Footnotes

Treasury 4, no. 664


水晶內畫鼻煙壺
壺：1750～1880
內畫：王習三，1967年


Convincing the Cadres

Flawless crystal, ink, and watercolours; with a flat lip and recessed flat foot surrounded by a protruding convex footrim; painted on one main side with a fisherman in a straw coat and hat, crossing a plank bridge over a river to return home as a storm blows up, whipping the branches of the willows on either bank, with a stream in the distance emerging from more distant mountainous peaks, inscribed 'A Fisherman Heading Home in Wind and Rain', with one seal of the artist, yin (seal), in negative seal script, the other main side with three fan-tailed goldfish swimming in a pond beneath flowering lotus plants and reeds, inscribed in script with the title, 'The Pure Delight of a Lotus Pond', followed by 'Executed in the eleventh month of the year dingwei at Tianjin', with two seals, one preceding the inscription, dingwei (the cyclical date corresponding to 1967), in positive regular script, and one of the artist, Xisan, in negative seal script, following it

Bottle: 1750–1880
Painting: Wang Xisan, Yang village, Hebei province, eleventh month, 1967
Height: 6.2 cm
Mouth/lip: 0.55/1.75 cm
Stopper: tourmaline; turquoise collar
Condition: Bottle: bruise in outer lip and upper neck rim (0.8 x 0.4 cm) and obtrusive when viewing one main side. Painting: studio condition

Provenance:
Hong Kong dealer (circa 1968)
Ann Cohen (circa 1970)
Hugh Moss (1985)

Published:
Arts of Asia, July–August 1972, p. 16
JICSBS, Summer 1984, p. 22, fig. 4
Kleiner, Yang, and Shangraw 1994, no. 366
Treasury 4, no. 664

Exhibited:
Hong Kong Museum of Art, March–June 1994
National Museum, Singapore, November 1994–February 1995
Christie's, London, 1999

Commentary:
This is another of Wang's masterpieces from his difficult early years on the commune in Yang village, Hebei province, discussed under the Treasury 4, no. 663. It was also painted in the mid-winter of the year, which is when Wang was proving himself to his commune leaders and securing his freedom to paint.

He also commented on this particular bottle in his own article (JICSBS, Summer 1984, p. 22, fig. 4) and acknowledged his debt to Zhou Leyuan by saying that these two subjects were 'favoured by Zhou Leyuan very often.' He goes on to state that this bottle 'was painted in 1967 with a new approach to the base of inherited traditional inside-painting skill.' Although he is following two subjects traditionally painted by Zhou Leyuan, what Wang is saying is that his version represents a new approach to the art form. This is partly because Wang was using, by then, different tools, including the brushes discussed under Treasury 4, no. 662, evident here in the long strokes of the willow branches and the veins of the lotus leaves. He was also breaking with tradition to some extent by replacing traditional forms for the various elements of his landscapes with more realistic, closely observed details from nature, seen here, for instance, in the distant hills and the stream that emerges from them into the river. Zhou developed his distant streams into an almost abstract veining that divided the landscape vertically. The ground plane might be tilted a little so that they could perform this abstract function to maximum effect, or, if not, then the stream would constantly give way to long waterfalls to gain the vertical length he required for his abstraction. Wang's version is much, much more realistic and logical. The distant hills are painted from reality and closely observed. Zhou's are painted from reality too, but with the interface of abstract intent transforming natural logic into painterly logic. One can see the difference readily in the way the willow trees are painted. Wang's are real willow trees, depicted from close observation of the willows that abound in north China. Zhou's are more abstract, more representational of the idea or spirit of the willow rather than its outer form. In Wang's paintings one steps into the landscape first and foremost, with Zhou's, one steps into the realm of the painting first and foremost. That is a subtle, but vital distinction, and is again one of the great threats that Wang unwittingly handed on to his students. Wang was sufficient of an artist to overcome this reliance on reality and still paint transcendent masterpieces, while many of his followers did not have that inner, aesthetic spirit to lift their technical and realistic paintings into the realms of art.

It is intriguing that this bottle is inscribed as made in Tianjin when, according to his biographers and his own account, Wang seems to have been in Yang village at this time, proving himself to his commune bosses. However, we know that his students in the
Ji school, working at Hengshui, also inscribed Tianjin as the place of painting, although they were not actually in that city, so we may assume that Wang did the same. Hebei province contains both the metropolis of Beijing and the city of Tianjin, and it is possible that if Tianjin was the ongoing sales point for Wang's works, he may have preferred to identify himself with the larger city, however distant it might be.

For the symbolic meaning of the subject of fish in a lotus pond, see Treasury 4, no. 565.


猶如魚游於水中一樣

無瑕水晶、墨、水色；平唇、平斂底、突出凸形圈足；一面內畫山水中一漁夫過橋，近、彼兩岸都有柳樹迎風搖曳，上題"風雨歸釣"，並繪白文"印"一篆印，一面內畫扇尾金魚游於荷塘，上繪朱文"丁未"一楷印，又題"荷塘清趣"，又加"丁未仲冬作於天津"，款後繪白文"習三"篆印

壺：1750～1880
內畫：王習三，河北省衡水縣阜城楊莊村， 1967年11 月
高：6.2 厘米
口經/唇經：0.55/1.75 厘米
蓋：碧璽，綠松石座
狀態敘述：壺：從荷塘一面看，唇沿頸上部有撞傷，（0.8 x 0.4厘米，會引人注目）；內畫：出齋狀態

來源：
未知來源，香港（約1968）
Ann Cohen （約1970）
莫士撝（1985）
文獻：
Arts of Asia, 1972年，7月～8月，頁16
《國際中國鼻煙壺協會的學術期刊》Journal of the International Chinese Snuff Bottle Society, 1984年夏期，頁22，圖4
Kleiner, Yang, and Shangraw 1994， 編號366
Treasury 4, 編號664
展覽﹕
香港藝術館，1994年3 月～6月
National Museum of Singapore, 1994年11月～1995年1月
佳士得，倫敦，1999年

說明：
請參閱拍賣品號57的說明。據王習三《國際中國鼻煙壺協會的學術期刊》Journal of the International Chinese Snuff Bottle Society, 1984年夏期，頁22，本壺照片下的備注，題目是周樂元常畫的題材，畫法是脫胎於傳統的技術。我們知道，到了1967年，王習三已經采用了新式的毫毛筆（參閱拍賣品號50關於內畫用筆的論述），查看本壺的柳枝與蓮葉葉脈可證實。所謂的傳統技術大概是指周樂元的"饅頭皺法"山水畫（王習三語，參閱他《壺中墨妙》中"緬懷先師﹕兼述葉仲三畫穚的來源"一文﹕點擊1或點擊2），而王習三的技法基於直觀學習。觀者踏入周樂元的山水畫，首要的是踏入一幅畫；踏入而王習三的山水畫，首要的是踏入山水。這是微妙的對比，但王習三留給諸門弟的遺產正是咬人狗兒不露齒﹕他能寫實而入化，第子或能用精巧的技術寫實，然升堂入室， 則罕其人矣。

王習三為甚麼說本壺作於天津呢？也許是因為天津是那時最近的大城市，也是工藝品進出口公司的所在。在衡水市的一些弟子也有時署"天津作"，好像是當時當地的習慣。