTER GREAVES (Pupil of WHISTLER), a Memorial Exhibition, exh cat William Marchant & Co. Goupil Gallery, London 1931. This is no summery of all the exhibition’s dedicated to Walter Greaves but an account of the catalogues used for this chapter. 312 See Chapter one, p 16-18. 313 Denker 1995: p 101-102. 314 See: Attachment XIV, Examination Nocturne. 315 See: Attachment XIII, Visual examination, Whistler on the widow’s walk.
41
3.2 Walter Greaves in Whistler’s studio
In defence to the Pennell’s acquisitions, William Marchant emphasised that his pupil Walter Greaves would have been well acquainted with James McNeill Whistler’s technique.316 To the Pennell’s, Whistler described Walter Greaves and his brother Henry Greaves (1844-1904) as his first pupils. 317 In 1895, Whistler writes about them: ‘When I first went to Chelsea they were boys, the sons of Greaves the well- known boat builder – my neighbour in Lindsey Row’.318 He continues ‘They were more my pupils than anyone else has ever been - and full of talent - […].319 According to the 1911 exhibition catalogue Walter and Henry ‘worked for and under Whistler for over twenty years’.320 By the 1870’s James McNeill Whistler contemplated establishing an atelier however it never materialised.321 The Greaves brothers apprenticeship appears to have been more informal. In the introduction to the 1911 Goupil exhibition Walter states ‘our families became very close’.322 Occasionally, the family was invited for dinner at Whistler’s house and Whistler visited the Greaves at theirs.323 The brothers Greaves seem to have seen to all the routine work within the studio. In the preface of the 1911 Goupil Gallery, Walter Greaves describes the task they performed: ‘We used to get ready his colours and canvases, prepared the grey distemper ground which he so liked working upon.’324 The Pennells had interviewed Walter in preparation of The Life.325 The Life and The Whistler Journal record several of the tasks the Greaves brothers preformed. Walter and Henry Greaves bought Whistler’s materials and prepared his canvas and colours.326 They used to execute the designs of Whistler’s frames.327 Occasionally Walter Greaves showed visitors around the studio.328 When Whistler moved from No. 7 Lindsey Row to No. 2 Lindsey Row, Walter and Henry Greaves helped to decorate the walls.329 According to the Pennells, the Greaves’ boatyard provided the mahogany used as a panel for some of Whistler’s nocturnes.330 The Greaves brothers seem to have assisted Whistler in executing larger commissions. When Whistler obtained the commission to design two mosaics to decorate the South Court of the South Kensington museum (V&A) Walter and Henry helped to photograph ‘the traced carton’ and subsequently ‘enlarger upon the big canvas’ the design of The Gold Girl.331 In a letter to Henry Cole (1808-1882) - General superintendent at the Department of Practical Art - Whistler refers to work done by the Greaves.332 He writes: ‘[…] you shall have the cartoon and canvass on the Monday - and my pupils [Henry and Walter Greaves] shall work upon it during my absence.’ 333 The Greaves brothers also assisted in applying the gilded decoration in Harmony in Blue and Gold: The Peacock Room now in the collection of the Freer Gallery of Art334 The Pennells report:
316 Marchant 1911: p 48-49 and 57-58. 317 Robins Pennell and Pennell 192: p 97. 318 James McNeill Whistler to David Coral Tomson, [October 24, 1895], GUW 08379, accessed 07-07-2017. 319 Ibid. 320 Ibid. 321 Merrill 1992: p 62. 322 Goupil Gallery 1911. 323 Elizabeth and Joseph Pennell 1908: p 109. Letter inviting the Greaves family for dinner: James McNeill Whistler to Elizabeth Greaves, [1876/1879], GUW 11454, accessed 07-07-2017. Letter to apologizing for not visiting: James McNeill Whistler to Elizabeth Greaves, [July 1977/May 1879], GUW 12669, accessed 07-07-2017. Robins Pennell and Joseph Pennell 1921: p 117. 324 Goupil Gallery 1911. 325 Robins Pennell and Pennell 1921: p 114-126. 326 Robins Pennell and Pennell 1908: p 164. Robins Pennell and Pennell 1921: p 118. 327 Robins Pennell and Pennell 1908: p 85 and 128. Robins Pennell and Pennell 1921: p 116-117. 328 Ibid. 329 Robins Pennell and Pennell 1908: p 137-138. 330 Robins Pennell and Pennell 1908: p 166. Robins Pennell and Pennell 1921: p 116. Nocturne in Blue-Green indeed is painted on a mahogany panel however Stephen Hackney notes: ‘This support is typical of panels supplied commercially by colour men during the nineteenth century’. See: Stephen Hackney 1998: p 698. YMSM: 103. 331 See: M 357 (possibly) 458, 460,461. James McNeill Whistler to Henry Cole [April 27, 1973?], (see note …). Robins Pennell and Pennell 1908: p 150. 332 James McNeill Whistler to Henry Cole [April 27, 1973?], GUW 07887, accessed 07-07-2017. See also: Robins Pennell and Pennell 1908: p 150. 333 James McNeill Whistler to Henry Cole [April 27, 1973?], GUW 07887, accessed 07-07-2017. 334 Robins Pennell and Pennell 1921: p 106.
42
His two pupils helped him: “We laid on the gold”, Mr. Walter Greaves says, and there were times when the three were found with their hair and faces covered with gold.335
This story is confirmed by Mortimer Menpes to whom Whistler had related the story with typical Whistlerian exaggeration. Though Menpes reports only ‘one pupil’ working with Whistler.
At months they worked so frantically that it seemed to be raining gold. Their hair became gilded; gold settled on their faces and on their lungs; the choked, and sneezed a could scarcely breathe.336
After Whistler returned from Venice their relationship deteriorated. According to Sickert, Whistler resented the brothers for not attending an exhibition.337 The Pennells did not seem to think there was any real row, however Greaves complained that ‘in the end he got to do nothing but carrying and fetching’.338 The Greaves brothers provided in their income by selling ‘views of Chelsea’ to local patrons and dealers.339 Of the two Walter Greaves is usually considered the more talented artist. Christian Briton describes Walter Greaves as the colourist who ‘readily took to pigment’ and Henry as the ‘careful draughtsman’ and ‘strong on detail’.340 Walter Sickert bluntly states: ‘Walter Greaves is a great master. Henry doesn’t count’.341 It appears that during this period they still presented themselves as Whistler’s pupils. When they gained the commission to decorate the assembly rooms at Streatham town hall in 1890 (now destroyed) they signed their work with ‘pupils of Whistler’.342
3.2.1. The Satellites
In his long overcoat, straight brimmed hat and white gloves Walter Greaves looked remarkably like Whistler. The Pennells note ‘Walter Greaves seems always to have tried to get himself up like Whistler’.343 Walter Spencer called him ‘one of my old Bohemians’.344 In his self-portrait exhibited in the 1911 Goupil exhibition (cat no 37), now in the collection of the Tate Britain London, Greaves modelled himself after his master’s example.345 The pose and large brimmed hat are reminiscent of Arrangement in Gray: Portrait of the Painter in the collection of the Detroit Institute of Arts Detroit.346 When Whistler’s wife Beatrix Goodwin (1857-1896) visited Streatham town hall to see the decorations, she described the paintings as second-rate imitations of Whistler.
[…] there is no attempt at any thing original – [...] They have remembered anything and everything you ever did, even to the Japanese panels in your drawing room, your brown paper sketches, the Balcony Battersea Bridge - Irving as Philip, the patterns on your frames!!347
335 Robins Pennell and Pennell 1908: p 204-205. See also: Robins Pennell and Pennell 1921: p 117. 336 Menpes 1904: p 130. 337 Geurtzner Robins 2003: p 282. 338 Robins Pennell and Pennell 1921: p 118. 339 Britton 1912: p 10. See also: Marchant 1922: p 3. 340 Briton 1912: p 37-38. 341 Geurtzner Robins 2003: p 282. 342 William Marchant 1911: p 38. Tom Pokock 1970: p 129-130. 343 Robins Pennell and Pennell 1921: p 114. 344 Spencer 1923: p 264. 345 The self-portrait is reproduced in: William Marchant, A Reply to an Attack, London 1911, p 3. -,‘By the newly discovered master: works by Walter Greaves. Pictures form the exhibition at the Goupil Gallery’, Illustrated London News, Saturday 13 May 1911, p 19. Briton 1912: p I. Now in the Tate collection: Walter Greaves, Self-Portrait , oil on paper, 40x32,1 cm, Tate London, N06246. 346 YMSM 122. 347 Beatrix Whistler to James McNeill Whistler [October 26, 1895], GUW 06628, accessed 07-07-2017. See also: Beatrix Whistler to James McNeill Whistler [October 24, 1895], GUW 06627, accessed 07-07-2017. James McNeill Whistler to Beatrix Whistler [October 27/30, 1895], GUW 0662, accessed 07-07-20179. Robins Pennell and Pennell 1921: p 98.
43
The Greaves brothers seemed to have learned more by observation and imitation than through formal lessons. The Pennells relate a story told to them by the Chelsea artist James Christie (1847-1914) that is telling in regards to the Greaves/Whistler relationship. Whistler sometimes attended life drawing classes at the local studio of Victor Barthe (ca. 1838-?). On those occasions he was always accompanied by Walter and Henry.
Whistler was not a regular attender, but came occasionally, and always accompanied by two young men – brothers- Greaves by name. They simply adored Whistler, and were not unlike him in appearance, owing to an unconscious imitation of his dress and manner. It was amusing to watch the movements of the trio when they came into the studio (always late). The curtain that hung in front of the door would suddenly be pulled back by one of the Greaves, and a trim, prim little man, with a bright, merry eye, would step in with ‘Good evening’, cheerfully said to the whole studio. After a second’s survey, while taking off his gloves, he would hand his hat to the other brother, who hung it up carefully as if it were a sacred thing, then he would wipe his brow and moustache with a spotless handkerchief, then in the most careful way he arranged his materials, and sat down. Then having imitated in a general way the preliminaries, the two Greaves sat down on either side of him. There was a sort of tacit understanding that his and their studies should not be subjected to our rude gaze. I, however saw, with the tail of my eye, as it were, that Whistler made small drawings on brown paper with coloured chalks, that the figures (always a female figure) would be about four inches long, that the drawing was bold and fine, and not slavishly like the model. The comical part was that his satellites didn’t draw from the model at all, that I saw, but sat looking at Whistler’s drawing and copying that as far as they could. He never entered into the conversation, which was unceasing, but occasionally rolled a cigarette and had a few whiffs, the Greaves brother always requiring their whiffs at the same moments. The trio packed up, and left before the others always.’348
The brothers Greaves became equipped in imitating Whistler. In L’Affaire Greaves Walter Sickert details the difficulty in distinguishing works of master and pupil. In explaining the difficulty, he uses examples from his own apprenticeship with Whistler. Pupil and master often paint after the same subject.349 The pupil sometimes uses the materials of the master. 350And sometimes the master finishes or retouches the work of a pupil.351 Sickert adequately described the problems in distinguishing between master and pupil. It is the pupil’s mission to learn to imitate his master’s style and method. Differences between master and pupil are often minor. Whistler wrote to Greaves that he considered it ‘quite right that the traditions of the studio should go on through the pupils’.352 The Hunterian Art Gallery houses drawings from Barthé’s drawing class by Walter Greaves as well as James McNeill Whistler. Greaves drawing looks remarkably like his master’s.353 The Portrait of Walter Greaves (Chalk on brown paper, Rhode Island School of Design) now attributed to Whistler, might be a self-portrait.354 The crudeness of the drawing distinguishes it from Whistler’s usual style. In the catalogue raisonné of Whistler’s drawings Greaves is characterised as a ‘wonderfully original artist’ whom under Whistler’s influence ‘became quite skilfully derivative, and it is sometimes difficult to differentiate between their work’.355 Walter Greaves’ drawings closely resemble Whistler and it is often difficult to distinguish both artist.356
348 Robins Pennell Pennell 1911: p 78. 349 Geurtzner Robins (ed.) 2003: p 284. 350 Ibid. 351 Ibid. 352 James McNeill Whistler to Walter Greaves, [1871/1876], GUW 11468, accessed 07-07-2017. 353 M: 417 and Walter Greaves, Seated nude, ca. 1870, black and white chalk on brown paper, 28.5 x 18.2 cm, Hunterian Art Gallery Glasgow, GLAHA 42338. See Margaret MacDonald 2008: p 13. 354 M: 421. 355 M: 421. See also M: 418, 570, 656, 657, 697 and 1005. 356 It is even suggested that William Marchant and Walter Greaves were involved in some fraud in regard to Whistler’s drawing. See M: 416.
44
3.3. Walter Greaves the artist
Some of Walter Greaves’ river scenes depicting the Thames by night, distinctly show Whistler’s influence. Symphony in Silver and Grey (Ashmolean museum of Art and Archaeology Oxford) was formerly attributed to James McNeill Whistler but is now ascribed to Walter Greaves.357 Some of the pictures exhibited in the 1911 Goupil exhibition also adhere to Whistler’s doctrine.358 In his pictures of the same subject Whistler painted atmospheric effects.359 Nocturne: Blue and Silver – Chelsea was originally titled 'Harmony in Blue- Green – Moonlight’.360 In 1872 he first employed the musical term nocturne - denoting a gentle piece of classical music- to downplay the significance of subject matter.361 Walter Greaves favoured Whistler’s original title ‘moonlights’.362 In The Greaves brothers and Victorian Chelsea an exhibition John Yeoman remarks: ‘Whistler painted ideas and theories about them. Greaves painted things because he loved them.’.363 Walter Greaves reportedly proclaimed: ‘To Mr Whistler a boat is always a tone, to us it was always a boat.’364 This statement seems to define the distinction between both artists. Eric Denker described the art of the Greaves brothers as ‘a mix of competent craftsmanship and naiveté’.365 Indeed it was the naivety of Greaves art that was most admired by his contemporaries. Hammersmith Bridge on Boat-race Day (cat no. 68) was hailed a naïve masterpiece.366 Walter Sickert calls it a ‘staggerer’. He states: ‘It’s perfect naiveté results in the purest art.’367 The picture was reportedly painted in 1862 when Greaves was 16 years old.368 The painting depicts the old suspension bridge at Hammersmith crowded with people. A racing boat with two rowers and a coxswain protrudes from underneath it. The crowd is suspended over the canvas like brightly coloured dots. Unloading the Brick Barge, Lindsey Wharf (cat. no. 28) is another example of Greaves more personal style.369 The picture also depicts Battersea however Chelsea Church and the factories on the opposite shore are depicted in detail. Within these pictures Greaves uses point perspective instead of the atmospheric perspective dictated by Whistler. The rubbing and scraping characteristic for Whistler’s painting technique from the 1870’s onwards could not be distinguished in the pictures examined. In James Abbott McNeill Whistler on the widow's walk at his house in Lindsey Row, Chelsea the paint is applied thinly. The brushstrokes are barely visible. Although there are visible alterations in the composition there is no indication that Greaves scraped away paint to alter it. Nocturne from the collection of the Hunterian Gallery of Art is painted over a rural composition. The IRR image showed the under-drawing of a group of three cows. When viewed in raking light the impasto of the underlying picture is still visible on the paint surface. In these cases, at least the scraping of paint layers did not appear to be part of Greaves’ pictorial language.
