Footnotes

Treasury 6, no. 1123


玻璃胎畫粉彩園景鼻煙壺
王習三，北京，1964年



Wang Xisan's Honour

Famille rose enamels on translucent white glass; with a flat lip and recessed flat foot surrounded by a protruding flattened footrim; painted with a wrap-around garden scene with a convoluted, perforated rock formation on a grassy bank growing with orchids and Chinese pink, with three butterflies, one settled on an orchid leaf, the other two in flight; the shoulders with a band of formalized lingzhi beneath a neck-band of formalized floral scroll
Wang Xisan, Beijing, 1964
Height: 4.79 cm
Mouth/lip: 0.51/1.43 cm
Stopper: gilt bronze; chased with a dragon design
Condition: perfect; studio condition

Provenance:
Trojan Collection (1993)
Robert Hall (1993)

Published:
Hall 1992, no. 7
JICSBS, December 1976, front cover
Treasury 6, no. 1123

Commentary:
The origins of Ye Bengqi's enamelling skills are dealt with in Treasury 6, on p. 31. Despite the remaining questions regarding his works, an important part of his legacy as an enameller is beyond question: he taught Wang Xisan. Wang, his star pupil, began to learn the art of painting inside snuff bottles in 1958 and the art of enamelling glass around 1962. Nineteen-sixty-four, the year this bottle was painted, was Wang's most productive year: he recalls producing about forty bottles then — an astonishing number, given the difficulties of the art form; but he had help in firing the enamels, which is a very time consuming process, from both Ye Xiaofeng and Ye Bengqi. In his entire career as an enameller, Wang Xisan believes he may have produced only about sixty to seventy bottles. Early works were produced at a rate of about one in two to three months, whereas in 1964 he was doing more than three a month. An artistic genius, Wang rapidly became one of the finest of all enamellers, both artistically and technically, that China has ever produced. In retrospect, one regrettable choice casts a shadow over his extraordinary achievement: instead of signing his own name and, eventually, reaping his just rewards as a preeminent enameller, he continued in the Ye tradition of inscribing his bottles with a Qianlong reign mark. In his case, however, he did not profit from his deception, nor did he deny his work when asked. He used the Qianlong mark more as a standard 'trade mark' at the request of the Chinese Arts and Crafts Corporation, for which he worked at the time, rather than with any intent to deceive. This is one of the very few bottles by him that has no spurious mark, lending it particular distinction among his output. He recalls painting it in 1964 and explains that it was one of his own designs. While he was learning, he was afraid to step outside the bounds of the strong Confucian teacher–pupil relationship and did exactly as he was told, often precisely copying old bottles and designs on the instructions of Ye Bengqi. Some of Wang's earlier copies are so close to the originals that even with his help it can be very difficult to separate them from the genuine wares he was copying. This was amply demonstrated in one session Moss had with him to identify his works and those of his teacher from photographs (in Hengshui, October 2005). Wang thought one bottle, of which he was shown multiple photos, was probably genuine, certainly not by Ye Bengqi — until shown a copy of the mark, when he immediately exclaimed that it was his own work, judging from the writing of the mark. At a second session, however (Hengshui, April 2006), Moss showed him the photos of the same mark again, but out of context, and he thought it was genuine. When reminded of his earlier comments, Wang said he could not be sure, and that if it was work from 1962 or early 1963, there might be one or two bottles that he had forgotten, or they might be genuine. It was only later, as he became more confident in his artistry, that he was more willing to infuse works with his own style and to devise his own designs, which obviously makes identification far easier. Ye Bengqi apparently stopped producing enamels around 1940, according to Wang Xisan. When he took up the art again around 1960, it was in order to brush up on the art and to teach Wang Xisan. The first phase of Wang's career as an enameller was between about 1962 and 1966, a period during which he produced many of his masterpieces. Between 1966 and 1977 he did no enamelling at all, due to the Cultural Revolution. Then, in 1977, he began to teach others the art, doing a few pieces himself; but he stopped before long, as the materials available then were of such poor quality, particularly noticeable with the red and yellow. His earlier masterpieces had been made with the same enamels Ye Bengqi used, taken from stocks held since the eighteenth century in the Forbidden City, but when these ran out, Wang found the replacements unacceptable and lost interest. Wang taught many students — far too many, it might be argued — and in no time at all the market was awash with technically well-controlled and finely painted enamelled glass bottles, to the point where they started turning up at airport souvenir counters. The same had happened with inside-painted bottles, where the works of a few great artists were lost in a flood of superficially equivalent wares. Wang's finest works still shine above this output to the trained eye, but the extraordinary success of his skills as a teacher in both his chosen media may have threatened his legacy as an artist in the short term by debasing the currency of his obvious genius.

