Across collections / 01 / A record comparison
Which Great Wave?
You know the design. But an image on a screen also belongs to a particular object, a collection and a photograph. Put those identities back into view.
Two complete supplied images
Same design. Separate records.
Open either image for the original view and source. The display sizes are not physical scale; image differences alone cannot establish condition or printing order.
The Metropolitan Museum of Art
- Object number
- JP1847
- Catalogue date
- ca. 1830–32
- Medium
- Woodblock print; ink and color on paper
- Dimensions as recorded
- 10 1/8 x 14 15/16 in. (25.7 x 37.9 cm)
- Collection credit
- H. O. Havemeyer Collection, Bequest of Mrs. H. O. Havemeyer, 1929
The Art Institute of Chicago
- Object number
- 1928.1086
- Catalogue date
- 1830/33
- Medium
- Color woodblock print; oban
- Dimensions as recorded
- 25.4 × 37.6 cm (10 × 14 3/4 in.)
- Collection credit
- Clarence Buckingham Collection
Complete supplied images, fitted to equal display areas. Display size is not physical scale. Source controls open the full image and attribution. Both selected images are CC0; the institutional records remain distinct.
01 / Look
Begin with what repeats.
Follow the curve of the wave, find the distant mountain, then trace the boats. These visual anchors let you locate the same design in each image. Now look at the edges of the sheet and the space around the printed marks.
Any difference you notice is a question to investigate. Reproduction, lighting, colour processing and display can affect what reaches your screen. These photographs alone cannot establish pigment change, condition or printing order.
02 / Read
The title is not the identifier.
JP1847 and 1928.1086 identify separate collection records. The Met records a date of ca. 1830–32; Chicago records 1830/33. Keep those formulations attached to their sources instead of converting them into an invented precise year.
The recorded dimensions and credit lines also differ. They help identify each object; they do not, by themselves, tell us which impression came first.
03 / Compare the catalogues
Each record gives you a way in.
The Met: a question of scale
The museum’s description draws attention to Hokusai’s use of perspective: the mountain appears small beneath the wave. Return to the image and find the shapes that make that relationship legible.
Read the Met description ↗Chicago: a named print format
Chicago’s medium field describes a colour woodblock print and names the format as oban. Its dimensions and collection credit belong to this record, even when the design looks familiar.
Read the Chicago record ↗What this comparison can—and cannot—tell us
This is an Artologium comparison of two identified museum records and their supplied images. It does not establish a sequence of impressions, a direct relationship between the two objects, or a condition assessment. Dates, dimensions, media and credits are reproduced from the linked collection records. Interpretation and looking prompts are Artologium’s.