3.3.1 Greaves’ portraits
The Oxford dictionary of modern and contemporary art describes Walter Greaves as a painter of river scenes, landscapes and portraits.370 The 1911 Goupil catalogue mainly includes pictures depicting Chelsea and
357 Walter Greaves (attributed to), Symphony in Silver and Grey, oil on canvas, 61 x 45 cm, Ashmolean Museum of Art and Archaeology, A916. See: 358 Goupil Gallery 1911: cat no. cat no. 36, 41, 52, 59. 359 James McNeill Whistler, Mr. Whistler’s “Ten O, Clock”, Portland Main 1916, p 13. Margaret MacDonald and Patricia de Montfort, An American in London: Whistler and the Thames, Exh. Cat. Dulwich Picture Gallery, Dulwich 2013, p 27-29. 360 YMSM: 103. See also: Sutherland 2014: p 118. 361 Merrill 1992: p 144. See also: YMSM: 117 and 118. James McNeill Whistler to Frederick Leyland [November 2/9, 1872], GUW 08794, accessed 07-07-2017. 362 Robins Pennell and Pennell 1921: p 116. Briton 1912: p 45. Goupil Gallery 1911: cat. no. 51, 52, 56, 59. 363 John Yeoman, The Greaves brothers and Victorian Chelsea an exhibition, exh. cat. Chelsea library London, 1968 p 9. 364 Briton 1912: p 62. 365 Denker 1995: p 97. 366 See for instance: -, ‘An unknown master, Exhibition at the Goupil Gallery’, The Times 5 May 1911, p 3. 367 Geurtzner Robins (ed.) 2003: p 283-84. 368 Goupil Gallery 1911. Pocock dates the picture 1862 by analysing the dress. Pocock, p 80. 369 Walter Greaves, Battersea Reach, c.1870, oil on canvas, 88,8 x 101,6 cm, Tate Britain London, N05216. 370 Ian Chilvers and John Glaves-Smith, A Dictionary of Modern and Contemporary Art, Second edition, Oxford 2009*1998, p 286.
45 the Thames but it also includes five portraits in oil.371 The catalogue only mentions the name and medium of these works. Other descriptions, such as dimensions have not been included. It is therefore difficult to identify the paintings included in the catalogue. Reproductions in contemporary sources are used to identify the paintings exhibited in the 1911 Goupil exhibition.372 The Witt library houses reproductions of sixteen portrait paintings by Walter Greaves. The 1911 Goupil catalogue contains no portraits of Whistler. However most of the portraits included in the Witt reference library depict the elder artist. These portraits are discussed by Eric Denker in In Pursuit of the Butterfly: Portraits of James McNeill Whistler.373 According to Denker Greaves painted over one hundred portraits of his well-known master.374 It appears Greaves painted these portraits from memory rather than from life.375 Greaves’ portraits of Whistler seem almost caricature. They echo the naivety of his Chelsea views. Greaves depicted Whistler in assorted context. Typically, Whistler is rendered almost life-size, and depicted in front of a studio interior or outside, with a recognisable view in the background.376 Occasionally though less frequently Greaves rendered Whistler full-length and outdoors.377 James Abbott McNeill Whistler on the widow's walk at his house in Lindsey Row, Chelsea is typical of this group of paintings. The quality of Greaves portraits seems to vary. Within the portrait of Carlyle (cat. no. 44) Greaves closely followed the example of his master.378 His version only shows subtle derivations from Whistler’s portrait of Carlyle. For example Greaves omitted the foulard covering Carlyle’s legs depicted by Whistler. The 1911 Goupil catalogue contains two full length portraits depicting woman The Green dress (cat no 31) and Portrait of Miss Alice Greaves (cat no 58).379 In regards to the portrait of Alice, Walter Sickert stated: ‘Walter Greaves has accomplished what Whistler spent his life trying to do. It is odd, tragic humorous, cocasse […] ‘Au Louvre with Tinny Greaves!’.380 The Times praised the portrait of Miss Alice Greaves for the ‘boldness in the whole design’ however the quilted dress was faulted for being ‘a little tiresome in its repetition’.381 In studying the reproduced image it is evident that the reflection of every square of the quilted dress is rendered faithfully and separately. The Green dress depicts one of Greaves’ other sisters Eliza Greaves Ranger (1839 –c. 1910). The picture is discussed in a letter from Whistler to Walter Greaves and Whistler names ‘Mrs. Ranger’ as the subject.382 Like the portrait of Alice it is finished in high detail. The use of light and shade as well as the attention to detail in depicting the elaborate costume make these portraits more conventional than Whistler's portrait pictures. The Seamstress, housed in the national museum of Wales is attributed to Whistler by the museum.383 However the Witt library filed it under Walter Greaves. It is not included in The paintings of James McNeill Whistler. The picture is described by the Pennells as part of the Dowdeswell lot.384 They observe ‘the pose is like Whistler, the painting of lace and embroidery fine, but the head is too sharply cut out from the canvas to be like his work’.385 They add ‘the treatment is more unlike [Whistler], though all
371 Goupil Gallery 1911: cat no. 31, 37, 44, 55 and 58. 372 See: Attachment IX, Oil Paintings Exhibited in the 1911 Groupil Gallery Exhibition. 373 Denker 1995: p 97-109. 374Ibid p 99. 375 Ibid. p 97. 376 Ibid. p 99. 377 Ibid. p 101. 378 See: Attachment XI, Oil Paintings, Exhibited in the 1911 Goupil Gallery Exhibition. Briton 1912: p 16. Robins Pennell and Pennell 1921: p 129 and 136-137. Compare to: YMSM: 137. Two studies of Carlyle are included in The oil paintings of James McNeill Whistler as doubtful and possibly by Walter Greaves. See YMSM: 133, 134. 379 Portrait of Tinny Greaves reprinted in London Illustrated News. See: Attachment XI, Oil Paintings Exhibited in the 1911 Goupil Gallery Exhibition. The Green Dress is described by Briton. Briton 1912: 57-59. Now in the collection of the Tate London: Walter Greaves, The Green Dress, c.1875, oil on canvas, 193x91.4 cm., N04599. 380 Anna Gruetzner Robins 2003: p 284. 381 -, ‘An Unknown master, Exhibition at the Goupil Gallery’, The Times 5 May 1911, p 3. 382 James McNeill Whistler to Walter Greaves [1871/1876], GUW 11494, accessed 07-07-2017. Whistler mentions ‘a blue picture of your sister miss Ranger’. He is worried about similarities to his own ‘arrangement in blue’. See YMSM 111, 112 and 207. According to Greaves. 383 James McNeill Whistler, The Seamstress, ca.1875, oil on canvas, 193.7 x 90.7 cm, National Museum Wales Cardiff, NMW A 3504. 384 Joseph and Elizabeth Pennell 1921: p 126. 385 Ibid.
46 this may be the restorer. Despite the Pennell’s reservations, John Ingamels has since argued that the picture was painted by Whistler. He reckons the picture was later ‘embellished by one of Dowdeswell’s Camdon restorers’.386 However the attention in detail in depicting the lace as well as the meticulous rendering of light and shade, place it closer to the Portrait of Miss Alice Greaves and the Green Dress. It is difficult to distinguish genuine works by Walter Greaves from the pictures ‘more or less destroyed’ by Whistler. Because of their ‘shockingly bad condition’ most pictures were heavily restored at the time. However, it appears the pictures that came from Walter Spencer vary in quality. Both are reflected in the Dowdeswell lot. The abraded paint surface and the loose brushwork in Girl in muslin dress distinguishes it from the portraits ascribed to Walter Greaves.
386 John Ingamells, ‘Greaves and Whistler’, Apollo 89, 1969, p 224-25.
47
3.4 Conclusion Walter Greaves and his brother Henry were Whistler’s neighbours, friends, pupils and studio assistants, but perhaps they were his admirers foremost. They helped prepare Whistler’s canvases, made his panels and painted the decoration on his frames. There work in Whistler’s studio made them intimately aware of Whistler’s technique. However, the rubbing and scraping visible in the Singer picture and characteristic for Whistler’s method of painting does not seem to be part of Greaves’ painterly metier. The distinction between ‘what’s a Whistler and what’s a Walter Greaves’ is not always clear. Some drawings and pictures that originally had been attributed to Whistler are now attributed to Greaves. The oeuvre of Walter Greaves is still relatively undefined. He painted many Whistlerian inspired ‘moonlights’. However, by his contemporaries he was praised for the nativity of his many depictions of Chelsea life. It is perhaps the attention to detail and the reluctance to abandon nature as we see it that separates both artists. Greaves did produce some portraits. His portraits of Whistler echo the nativity of his Chelsea views and they are almost caricature. The two portraits of his sister adhere more to tradition in respect to the rendering of light and shade. The attention to detail in Greaves’ portraits of his sisters does not resemble the free brushwork of the Singer picture.
48
CONCLUSION The past predicted?
The question who painted Symphony in White. Girl in muslin dress can’t be answered unambiguously. Attribution by nature is influenced by perceptions of the artist abilities, intentions and materials. These objectives determine the interpretation of new data. Fredrick Robinson already described the picture as ‘The ghost of a portrait’. It aptly defines Girl in muslin dress. In the Victorian area the perception of ghosts changed. They became to present past evils confronting the present. One can argue the Singer picture is haunted by its dubious past. The Pennell’s attribution to James McNeill Whistler was doubted by subsequent Whistler scholars. There is no prevailing argument unequivocally proving who painted the picture. Therefore attribution becomes the sum of arguments. This research was based on three lines of investigation: pedigree research, technical analysis and comparison to undisputed works by Whistler as well as an exploration of the works ascribed to Greaves. However there have been several limitations. It has not been possible to visit the Library of Congress which houses the Pennell archive. Furthermore it has not been possible to physically study portraits by Walter Greaves as well as other pictures from the ‘Dowdeswell lot’. None the less a better understanding of the material aspects of the Singer picture provided a new perspective.
Provenance research revealed two possible authors of Symphony in White. Girl in muslin dress: James McNeill Whistler and Walter Greaves. Girl in muslin dress is one of the pictures caught in what would become known as ‘L’ affaire Greaves’. Although the Dowdeswell pictures have not been the centre of the public argument, they are discussed in this context. The records from Walter Spencer, William Marchant and Elisabeth Pennell differ ever so slightly. The cases for and against the attribution to Whistler or Greaves are not made by primary parties. Both the Pennells and Marchant had personal interests. Both vigorously defended their opinions in doing so they perhaps rather obscured the truth than revealed it.. According to the Pennells the pictures in the Dowedeswell’s possession were possibly -unfinished- pictures ‘more or less destroyed’ during the time of the bankruptcy. Paintings definitely disappeared during that time however there is no archival evidence linking Girl in muslin dress to this period. There’s still a significant gap in the history of ownership. It remains unclear what happened to the picture before 1910 and it is unknown how it entered the Singer collection. Technical analysis showed both similarities with as well as deviations to Whistler’s technical mo. The use of a grey priming seems consistent with Whistler’s painting practice, however charcoal black was used instead of the ivory black Whistler commonly used. The presence of celestine could not be confirmed. The abraded paint surface seems consistent with Whistler’s practice of scraping and rubbing away paint. Unfortunately it is difficult to distinguish between intentional abrasion of the paint surface and damage caused by overcleaning. Technical analysis revealed several alterations in the painting. This seems consistent with Whistler’s painting practice. It appears he developed his composition during the process of creation. The central figure is currently depicted wearing a white dress, however she was originally portrayed in pink. The white and pink dress as well as the face and curtain in the background display differences in paint handling. The broad freely applied brushstrokes of the original dress, the swirling brushstrokes of the current dress and the abraded paint surface of the face could be found in authentic Whistlers. However the curtain seemed to be painted more crudely. The difference in finish did further the notion that the picture was unfinished. The curtain might have been added to make the picture look more finished. However it was not possible to prove beyond doubt that the curtain is an overpainting. Earlier descriptions show the appearance of the painting is altered considerately during previous restorations. The artistic output of Walter Greaves has not been properly defined. The pictures attributed to Whistler’s first pupil differ between Whistler derivatives and naïve landscape pictures. Most of the paintings depict the cityscape: either views of the river Thames or Greaves’ native Chelsea. However
49
Walter Greaves did paint some portraits. The largest group of portraits are depictions of Whistler. They are painted from memory and have an almost caricature nature. Just like his master Greaves depicted Thomas Carlyle. Within these portraits he closely followed Whistler’s example. Greaves painted two portraits of women. Both depict one of his sisters in large size full length portraits. They are more realistic in style than Whistler’s full length pictures. Girl in muslin dress does not display the same attention to detail as Greave’s portraits of his sisters, nor is it painted in the naïve style of his Whistler portraits.
The condition of the painting makes it difficult to understand it. The picture appears to be altered extensively by human interference. It is not always possible to distinguish between intentional alterations and later overpainting. Reconstructing the original picture asks for some imagination. The difference between authentication and authenticity linguistically is but miner, however in attribution it can make a big difference. The Pennells record pictures disappearing during the time of the bankruptcy. The sum of arguments seems to suggest James McNeill Whistler was the original author of the painting. The many compositional changes within the picture as well as the abrasion of the paint skin are suggestive of Whistler’s technique. Furthermore the picture does not show much similarities with the portraits attributed to Walter Greaves.
50
Plate 2: James McNeill Whistler (attributed to), Symphony in White. Girl in muslin dress, oil on canvas, Singer Laren, inv.56-1-377. As a result of this research the Singer Laren concluded that the picture is ‘likely painted by James McNeill Whistler’ and changed the attribution from James McNeill Whistler (circle off), to James McNeill Whistler (attributed to).
51
BIOGRAPHY
-, Catalogue of oil paintings, a water colour and etchings, by Walter Greaves, pupil of Whistler, exh. cat. William Marchant & Co. Goupil Gallery London, 1911.
-,‘By the newly discovered master: works by Walter Greaves. Pictures form the exhibition at the Groupil Gallery’, Illustrated London News, Saturday 13 May 1911.
-, Messers. Christies, Manson and Wood, Catalogue of The Valuable Stock of Ancient & Modern Pictures and water colours Drawings of ,Messers Dowedeswell & Dowdeswell Ltd, auction cat. 7 February 1717.
-, Catalogue of oil paintings, drawings and etchings of Chelsea, Cremorne Gardens, Battersea and the river, by Walter and H. Greaves, pupils of Whistler, with notes on old Chelsea by Walter Greaves, and foreword by W.S. Marchant, William Marchant & Co. Goupil Gallery, 1922.
-, WALTER GREAVES (Pupil of WHISTLER), a Memorial Exhibition, exh cat William Marchant & Co. Goupil Gallery, London 1931.
-, Singer memorial foundation museum catalogus, col. cat. Singer Laren, 1956.
-, Singer memorial foundation museum catalogus, col. cat. Singer Laren, 1962.
-, James Abbot McNeill Whitstler, schilderijen, tekeningen, pastels, aquarellen, etsen, litho’s uit de university art collections, Glasgow, Exh. Cat. Singer museum Laren n.h. 15 mei t/m 13 juni 1976.
Barrett and Stulik 1995 Sylvana Barrett and Dusan C. Stulik, ‘An Integrated Approach for the Study of Painting Techniques’, in: Erma Hermens and Arie Wallert (ed.), Historical painting techniques materials and studio practice, preprints 1995, p 6-11.
Blockland, de Raad, Raassen-Kruimel e.a. 2002 Ann Blockland, Jacqueline de Raad, Emke Raassen-Kruimel e.a., Collectie Singer Schilderijen, col. cat. Singer Laren, 2002.
Briton 1912 Christian Briton, Walter Greaves (pupil of Whistler), exh. cat. Cottier & Co. New York, 1912.
