Illuminating Whistler’s Nocturne: Black and Gold – The Fire Wheel

James McNeill Whistler’s Nocturne: Black and Gold – The Fire Wheel 1875 (YMSM 169; Tate N03419; fig.1), hereafter The Fire Wheel, is one of the artist’s six known nocturnes depicting the popular Victorian pleasure gardens at Cremorne in Chelsea, London, as seen by night.1 The painting shows a group of spectators standing mesmerised as they watch a Catherine wheel – a spinning pinwheel firework – whirling against the night sky, discharging a shower of sparks and billows of smoke. Whistler lived nearby at 96 Cheyne Walk and had, from the early 1870s, used Chelsea and the River Thames as his inspiration for a number of nocturnes, including paintings of the river at an earlier time of the evening.2 Introduced to Cremorne by his pupils and studio assistants Walter and Henry Greaves, Whistler spent summer evenings observing its lively entertainments.

The expansive riverside gardens featured theatres, exhibition buildings, a banqueting hall, an American bowling saloon, grottoes, an illuminated pagoda with dancing platform and several refreshment kiosks (fig.2).3 Promenades were lined with ancient elm trees, and the grounds were ornamented with flowerbeds, statues and fountains. The entertainment on offer was wide-ranging, including a variety of circus acts alongside theatre, ballet, puppetry, mock medieval tournaments and hot-air balloon ascents featuring daring stunts. By day Cremorne attracted respectable, well-to-do families; by night, the brightly illuminated gardens became notorious in the contemporary press for drunken disorder, violence, illegal gambling and sex work. Complaints by residents and the Chelsea Vestry led to its eventual closure in 1877.4

Perhaps the most popular spectacles of all were the fireworks displays – the principal subject of Whistler’s Fire Wheel. Only one other of Whistler’s paintings of Cremorne centred on capturing the ephemeral nature of fireworks, Nocturne in Black and Gold: The Falling Rocket 1875 (YMSM 170; fig.3). In 1877 Whistler sued John Ruskin for libel after the art critic published a condemnation of the painting following its exhibition at the Grosvenor Gallery, London. Ruskin disapproved of what he perceived as Whistler’s chaotic, seemingly unfinished, non-representational art.5 During the trial in November 1878, Whistler proclaimed: ‘I should be grieved to see my paintings mellowed’ – a remark that underscores the artist’s preoccupation with the condition and surface finish of his paintings.6

Whistler’s correspondence with his friends, exhibitors, collectors and picture restorers provides first-hand insight into the artist’s views on, and involvement in, the preservation and display of his paintings. In the case of The Fire Wheel, these accounts, along with technical research into Whistler’s materials and working methods, have significantly shaped our understanding of the painting and guided its recent conservation treatment.

Materials and techniques

The Fire Wheel was selected as a candidate for conservation treatment owing to the level of degradation of multiple varnish layers and their effect on its legibility.7 As part of the conservation process, an in-depth technical investigation into Whistler’s materials and working methods was undertaken. Collaboration with Harvard Art Museums, Cambridge, Massachusetts, enabled technical comparison with another contemporaneous Cremorne painting, Nocturne in Black and Gold: The Gardens c.1872–5 (YMSM 163; fig.4), hereafter The Gardens.

The Fire Wheel and The Gardens are both painted on plain-weave linen canvas. As with most of Whistler’s canvas paintings from the 1870s onwards, the distinctive topography of the woven fabric plays a key aesthetic role. Whistler deliberately rubbed back his paint to expose the canvas texture, producing a surface effect that the conservator Joyce Hill Stoner has termed ‘weavism’.8 This is especially pronounced in these two paintings, where nearly every warp and weft intersection is visible (fig.5). The canvas slubs (the thicker parts of the canvas threads that sit raised on the picture surface) are particularly prominent and abraded, indicative of Whistler’s process of rubbing back paint.

