
Parasol; red note was probably started in 1884 and was reworked in 1889.

Étude, Revue Indépendente, vol. 1, 1886, repr.

Parasol; red note, Thomas Colville Fine Art
This work is catalogued in MacDonald 1995 (cat. rais.) [more] (cat. no. 957). This entry has been updated and revised.

Étude, Revue Indépendente, vol. 1, 1886, repr.

Parasol; red note, Drouot, Paris, 25 November 1903 (lot 2)

Parasol; red note, Thomas Colville Fine Art

v.: Parasol; red note, Thomas Colville Fine Art

Parasol; red note, Drouot, Paris, 25 November 1903 (lot 2)
The model has not been identified.

Étude, Revue Indépendente, vol. 1, 1886, repr.

Parasol; red note, Drouot, Paris, 25 November 1903 (lot 2)

Parasol; red note, Thomas Colville Fine Art
This is a rare example of a drawing totally reworked, with a nude model transformed into a model draped in robes. It is possible that, responding to criticism of the nude, he intended to show that the clothed figure was as sensuous as the nude. The twist of the body, and glittering gauze drapery, emphasizing breasts and hips, appear unusually seductive.
The vase is a little classical accessory, the costume and parasol are consistent, and the figure has something of the quality of a Tanagra statuette. The reworking of the pastel, at the time when Whistler's interest in classical art was re-awakened, may have influenced the choice of costume.

Parasol; red note, Thomas Colville Fine Art
There are signs of alterations to her feet, and her left foot was left unfinished. The curves around the sunshade are vague, so that it is unclear where it starts and stops. The pastel may sometimes have been moistened before application, to darken and vary the colours.
There are slight signs of water staining along the lower edge and sides.
See MacDonald 1995 (cat. rais.) [more] (cat. no. 957); the provenance has been revised and updated.
Critics in 1884 were unhappy about the model's nudity: the Kensington News of 29 May 1884, for instance, commented 'I don't admire the young lady who considers a parasol full dress costume.' 1
It is likely but not absolutely certain that the same pastel, reworked, was that shown at the New English Art Club, but several art critics responded favourably to the reworked pastel as exhibited in 1889. 2 The Daily Telegraph of 19 April 1889, for instance, praised:
'the graceful, delicate girl draped in rose, with a red `note' in the shape of falling drapery round her head, a little thing that might have been produced thousands of years ago in Etruria had but the Etruscans gone in for fantastic pastel instead of pottery.'
On the other hand, one review, in the Birmingham Daily Post of 15 April 1889, considered it 'not equal to his reputation.' Furthermore, the Pall Mall Gazette of 16 April 1889 apparently considered it to be a nude, and could not see 'how his use of it can, as it stands, be defended.'
EXHIBITIONS:
SALE:
SALES:
1: See also Wedmore 1884 [more]; Standard, London, 19 May 1884; Fun, 4 June 1884.
2: The News of the World, London, 14 April 1889; The Daily Telegraph, London, 19 April 1889; Glasgow Herald, Glasgow, 19 April 1889; Pictorial World, London, 25 April 1889.