Buckly 2012 Barbara A. Buckly, ‘Stretchers, tensioning and attachment’ in: Joyce Hill Stoner and Rebecca Rushfield (ed.), The conservation of easel paintings, Routledge series in conservation and museology, Oxon/New York 2012
Carlyle 2001 Lesly Carlyle, The Artist's Assistant: Oil Painting Instruction Manuals and Handbooks in Britain, 1800-1900, with Reference to Selected Eighteenth-century Sources, London 2001.
Chilvers and Glaves-Smith 2009 Ian Chilvers and John Glaves-Smith, A Dictionary of Modern and Contemporary Art, Second edition, Oxford 2009*1998.
52
Denker 1995 Eric Denker, In Pursuit of the Butterfly, Portraits of James McNeill Whistler, exh. cat. National Portrait Gallery Washington D.C., 1995.
Dowdeswell 1887 Walter Dowdeswell, 'Whistler', Art Journal, April 1887, pp. 97-103.
Eastaugh, Walsh, Chaplin and Siddall 2004 Nicolas Eastaugh, Valentine Walsh, Tracy Chaplin and Ruth Siddall, Pigment Compendium, A Dictionary of Historical Pigments, vol 1 and 2, Oxford 2004.
Getscher and Marks 1986 Robert H. Getscher, Paul G. Marks, James McNeill Whistler and John Singer Sargent, Two Annotated Bibliographies, New York & London 1986.
George 1961 Horace George, The World of James McNeill Whistler, London 1961.
Geurtzner Robins 2003 Anna Geurtzner Robins (ed.), Walter Sickert: The Complete Writings on Art, Oxford 2003.
Glazer, MacDonald, Merrill and Thorp 2008 Lee Glazer, Margaret MacDonald, Linda Merrill and Nigel Thorp (ed.), James Mc Neill Whistler in context, essays from the Whistler centenary symposium university of Glasgow, 2003, Freer Gallery of Art occasional papers, New series vol. 2, Washington D.C. 2008.
Hackney 1994 Stephen Hackney, ‘Colour and tone in Whistler’s “nocturnes” and “harmonies” 1871-1872’, The Burlington Magazine 136, 1994 p 695-699.
Hackney 1995 Stephen Hackney ‘Art for art’s sake: the materials and techniques of James McNeill Whistler (1834-1903)’ in Arie Wallert (ed.) and Erma Hermens (ed.), Historical painting techniques, Materials and Studio Practice, Los Angeles 1995, p 186-190.
Hackney, Jones and Townsend 1999 Stephen Hackney, Rica Jones, and Joyce H. Townsend (ed.), Paint and Purpose, A study of technique in British art, London 1999.
Helwig 2007 Kate Helwig, Iron Oxide Pigments, Natural and synthetic in: Barbara Berrie (ed.), Artist pigments, A Handbook of Their History and Characteristic vol 4, London 2007.
Hermens and Wallert 2011 Erma Hermens and Arie Wallert, ‘James McNeill Whistler, fluidity, finish and accident’, in Marika Spring (ed.), Studying Old Master Paintings - Technology and Practice: The National Gallery Technical Bulletin 30th Anniversary Conference, 16th – 18th September 2009, proceedings. London 2011, p 229-236.
Hill Stoner 1999 Joyce Hill Stoner. ‘Texture and Friendship: Canvas weave patterning and other surface characteristics in works by Whistler and the ‘société des trois’, in Nigel Torp (ed.) Studies on James McNeill Wistler and Nineteenth-Century Art Vol I Glasgow 1999, p. 20-26.
53
Hill Stoner 1997 Joyce Hill Stoner ‘Whistler’s Views on the Restoration and Display of His Paintings’, Studies in Conservation, v 42 n 2 1997, p 107-114.
Hill Stoner 2008 Joyce Hill Stoner ‘Materials for Immateriality’ in: Mark Simpson (ed.) Like Breath on Glass: Whistler, Inness, and the Art of Painting Softly, Exh cat. Clarck Art Institute 2008, p 92-109.
Ingamells 1969 John Ingamells, ‘Greaves and Whistler’, Apollo 89, 1969, p 224-25
Kirsh and Levenson 2000 Andrea Kirsh and Rustin S. Levenson, Seeing Through Paintings: physical examination in art historical studies, Materials and meaning in the fine arts v 1, New Haven 2000.
Lawton and Merrill 1993 Thomas Lawton and Linda Merrill, Freer, A Legacy of Art, Washington D.C. 1993.
Levenston 1984 Rustin S. Levenston, ‘Examining the Techniques and Materials of Paintings’ in: Donald D. Spencer (ed.), The Expert Versus the Object: Judging Fakes and False Attributions in the visual art, Oxford 2004, p 11-125.
Lochnan 1984 Katherine A. Lochnan, ‘Understanding Whistler’, Newsletter of the Victorian Studies Association of Western Canada, v 10 n 1 1984, p 1-7.
Luther Cary 1907 Elisabeth Luther Cary, The works of James McNeill Whistler, New York and London 1907.
MacDonald 1995 Margraret MacDonald, James McNeill Whistler, Drawings, Pastels and Water Colours, A Catalogue Raisonné, New Haven and London 1995.
MacDonald 2003 Margaret MacDonald, Whistler’s Mother: An American Icon, Aldershot/Burlington 2003, p 58-59.
MacDonald, Galassi and Ribeiro 2003 Margaret MacDonald, Susan Grace Galassi and Aileen Ribeiro, Whistler Woman & Fashion, exh. cat. The Frick Collection, New York 2003.
MacDonald and de Montfort 2013 Margaret MacDonald and Patricia de Montfort, An American in London: Whistler and the Thames, exh. cat. Dulwich Picture Gallery, Dulwich 2013.
McLaren Young, MacDonald, Spencer and Miles 1980 Andrew McLaren Young, Margaret MacDonald, Robin Spencer and Hamish Miles, The Paintings of James McNeill Whistler, London & New Haven 1980 .
Marchant 1911 William Marchant, A Reply to an Attack, London 1911
54
Marino, Boon, Hendriks, Horreard and Hillon 2007 Beatrice Marino, Jaap J. Boon, Ella Hendriks, Francois Horreard and Francois Hillion, ‘Imaging TOF- SIMS and NanoSIMS studies of Barite-Celestite particles in grounds from paintings by Van Gogh’ in, H. Mar Parking (ed.) AIC paintings specialty group postprints : papers pres. at the 34th annual meeting of the AIC of Historic & Artistic Works providence, Rhode Island, June 16-19, 2006, Washington, 2007
Mayers and Mayers 2013 Lance Mayers and Gay Mayers, American painters and Technique: 1860-1945, Los Angeles 2013.
McNeill Whistler 1916 James McNeill Whistler, Mr. Whistler’s “Ten o’ clock”, Portland Main 1916.
Metcalf Roor 1917 Katherine Metcalf Roor, The Life and art of William Merrit Chace, New York 1917, p 124.
McMullin 1973 Roy McMullin, Victorian Outsider: A Biography of J.A.M. Whistler, New York 1973.
Menpes 1904 Mortimer Menpes, Whistler as I Knew Him, London 1904.
Merrill 1992 Linda Merrill, A Pot of Paint, Aesthetics on Trial in Whistler v Ruskin, Washington 1992.
Merrill 1995 Linda Merrill (ed.), With kindest regards : the correspondence of Charles Lang Freer and James McNeill Whistler, 1890-1903, Washington D.C. and London 1995.
Morse Jones 2015 Kimberly Morse Jones, Elisabeth Robins Pennell Nineteenth-Century Pioneer of Modern Art Criticism, Dorchester 2015.
Lawrence Parkerson 2007 Sara Lawrence Parkerson, Variations in Bold: The Stylistic Development of the Pictures Frames used by James McNeill Whistler, Phd Thesis University of Glasgow 2007.
Pocock 1970 Tom Pocock, Chelsea Reach, The Brutal Friendship of WHISTLER and WALTER GREAVES, London 1970.
Robins Pennell and Pennell 1908 Elizabeth Robins Pennell and Joseph Pennell, The life of James McNeill Whistler, London 1908.
Robins Pennell and Pennell 1911 Elizabeth Robins Pennell and Joseph Pennell, The life of James McNeill Whistler, fifth and revised edition, London 1911.
Robins Pennell and Pennell 1921 Elizabeth Robins Pennell and Joseph Pennell, The Whistler journal, Philadelphia 1921.
55
Robins Pennell 1928 Elizabeth Robins Pennell, The Art of Whistler, New York 1928.
Robins Pennell 1929 Elizabeth Pennell , The live and letters of Joseph Pennell, v 1 and 2, Boston 1929.
Schretlen 2006 Helen Schretlen, Loving Art, De William & Anna Singer Collection, Zwolle 2006.
Sickert 1908 Bernhard Sickert, Whistler, London 1908.
Spasky et. all. 1985 Nathaly Spasky et. all., American paintings in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Volume II, A Catalogue with Works of Artist Born between 1816 and 1845, col. cat. Metropolitan Museum of Art New York 1985
Spencer 2004 Donald D Spencer ed., The Expert Versus the Object: Judging Fakes and False Attributions in the visual art, Oxford 2004.
Spencer 1925 Walter Thomas Spencer, Forty years in my bookshop, London 1925.
Straus 2000 Monica Straus, Cruel Banquet, The Lives and Loves of Frida Strindberg, New York, San Diego and London 2000.
Stoltz Witlox 2012 Maartje Stoltz Witlox, ‘Grounds 1400-1900’ in: Joyce Hill Stoner and Rebecca Rushfield, (ed.), The Conservation of Easelpainting, New York 2012, p 177-182.
Sutherland 2014 Daniel E. Sutherland, Whistler a life for art’s sake, New Haven and London 2014.
Sutton 1963 Denys Sutton, Nocturne: The Art of James McNeill Whistler, London 1963.
Tatlock 1931 R. R. Tatlock, ‘Walter Greaves’, Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs, v 58 n 334 1931, p. 261.
Thompson 1956 Daniel Varny Thompson, The Materials and Techniques of Medieval Painting, New York 1956.
Townsend 1994 Joyce H. Townsend, ‘Whistler’s oil painting materials’, The Burlington Magazine 136, 1994, p 690-695.
Way 1912 Thomas R. (Robert) Way, Memories of James McNeill Whistler the artist, London/New York 1912.
56
Wallert, Vaz Pedroso and van Ipere 2013 Arie Wallert, Joan Vaz Pedroso and Jolanda van Ipere, ‘Remarkable white pigments on Liotard’s pastel paintings’ in: Arie Wallert (ed.), Painting Techniques, History, Materials and Studio Practice, 5th International Symposium, Rijksmuseum Amsterdam 18-20 December 2013, p 168-173.
Weinberg and Barke 2004 Barbara Weinberg and Elizabeth E. Barke, Childe Hassam, American Impressionist, exh. cat. Metropolitan Museum of Art New York 2004. van de Wetering 2009 Ernst van de Wetering, Rembrandt, The Painter art Work, Amsterdam 2009 second revised edition.
Yeoman 1968 John Yeoman, The Greaves brothers and Victorian Chelsea an exhibition, exh. cat. Chelsea library London, 1968.
Online Sources
Authentications and Attributions, College Art Association, online edition
The Correspondence of James McNeill Whistler, The University of Glasgow, 2003-2010, online edition,
Pamela Fletcher and David Israel, London Gallery Project, 2012*2007, online edition,
57
Attachment I, LC Whistler collection
Entry for 19-09-1910, The Whistler Journal; unpublished catalogue manuscript, Box 353, Pennell-Whistler collection, 1597-1937, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress Washington
58
59
60
Attachment II, YMSM, paintings involved in bankruptcy This document only contains paintings in which the description in The paintings of James McNeill Whistler explicitly states that the painting was or might have been involved in the bankruptcy. It does not contain other pictures of which the known provenance implies that they might have been involved, such as YMSM 193 and 194.
Painting Whereabouts
A White Note, 1861-62, canvas Unknown what happened 36.8x31.8 cm, Mrs C. H, Upson during the time of the Middelbury Connecticut, YMSM bankruptcy no 44.
Arrangement in Flesh Colour and Grey: Acquired by Dowdeswell in The Chinese Screen, 1864-68, canvas 1910, described by the 50.8x30.5 cm, Lady Allendale Pennell’s 1921. Presumed to Stocksfield-on-Thyne, be lost during the bankruptcy. Northumberland, YMSM no 51. Turned up after the death of Whistler. Sketch for ‘The Balcony’, 1867-70, Not known if Whistler wood 61.0x48.2 cm, Hunterian retained it at the time of his Museum and Art Gallery bankruptcy or retrieved it University of Glasgow, YMSM no later. 57. (study for YMSM 56)
Battersea Reach from Lindsey Left at the London banker House, painted about 1864/1871, W.C. Alexander, and never canvas 51,3x76,5 cm., Hunterian sent for. Museum and Art Gallery University of Glasgow, YMSM 55.
Study of Draped Figures, 1864-65, Left at the London banker canvas 39.7x57.5 cm, Hunterian W.C. Alexander, and never Museum and Art Gallery, sent for. University of Glasgow, YMSM no 58. The Scarf, exhibited London, RA Probably ‘destroyed’ by the 1865 (569), whereabouts unknown, artist at the time of his wood size unknown, YMSM no 59 bankruptcy. . Nocturne: The Solent, probably Acquired by Dowdeswell in painted 1866, canvas 50.2x91.5 cm, 1910, described by the Gilcease Institute of American Pennell’s 1921. Presumed to History and art, Tula, Oklohoma, be lost during the bankruptcy. YMSM no. 71. Turned up after the death of Whistler. Sketch for ‘Nocturne in Blue and Gold: Bought by Thomas Way Valparaiso Bay’, 1866, canvas during the bankruptcy. 76.9x50.8 cm, National Collection of Fine Arts, Smitsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., YMSM 74.
61
The Morning after the Revolution, Left at the London banker Valparaiso, 1866, canvas 76.5x63.9 W.C. Alexander. cm, Hunterian Museum and art Gallery, University of Glasgow, YMSM 75.
Annabel Lee, late 1860s, canvas Bought by Thomas Way. 74.ox50.7 cm, Hunterian Museum and Art Gallery, University of Glasgow, YMSM 79.
Sketch for ‘Anabel Lee’, possibly late Unknown what happened 1860s, wood 30,7 x 22,6 cm, during the time of Whistler’s Hunterian Museum and Art bankruptcy. (In his studio at Gallery, YMSM 80. the time of his death in 1903)
Study of a Female Figure, probably Bought by T. Way. late 1860s, canvas 48.3 x 19.0 cm, whereabouts unknown, YMSM 81.\ The Six Projects (Nos 82-86) According to the Pennell’s sketches for the Six project were carried off’ at the sale of the White House.
The White Symphony: Three Girls, Bought by T. Way. 1867, millboard, mounted on weed 46.4x61.6 cm, Freer Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C, YMSM 87
The Three Girls, commissioned Lost during the time of the 1867, canvas, size unknown, bankruptcy. whereabouts unknown, YMSM 88.
Pink and Grey: Three Figures, 1868- At the house of Whistler’s 78, canvas 139,7x185,4 cm., Tate brother Dr. W. Whistler Gallery London, YMSM 89. shortly after the bankruptcy.
Girl with Cherry Blossom, ?, canvas Possibly bought from 137,2 x 73,3 cm., The Hon Dowdeswell after the Christopher Mc Laren London, bankruptcy. YMSM 90.
Venus Rising from the Sea, 1873, Possibly bought by Thomas canvas 59,8x49.1 cm., Freer Way. Gallery of Art Washington D.C., YMSM 93.