The Fire Wheel’s canvas was not commercially prepared with a ground layer, and neither a homogeneous artist-applied ground layer nor a coloured imprimatura – an overall thin layer of paint covering the ground layer – have been found.9 It seems that Whistler chose to paint directly onto the bare canvas, which had been prepared with only a thin coating of animal glue in water, to seal the canvas and make it suitable for receiving oil paint. Based on current technical information, this lack of ground is unusual, particularly for his mid-1870s period. A handful of Whistler portraits from the late 1890s to early 1900s are known to be on unprimed canvas.10 Nocturne in Blue and Silver: The Lagoon, Venice 1879–80 (YMSM 212; Museum of Fine Arts Boston), meanwhile, has no ground but was instead painted on the reverse of a primed piece of canvas.11 According to Walter Greaves, the 1871 portrait of Whistler’s mother, Anna Matilda (1804–1881), was ‘painted on the back of the canvas to imitate the grain of the dress and of the handkerchief’.12 Interestingly, examination of The Gardens has revealed that it too has no commercial or artist-applied ground, nor a coloured imprimatura.

Whistler’s friends and biographers, Elizabeth Robins Pennell and Joseph Pennell, cite Greaves, who observed that the ‘Nocturnes were mostly painted on very absorbent canvas, sometimes on panels, sometimes on bare brown holland, sized’.13 This latter description closely matches the supports for The Fire Wheel and The Gardens. Drawing on recollections from Greaves and the Pennells, the art critic Denys Sutton stated that ‘Whistler’s desire for a concordance of tone was stressed by his contention that if the night was grey, then the sky is grey and the water grey; therefore the canvas must be grey’.14 The Pennells explain that ‘[t]he ground, for his Nocturnes, like the paper for his pastels, was chosen of the prevailing tone of the picture he wanted to paint or of a colour which would give him that tone’.15

No known sketches survive of the subject Whistler captured at Cremorne prior to painting The Fire Wheel, and it is recorded anecdotally that, for his Thames nocturnes, Whistler in fact often painted from memory.16 However, the Pennells describe Whistler using brown paper and black and white chalk to make quick sketches for the Cremorne works that were ‘easy to put down under the lamps’ of the gardens, since the brown support itself pre-established an atmosphere and mid-tone.17 As with his carefully selected paper supports, for The Gardens and The Fire Wheel Whistler intentionally chose the warm brown colour of his glue-sized canvas as the foundation on which to build his paint layers, and by rubbing back each layer he exploited the tone of the exposed linen threads in the final composition. Moreover, with no applied ground layer, Whistler was pushing the limits of surface absorbency. Even more so than with an absorbent ground, a bare canvas would, as noted by the conservator Joyce Hill Stoner, ‘enhance penetration of the oil paint films … increase overall mattness, and thereby emphasize the low-relief surfaces of prominent canvas weave’.18

Paint layers and pigments

Back in his studio, Whistler’s first application of paint on The Fire Wheel’s canvas refined the tonal value for each area of the composition. For example, a large expanse of the dark blue-grey sky began with a mid-blue underpainting comprising Prussian blue, lead white, some cobalt blue, ivory black, and traces of red and yellow iron oxide pigments. Other areas have a local warm grey underpainting created by combining lead white, ivory black and a little yellow and brown iron oxide pigment. Over this, fluid midnight blues and darker greys merge as the plumes of smoke expelled from the Catherine wheel spread across the night sky. The deepest blue, on the surface of the painting in the upper left quadrant, furthest from the fire wheel, is made of Prussian blue with ivory black, a little lead white and yellow and red iron oxide pigments (fig.6).

Similarly, for The Gardens, Whistler roughly placed planes of colour to mark out the composition tonally. In most places a dark brown paint was applied and rubbed back. A mixture of zinc white and synthetic ultramarine was first applied to brighten the upper right portion of the canvas, upon which veils of medium-rich brown paint were then applied. Towards the centre of The Fire Wheel, the Catherine wheel illuminates a nearby group of people. The larger crowd directly in front of the firework appears in black silhouette against the bright glow. The wheel itself is painted in thick, creamy-white strokes with swirls of pure ochre and a bright pinkish-red madder lake painted wet-in-wet, the dragging brushstrokes capturing the spinning motion (fig.7). The heads of visitors in the left-hand foreground are just an impression, as are the vertical sweeping blue brushstrokes in the foreground that perhaps represent the marble statues that adorned Cremorne Gardens.

