Asianart.com | Associations | Articles | Exhibitions | Galleries

hello, I have for some time this beautiful painting apparently from the Ming era. I would have your opinion enlightened about it. As well as the translation and ideally the identification of signatures and stamps present. Thank you

Hello,

This is actually a modern reproduction of an anonymous Song album leaf that's in the National Palace Museum, Taiwan collection (https://www.alaintruong.com/archives/2022/02/22/39357445.html), to which the seals and inscription on your picture have been added. The inscription says that the painting is a work by a Ming writer named Shen Qi who is making a faithful copy of an original painting by Five Dynasties figure painter Zhou Fang.

A painted copy of this leaf was published in the mid 1950s in China in a collection of Song album leaves that has been republished many times since: https://www.schulerauktionen.ch/de/items/142-1062-tianlai-ge-jiucang-songren-huace#mz-expanded-view-307935833593

A third version shows the Qianlong emperor (18th century), who appropriated this image for his own purposes and had a court artist paint him into it: https://tinyurl.com/45rbbw7e

I do have doubts about its originality.

子建採神圖
五代周昉画
大明沈啓臨
Zijian's Spiritual Painting
Painted by the Five Dynasties Painter Zhou Fang
Copied by the Ming Dynasty Painter Shen Qi
Starting seal,
時還讀我書　-　Still I have time to read my books
Upper seal,
沈啓　-　Shen Qi
Lower (Leisure) seal,
中有尺素書　-　There is a letter a foot long in it
(Quotation from a known poem)
Others are seals of collectors.

According to sources available on the Chinese language net Zhou Fang's (a.k.a Zhou Wenju) "Zijian's Spiritual Painting" has been lost. Only on an album leaf with a postscript to the original work by Zhao Mengfu of the Yuan Dynasty is left, which is now in the collection of the Palace Museum.

With regards,
I.Nagy

hello. First of all, thank you for your quick and precise answers. I had already noticed the existence of a similar painting from the Song period, or Tang. I also saw the famous painting of Qianlong.
Of course I respect your opinions, otherwise why ask for them. Nevertheless, is it possible that this is a Ming period painting? Compared to the painting Song I note several variations of detail. This is not a 100% copy ("photocopy" type if I can make it better understood). In this case, the copyist has simplified many elements. The technique is more linear and dry than the original inspiring it.
Of course the real question is whether this copy (which itself admits in the text) is indeed Ming as written or modern (and therefore clearly a fraudulent copy).
Of course difficult on photo to decide definitively dating but your opinions will always be the beinvenus. Thank you

I agree with your observations about the differences between your picture and the anonymous Song album leaf on which it is based, but I think that yours is instead copying the album leaf formerly in the Tianlaige collection and not the Song album leaf in the NPM (see the link to the German auction listing of the Tianlaige compilation; among the images there is the album leaf in question).

It's also fairly common these days to find Chinese paintings with false inscriptions and seals, usually fairly crude, sometimes digitally copied and pasted from other sources.

Several aspects of condition seem to rule out the possibility that you have a Ming picture (acknowledging the limitations of working from imperfect photos): 1. It is painted on silk that seems to have a few creases, but the weave appears tight and even, with no losses or breaks in the threads. This is highly unlikely for a genuine Ming work. 2. The mounting quality is quite crude, with areas of the painting surface that are separated from the backing, again quite unlikely for a genuine Ming work. 3. There is an overall greyness across this picture that appears not to be the product of normal aging, but rather a form of artificial dulling, presumably to convey the appearance of age. (Alternatively, this could be just poor lighting in the photos.)

The calligraphy provides clues that the painting is a modern imitation: 4. The ink tonality is uniformly jet black because it comes premade from a bottle and was not ground on an inkstone with water, as is traditional practice. 5. The characters are incorrectly written for the calligraphic script they are trying to replicate. It looks like the person who wrote this inscription started with a number of straight horizontals and then tried to link adjacent brushstrokes to them, whereas characters of this script type (zhuanshu, or seal script) should instead be written with single strokes that combine strokes that are written separately here with the mechanics of "standard" (kaishu) script. The gaps visible at a number of corners make this error clear. Compare the attached image, in which brushstrokes are generally, in contrast, (a) of uniform thickness and (b) include examples in a single brushstroke of these shapes 口 貝, whereas your artist uses multiple strokes to depict their forms.

Hope this is helpful.

Asianart.com | Associations | Articles | Exhibitions | Galleries |