Portrait of Maud Franklin, 1870/3, Destroyed at the time of canvas size unknown, whereabouts Whistler’s bankruptcy. unknown, YMSM 94.
Study in Grey for the Portrait of F.R. Possibly sold by Sotheby at Leyland, Painted 1870/3, canvas Whistler’s bankruptcy sale. 30,5x21,0 cm., Ross Spencer New York, YMSM 95.
62
Portrait Sketch of F. R Leyland, Bought by Thomas Way 1870/3 , canvas 36,8x22,9 cm., whereabouts unknown, YMSM 96 . Arrangement in Grey and Black: Left as security for an Portrait of the Painter’s Mother, 1871, advance at Graves London canvas 144,3x 162,5 cm., Musée du dealer during the time of the Louvre Paris, YMSM 101. bankruptcy.
Portrait of Miss Florence Leyland, Probably acquired by Thomas 1871/7, canvas 190,5x91.4 cm., Way. Portland Art Museum Main, YMSM 107.
Portrait of Miss Leyland (I), date Bought by Thomas Way. unknown, canvas size unknown, whereabouts unknown, YMSM 109.
Portrait of Miss Leyland (II), date Bought by Thomas Way. unknown, support and size unknown, whereabouts unknown, YMSM 110.
The blue Girl: Portrait of Miss Elinor Bought by Thomas Way. Leyland, date unknown, canvas size when complete unknown, Freer Gallery of Art Washington D.C. (two fragments off), YMSM 111.
The Blue Girl: Maud Franklin, Unknown what happened to 1870/9, canvas seize unknown, it after the bankruptcy, at the whereabouts unknown, YMSM house of Whistler’s brother 112. Dr. W. Whistler shortly after the bankruptcy . Nocturne: Battersea, 1871/3, canvas Unknown what happened to 49,5x106,5 cm., Private Collection painting during the time of U.SA., YMSM 120. Whistler’s bankruptcy.
Grey and Silver: The Thames, painted Unknown what happened to about 1872, canvas 61,3x46,1 cm., the painting during the time Hunterian Museum and Art of Whistler’s bankruptcy. Gallery University of Glasgow, YMSM 121.
Harmony in White and Blue, Probably Dowdeswell bunch, turned up painted in the 1870’s, canvas after the death of Whistler. 209,5x87,5 cm., Leeds city art Gallery, YMSM 126.
Miss May Alexander, 1872/5 Bought by T. R. Way. (unfinished), canvas 193x102 cm., Tate Gallery London, YMSM 127 .
63
Harmony in Grey and Peach Colour, Bought by T. R. Way. 1871/4, canvas 194x101 cm., Fogg Art Museum Harvard University Cambridge Massachusetts, YMSM 131.
Maud Franklin, painted about Bought by Thomas Way. 1872/3, canvas 62,2x41 cm., Fogg Art Museum, Harvard University Cambridge Massachusetts, YMSM 132.
Sketch for the Portrait of Carlyle (I), Acquired by Dowdeswell in painted 1872/3, canvas 36x51 cm., 1910, described by the Michel Parkin, London, YMSM Pennell’s 1921. Presumed to 133. be lost during the bankruptcy.
Blue and Silver: Screen, with Old Left at Dowdeswell during Battersea Bridge, 1871-2, obverse, the time of the bankruptcy, brown paper laid on canvas, screen later retrieved by the artist. fully opened 195x182 cm., Hunterian Museum and Art Gallery, University of Glasgow, YMSM 139.
Nocturne: Westminster-Grey and Gold, Unknown what happened to painted about 1870/5, canvas the painting during the 27,9x46,4 cm., Ekkuit L. Jones bankruptcy. Trust, USA, YMSM 144.
Nocturne : Blue and Silver-Battersea Unknown what happened to Reach, Painted about 1872/8, the painting during the canvas 39,4x62,9 cm, Isabella bankruptcy. Stewart Gardner Museum, Boston, Massachusetts, YMSM 152
Nocturne: Grey and Silver, painted Unknown what happened to about 1872/5, canvas 31,1x51,4 the painting during the cm, Philadelphia Museum of Art, bankruptcy. John G. Johnson collection, YMSM 156.
Cremrone, No. I, Painted about Unknown what happened to 1872/5, canvas 49.5x76.2 cm, Fogg the painting during the Art Museum, Harvard University bankruptcy. Cambridge, Massachusetts, YMSM 163.
Cremrone Gardens, No 2, Painted Bought by Thomas Way. about 1872/7, canvas 68,5x135,5 cm, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, YMSM 164.
64
Nocturne, Painted about 1875/7, Not known whether Whistler canvas 55.5x39.4 cm, Hunterian retained the painting at the Museum and Art Gallery, time of his bankruptcy or University of Glasgow, YMSM 172 regained possession of it later.
Portrait of Sir Henry Cole, support Bought by Thomas Way. unknown, probably destroyed, YMSM 180.
Arrangement in Yellow and Grey: Effie Probably deposited with the Deans, begun in 1876, canvas London print seller H. Graves 194x93 cm, Rijksmuseum & Co. Amsterdam, YMSM 183.
Portrait Sketch of a Lady, probably Bought by Thomas Way. painted in the mid-1870’s, canvas 67,5x05,1 cm, Freer Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., YMSM 184.
A Portrait: Maud, painted about Probably ‘more or less 1876, canvas, size unknown, destroyed’ by the artist. whereabouts unknown, YMSM, 186.
Arrangement in Black, No. 3: Sir Bought by Howell. Henry Irving as Phillips II of Spain, probably begun in 1876, canvas 215,2x108,6, Metropolitan museum of Art, New York, YMSM 187.
Arrangement in Black and Brown: The Probably deposited with the Fur Jacket, painted in 1876, canvas London print seller H. Graves 1MSM 181. & Co
Harmony in Yellow and Gold: The Auctioned at Soyherby. Gold Girl-Connie Gilchrist, 1876, canvas 217,8x109,5 cm, Metropolitan museum of Art, New York, YMSM 190.
Harmony in Flesh Colour and Black: Unknown what happened to Portrait of MRs Louise Joplin, 1877, it during the time of canvas 192,5x90,0 cm., Hunterian Whistler’s bankruptcy. Museum and Art Gallery, University of Glasgow, YMSM 191
Harmony in Pink and Red, painted Probably destroyed during the about 1876/8, canvas, size time of the bankruptcy. unknown, whereabouts unknown, YMSM 192.
Arrangement in Blue and Green, Probably destroyed during the painted around 1878, whereabouts time of the bankruptcy. unknown, YMSM 193.
65
Maud Franklin, painted around Probably destroyed during the 1877, whereabouts unknown, time of the bankruptcy. YMSM 195.
Harmony in Yellow and Gold: The Unknown what happened to Butterfly Cabinet, Mahogany cabinet it during the time of the designed by the architect Edward bankruptcy. W. Godwin, of rectangular form with canted sides, the bas section with two panelled doors in the centre , the sides with open shelves and panels of yellow tiling divided by brass moulding below; the centre section with glazed middle and panelled back, with a shelf and pigmented back above flanked by shaped and stepped supports. The doors and the central section above, decorated by Whistler with Japanese cloud motifs and butterflies on a primrose yellow ground, and the mahogany panels decorated with Japanese cloud motifs, of butterflies and petals in gold, 303x190, Hunterian Museum and art Gallery, University of Glasgow, YMSM 195.
Harmony in Blue and Gold, possibly Unknown what happened to painted in 1878, support and size it during the time of the unknown, whereabouts unknown, bankruptcy. Later in the YMSM 197. possession of the artist.
The Blue Girl: Portrait of Connie Reserved as worthless and Gilchrist, probably painted in 1879, returned to Whistler after the canvas 188,9x88,6 Hunterian bankruptcy. Museum and Art Gallery, University of Glasgow, YMSM 207.
The Gold Scrap, painted in 1879, Auctioned at Sotheby. canvas 186,7x139,7 cm., California palace of the legion of honour, the fine arts museum of San Francisco, YMSM 208.
The Loves of the Lobster, painted Bought by Thomas Way. about 1879, canvas size unknown, whereabouts unknown, YMSM 209.
Mount Arat, painted in 1879, canvas Bought by Thomas Way. size unknown, whereabouts unknown, YMSM 210.
66
Attachment III, Visual Examination, EvR & AW
The picture was examined by day light, in raking light and under UV light.
Figure 01: BR Symphony in White. The Girl in the muslin Dress,, Figure 02: detail reeded cushion frame. framed.
Figure 03: Symphony in White. The Girl in the muslin Dress. Back Figure 04: Back of the painting, labels annotated. of the painting (framed).
67
Figure 04 -1: Back of the painting: label United art gallery. Figure 04-2: Back of the painting: label Exhibition, Paintings, Watercolours, Pastels Etchings and Lithographs by the Late James Mc Neill Whistler
Figure 04-3: Back of the painting: Label Grovenor Gallery. Figure 04-4: Back of the painting: Singer label one.
Figure 04-5: Back of the painting: Singer label two. Figure 04-6: Back of the frame.
68
Figure 05: BR. cuff of the left sleeve: Partially visible Figure 05-01: BR. cuff of the left sleeve UV: brushstroke.
Figure 06: BR, curtain upper right corner: Brush marks that appear to belong to the grey priming.
Figure 07: BR, face and curtain. The paint is rubbed away on the knots of the canvas, revealing the grey ground.
69
Figure 09: BR RL © Gwendolyn Boevé Jones: Detail of the head (see 08).
Figure 08: BR RL © Gwendolyn Boevé Jones. The appearance of the picture is determined by the structure of the canvas.
Figure 10: BR, right arm and skirt of the dress. Figure 11: BR, visible brushwork skirt of the dress. Visible brushstrokes (see 12). Arm is defined by See figure 10. the painting of the curtain behind it.
70
Figure 12: BR, ruffle of the left shoulder. Figure 13: BR, transition of the left arm to the curtain: Unclear if the black is painted over the white or the white over the black. Pink from the original dress is visible in the white paint of the arm.
Figure 14: BR © Gwendolyn Boevé Jones, cuff of the left Figure 15: BR RL © Gwendolyn Boevé Jones: See 15. arm. Impasto pink paint. What appears to be end of a brush stroke
71
Figure 17: BR, ruffle dress, left shoulder. The ruffle is Figure 18: BR UV, ruffle dress, left shoulder. See partially painted over black of the curtain. figure 17.
Figure 19: BR, ruffle, front of the dress. The ruffle is Figue 20: BR UV, ruffle, front of the dress. See partially painted over the black of the curtain. figure 19
72
Figure 22: Upper left corner of the picture. Part of the Figure 23: Upper left corner of the picture. See curtain is painted over the lining canvas. fig 22.
Figure 24: SS © Gwendolyn Boevé Jones. Figure 25: AR © Gwendolyn Boevé Jones.
73
Attachment IV, Digital Microscopy (Hirox), surface examination, EvR.
Differences in colour between these images are probably due to calibration -no white balance- and ambient light.
01: Blue Paint visible under the white dress.
No indication of blue paint within this area within the MA-XRF images. This might be due to absorption of the x-rays by the lead white used within the dress. It might also be that there is too little material present. XRF of the blue pimple (Hirox 018) showed the presence of Pb, Ba, Zn, Fe, Co, Ni and Sr check spectrum (wolfram tube). The presence of Co indicate the use of cobalt blue (CoAl2O4 ). Only sample 227-6, from the ruffle of the shoulder shows a fragment of blue and yellow paint underneath of what is presumed to be the second grey ground. None of the other samples shows blue paint. These spots have not been sampled.
Hirox 003 before restoration, HR x350; Blue paint under white Hirox 003 before restoration, MR x140; Blue paint under white ruffle front of the dress, retouched. ruffle front of the dress, retouched.
Hirox 025, before restoration, MR x140; spots of blue paint, Hirox 018 before restoration, MR x200; light blue pimple, ruffle appear to be present under the abraded grey and white paint, proper left shoulder. sleeve or the proper left arm.
74
02: Yellow/orangey and yellow ‘bumps’.
These spots seem to be located near the transition of the proper left arm to the bodice of the woman. No indication of yellow pigments within the MA-XRF image (Cr, Sb or Cd). This might be due to absorption of the x-rays by the lead white used within the dress or there might be too little material.. The MA-XRF HgL distribution image seems to correspond to the pink dress. The MA-XRF FeK distribution image did indicate the presence of some Iron near the proper left arm of the woman although there is no obvious correspondence to these spots. It was not possible to conduct XRF measurements on any of the orangey yellow paints, because the spots were to small and not visible to the naked. XRF measurements of the yellow paint (Hirox 014) shows the presence of Ba, Pb and Fe, indicating the use of lead white and some type of ochre. These spots have not been sampled.
Hirox 015, before restoration, LR x50. Stripes of orangey yellow Hirox 014, before restoration, LR x100. Yellow paint, paint and patches of pink paint underneath (?) the abraded grey underneath (?) the grey paint of the shadow of the proper left and white paint. arm. Judging from the light reflectance of the varnish around the yellow spot, it appears to be raised above the grey paint.
Hirox 016, before restoration, MR x400. Pimple (see next image) Hirox 016, 3d image, spot is raised above the paint surface. of orangey yellow paint, proper left arm of the woman.
75
03: Yellow paint underneath the background?
Some of the abraded areas of the curtain as well as a scratch mark appeared to show yellow paint underneath the dark layer of the curtain and the grey layer of the apparent ground. Only within sample 227-6 can a remnant of yellow (and blue) paint be seen. The paint is located underneath the supposed grey ground. This ground appears to contains a small amount of yellow pigment and one can wonder if this causes the ground to appear yellowish. Only in sample 227-4 the ground appears to look slightly yellowish. Sample 227-9 and 227-11 – taken from parts where the pink dress is painted over by the black curtain- show a second grey layer that appears to be used to paint over the pink dress. This layer can’t be seen in samples 227-12 to 227-15.
Hirox 008, before restoration, LR x35. Curtain left side of the Hirox, 008, before restoration, LR x100. Curtain left side of the painting. Gap, grey and yellow paint visible underneath the dark painting. Gap, grey and yellow paint visible underneath the dark curtain. curtain.
Hirox 020, before restoration, LR x100. Curtain right side of the Hirox 059, before restoration, LR x 200. Black hair of the painting. Scratch within the dark paint of the curtain. Grey and woman. Gray and yellow (?) paint visible underneath the black yellow (?) paint visible underneath. paint of the hair.
76
04: Yellow paint or protrusions?
Surface examination with the Hirox digital microscope showed abrasion within the white dress. It showed a layer of pink, grey and in some cases white paint around the yellow centre. The 3d geographical mapping function of the Hirox showed them to be little wells within the paint film as opposed to the yellow bumps that we have seen previously (Hirox no. 2). Are they bumps of paint that are rubbed of or are they protrusions? Visual examination of the paint surface appeared to show a yellow paint layer quite consistently, however only within sample 227-6 a remnant of yellow paint can be seen. Within sample 227-4, the ground appeared to look slightly yellowish. These areas shown in the Hirox image have not been sampled.
Hirox 012, before restoration, LR x100. Dress, left side of the Hirox 034, before restoration, MR x140. Dress, right side of the bodice near shadow of the arm. This area also shows orange bodice, near the ruffle. This area shows varnish, white paint, paint that is not visible within the other areas (see 02, Hirox grey paint, pink paint and yellow paint (?). 015).
Hirox 036, before restoration, HR x350, Dress, middle of the Hirox 036, 3d image, shows the well. bodice . Some darkened varnish is present within the little well.