In reference to The Falling Rocket, Ruskin had accused Whistler of ‘flinging a pot of paint in the public’s face’, referring to his loose ‘abstract’ and chaotic style and the rapidity of the painting’s execution.19 In reality there was no flinging of paint, and despite Whistler declaring during the trial that he required ‘one day to do the work and one to finish it’, this is unlikely to be true of The Falling Rocket nor of The Fire Wheel.20 Although the backgrounds may have been painted wet-in-wet, the seemingly random spatters of paint that form the sparks on both paintings were, on the contrary, meticulously considered and placed using small brushes loaded with opaque heavy-bodied paint. Examination of the surface of The Fire Wheel suggests these finer details were applied once the background paint had fully dried. In the upper left, small orange-red sparks, from a spent firework, scatter into the sky (fig.8). The X-radiograph, and close examination of the painting after cleaning, have revealed that Whistler first painted larger, rounded white and orange sparks, similar to those in The Falling Rocket, in this area; then, changing his mind, he covered them with dark grey-blue paint to match the sky before adding the finer orange sparks (fig.9). This careful placement of sparks demonstrates Whistler’s attention to detail in the composition’s focal points. These pentimenti – pictorial modifications or changes – likely were made days to months later, as the original thick paint of the sparks appears to have been fully dry before being overpainted.

The precision with which Whistler applied these pyrotechnic sparks reveals his captivation with a subject that had fascinated artists for centuries.21 Historically, however, there had been a tendency to depict fireworks according to a narrative sequence – from the moment the fuse was lit at the source, the path it took to reach the sky, culminating with the fireworks bursting in the air. Whistler instead captures an exact moment in time, an immediate atmospheric impression of the fireworks’ scattering sparks, akin to a photographic image of the scene. It was not until several decades later, that photography was able to capture fireworks in this way, due to the long exposure times required to take pictures at night. This painting technique innovatively built on the experimental mark making seen in previous depictions of fireworks and took it to a new level of immediacy.

Correlating closely to the artist Mortimer Menpes’s description of Whistler’s colour palette, the following pigments were identified on The Fire Wheel: lead white, ivory black, Prussian blue, cobalt blue, brown, orange and yellow synthetic iron oxide pigments, natural yellow ochre, very pale and mid-toned cadmium yellows, chrome yellow, possible barium chromate yellow, cadmium orange, natural red ochre, vermilion and rose madder, as well as the relatively unusual (for Whistler) incorporation of viridian for the bright green lights near the central figures (fig.10).22 For The Gardens, a similar palette was used, although Prussian and cobalt blue were substituted with synthetic ultramarine, and zinc white and possibly a copper green were additionally identified.23

Paint medium

There has been much discussion regarding Whistler’s paint medium, which he called his ‘sauce’. Materials analysis shows that he altered the working properties of commercially prepared oil paints by adding oil, turpentine and sometimes resins.24 Whistler himself advised adding ‘linseed oil and turpentine mixed’ in a letter directing his nephew on how to paint.25 Walter Greaves too reported that Whistler’s ‘colours were mixed with linseed oil and turpentine’, while the Pennells were told by Whistler that he ‘used a medium composed of copal, mastic and turpentine’.26

