Traghetto |  Art Institute of Chicago (1927.5960) | |
| Number: | 231 | |
| Date: | 1879/1880 | |
| Medium: | etching and drypoint | |
| Size: | 240 x 311 mm | |
| Signed: | butterfly at lower left (1-2); replaced with new butterfly (3-final) | |
| Inscribed: | no | |
| Set/Publication: | no | |
| No. of States: | 4 | |
| Known impressions: | 7 | |
| Catalogues: | K.190; M.187 | |
| Impressions taken from this plate (7) | ||
TECHNIQUE
The plate for Traghetto went through a number of changes in etching and drypoint but was left unfinished.
PRINTING
Whistler told Edward Guthrie Kennedy (1849-1932): 'I have found ... the first proof of the Traghetto - pulled on old wooden Press in Venice, as you will see marked on back'. 9 This was the impression marked 'first proof' by Whistler on the tab (
). It was printed in black ink on cream laid paper with a partial watermark of a Strasbourg Lily and 'VGZ'. It was this impression that Otto Henry Bacher (1856-1909) saw pinned to the wall in Whistler's rooms near the Frari, and exclaimed 'Oh, what a bully etching that is!' Bacher records that Whistler then showed him later proofs, saying:
). It was printed in black ink on cream laid paper with a partial watermark of a Strasbourg Lily and 'VGZ'. It was this impression that Otto Henry Bacher (1856-1909) saw pinned to the wall in Whistler's rooms near the Frari, and exclaimed 'Oh, what a bully etching that is!' Bacher records that Whistler then showed him later proofs, saying:9: 4 July 1892, GUW #09689.
'"Whistler will let you have a look at
a better proof, drawn from the same plate
in a later state." As he placed the new
print before me he remarked: "I daresay
you will notice the vast improvement.
This is the second state of the plate." 10
At the first glance I noticed that he had added many new lines, thereby losing much of the life and charm of the first beautiful proof. By comparing the two prints, it seemed that he was losing his grip on that plate. Divining that I perceived this, a shadow of disappointment crossed his face as he brought me the third proof of the same plate. This last one represented the actual, sad condition of the copperplate as it was then. Horrors! What a shock ran through me! The plate was ruined, irrevocably ruined! I was stunned for a moment, and falteringly questioned him for the reasons that had influenced him to dare to add another line to the finished state of the copperplate which had yielded such a glorious proof as I had before me on the wall.
"I changed it because a duffer—a duffer—a painter—thought it was incomplete." This was all he said, but he seemed very bitter.
On several occasions, after he had moved to the Casa Jankovitz, he mentioned "The Traghetto" plate. It troubled him very much. He would say "I wonder how Whistler can get the plate back again like the first proof. Whistler must find some way to do it." / One morning he surprised me by saying: "Whistler has decided to do 'The Traghetto' all over again.'
At the first glance I noticed that he had added many new lines, thereby losing much of the life and charm of the first beautiful proof. By comparing the two prints, it seemed that he was losing his grip on that plate. Divining that I perceived this, a shadow of disappointment crossed his face as he brought me the third proof of the same plate. This last one represented the actual, sad condition of the copperplate as it was then. Horrors! What a shock ran through me! The plate was ruined, irrevocably ruined! I was stunned for a moment, and falteringly questioned him for the reasons that had influenced him to dare to add another line to the finished state of the copperplate which had yielded such a glorious proof as I had before me on the wall.
"I changed it because a duffer—a duffer—a painter—thought it was incomplete." This was all he said, but he seemed very bitter.
On several occasions, after he had moved to the Casa Jankovitz, he mentioned "The Traghetto" plate. It troubled him very much. He would say "I wonder how Whistler can get the plate back again like the first proof. Whistler must find some way to do it." / One morning he surprised me by saying: "Whistler has decided to do 'The Traghetto' all over again.'
10: Bacher 1908, pp. 165-166, 169-170.
Less than ten impressions of the first version of Traghetto are known. All have the appearance of working proofs. They were all printed in black ink, and all printed in Venice. Another impression of the first state and one of the third were printed in black ink on cream laid paper, with a VAN GELDER watermark (, ). One of the second state was printed on heavy-weight cream Asian laid paper () and the third state on ivory Japanese (). Another third state is on ivory laid paper (), and an impression of the final state on buff wove paper, torn up, of which only the left half survived in Whistler's studio ().
, ). One of the second state was printed on heavy-weight cream Asian laid paper () and the third state on ivory Japanese (). Another third state is on ivory laid paper (), and an impression of the final state on buff wove paper, torn up, of which only the left half survived in Whistler's studio ().The Pennells relied on Bacher for their account of the subsequent history of this plate and the transfer of the composition to a second plate, The Traghetto [233]:
'He had another copper of the same size and
thickness made by the Venetian from whom they all got
their plates. When this was ready, the first plate was
"inked" with white paint, instead of black ink, passed
through the press, and a proof pulled. This was placed on
the second plate, already varnished, which was then run
through the press. The result was "a replica in white upon
the black etching ground." Mr Bacher says that upon the
new plate Whistler worked for days and weeks with the first
proof before him, that he might find and etch only the lines
in the original.
The printing of this plate was an exciting moment. As
the gentle old printer of Venice pulled the plate through the
massive wooden rollers, heavily padded with felt blankets,
nothing was heard but the squeaking of the old wooden press.
It was the supreme moment of joy or of keen disappointment
it - was the end of the journey and, fortunately, the new proof was
exquisite. It was another Traghetto, the one we now know, but
it was not a duplicate of that marvellous first proof. Whistler
placed the two proofs side by side and minutely compared them."
And he was pleased ...' 11
11: Pennell 1908, I, pp. 284-285.