77
05: White ground
The white ground layer is only visible within a paint loss on the edge of the painting and can be seen with the naked eye. This layer is visible within paint samples 227-4, 227-12 7227-14. Microscopic examination of the samples showed the white ground consists of a fine white pigment. SEM-EDX analyses of sample 227-14 confirmed this layer consists of a fine pigment containing only Pb indicating the use of (2 PbCO3· Pb(OH)2).
Hirox 007 before restoration LR x35, left corner edge of the Hirox 007 before restoration LR x100, left corner edge of the painting. Paint loss, possible ground layers exposed. Only spot painting. Paint loss, possible ground layers exposed. Only spot where the edge of the painting has not been covered by the where the edge of the painting has not been covered by the masking tape. (The pink hue in the masking tape and grey paint masking tape. (The pink hue in the masking tape and grey paint is probably due to calibration.) is probably due to calibration.)
78
06: Transition dress background
Visual observation indicated that the curtain was largely painted around the figure. Within the x-ray image two stages of the proper left shoulder can be determined. The IRR shows the final ruffled shoulder indicating the curtain has been painted around the contours of the figure. This area was sampled, but the sample was too small to be embedded.
Hirox 041, before restoration LR x35, transition background left Hirox 041, before restoration LR x35 RL, transition background arm. Dark paint appears to be painted on top of the grey paint. left arm. Dark paint appears to be painted on top of the grey Wave pattern visible in the paint layer due to blotting? paint. Wave pattern visible in the paint layer due to blotting?
Hirox 006, before restoration LR x 100, Transition left arm to Hirox 019, before restoration LR x35, transition ruffle front of dark background. The dark paint appears to be painted over the the dress to background curtain. The white paint is painted over white paint. the black curtain.
Hirox 019, before restoration LR x35 RL, transition ruffle front Hirox 019, before resotration LR x100, transition rufflr front of of the dress to background curtain. The white paint is painted the dress to background curtain. The white paint is painetd over over the black curtain. the abreaded paint or potrusions. Overpainting?
79
06: Transition dress background
Visual observation indicated that the curtain was largely painted around the figure. Within the x-ray image two stages of the proper left shoulder can be determined. The IRR shows the final ruffled shoulder indicating the curtain has been painted around the contours of the figure. This area was sampled, but the sample was too small to be embedded.
Hirox 041, before restoration LR x35, transition background left Hirox 041, before restoration LR x35 RL, transition background arm. Dark paint appears to be painted on top of the grey paint. left arm. Dark paint appears to be painted on top of the grey Wave pattern visible in the paint layer due to blotting? paint. Wave pattern visible in the paint layer due to blotting?
Hirox 006, before restoration LR x 100, Transition left arm to Hirox 019, before restoration LR x35, transition ruffle front of dark background. The dark paint appears to be painted over the the dress to background curtain. The white paint is painted over whuite paint. the black curtain.
Hirox 019, before restoration LR x35 RL, transition ruffle front Hirox 019, before resotration LR x100, transition rufflr front of of the dress to background curtain. The white paint is painted the dress to backround curtain. The white paint is paintd over over the black curtain. the abreaded paint or potrusions. Overpainting?
80
07: Abrasion.
The appearance of the painting is determined by the structure of the canvas. Within raking light the weave is clearly visible throughout the painting. On the knots of the canvas the paint is rubbed away exposing the paint underneath. Within the areas where the paint is applied thinly - face of the woman and the curtain in the background - the grey priming is exposed. This emphasises the visibility of the canvas weave. Microscopic examination of the white dress also shows abrasion of the paint layer. There are much more layers of paint within this area - see samples: 227-2, 227,4, 227- 6, 227-77 227-8 - which makes interpreting the paint surface more complex. Visual examination shows that this area is defined by the visibility of the brush marks rather than the structure of the canvas.
Hirox 030, before restoration, LR x35 curtain lower right corner. Hirox 030, before restoration, MR x140 curtain lower right corner.
Hirox 043, before restoration, LR x35 proper right cheek of the Hirox 043, before restoration MR x140 proper right cheek of the woman. woman.
Hirox 026, before restoration, LR x50 skirt of the white dress Hirox 026, before restoration, MR x140 skirt of the white dress near the right corner. near the right corner.
81
08. Pink dress
Originally the woman wore a pink dress with bustle that can be seen in the IRR and x-ray image.. Samples 227-2, 227-7, 227-8, 227-9 & 227-11 show the pink paint of the original dress. The paint must contain vermilion (HgS). The Hg MA- XRF elemental distribution image shows the broad brushstrokes used to paint the original dress. With the naked eye the impasto of one of these strokes can be distinguished. Microscopic examination of his area shows the pink paint underneath the white and grey paint used to paint the second dress. In some abraded areas the pink paint of the original dress can be seen as well.
Hirox, 022, before restoration, LR x35, impasto pink paint, Hirox 022, before restoration, LR x100, impasto pink paint, proper right sleeve of the white dress. proper right sleeve of the white dress.
Hirox 023, before restoration, LR x50, skirt of the white dress Hirox 023, before restoration, LR x100, skirt of the white dress near the left corner. near the left corner.
82
Attachment V, Infrared and X-ray image, AW and EvR
Infrared reflectography was carried out with an Osiris scanning InGaAs camera provided with a 16x16 tile system based on a 512 x512 focal plane array, with a sensitivity of lightly beyond 1700nm. Visible light wavelengths were filtered with an 875 nm infrared filter.
IRR montage.
X-ray image, 40Kv -2.0mA - ’30, digitally stitched.
83
Attachment VI, Macro X-ray Fluorescence Scanning, SL, GS, AW and EvR
AXIL MA-XRF Scanner, Rh-anode, University of Antwerp, Stijn Legrand and Geert van de Snickt. Results are interpreted by the author.
-
01 AsK Elemental distribution image
02 BaK Elemental distribution Overlay 50% image.
03 BiL elemental distribution image Overlay50%
84
04 BaL Elemental distribution BaL Overlay 50% image
05 BiM Elemental distribution BiM Overlay 50% image
06 BrK Elemental distribution BrK Overlay 50% image
04 BaL: corresponds to the use the dress. Are the face and hair 06 BrK: Corresponding to the of barium sulphate (BaSO4) reworked? Broad brushstrokes use of eosine (C20H6Br4Na2O5)? present in ground layer. See upper right corner. Larger amount of Br percent in SEM-EDX CS 227-14-01. Corresponding to the the pink dress than in the rest Absorption of the x-ray’s in application of the grey priming. of the painting. CS 227-2, 2227- dress by heavy elements (See (see also 21 SrK elemental 6, 227-7 and 227-8, show what Hg and Pb distribution image). distribution image, visual appears to be red lake pigments Less absorption in the proper examination fig 06 and x-ray in the pink used to paint the right arm, rubbing? Seems to be image). original dress. present in the big retouching in
85
07 CaK elemental distribution CaK Overlay 50% image
08 CoK Elemental distribution CoK Overlay 50% image
09 CrK Elemental distribution CrK Overlay 50% image
07 CaK: Ca present in curtain 08 CoK: Co present in curtain 09 CrK: Cr indicates the use of and hair. Also in shadow areas and hair. Indicates the use of chrome yellow (PbCrO4). of the dress. Appears to cobalt blue (CoO · Al2O3). CS Corresponds to some of the correspond to the use of bone 227-12, 227-14 and 227-15 show yellow bumps underneath the black. Cross-sectio’s dress show some blue particles that are only white dress in the dark shadow tiny amounts of black in the visible in high magnification. near the proper left arm. (see mixture of the white dress (see: SEM-EDX confirmed the digital microscopy 02) CS: 227-2, 22-4, 227-6, 227-7, presence of Co and Al and 227-8). Right of the picture, containing particles within the possibly remnants of the paint of the curtain (see SEM- butterfly described by Revillon. EDX CS 227-12-02)
86
10 CuK Elemental distribution CuK Overlay 50% image
11 FeK Elemental distribution FeK Overlay 50% image
12 HgL Elemental distribution HgL Overlay 50% image
11FeK: Possibly earth pigment. 12 HgL: indicates the use of Partially correspond to yellow vermilion. The Hg image bumps underneath the white appears to correspond to the dress. (see also 09 CrK). XRF original pink dress. The brush analyses some of the bump marks of the original dress are shows high emission lines for clearly visible. The distribution Fe. Umber appears to be used image shows the slanting collar for the eyes and nose (see 15 of the original dress as well as MnK). what might have been interpreted as the pink rose described by Revillon.
87
13 HgM Elemental distribution HgM Overlay 50% image
14 KK Elemental distribution KK Overlay 50% image
15 MnK Elemental distribution MnK Overlay 50% image
15 MnK: See 11 FeK.
88
16 MoK Elemental distribution MoK Overlay 50% image
17 NiK Elemental distribution NiK Overlay 50% image
18 PbL Elemental distribution PbL Overlay 50% image
17NiK: Drippings in the curtain 18 PbL: Appears to correspond correspond to the Co image. to use of lead white However the emission of Ni in (2PbCO3·Pb(OH)2). Emission the original dress differs from in both the original dress and the Co distribution image. the second dress. Shows changes in the ruffle on the shoulder. The paint is partially scraped away or painted over. The extra ruffle is not visible in the x-ray.
89
19 PbM Elemental distribution PbM Overlay 50% image
20 RbK elemental distribution RbK Overlay 50% image
21 SrK Elemental distribution SrK Overlay 50% image.
21 SrK: Sr associated with barium sulfate. See SEM-EDX CS 227-12-01 and 04 BaL.
90
22 SrL Elemental distribution SrL Overlay 50% image
23 ZnK Elemental distribution ZnK Overlay 50% image
91
Attachment VII, X-ray fluorescence Spectrometry, AW and EvR.
Burker Artax μ-XRF spectrometer, 40kV, 500 μA, 60’, Mo-anode 0.90 μm capillary lens, no helium flush, over 50 keV energy range.
Figure 01. XRF point measurement. Black paint of the hair. The black paint mainly contains carbon which is not detected by this technique. Therefore
this measurement is reprehensive of the grey ground.
92
Attachment VIII, Scanning Electron Microscopy with EDX attachment, IJ and EvR.
SEM-EDX analysis was performed on a JEOL JXA-840A high resolution SEM with a wavelength dispersive (WD) and energy dispersive (ED) combined electron probe microanalyser (EPMA), at 20kV with a 39 mm working distance. Samples were examined in low vacuum mode. EDX analyses were carried out at the cross- section by measuring the emitted X-Rays with a Noran Vantage EDX system with Pioneer Novar detector.
Sample 227-14: composition of the ground.
No clear distinction between white and grey priming within the BEI. White priming only shows the lead matrix indicating it consists of lead white (2PbCO3·Pb(OH)2) without any additional pigments. EDX mapping showed the presence of Ca containing particles within the grey ground. The extended spectrum did not show the presence of P making the use of bone black within the grey ground unlikely. The presence of Ca containing particles indicate the use of chalk (CaCO3) or gypsum (CaSO4 . 2H2O). The S EDX mapping was not clear enough to distinguish between chalk and gypsum. No point measurements have been carried out. The BEI clearly shows the cellular structure of the black pigment indicating the use of word char . The EDX mappings of Al, Fe and Si show these elements are concentrated on the aggregates of fine bright yellow pigment indicating the use of yellow ochre. EDX mappings of Ba and S correlate indicating the use of barium sulphate or the natural occurring mineral barite (BaSO4). The extracted EDX spectrum of part of the sample showed small quantities of Sr but there appears to be no correlation between the Ba EDX mapping and the Sr EDX mapping. Making it difficult to distinguish between barium sulfate and barite.
CS 227-14, x200, BF
CS 227-14 x300 BEI. No clear separation between the white ground and grey priming. Black pigments … shape low … . The agglomerates of fine yellow pigment art lower in density . .
CS 227-14-01 BEI detail. CS 227-14-01 PbL EDX mapping. Shows led matrix of the entire sample. No clear distinction between the grey and white layer.
93
CS 227-14-01 FeK EDX mapping. Presence of Fe CS 227-14-01 AlK EDX mapping. Presence of Al corresponding to yellow pigment (see also Al and Si). The corresponding to yellow pigment (see also Fe and Si). presence of Fe as well as Al and Si as suggest the use of yellow ochre.
CS 227-14-01 SiK EDX mapping. Presence of Si CS 227-14-01 BaL EDX mapping. barium sulfate. corresponding to yellow pigment and other pigment with lower density in the BEI. The pigment is not clearly distinguishable with optical microscopy.
94
CS 227-14-01 SK EDX mapping. See Ba CS 227-14-01 CaK EDX Mapping. Present in clear distinguishable pigments. Chalk or gypsum or bone black. Combination of two black pigments.
CS 227-14-02 BEI. CS 227-14-02 SK EDX mapping
CS 227-14-02 BaL: barium sulfate. CS 227-14-02 SrL: not sufficient emission to determine …
95
CS 227-14-02 EDX Extracted Spectrum. Overlap between Si emission line - Ka1 1.73998 KeV - and Sr - La1 1.80656 KeV- emission line.
96
Sample 227-12 Use of barite in the grey ground and pigments used in the paint of the curtain.
EDX point measurements in the barium containing pigment showed the presence of Ba, S and small quantities of Sr. ISr can be considered a trace element, making it likely that the natural occurring mineral barite is used instead of the synthetic barium sulphate. The pigments used in the black paint of the curtain has been analysed by The EDX mappings showing Ca and P suggesting bone black (Ca2+ + CaCO3+C) is used to paint the black curtain. The paint of the curtain also contains very finely ground blue pigments containing Co and Al indicating the use of cobalt blue (CoO · Al2O3).
CS 227-12-01 x 900 BEI (detail). CS 227-12-01, EDX point measurements 1. Emission lines of S, Ba and Sr. Although small quantities of Sr are present they appear to be associated with Ba indicating the use of Barite instead of the synthetic barium sulfate.
CS 227-12-01 EDX point measurements 2. Peaks for S, Ba CS 227-12-01 EDX point measurements 3. Peaks for S, Ba and Sr. and Sr.
CS 227-12-02 x900 BEI (detail) CS 227-12-02 x900 BEI (detail)
97
CS 227-12-02 CoK EDX distribution map. The CS 227-12-02 AlK EDX distribution map. The distribution distribution image largely correlates to the distribution image largely correlates to the distribution image of Co image of Al indicating the use of cobalt blue CoO · Al2O3. indicating the use of cobalt blue CoO . Al2O3. (See also Al).
98
Attachment IX, Gas chromatography–mass spectrometry, HvK.
Sampling:
Two samples (cotton Swab + alcohol). One from the varnish (16). Proper left sleeve. One containing the paint of the black curtain (17). Sampled by GBJ.
Method in Dutch:
Voor het analyseren van bindmiddelen, wassen, harsen en moderne materialen wordt pyrolyse gebruikt als injectietechniek, in combinatie met tetramethylammoniumhydroxide als derivatiseringsmiddel. Het gevormde componentenmengsel wordt gescheiden met behulp van gaschromatografie (GC) en de gescheiden componenten worden gedetecteerd en geïdentificeerd met massaspectrometrie (MS).
De gebruikte pyrolyse-eenheid en GC/MS, is een Frontier Lab 3030D pyrolyser op een Thermo Scientific Focus GC een ISQ massaspectrometer. De pyrolyse-eenheid is direct gekoppeld aan een SLB5 ms (Supelco) kolom met een lengte van 20 meter, een inwendige diameter van 0,18 mm en een filmdikte van 0,18 micrometer. Helium met een constante stroom van 0,9 ml / min is gebruikt als draaggas. De pyrolyse temperatuur was 480°C, de temperatuur van de pyrolyse-interface was 300°C. Het gebruikte temperatuursprogramma is 35°C (1) – 60°C / min – 110°C – 14°C / min – 240°C – 5°C / min – 315°C (2). De kolom is direct gekoppeld aan de ionenbron van de massaspectrometer. De temperatuur van de interface was 250° C, de temperatuur van de ionenbron was 220°C. Massa spectra werden geregistreerd van 29 AMU tot 600 AMU met een snelheid van 7 scans per seconde. De software Xcalibur 2.1 wordt gebruikt voor het opnemen en verwerken van de spectrale data.