Medium analysis of the paint on The Fire Wheel identified drying oil and Pinaceae resin. The presence of this resin, while it could derive from the varnish, likely corresponds to the use of turpentine as a paint diluent. It is known that Whistler prepared his paints on a large table palette, thinning them so he could quickly brush over and tone the highly absorbent canvas (fig.11). The palette, which still survives reveals patches of fluorescence when viewed in ultraviolet light (fig.12). One can speculate that, rather than wipe marks left behind during cleaning, such patches indicate pools of turpentine-thinned paint. Whistler may also have added additional drying oil, likely linseed oil, to increase the paint’s translucency and fluidity and to balance the matte appearance of highly thinned paint when dry, but it is not possible to confirm this analytically. Currently, analysis of Whistler’s medium on several paintings correlates with the Pennells’ statement that ‘he had no recipe, no system’; rather, he was continually experimenting with his ‘sauce’, modifying it for each painting.27

Whistler asserted in 1880 that paint should be ‘like breath on the surface of a pane of glass’.28 In The Fire Wheel, each application of paint in the background was likely wiped back with a turpentine-soaked cloth to blend the colours and reveal the warm canvas tone beneath, akin to a thin transparent watercolour wash that leaves the paper visible. Whistler’s smaller copy of The Fire Wheel 1893 in watercolour demonstrates this as the translucency of the medium allows the support, which is brighter in tone than most of the paint, to play a part in the final composition (M.1359; fig.13). The thickness of Whistler’s oil paint layers, when viewed in some cross-sections, seems to contradict the expectation that his paint was applied in extremely thin washes. However, even when the oil paint layers are not necessarily as thin as ‘breath on glass’, his rubbing back method certainly gives the paint surface an ethereal appearance.

Similarly, across most of the background in The Gardens, a single layer of dark brown paint (or brown on grey) was rubbed back, exposing the canvas weave. Thin, moderately medium-rich layers with varying proportions of pigment were then applied, producing a soft, hazy effect without discernible brushstrokes. The unlined reverse of the canvas has a distinctly three-dimensional appearance, with animal glue and oil that have soaked through the canvas, forming horizontal rivulets along the weave, and crusts of medium, that fluoresce strongly in UV light, along the turnover edges. This demonstrates the repercussions of Whistler pushing his materials to their limits, as copious quantities of medium were repeatedly rubbed into the canvas.

Of particular note on the surface of The Gardens is a thick, transparent veil of medium, mixed with a lead drier, that has been either poured or brushed across the canvas in a sweeping, horizontal motion (fig.14). This was allowed to dry in viscous drips ending about 9 centimetres short of the canvas’s lower left edge, embodying Whistler’s embrace of the ‘happy accident’, and his willingness to let unpredictable material behaviour dictate aspects of the work’s final appearance (fig.15). While the medium is likely more visible today owing to age-related clouding, Whistler’s evident interest in its material quality for its own sake, rather than as a tool for representation, was unconventional for the time.

Conservation history

For this study, a comprehensive chronology of The Fire Wheel’s conservation history was compiled using Whistler’s letters, Tate’s conservation records and the physical evidence presented by the painting itself. Unusually, during the first twenty-five years of its life The Fire Wheel underwent cleaning and revarnishing on several occasions and was lined – a process in which an original canvas is adhered to a secondary canvas, often using glue-paste, to provide structural stability – all on Whistler’s recommendation or under his supervision. A handful of letters written between 1896 and 1900 reveal vital information regarding the treatments that took place.29 The first recorded intervention occurred in 1892, when it was cleaned and revarnished by the restorer Stephen Richards ‘at the time of the Exhibition at Messrs. Goupil in the old Bond Street’.30

For several years Whistler tried to sell The Fire Wheel, exhibiting it widely in Europe and the United States. Eventually, on its return from a stint in New York, it was sold on 31 March 1896 to the English painter and collector Arthur Haythorne Studd (1863–1919) for one thousand guineas.31 Letters suggest Studd had concerns about its condition, prompting Whistler to reassure him on 24 March 1896:

Studd was evidently reassured, with receipt of the payment being made on 31 March.33 In a letter to Richards two days later, Whistler instructed him to visit Studd with ‘materials for varnishing a picture’, writing:

The terms ‘dull’ and ‘chilled’ probably describe bloom, where excessive moisture clouds the varnish to a bluish-grey film.35 In writing to the New York dealer who had been trying to sell The Fire Wheel, Whistler speculated that the ‘salt air crossing’ during its Atlantic voyage had caused the painting to arrive ‘in pitiable condition! All the varnish perished – and the background quite invisible – covered with patches of dim grey’.36

The letters show Whistler’s engagement with the materiality of his completed paintings and an awareness of the negative effects the environment could have on their surface finish. Already in 1882 Whistler was showing an understanding of condition issues when he wrote about his portrait Arrangement in Black: Lady Meux 1881–2 (YMSM 228; Honolulu Academy of Arts):

The letters also establish Whistler’s direct involvement in and presence during the conservation of his paintings. In response to Studd in April 1896, he wrote: ‘Your picture is splendid! I have been with Richards – and the old varnish, in its perished state, was removed under my supervision – and today the new coat of varnish was put on’.38 The next mention of the condition and conservation treatment of The Fire Wheel is in spring 1900. A letter from Studd to Whistler indicates that his previously trusted restorer Richards, once ‘the only man fit to clean my paintings’, had fallen out of favour and that the Paris-based company Maison Chapuis was now recommended for restoration and lining.39

On 4 April Studd enquired: ‘I should like very much to hear about “the Fire Wheel” how it is getting on? and if the varnish has been removed under your directions’.40 Whistler assured Studd in his reply that the painting had been in good hands: ‘Chapuis relined your picture upon my consent – It was in sore need of it because of the damp of the Island’.41 Technical examination reveals no obvious tears or major damage to the original canvas, suggesting the painting was lined as a precautionary measure.42 Certainly, the damp conditions the painting would have been exposed to in English houses, which were often poorly heated by the standards of today, and transportation to exhibitions over periods of weeks by sea and road, would have been detrimental to the structural stability of the painting.43 This letter, alongside the Maison Chapuis stamp on the back of The Fire Wheel’s stretcher (fig.16), are evidence that the painting was lined, and most probably cleaned and revarnished for at least the third time, in early 1900. During the lining process the original tacking edges were removed, but the dimensions of the picture do not appear to have changed, since regular primary cusping – the distortion of the canvas weave at the points it was stretched and tacked to the stretcher – is visible on all four edges.44

Rather than the small, rolled cotton wool swabs used by modern-day conservators, at this time restorers were likely to have used larger pieces of cloth soaked in solvent to remove varnish layers from a painting. On a relatively fresh oil paint film this method of cleaning could have caused serious damage to the paint layers. Furthermore, the heat and pressure applied during a glue-paste lining in 1900 is likely to have altered the painting’s surface, flattening some of the thicker, elevated paint and pressing the canvas fibres forwards, emphasising the weave. The most striking feature seen on The Fire Wheel during close examination was the level of what appeared as abrasion visible through the yellowed varnishes. The tops of the canvas threads are extensively exposed (see figs.5a and 5b). Certainly, to a degree, this is the intentional result of Whistler’s technique, but some additional wear may have occurred when the painting was subjected to multiple cleaning treatments and a glue-paste lining so early in its existence. Unlike The Fire Wheel, The Gardens is unlined on its original stretcher, and may never have had its original varnish removed, making it a valuable source of empirical comparison. Its canvas displays a similar level of weavism, but in contrast the visible canvas tops have largely unbroken fibres and are sealed with skims of medium.

The Fire Wheel was bequeathed to the National Gallery, London, in 1919 by Studd and transferred to Tate Gallery in 1949. Tate Conservation records note that by 1959 the painting was in poor condition, with a yellowed and partially tinted varnish.45 At this time a conservator removed surface dirt and regenerated (not removed) the upper varnish layer.46 New natural resin varnish was brushed on top of those existing. No further treatment took place until 2025. From the first-hand accounts of the painting’s early conservation history, we can reasonably conclude that Whistler saw the painting after all three early interventions. If we are correct that no other varnish removal has occurred since 1900, then the condition of the canvas and paint surface, visible beneath the varnish, must have met his approval. Whistler described the painting post-lining as ‘in a perfect condition – and looking beautiful!’47 However, in 1900 the varnishes would not yet have appeared yellowed.

