Painting water is difficult. I think it was Sir Kenneth Clark who noted that the impression of water was essential to Impressionism. Think of it: if the water is not still, how on earth do you pin it down to paint it? A wave or ripple comes towards you, and it's gone before you can comprehend its shape and color. Thus you study how water works and paint an impression of it.
Monet's late waterlilies are incredible, especially at the Carnegie in Pittsburgh. There is no horizon line. What you see is reflections from a millileter of water, and the reflections of sky, clouds and willows are infinite. Plus he is doing this at what I think of as sunset, at the sunset in his life. More profound than you might otherwise think.
This one is from Paris, not Pittsburgh. I couldn't sort thorugh over 2,000 images to find the Pittsburgh piece.
And Chicago does have great Monets and Impressionist works in general (including a fine Caillebotte).
Thanks for the ping!
I agree, but it has been pointed out to me that if you keep looking at the spot, the wave will continuously repeat itself, so you keep getting chances to examine it!
A watercolor instructor with whom I once studied noted that if you can draw mountains, you can draw waves. I find that a fairly valid observation within reason.
I've spent most of my life on the water and have noted one or 2 things myself: water is highly reflective, as well as being often transparent; the troughs of waves most always reflect the sky, while the crests will normally manifest the shadows and the local color of the water itself. As you look toward the horizon, the crests seem to get closer together, while you lose sight entirely of the troughs. This causes the water to actually appear to be getting darker as it fades into distance, defying the rules of atmospheric perspective.
Even so, water is damn difficult to render.