99
100
Attachment X, Examination of The Blue Girl, AW, EVR and EH
The picture was examined on site at the Hunterian Art Gallery, March 2015.
Infrared reflectography was carried out with an Osiris scanning InGaAs camera provided with a 16x16 tile system based on a 512 x512 focal plane array, with a sensitivity of lightly beyond 1700nm. Visible light wavelengths were filtered with an 875 nm infrared filter
Figure 1: The Blue Girl: Portrait of Figure 2: IRR montage. Connie Gilchrist c.1879, James McNeill Whistler, Oil on canvas 1188.9 x 88.6 cm.
Observation technique:
- Picture is lined, original edges are cut off very roughly. - The skirt has been reserved in the background. The left leg seems to have been reserved at first but is later painted in with black paint, and repositioned. - Legs are barely indicated. They are painted in a very sketchy manner with a very thin paint. - Proper right leg has been rubbed out and repositioned. - Black bottom of the painting, traces of dripping from what might have been a solvent. Abraded paint layer. Might have been rubbed with a cloth drenched in solvent. - Proper left arm appeared to be indicated at first. She might have been holding a skipping robe. - Contours of the skirt of the figure is distinguished from the background by a dark wash that is not used to cover the entire background as is the case on the top of the painting. - Contours of the skirt are adjusted. - Fiddley brushstrokes at the bottom of the painting. - Appears to be painted in a fluid paint. No impasto within the painting. - Bodice fresh paint is applied on top of an abraded earlier stage. Creates an incoherent look.
101
Attachment XI, Oil Paintings Exhibited in the 1911 Groupil Gallery Exhibition.
Names and catalogue numbers according to:
-, Catalogue of oil paintings, a water colour and etchings, by Walter Greaves, pupil of Whistler, exh. cat. William Marchant & Co. Groupil Gallery London, 1911.
Contemporary reproductions are sourced from:
Christian Briton, Walter Greaves (pupil of Whistler), exh. cat. Cottier & Co. New York, January 11 to February 10 1912. William Marchant, A reply to an attack, London 1911. -,‘By the Newly discovered master: Works by Walter Greaves, Pictures from the exhibition at the Groupil Gallery.’, Illustrated London News [ILN], May 13 1911. -,‘Studio-Talk.’ The Studio [TS], vol 53 1910, p 147.
Name and catalogue number Contemporary reproduction
No. 26, Allen’s Lime Wharf, Chelsea -
No. 27, The Thames, Bright Morning -
No. 28, Unloading the Brick Barge, Lindsey Wharf
Christian Briton 1912, p. 47.
No. 29, Cremorne Garden -
102
No. 30 The Plumbago Factory, Battersea
ILN, May 13 1911, p. 691.
No. 31, The Green Dress -
No. 32, Windy Day, Lindsey Row, Chelsea -
No. 33, Greaves’ Landing Stage -
No. 34, Cremorne Garden-The Band Stand -
No. 35, Unloading the Barge
ILN, May 13 1911, p. 691.
103
No. 36, Old Battersea Bridge (original state) Early Morning
TS, vol 53 1910, p 147.
No. 37, Portrait of the Artist
William Marchant 1911, p. 8.
No. 38, “The Black Lion,” Church Street, Chelsea -
No. 39, Montebanks, Chelsea -
No. 40, The Old Heymarket
Christian Briton 1912, p. 55.
104
No. 41, The Balcony
William Marchant 1911, p 38.
No. 42, The Pool of London -
No. 43, The Frozen Thames -
No. 44, Thomas Carlyle
Christian Briton 1912, p. 16.
No. 45, Battersea -
No. 46, The Citizen Steamboat Yard, Battersea
Christian Briton 1912, p . 58.
105
No. 47, Passing under Old Battersea Bridge
William Marchant 1911, p. 14.
No. 48, Lawrence Street, Chelsea -
No. 49, Old Battersea Bridge (after Alteration) -
No. 50, Night Scene, Chelsea -
No. 51, “The Old Swan,” Chelsea Moonlight -
No. 52, Moonlight, Battersea
TS, vol 53 1910, p 147.
106
No. 53, A Grey Morning, Battersea
ILN, May 13 1911 (title differs), p. 691.
No. 54, Barges abet a Snow Storm -
No. 55, Mr. Henry Greaves -
No. 56, Moonlight on the Embankment, Chelsea -
No. 57, King’s Road, Chelsea, Night -
No. 58, Miss Alice Greaves (Tinnie)
ILN, May 13 1911, p. 691.
107
No. 59, Battersea Reach, Moonlight
Christian Briton 1912, p. 65.
No. 60, Cremorne Gardens at Night-showing the entrance to the Theatre and the stooping Venus Fountain
TS, vol 53 1910, p 148.
No. 62, Fireworks, Cremorne Gardens -
No. 63, Grey Day, Battersea -
No. 64, Cremorne Gate, Waterside Entrance -
No. 65, Old Chelsea Church at Night
TS, vol 53 1910, p 146
No. 66, The Tug -
108
No. 67, The Boating Pond, Battersea Park
Christian Briton 1912, p. 50.
No. 68, Boat Race Day, Hammersmith Bridge
INL, May 13 1911, p. 691.
No. 69, Old Battersea Bridge
Christian Briton 1912, p. 30.
No. 70, Early Morning, Thames -
No. 71, Moonlight over Battersea -
No. 72, Corner of Beafort Street, Chelsea Night -
No. 73, Mr Walter Greaves and Miss Alice Greaves, - Chelsea
109
74, Old Chelsea and the “Adam and Eve”
Christian Briton 1912, p. 39.
75, Barges, Battersea Bridge -
110
Attachment XII, Witt Reference Library, The Courthold Institute of Art.
Visited 14-08-2016.
This document only records the portraits in oil included in the library, other types of pictures such as pictures of Chelsea as well as etchings and drawings and watercolours are omitted.
01. Female portraits filed under Walter Greaves.
111
02. Self-portraits filed under Walter Greaves
112
03. Portraits of Carlyle filed under Whistler
113
04. Portraits of Whistler filed under Walter Greaves.
114
115
116
Attachment XIII, Visual examination, Whistler on the widow’s walk, TEFAF, EvR
The picture is examined on site at The European Fine Art Fair 20-03-2016.
Figure 01: Walter Greaves, James Abbott McNeill Figure 02: detail of the proper left hand. The paint is Whistler on the widow's walk at his house in Lindsey Row, applied very thinly. The tawny colour of what appears Chelsea, 1869?, oil on canvas, 194.3 x 99 cm the priming of the picture is left visible.
Figure 3. detail proper right hand and cuff. There are Figure 4. Detail proper right elbow. The elbow appears almost no visible brush strokes. to be adjusted slightly. What appears to be an underdrawing visible through the upper paint layers.
117
Attachment XIV, Examination Nocturne, Hunterian Art Gallery, AW and EvR
The picture was examined on site at the Hunterian Art Gallery, March 2015.
Infrared reflectography was carried out with an Osiris scanning InGaAs camera provided with a 16x16 tile system based on a 512 x512 focal plane array, with a sensitivity of lightly beyond 1700nm. Visible light wavelengths were filtered with an 875 nm infrared filter
Figure 1. Walter Greaves, Nocturne, -, oil on canvas, Figure 2, IRR. The IRR shows a rural landscape 33.4 x 24.5, Hunterian Art Gallery Glasgow, with trees and cows. The cows have GLAHA 43538 underdrawings.
Figure 3, RL detail. The impasto of the underlying Figure 4, RL detail. See figure 03. paint is visible in the paint surface. The upper paint appears to be applied in a thin layer of fluid paint.
118
Attachment XV, Cross-sections, AW, GBJ and EvR.
119
Microscopic and chemic analysis of the paint layers
Painter: James McNeill Whistler Title: Symphony in white; Girl in muslin dress Substrate: canvas Date: ? dimensions: 76x62 cm provenance: Museum Singer Laren Inv.nr.: - Cat. nr.: 538 (cat. 1962) work nr: - Object nr.: - Folder . nr: - Taken by: Arie Wallert Date: 28-01-2014 Sample nr: 227-2
Description sample site: from ‘quene’ of dress. (visible in X-Ray and IRR) Coordinates: - Sampling by means of: Scalpel: x scraping: - Cotton swab: - brush: - Different, viz.: - Touched with (fingers, saliva, solvent etc.): x Sample container Glass vial: - Plastic: - Gelatinecapsule: - Different, viz.: Envelope of two well glasses. Reason for sampling: Build up paint layers, build up ground and pigment analysis. Description of the sample site after - sampling, through the stereomicroscope: Description of the sample under the - stereomicroscope: Depository sample: Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. Material left after analysis? ? Cross-section nr: 227-2 Embedded in: Polypol
Hypothetical layer build up -
200x BF 200X UV365
200x UV420 200x UV 470
500x BF 500x UV365
120
Microscopic and chemic analysis of the paint layers
Painter: James McNeill Whistler Title: Symphony in white; Girl in muslin dress Substrate: canvas Date: ? dimensions: 76x62 cm provenance: Museum Singer Laren Inv.nr.: - Cat. nr.: 538 (cat. 1962) work nr: - Object nr.: - Folder . nr: - Taken by: Arie Wallert Date: 28-01-2014 Sample nr: 227-2
Description sample
Layer definition typing Description/composition Analytical technique Nr. 4 Varnish varnish Partially visible on the right side of the LM: BF, UV 365, sample. Fluoresces in UV (365, 420 & 470). UV420 3 Grey layer Underpainting Grey layer fluoresces differently within UV LM: BF, UV 365, Grey/white dress (?) (365,420 & 470) than the grey ground. UV420 Compare to sample 227-2 & - Fine white pigment (lead white?). 227-7. - Fine black pigment. - More rounded particles (bone black?). 2 Pink layer Overpainted pink dress - Fine white pigment (lead white?). LM: BF, UV 365, Compare to samples 227-2, - Quite round bright pink pigment UV420 227-7, 227-9 & 227-11. (vermilion?). - One oblong, angular black particle. - One larger orange/brown particle. 1 Thick grey layer (2d?) Ground Measures approximately 60 μm were the LM: BF, UV 365, Visible in all samples layer is at it thickest. UV420 - Fine white pigment (lead white?). - Smaller angular greyish particles, well distinguishable in UV. - Smaller and larger black fibrous pigments (charcoal black?). - Agglomerate of black particles that look dark brown in UV365. - One big oblong angular greyish quarts like particle. - One transparent yellow particle. - One very small blue pigment. - Fine green pigments (optical illusion?)
Remarks
Brittle paint layer, paint crumbles easily during sampling. ‘Quene’ also visible in X-ray and IRR. Ma-xrf mappings for Pb and Hg show these elements to be present within this area. XRF and MA-XRF analysis has shown that Ba and SR are present within the ground layer. No varnish or dirt layer present between the pink layer and the upper gray layer.
121
Microscopic and chemic analysis of the paint layers
Painter: James McNeill Whistler Title: Symphony in white; Girl in muslin dress Substrate: canvas Date: ? dimensions: 76x62 cm provenance: Museum Singer Laren Inv.nr.: - Cat. nr.: 538 (cat. 1962) work nr: - Object nr.: - Folder . nr: - Taken by: Arie Wallert Date: 28-01-2014 Sample nr: 227-4
Description sample site: From cuff of proper left sleeve. Coordinates: - Sampling by means of: Scalpel: x scraping: - Cotton swab: - brush: - Different, viz.: - Touched with (fingers, saliva, solvent etc.): x Sample container Glass vial: - Plastic: - Gelatinecapsule: - Different, viz.: Envelope of two well glasses. Reason for sampling: Build up paint layers, build up ground and pigment analysis. Description of the sample site after - sampling, through the stereomicroscope: Description of the sample under the - stereomicroscope: Depository sample: Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. Material left after analysis? ? Cross-section nr: 227-2 Embedded in: Polypol
Hypothetical layer build up -
200x BF, before repolish 200X UV365, before repolish
200x UV420 200x UV 470
200x UV420 200x UV470
122
Microscopic and chemic analysis of the paint layers
Painter: James McNeill Whistler Title: Symphony in white; Girl in muslin dress Substrate: canvas Date: ? dimensions: 76x62 cm provenance: Museum Singer Laren Inv.nr.: - Cat. nr.: 538 (cat. 1962) work nr: - Object nr.: - Folder . nr: - Taken by: Arie Wallert Date: 28-01-2014 Sample nr: 227-4
Description sample
Layer definition interpretation Description/composition Analytical technique Nr. Several layers of Varnish Unevenly distributed over the surface of the LM: BF, UV 365, varnish painting. UV420 - Some yellow pigments between some of the layers. 5 Very thin grey layer White dress? Fluoresces darker in UV. LM: BF, UV 365, - Very fine white pigments. UV420 - Very small black particles. 4 White/ grey layer White dress? Layer looks much lighter in UV (365, 420 & LM: BF, UV 365, 470). UV420 - Fine white pigments. - Small black particles (much less in other layers) - Some small bright blue pigments. 3 2d thinner grey layer Underpainting white Clearly distinguishable in UV (365, 420 & LM: BF, UV 365, dress? 470), fluoresces darker than the thicker grey UV420 Compare to sample 227-6. ground. Hard to distinguish in BF. No greyish angular particles. Dirt layer? - Fine white pigment. - Small black particles. 2 Thick grey layer (2d?) Ground Grey ground looks a bit yellowish. Layer LM: BF, UV 365, Visible in all samples measures approximately 20 μm. UV420 - Fine white pigment (lead white?). - Angular greyish particles, well distinguishable in UV. - Smaller and larger black angular pigments (charcoal black?). - Splinter like dark brown pigments. - Transparent yellow particles. - Some brownish red pigments. Not very clear if they belong to this layer or the one above. (before repolish) - One bright red pigment. (after repolish) 1 Whit layer (appears to Whit ground Strong fluorescence in UV (365, 420 &470) LM: BF, UV 365, be incomplete) Compare to samples227-12 - Fine white pigment. UV420 & 227-14)
Remarks
Brittle paint layer, paint crumbles easily during sampling
123
Microscopic and chemic analysis of the paint layers
Painter: James McNeill Whistler Title: Symphony in white; Girl in muslin dress Substrate: canvas Date: ? dimensions: 76x62 cm provenance: Museum Singer Laren Inv.nr.: - Cat. nr.: 538 (cat. 1962) work nr: - Object nr.: - Folder . nr: - Taken by: Arie Wallert Date: 28-01-2014 Sample nr: 227-6
Description sample site: From ruff on proper shoulder Coordinates: - Sampling by means of: Scalpel: x scraping: - Cotton swab: - brush: - Different, viz.: - Touched with (fingers, saliva, solvent etc.): x Sample container Glass vial: x Plastic: - Gelatinecapsule: - Different, viz.: - Reason for sampling: Build up paint layers, build up ground and pigment analysis. Description of the sample site after - sampling, through the stereomicroscope: Description of the sample under the - stereomicroscope: Depository sample: Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. Material left after analysis? ? Cross-section nr: 227-6 Embedded in: Polypol
Hypothetical layer build up -
100x BF, 100X UV365,
200x UV420 200x UV 470
500x BF 500x UV365
124
Microscopic and chemic analysis of the paint layers
Painter: James McNeill Whistler Title: Symphony in white; Girl in muslin dress Substrate: canvas Date: ? dimensions: 76x62 cm provenance: Museum Singer Laren Inv.nr.: - Cat. nr.: 538 (cat. 1962) work nr: - Object nr.: - Folder . nr: - Taken by: Arie Wallert Date: 28-01-2014 Sample nr: 227-6
Description sample
Layer definition interpretation Description/composition Analytical technique Nr. 8 Very thin light grey Overpainting(?) LM: BF, UV 365, layer UV420 7 Strong fluorescent Varnish Strongly fluorescent in UV (365, 420 & LM: BF, UV 365, layer. 470), UV420 6 Dark grey layer Curtain? Not possible to distinguish any particles in LM: BF, UV 365, BF. UV (365, 420 & 470) shows some fine UV420 pigments. 5 Light grey layer Looks slightly more blue in BF. Fluoresces LM: BF, UV 365, lighter in UV365 & 420, but darker in UV420 UV470. - Fine white pigment. - Fine rounded black particles. There appears to be less black compared to layer 2&3. 4 Dark thin layer Curtain? Layer looks much lighter in UV (365, 420 & LM: BF, UV 365, Compare to 227-9 - 227-11 470). Some red pigments. UV420 and 227-12 -227-15. 3 2d thinner grey layer Underpainting white Distinguishable in UV especially UV 420. LM: BF, UV 365, dress? Fluoresces darker than the thicker grey UV420 ground (UV 365, 420 & 470). Hard to distinguish in BF although finer rounded black pigments appear to be used. No transparent yellow particles. - Fine white pigment. - Small black particles. 2 Thick grey layer (2d?) Ground Measures approximately 80μm were the LM: BF, UV 365, Visible in all of the samples layer is at its thickest. UV420 - Fine white pigment (lead white?). - Angular greyish particles, well distinguishable in UV. - Smaller and larger black angular pigments (charcoal black?). – - Transparent yellow particles. - One large round white pigment. 1 Part blue and yellow Partially scraped down Remnants of bright yellow and bright blue LM: BF, UV 365, paint, possibly part previous painting? merging paints. Remnants of a possible UV420 of incomplete varnish layer or fluorescence form egg varnish ore whites within the canvas. fluorescence from egg whites within the canvas. .