Whistler and surface finish

Study of Whistler’s correspondence regarding the conservation and varnishing of his pictures has been instrumental in guiding the recent varnish removal and revarnishing. A search for ‘varnish’ in the Correspondence yielded one hundred and thirty documents. These letters reveal Whistler’s insistence on crystal clear transparency, a smooth and even sheen without too high a gloss, and full saturation of colour on his varnished oil paintings.48 His concern with the aesthetic value of the finish conferred by varnishing is notable and at times even obsessive.49 He repeatedly remarked on the grime and dirt that accumulated on his pictures, recommending that they be cleaned and varnished, often under his supervision, ‘for the sake of their own preservation’.50 He was insistent that the paintings should be framed with glazing, saying to one client: ‘I … beseech you always to keep them under glass – The climate and smoke of England make it absolutely imperative’.51

Whistler made multiple references to the significance of a varnish to saturate his colours, commenting that when varnished ‘you will see the colour in its full richness’ and on several occasions referring to varnish making the pictures as ‘pure and brilliant’ as when first painted.52 The newly varnished Fire Wheel was in 1896 ‘in a lovely condition and you have never before seen your picture as you now will see it – It is most brilliant – and in about just [as good a state] as if it had left the easel yesterday’.53 On occasion he referred to the smooth, unified surface achieved by the perfect varnish, as in his letter to Richards. The desire for such a surface seems to contradict the desire for weavism. However, Whistler described both qualities coexisting, in one letter asking Richards to apply an ‘enamelled surface’ varnish:

Again, these letters indicate that Whistler was particularly well informed about the surface qualities and condition issues relating to the finish of his pictures and that he gave clear instructions to those working on them. He cautioned the restorer when a painting might still be wet, had never before been varnished or had a particularly delicate or thinly painted surface: ‘It is painted on very rough canvas and you must beware of rubbing!’55 He made suggestions on methods for cleaning and gently polishing the varnish, all the while recognising the professional touch of the restorer. Writing to his dealer David Croal Thomson in 1892, he stated:

These first-hand accounts incentivised the search for a safe and effective solution for removing the clouded and yellowed varnishes on The Fire Wheel, with the aim of restoring the painting’s tonal values and surface finish to a state closer to Whistler’s intentions.

Considerations for treatment

A holistic understanding of Whistler’s materials, techniques, past treatments and meticulous concern for surface finish was fundamental in deciding whether to clean The Fire Wheel. Traditional solvent swab cleaning was deemed risky due to the potential for abrasion of the highly exposed canvas weave. Moreover, the possible presence of resins in his paint mixtures, added as ‘sauce’, required an approach that would allow for the slow, controlled removal of varnish layers in stages. Interpreting the composition and paint surface through murky veils of degraded varnish, dirt and old restoration was extremely difficult, even using a microscope. Colours and tonal values had shifted dramatically: cool blues and greys appeared mottled brown, the fire wheel’s whiter highlights and sparks had become dark orange, and the bright blue figures resembled a muddy green, with people and statues impossible to distinguish. The extreme thickness and gloss of the layers meant that the textural qualities of Whistler’s painting method were entirely masked.

After several weeks of investigation and carrying out varnish removal trials on small areas, imaged at high resolution before and after each trial, a safe and effective method was devised to thin and remove the natural resin varnishes in stages, and without the need for mechanical action: time-controlled applications of Evolon® CR (a non-woven micro-filament textile), pre-loaded to 100% saturation with the selected solvent, acted as a poultice to draw up and remove the degraded varnish and dirt through capillary action. After varnish removal, it was of paramount importance to select a conservation-grade varnish with the ability to saturate the highly absorbent surface and provide a clear, even sheen, in line with Whistler’s intentions, while remaining stable and reversible to minimise the need for future cleaning of this delicate surface.

