Brief Report

According to Berhaut this painting is a study (Fr. étude), which, together with two other works depicting the same motif, served as preparation for the large-format 1893 picture Regatta at Argenteuil [Berhaut 1994, pp 245–247]. The canvas used by Caillebotte for the present picture, however, was by no means mere study grade, but a particularly pale, fine, and dense weave of high quality in the standard F 15 size. Caillebotte acquired the canvas, readystretched and pre-primed in off-white, from his Parisian art-supply dealer Dubus, whose name and address are noted verso [cf. Caillebotte WRM Dep. 828, WRM Dep. FC 727, WRM Dep. FC 689, WRM Dep. FC 561] (fig. 2). Dealers’ marks of this kind are often wrongly described as stamps, although they were quite clearly applied by stencilling, as is particularly obvious in the present example, where the edges of the stencil are visible. The canvas has another individual characteristic: verso there are remains of an original loose paper backing, such as we see preserved on other pictures by Caillebotte [Lewerentz 2008, p. 275] (fig.8). The small number of examples and lack of information in dealers’ catalogues and artists’ correspondence means that to date we can only speculate on the reasons for this paper backing, but they could represent an early measure to protect the canvas. The first lay-in of the motif was done in two stages, first in charcoal and then using a few brushstrokes in reddish-brown to black paint [cf. Caillebotte WRM Dep 828, WRM Dep. FC 706, WRM Dep. 447, WRM Dep. FC 561] (fig. 10). For one of the other sailing-boat paintings produced at the same time, there exists a squared-down pencildrawing, which evidently served the artist as a pattern [Berhaut 1994, cat. no. 471, p. 246; Chardeau 1989, p. 98]. The underdrawing of the painting in Cologne, however, exhibits no indication that a similar sketch was used. On the contrary, there is, at the lower edge of the picture, an impression, now retouched, made by the fastening of a field-easel, suggesting that the picture was painted in the open air [cf. Caillebotte WRM Dep. 828, WRM Dep. FC 727, WRM Dep. FC 561, WRM Dep. FC 689] (fig. 5). The painting was probably executed in one to two sessions. After the individual areas of the picture had been prepared by glazes in the local colour, the details were executed with brisk brushstrokes primarily wet-in-wet. Here and there a scratching instrument, presumably the shaft of the brush, was used to create accented structures in the still wet paint (fig. 11). The painting was not signed until the paint-layer was completely dry (fig. 7). The inscription, executed with a pointed brush in ink or India ink is not unambiguously that of Caillebotte and could also have been added posthumously. Berhaut thinks that this kind of signature was added by Caillebotte’s brother Martial or the executor of the artist’s will, Auguste Renoir [Berhaut 1994, p. 60, cf. Caillebotte WRM Dep. FC 689, WRM Dep. FC 727, WRM Dep. 828].

Gustave Caillebotte
Regatta at Argenteuil, 1893, oil on canvas, 65.3 x 54.5 cm, WRM Dep. 622

Gustave Caillebotte

born on 19 August 1848 in Paris,
died on 21 February 1894 in Gennevilliers

Brief report with complete data as downloadable pdf-file

Further illustrations:

Fig. 02

Verso, with detail of the dealer’s mark, on the sides of which the marks left by the edge of the stencil can be seen


Fig. 03

Raking light


Fig. 04

Transmitted light


Fig. 05

UV fluorescence


Fig. 06

X-ray


Fig. 07

Detail, signature, top microscopic photograph (M = 1 mm)


Fig. 08

Detail, verso, remains of an original loose paper backing provided by the dealer Dubus (marked with white arrows); below, an example of an extant paper backing with dealer’s mark on Gustave Caillebotte’s painting Sailing Boat on the Seine, a study for Regattas at Argenteuil, 1893, private collection [Berhaut 1994, cat. no. 468]


Fig. 09

Detail of the turnover edge with holes presumably due to a possible provisional stretching (top left) and (top right) indication of the two-layer structure of the ground
visible along its edge, microscopic photograph (M = 1 mm)


Fig. 10

Two-stage underdrawing, the first presumably in charcoal (top, white arrows mark the still extant charcoal particles) and then in paint applied with a brush (bottom), microscopic photographs (M = 1 mm)


Fig. 11

Detail of the sailor in incident light (left) and transmitted light (right), the use of a scratching instrument (brush shaft?) is clearly discernible


Fig. 12

Detail of the impasto paint application in the area of the reflection in the water under incident light (left) and raking light (right)