Remarks
. Brittle paint layer, paint crumbles easily during sampling.
125
Microscopic and chemic analysis of the paint layers
Painter: James McNeill Whistler Title: Symphony in white; Girl in muslin dress Substrate: canvas Date: ? dimensions: 76x62 cm provenance: Museum Singer Laren Inv.nr.: - Cat. nr.: 538 (cat. 1962) work nr: - Object nr.: - Folder . nr: - Taken by: Arie Wallert Date: 28-01-2014 Sample nr: 227-7
Description sample site: From bodice at proper right shoulder. Coordinates: - Sampling by means of: Scalpel: x scraping: - Cotton swab: - brush: - Different, viz.: - Touched with (fingers, saliva, solvent etc.): x Sample container Glass vial: - Plastic: - Gelatinecapsule: - Different, viz.: Envelope of two well glasses. Reason for sampling: Build up paint layers, build up ground and pigment analysis. Description of the sample site after - sampling, through the stereomicroscope: Description of the sample under the - stereomicroscope: Depository sample: Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. Material left after analysis? ? Cross-section nr: 227-7 Embedded in: Polypol
Hypothetical layer build up -
200x BF 200X UV420
200x UV470 500x BF
500x BF 500x UV365
126
Microscopic and chemic analysis of the paint layers
Painter: James McNeill Whistler Title: Symphony in white; Girl in muslin dress Substrate: canvas Date: ? dimensions: 76x62 cm provenance: Museum Singer Laren Inv.nr.: - Cat. nr.: 538 (cat. 1962) work nr: - Object nr.: - Folder . nr: - Taken by: Arie Wallert Date: 28-01-2014 Sample nr: 227-7
Description sample
Layer definition typing Description/composition Analytical technique Nr. 7 Very thin layer of Overpainting (?) LM: BF, UV 365, light grey UV420
6 Strong fluorescent Varnish Fluoresces in UV (365, 420 & 470). LM: BF, UV 365, layer UV420
5 Very thin grey layer
4 Light grey layer Looks a little bit blue. Fluorescence in UV LM: BF, UV 365, (365,420 & 470) differs from the grey UV420 ground. - Fine white pigment (lead white?). - Fine black pigment, some larger rounded particles. - Some yellow pigments (?) 3 Grey layer Underpainting Bottom of the layer seems to fluoresce LM: BF, UV 365, Grey/white dress or darker than the top of the layer especially UV420 overpainting pink dress. well visible in UV470. Dirt layer? 2 Pink layer Overpainted pink dress - Fine white pigment (lead white?). - LM: BF, UV 365, Compare to samples 227-2, - Quite round bright pink pigment UV420 227-7, 227,9 & 227, 11. (vermilion?). - One oblong, angular black particle. - One larger orange/brown particle. 1 Thick grey layer (2d?) Ground Measures approximately 60 μm where the LM: BF, UV 365, Visible in all samples layer is at its thickest. UV420 - Fine white pigment (lead white?). - Smaller angular greyish particles, well distinguishable in UV. - Smaller and larger black angular pigments (charcoal black?). - Fine black pigments. - Transparent yellow particle.
Remarks
Brittle paint layer, paint crumbles easily during sampling.
127
Microscopic and chemic analysis of the paint layers
Painter: James McNeill Whistler Title: Symphony in white; Girl in muslin dress Substrate: canvas Date: ? dimensions: 76x62 cm provenance: Museum Singer Laren Inv.nr.: - Cat. nr.: 538 (cat. 1962) work nr: - Object nr.: - Folder . nr: - Taken by: Arie Wallert Date: 28-01-2014 Sample nr: 227-8
Description sample site: Proper right shoulder Coordinates: - Sampling by means of: Scalpel: x scraping: - Cotton swab: - brush: - Different, viz.: - Touched with (fingers, saliva, solvent etc.): x Sample container Glass vial: - Plastic: - Gelatinecapsule: - Different, viz.: Envelope of two well glasses. Reason for sampling: Build up paint layers, build up ground and pigment analysis. Description of the sample site after - sampling, through the stereomicroscope: Description of the sample under the - stereomicroscope: Depository sample: Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. Material left after analysis? ? Cross-section nr: 227-8 Embedded in: Polypol
Hypothetical layer build up -
100x BF 100X UV365
200x BF01 200x UV 365 01
200x BF02 200x UV365 02
128
Microscopic and chemic analysis of the paint layers
Painter: James McNeill Whistler Title: Symphony in white; Girl in muslin dress Substrate: canvas Date: ? dimensions: 76x62 cm provenance: Museum Singer Laren Inv.nr.: - Cat. nr.: 538 (cat. 1962) work nr: - Object nr.: - Folder . nr: - Taken by: Arie Wallert Date: 28-01-2014 Sample nr: 227-8
Description sample
Layer definition typing Description/composition Analytical technique Nr. 5 Fluorescent layer End varnish Fluoresces in UV (365, 420 & 470). LM: BF, UV 365, UV420 4 Light grey layer Grey/white dress Appears to be only visible in UV. Looks LM: BF, UV 365, Compare to sample 227-7. much lighter than the other layers. UV420 (not percent within sample 227-2) 3 Grey layer Underpainting Looks a little bit blue. Grey layer fluoresces LM: BF, UV 365, Grey/white dress (?) differently within UV (365,420 & 470) than UV420 Compare to sample 227-2.& the grey ground. Upper part of the layer 227-7. appears to fluoresce lighter than the bottom part. Dirt layer? - Fine white pigment (lead white?). - Fine black pigment, some larger rounded particles. - Black seems to differ morphologically from the black used in het grey ground (Layer nr. 1). 2 Pink layer Overpainted pink dress - Fine white pigment (lead white?). LM: BF, UV 365, Compare to samples 227-2, - Quite round bright pink pigment UV420 227-7, 227-9 & 227-11. (vermilion?). One oblong, angular black particle. One larger orange/brown particle. 1 Thick grey layer (2d?) Ground - Fine white pigment (lead white?). LM: BF, UV 365, Visible in all samples - Smaller angular greyish particles, UV420 well distinguishable in UV. - Smaller and larger black angular pigments (charcoal black?). - Fine black pigments. - Transparent yellow particle. Some blue pigments.
Remarks
Brittle paint layer, paint crumbles easily during sampling. The MA-XRF mapping of Hg seems to correspond with the overpainted pink dress as well as the Pb-L mapping of lead. Both show the quene indicating the pink dress (layer 2) is painted with a mixture containing vermilion and lead white.
129
Microscopic and chemic analysis of the paint layers
Painter: James McNeill Whistler Title: Symphony in white; Girl in muslin dress Substrate: canvas Date: ? dimensions: 76x62 cm provenance: Museum Singer Laren Inv.nr.: - Cat. nr.: 538 (cat. 1962) work nr: - Object nr.: - Folder . nr: - Taken by: Arie Wallert Date: 28-01-2014 Sample nr: 227-9
Description sample site: Proper right shoulder Coordinates: - Sampling by means of: Scalpel: x scraping: - Cotton swab: - brush: - Different, viz.: - Touched with (fingers, saliva, solvent etc.): x Sample container Glass vial: - Plastic: - Gelatinecapsule: - Different, viz.: Envelope of two well glasses. Reason for sampling: Build up paint layers, build up ground and pigment analysis. Description of the sample site after - sampling, through the stereomicroscope: Description of the sample under the - stereomicroscope: Depository sample: Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. Material left after analysis? ? Cross-section nr: 227-9 Embedded in: Polypol
Hypothetical layer build up -
100x BF 100X UV365
200x BF01 200x UV 365 01
200x BF02 200x UV365 02
130
Microscopic and chemic analysis of the paint layers
Painter: James McNeill Whistler Title: Symphony in white; Girl in muslin dress Substrate: canvas Date: ? dimensions: 76x62 cm provenance: Museum Singer Laren Inv.nr.: - Cat. nr.: 538 (cat. 1962) work nr: - Object nr.: - Folder . nr: - Taken by: Arie Wallert Date: 28-01-2014 Sample nr: 227-9
Description sample
Layer definition typing Description/composition Analytical technique Nr. 7 Strong fluorescent End varnish LM: BF, UV 365, layer UV420 6 Pigmented Overpainting of the - Fine black pigment. Two larger LM: BF, UV 365, fluorescent layer. (1- curtain? particles. UV420 3 layers, not clearly - Fine red pigment. distinguishable and - Fine blue pigment. evenly distributed) 5 Thin fluorescent Fluoresces in UV (365, 420 & 470). Appears LM: BF, UV 365, layer. to be unpigmented. UV420 4 Thin dark layer Curtain? In BF only distinguishable in high LM: BF, UV 365, magnification. Best visible in UV (365, 420 UV420 & 470) - Fine black pigment. Fine blue pigment, only distinguishable in high magnification 500x. One larger particle. - Some fine red pigments. 3 Grey layer Underpainting Looks a little bit blue. Fluorescence in UV LM: BF, UV 365, Grey/white dress (?) (365,420 & 470) differs from the grey UV420 Compare to sample 227-2.& ground. Upper part of the layer appears to 227-8.. fluoresce lighter than the bottom part. - Fine white pigment (lead white?). - Fine black pigment, some larger rounded particles. - Black seems to differ morphologically from the black used in het grey ground (Layer nr. 1). - Quarts like pigments? 2 Pink layer Overpainted pink dress - Fine white pigment (lead white?). LM: BF, UV 365, Compare to samples 227-2, - Quite round bright pink pigment UV420 227-7, 227-8 & 227-11. (vermilion?). One oblong, angular black particle. One larger orange/brown particle. 1 Thick grey layer (2d?) Ground Measures approximately 30 μm where the LM: BF, UV 365, Visible in all samples layer is at its thickest. UV420 - Fine white pigment (lead white?). - Smaller angular greyish particles, well distinguishable in UV. - Smaller and larger black angular pigments (charcoal black). - Fine black pigments. - Transparent yellow particles. - Larger oval white pigment.
Remarks
Brittle paint layer, paint crumbles easily during sampling. The MA-XRF mapping of Hg seems to correspond with the overpainted pink dress as well as the Pb-L mapping of lead. Both show the quene indicating the pink dress (layer 2) is painted with a mixture containing vermilion and lead white.
131
Microscopic and chemic analysis of the paint layers
Painter: James McNeill Whistler Title: Symphony in white; Girl in muslin dress Substrate: canvas Date: ? dimensions: 76x62 cm provenance: Museum Singer Laren Inv.nr.: - Cat. nr.: 538 (cat. 1962) work nr: - Object nr.: - Folder . nr: - Taken by: Arie Wallert Date: 28-01-2014 Sample nr: 227-10
Description sample site: Ruffle front of the dress Coordinates: - Sampling by means of: Scalpel: x scraping: - Cotton swab: - brush: - Different, viz.: - Touched with (fingers, saliva, solvent etc.): x Sample container Glass vial: - Plastic: - Gelatinecapsule: - Different, viz.: Envelope of two well glasses. Reason for sampling: Build up paint layers, build up ground and pigment analysis. Description of the sample site after - sampling, through the stereomicroscope: Description of the sample under the - stereomicroscope: Depository sample: Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. Material left after analysis? ? Cross-section nr: 227-6 Embedded in: Polypol
Hypothetical layer build up -
200x BF, 200X UV365,
200x UV420 200x UV 470
500x BF 500x UV365
132
Microscopic and chemic analysis of the paint layers
Painter: James McNeill Whistler Title: Symphony in white; Girl in muslin dress Substrate: canvas Date: ? dimensions: 76x62 cm provenance: Museum Singer Laren Inv.nr.: - Cat. nr.: 538 (cat. 1962) work nr: - Object nr.: - Folder . nr: - Taken by: Arie Wallert Date: 28-01-2014 Sample nr: 227-10
Description sample
Layer definition interpretation Description/composition Analytical technique Nr. 7 Several strong Varnish Strongly fluorescent in UV (365, 420 & LM: BF, UV 365, fluorescent layers. 470). Two layers of varnish appear to be UV420 present. Locally little pigmentation or dirt layer. 6 Very thin dark layer - Some fine black pigments. LM: BF, UV 365, - Some red pigments. UV420 5 White layer. White dress. - Very fine white pigment. LM: BF, UV 365, - Two round rather large yellow UV420 pigments. - One oval large red pigment. - Relatively little fine dark pigment. 4 Dark thin layer Curtain. - Rather fine black pigments. LM: BF, UV 365, Compare to sample 227-6, - Very fine blue pigments, only UV420 227-9, 227-11 and 227-12 - visible under high magnification 227-15. 500x. 1 Thick grey layer (2d?) Ground Measures approximately 60 μm where the LM: BF, UV 365, Visible in all of the samples. layer is at its thickest. UV420 - Fine white pigment (lead white?). - Angular greyish particles, well distinguishable in UV. - Smaller and larger black angular pigments (charcoal black?). - Some transparent yellow particles.
Remarks
. Brittle paint layer, paint crumbles easily during sampling.