The Fire Wheel seen anew

The cool tonality characteristic of Whistler’s Nocturnes, until recently completely obscured by yellowed varnishes, has been regained after treatment (fig.17). There is a greater sense of depth and perspective, enhancing the interpretation of the painting. Alongside research into the history of Cremorne, the cleaning has, for the first time, enabled the identification of several features in the gardens that Whistler chose for his subject matter. To the far left stands a tall building with an arched Dutch gable, likely New Hall, a theatre opened for the 1862 season (fig.18). According to The Times, from 1862 the walkways at the Thames end of Cremorne Gardens were ‘decorated with countless additional lamps’, visible here illuminating the building and the shrubbery.57 Ancient elm trees in this south-west corner cast shadows over the structures.58

A prominent feature now clarified is one of Cremorne’s main attractions: the giant illuminated dancing platform and tiered pagoda for the orchestra, described as a ‘glittering spectacle of cut-glass and gaslight’ (fig.19).59 In Whistler’s painting, the structure is visible only through the placement of these gas-lit lamps, aside from a few minimal delineating brushstrokes. Over the years numerous alterations were made to this attraction. In 1857 new wrought-iron lampposts were added around the perimeter of the dancing platform, supporting ‘elaborate constructions of garnet- and emerald- coloured cut-glass drops and globes’ and ‘joined by arched festoons of gaslights and richly cut glass drops’, creating a shimmering effect.60 As varnish removal progressed, the faintest impression of these arched festoons could also be made out.

Left of centre in the painting stands one of Cremorne’s refreshment booths, rendered by Whistler as a red roof light surrounded by a ring of smaller white lights (see figs.20 and 21).61 Greaves described how a ‘big reflector over the Refreshment Booth projected a bright red light towards the waterside entrance’, presumably to attract customers. People mingle in front, illuminated by the spinning firework. At the right, thin vertical lines, partially obscured by a tree in silhouette, correspond to the imposing towers of the gardens’ Firework Temple, with the Catherine wheel revolving on the front lawn.

Conclusion

Comparison with The Gardens, which has not undergone cleaning or lining treatments, supports the theory that early cleaning of The Fire Wheel disturbed its surface on a microscopic scale, exposing the canvas weave to a greater extent than Whistler had when he rubbed back paint during its creation. This made it easier for successive varnishes to penetrate through the paint to the canvas. As these varnishes yellowed, their greater depth exaggerated their visual impact more than is typical of aged varnishes, suppressing the blue sky and obscuring the sparks and lights Whistler had carefully placed to evoke Cremorne by night.

A comprehensive understanding of the painting’s conservation history, alongside Whistler’s correspondence regarding the surface presentation of his paintings, has guided treatment by clarifying changes in its appearance over time and revealing the artist’s aesthetic intentions. The removal of degraded varnishes, which had ‘mellowed’ the surface over decades, has uncovered the cool tonal harmonies and characteristic texture inherent to Whistler’s Nocturnes painted on canvas (fig.24). Considering Whistler’s numerous and nuanced statements on the intended appearance of his nocturnes, the result seems in line with Whistler’s intentions, evident from the letters authorising and approving early treatments.

Despite several identifiable features of Cremorne Gardens being revealed after cleaning, the painting remains deliberately obscure and convincingly abstract.62 As Whistler emphasised during the trial regarding The Falling Rocket, his aim was to convey the impression of the fireworks rather than a literal view of them or of Cremorne itself.63 He would surely have said the same about The Fire Wheel: a literal depiction was never the point.

In The Fire Wheel, Whistler captured the ephemeral elements of Cremorne by night, filtering the fleetingly illuminated scene through memory and immortalising it in paint. Whistler evokes the atmosphere created, above all, by the effervescent illumination of the gardens with moonlight, gaslight and, most boldly, the transient flare of fireworks. Whistler’s stated primary artistic concern for all his nocturnes was the arrangement of ‘line, form and colour’ and the creation of tonal harmonies.64 The aesthetic experience was paramount, leaving the degree to which viewers engage with the actual subject in this Cremorne firework painting open.