133
Microscopic and chemic analysis of the paint layers
Painter: James McNeill Whistler Title: Symphony in white; Girl in muslin dress Substrate: canvas Date: ? dimensions: 76x62 cm provenance: Museum Singer Laren Inv.nr.: - Cat. nr.: 538 (cat. 1962) work nr: - Object nr.: - Folder . nr: - Taken by: Arie Wallert Date: 28-01-2014 Sample nr: 227-11
Description sample site: From background curtain Coordinates: - Sampling by means of: Scalpel: x scraping: - Cotton swab: - brush: - Different, viz.: - Touched with (fingers, saliva, solvent etc.): x Sample container Glass vial: - Plastic: - Gelatinecapsule: - Different, viz.: Envelope of two well glasses. Reason for sampling: Relief brushstroke shows up in radiograph Description of the sample site after - sampling, through the stereomicroscope: Description of the sample under the - stereomicroscope: Depository sample: Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. Material left after analysis? ? Cross-section nr: 227-11 Embedded in: Polypol
Hypothetical layer build up -
200x BF 200X UV365
200x UV420 200x UV 470
500x BF 500x UV365
134
Microscopic and chemic analysis of the paint layers
Painter: James McNeill Whistler Title: Symphony in white; Girl in muslin dress Substrate: canvas Date: ? dimensions: 76x62 cm provenance: Museum Singer Laren Inv.nr.: - Cat. nr.: 538 (cat. 1962) work nr: - Object nr.: - Folder . nr: - Taken by: Arie Wallert Date: 28-01-2014 Sample nr: 227-11
Description sample
Layer definition interpretation Description/composition Analytical technique Nr. Varnish End varnish Partially visible on the right side of the LM: BF, UV 365, sample. Fluoresces in UV (365, 420 & 470). UV420 7 Strong fluorescing Overpainting of the - Relatively fine round black LM: BF, UV 365, pigmented layer curtain particles. UV420 Compare to samples 227-9 - Seems to differ morphologically & 227-12 – 227-15. from the black pigment used in the grey ground (layer nr. 1). - Fine white pigment. - Some fine yellow particles. - Some fine blue particles. 6 Strong fluorescent This layer is not distinguishable in BF only LM: BF, UV 365, layer. in UV light. The layer appears to be UV420 unpigmented. 4 Thin black layer Black curtain - Relatively fine round black LM: BF, UV 365, Compare to samples 227-9 particles. Seems to differ UV420 & 227-12 -227-15. morphologically from the black pigment used in the grey ground (layer nr. 1). - Some fine blue particles. 3 Grey layer Has the entire dress been Partially visible within sample. (Abrasion?). LM: BF, UV 365, overpainted with a grey ‘Tunnels’ visible in the paint layer. UV420 layer? - Fine white pigment. - Dark black pigment. - Two fine yellow pigments. - One fine orange pigment. 2 Pink layer Overpainted pink dress. - Fine white pigment (lead white?). LM: BF, UV 365, Compare to sample 227-2 & Quite round bright pink pigment UV420 227-7 -227-9. that looks orangey in BF and more pinkish in UV365 (vermilion?). - More pinkish angular particles (BF). They look light pinkish in UV365. - Some relatively fine black round particles. 1 Thick grey layer 2d? Ground - Fine white pigment (lead white?). LM: BF, UV 365, Visible in all samples.. - Smaller angular greyish particles, UV420 well distinguishable in UV. - Smaller and larger black angular pigments. - One large black particle. Within UV365 wood vessels are visible indicating charcoal black has been used. - Relatively fine black pigments. - Some yellow transparent particles.
135
Microscopic and chemic analysis of the paint layers
Painter: James McNeill Whistler Title: Symphony in white; Girl in muslin dress Substrate: canvas Date: ? dimensions: 76x62 cm provenance: Museum Singer Laren Inv.nr.: - Cat. nr.: 538 (cat. 1962) work nr: - Object nr.: - Folder . nr: - Taken by: Gwendolyn Boevé-Jones Date: 04-02-2015 Sample nr: 227-12
Description sample site: Black curtain lower right edge of the painting. Coordinates: - Sampling by means of: Scalpel: x scraping: - Cotton swab: - brush: - Different, viz.: - Touched with (fingers, saliva, solvent etc.): x Sample container Glass vial: - Plastic: - Gelatinecapsule: - Different, viz.: Envelope of two well glasses. Reason for sampling: One layers of paint curtain? Description of the sample site after - sampling, through the stereomicroscope: Description of the sample under the - stereomicroscope: Depository sample: Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. Material left after analysis? ? Cross-section nr: 227-12 Embedded in: Polypol
Hypothetical layer build up -
200x BF 200X UV365
200x UV420 200x UV 470
500x BF 500x UV365
136
Microscopic and chemic analysis of the paint layers
Painter: James McNeill Whistler Title: Symphony in white; Girl in muslin dress Substrate: canvas Date: ? dimensions: 76x62 cm provenance: Museum Singer Laren Inv.nr.: - Cat. nr.: 538 (cat. 1962) work nr: - Object nr.: - Folder . nr: - Taken by: Gwendolyn Boevé-Jones Date: 04-02-2015 Sample nr: 227-12
Description sample
Layer definition interpretation Description/composition Analytical technique Nr. Varnish. End varnish LM: BF, UV 365, UV420 6 Very thin black Overpainting of the Not distinguishable in BF. Only visible in LM: BF, UV 365, layer. Unevenly curtain ? UV (365, 420 & 470). UV420 distributed. Compare to samples 227-9 - Very fine black particles. & 227-12 – 227-15. 5 Thin white layer, Varnish ? This layer is not distinguishable in BF only LM: BF, UV 365, unevenly distributed. in UV light. No pigments are visible. SEM UV420. SEM EDX EDX analysis (point an shoot) confirmed the mapping. presence of only organic material indicating the layer is unpigmented. 4 Thin black layer Black curtain Not distinguishable in BF, only LM: BF, UV 365, Compare to samples 227-9 distinguishable in UV. Fluoresces lighter on UV420. SEM EDX & 227-12 -227-15. top of the sample. mapping. - Relatively fine round black particles. Much finer than the bulk of the pigment within the grey ground. Seems to differ morphologically from the black pigment used in the grey ground (Layer nr. 1). SEM EDX mapping confirmed the presence of some Ca an P containing particles indicating the use of boneblack. - Fine blue pigments. SEM EDX mapping confirmed the presence of an Co and Al containing pigment within this layer indicating cobalt blue (CoAl2O4). has been used. 3 Very thin grey layer. Not visible in other samples. Darker in UV (365, 420 & 470). BF only LM: BF, UV 365, Appears to be visible under high magnification, hard to UV420 partially there. distinguish from the grey ground (layer 2). - Rather fine black pigment only visible in UV. 2 Thick grey layer 2d? Ground Measures approximately 100 μm where the LM: BF, UV 365, Visible in all samples. layer is at it thickest. UV420 - Fine white pigment (lead white?). - Smaller angular greyish particles, well distinguishable in UV. - Smaller and larger black angular pigments. Relatively fine black pigments. - Some yellow transparent particles. Under higher magnification they appear to be clusters of very fine pigment. Also some orangey particles. - Quite large round white particles 1 White layer (appears White ground - Fine white pigments. LM: BF, UV 365, to be incomplete.) Compare to sample 227-4 & UV420 227-12.
137
Microscopic and chemic analysis of the paint layers
Painter: James McNeill Whistler Title: Symphony in white; Girl in muslin dress Substrate: canvas Date: ? dimensions: 76x62 cm provenance: Museum Singer Laren Inv.nr.: - Cat. nr.: 538 (cat. 1962) work nr: - Object nr.: - Folder . nr: - Taken by: Gwendolyn Boevé-Jones Date: 04-02-2015 Sample nr: 227-13
Description sample site: Lower right edge of the painting, within cleaning test. (black paint is removed) Coordinates: - Sampling by means of: Scalpel: x scraping: - Cotton swab: - brush: - Different, viz.: - Touched with (fingers, saliva, solvent etc.): x Sample container Glass vial: - Plastic: - Gelatinecapsule: - Different, viz.: Envelope of two well glasses. Reason for sampling: Curtain paint visible? Description of the sample site after - sampling, through the stereomicroscope: Description of the sample under the - stereomicroscope: Depository sample: Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. Material left after analysis? ? Cross-section nr: 227-13 Embedded in: Polypol
Hypothetical layer build up -
200x BF 200X UV365
200x UV420 200x UV 470
500x BF 500x UV365
138
Microscopic and chemic analysis of the paint layers
Painter: James McNeill Whistler Title: Symphony in white; Girl in muslin dress Substrate: canvas Date: ? dimensions: 76x62 cm provenance: Museum Singer Laren Inv.nr.: - Cat. nr.: 538 (cat. 1962) work nr: - Object nr.: - Folder . nr: - Taken by: Gwendolyn Boevé-Jones Date: 04-02-2015 Sample nr: 227-13
Description sample
Layer definition interpretation Description/composition Analytical technique Nr. 1 Thick grey layer 2d? Ground Fluorescent within UV LM: BF, UV 365, Visible in all samples.. - Fine white pigment (lead white?). UV420 - Smaller angular greyish particles, well distinguishable in UV. SEM EDX analysis (point and shoot) of some of these particles showed these particles mainly contain Ba and S. Indicating the use of barite. Small peaks for Sr are present as well. This indicates the use of the natural occurring mineral Barite instead of synthetic Barium Sulphate (BaSO4). - Smaller and larger black angular pigments. - Black pigments. One large black particle. Within UV (365, 420 & 470) wood vessels are visible indicating charcoal black has been used. - Some yellow transparent particles. One large yellow pigment. Looks slightly more orange in UV (365, 420 & 470). High magnification has shown it consists of a cluster of very fine yellow and orange particles.
139
Microscopic and chemic analysis of the paint layers
Painter: James McNeill Whistler Title: Symphony in white; Girl in muslin dress Substrate: canvas Date: ? dimensions: 76x62 cm provenance: Museum Singer Laren Inv.nr.: - Cat. nr.: 538 (cat. 1962) work nr: - Object nr.: - Folder . nr: - Taken by: Gwendolyn Boevé-Jones Date: 04-02-2015 Sample nr: 227-14
Description sample site: Lower left edge of the painting. Within cleaning test. (black paint is removed). Coordinates: - Sampling by means of: Scalpel: x scraping: - Cotton swab: - brush: - Different, viz.: - Touched with (fingers, saliva, solvent etc.): x Sample container Glass vial: - Plastic: - Gelatinecapsule: - Different, viz.: Envelope of two well glasses. Reason for sampling: Curtain paint visible? Description of the sample site after - sampling, through the stereomicroscope: Description of the sample under the - stereomicroscope: Depository sample: Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. Material left after analysis? ? Cross-section nr: 227-14 Embedded in: Polypol
Hypothetical layer build up -
200x BF 200X UV365
200x UV420 200x UV 470
1000x BF 1000x UV365
140
Microscopic and chemic analysis of the paint layers
Painter: James McNeill Whistler Title: Symphony in white; Girl in muslin dress Substrate: canvas Date: ? dimensions: 76x62 cm provenance: Museum Singer Laren Inv.nr.: - Cat. nr.: 538 (cat. 1962) work nr: - Object nr.: - Folder . nr: - Taken by: Gwendolyn Boevé-Jones Date: 04-02-2015 Sample nr: 227-14
Description sample
Layer definition interpretation Description/composition Analytical technique Nr. 3 Thin black layer Black curtain - Relatively fine round black LM: BF, UV 365, Compare to samples 227-9 particles. Seems to differ UV420 & 227-12 -227-15. morphologically from the black pigment used in the grey ground (Layer nr. 1). - Some fine blue particles ? 2 Thick grey layer 2d? Ground Measures approximately 120 μm where the LM: BF, UV 365, Visible in all samples. layer is at its thickest. UV420. SEM EDX - Fine white pigment (lead mapping. white?).SEM EDX mapping showed particles containing lead. Indicating the use of lead white (2 PbCO3· Pb (OH)2). As well as particles containing Ca the mapping did not appear to show S at the same spots though it could not be distinguished very clearly. Therefore chalk and Gypsum could not be distinguished very clearly. - Smaller angular greyish particles, well distinguishable in UV. SEM EDX mapping confirmed the presence of Ba and S containing particles. Indicating the use of barite (BaSO4). - Some particles containing only Si could also be distinguished. Indicating the presence of quarts? - Smaller and larger black angular pigments. One large black particle. Within UV365 wood vessels are visible indicating charcoal black has been used. - Some rather large yellow particles. Slightly more orange in UV 365 &420. High magnification 500x showed them to consist of clusters of very fine pigments. Some more orangey some more yellow. SEM EDX showed the presence of Al, Si and Fe in some of the spots. Indicating the use of a yellow ochre. 1 Fine white layer. White ground. - Fine white pigment. SEM EDX LM: BF, UV 365, (appears to be Compare to samples 227-4 mapping showed this layer only UV420. SEM EDX present partially.) & 227-12. contained Pb indicating it is mapping. painted with lead white (2 PbCO3· Pb(OH)2).
141
Microscopic and chemic analysis of the paint layers
Painter: James McNeill Whistler Title: Symphony in white; Girl in muslin dress Substrate: canvas Date: ? dimensions: 76x62 cm provenance: Museum Singer Laren Inv.nr.: - Cat. nr.: 538 (cat. 1962) work nr: - Object nr.: - Folder . nr: - Taken by: Gwendolyn Boevé-Jones Date: 04-02-2015 Sample nr: 227-15
Description sample site: lower left edge of the painting. Coordinates: - Sampling by means of: Scalpel: x scraping: - Cotton swab: - brush: - Different, viz.: - Touched with (fingers, saliva, solvent etc.): x Sample container Glass vial: - Plastic: - Gelatinecapsule: - Different, viz.: Envelope of two well glasses. Reason for sampling: Two layers of curtain paint? Description of the sample site after - sampling, through the stereomicroscope: Description of the sample under the - stereomicroscope: Depository sample: Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. Material left after analysis? ? Cross-section nr: 227-15 Embedded in: Polypol
Hypothetical layer build up -
200x BF 200X UV365
200x UV420 200x UV 470
142
Microscopic and chemic analysis of the paint layers
Painter: James McNeill Whistler Title: Symphony in white; Girl in muslin dress Substrate: canvas Date: ? dimensions: 76x62 cm provenance: Museum Singer Laren Inv.nr.: - Cat. nr.: 538 (cat. 1962) work nr: - Object nr.: - Folder . nr: - Taken by: Gwendolyn Boevé-Jones Date: 04-02-2015 Sample nr: 227-15
Description sample
Layer definition interpretation Description/composition Analytical technique Nr. Varnish End varnish Partially visible on the right side of the LM: BF, UV 365, sample. Fluoresces in UV (365, 420 & 470). UV420 4 Strong fluorescing Overpainting of the Fluoresces lighter in UV than layer nr. 3. LM: BF, UV 365, pigmented layer curtain - Relatively fine round black UV420 Compare to samples 227-9 particles. Seems to differ & 227-12 – 227-15. morphologically from the black pigment used in the grey ground (Layer nr. 1). 3 Strong fluorescent Oiling out, varnish? This layer is not distinguishable in BF only LM: BF, UV 365, layer. in UV light. The layer appears to be UV420 unpigmented. 2 Thin black layer Black curtain Not distinguishable in BF, only LM: BF, UV 365, Compare to samples 227-9 distinguishable in UV. UV420 & 227-12 -227-15. - Relatively fine round black particles. Seems to differ morphologically from the black pigment used in the grey ground (Layer nr. 1). 1 Thick grey layer 2d? Ground - Fine white pigment (lead white?). LM: BF, UV 365, Visible in all samples.. - Smaller angular greyish particles, UV420 well distinguishable in UV. - Smaller and larger black angular pigments. - Some yellow transparent particles.
143