As a rule, Wang's works are distinguishable from those of his teacher because he was by far the finer artist. Ye was a decorative, pattern-book craftsman, skilled, but without that artistic flair and vision that might have lifted him beyond a lifetime of primarily commercial activity. Wang, on the other hand, was both an artist and an idealist when he joined Ye, and it showed in all his works. Although the overall style in this piece is taken (partly via Ye Bingqi) from the imperial enamelling style of the second half of the Qianlong period, the well-observed, realistic style and the grace of line and subtlety of shading are all pure Wang Xisan, as is the extraordinary control of the enamels, all of which are fired to perfection. Since it is impossible to find a Wang Xisan enamel proudly signed with his own name and accurately dated, as were so many of his inside-painted masterpieces, the next best option for the collector is one that at least lacks the obviously apocryphal Qianlong reign mark.

Butterflies hovering over flowers is a common sight in nature. When represented in art, the composite motif can be read to imply courtship and love.


王習三當之無愧的精品

半透明白玻璃上施粉彩；平唇、平斂底、突出平底圈足；通體繪花園裏湖石、蘭花、石竹花、三隻蝴蝶一幅圖畫，頸飾粉紅地轉枝紅花一道，肩部繪圖案式的靈芝等

王習三，北京，1964年
高：4.79 厘米
口經/唇經：0.51/1.43 厘米
蓋：描金青銅，鏤刻龍
狀態敘述：完善，出齋狀態

來源：
Trojan 珍藏
羅伯特．霍爾（1993）
文獻：
Hall 1992, 編號7
《國際中國鼻煙壺協會的學術期刊》Journal of the International Chinese Snuff Bottle Society,
1976年封面
Treasury 6, 編號1123

說明：
葉菶祺的粉彩方面的成就尚存不明確的地方，但他有一個不可必疑慮的功績，就是當王習三的師父。王習三1958年就開始學內畫的技術，1962年左右則學習玻璃施琺瑯彩的技術，到了1964年就達到了出產的高峰，那年就作了約四十件煙壺，包括本壺在內。玻璃胎畫琺瑯，反復繪畫焙燒是曠日持久的過程，他有葉曉峰和葉菶祺的支持才能作那麼多的煙壺。王習三認為他一輩子作了六八十件煙壺，早期的每件要兩三個月才能作好，到了1964年卻是一個月作三件。結果，這位藝術天才成為中國空前絕後的琺瑯藝術家。白璧微瑕的小缺點是，他繼承了葉家的舊習慣，不落自己的款識而繪"乾隆年製"的款。但這並不是貪污之行為。他沒有以仿製品收取利益，問他，也沒甚麼遮遮掩掩的，這是北京工藝美術研究所（他那時的單位）正規的指標。據王習三的回憶，本壺是他1964年作的，不但是為數稀少不帶款的作品，也是他自的的構思。那時期，他尊敬師長，不敢出其範例之外，因而常常要照葉菶祺的指示去仿效古煙壺老圖案。因此，他早期的作品與原物往往難以辨別，儘管有王習三親自作證。2005年10 月在衡水，莫士撝請王習三幫他把他的作品跟他師父的作品分辨，王習三看了一件煙壺多方面的照片就判定它大概是原物，不是葉菶祺作的，但看到底款，他驚喜地說，原來是他自己作的。可是， 翌年4月再訪問衡水的時候，莫士撝又給他按不同的次序看同一個底款， 他就認為是原物。莫士撝提醒他他曾說是自己作的，他就不敢肯定了，說如果是1962年或1963年初作的，很可能是遺忘的煙壺之一，要不然就是原物。以後他對本人作品的藝術性漸漸有信心，就使作品充滿了自己的風格，也開始通用自己的構思去作，因而辨認他的作品容易多了。

據王習三，葉菶祺約1940年就停止琺瑯彩工作，1960年才重溫琺瑯技術以便教授王習三他們。1962年～1966年王習三琺瑯藝術第一高潮時期以後就是文革，一直到1977年都不作畫琺瑯，1977年重新從事琺瑯藝術的時，他一方面教授學生，一方面自己作幾件煙壺，可是因為可得到的材料品質粗劣，特別是紅彩與黃彩，他不久又放棄了。已前的傑作是用葉菶祺采用的材料，就是十八世紀以來禁城儲存的，它們用光以後，所代替的不合格，王習三就失去興趣了。不過，王習三教了很多徒弟（也許太多了），不久，技術和繪畫藝術良好的煙壺就充斥市場，甚至機場的紀念品店也有陳列者。內畫煙壺也出現相同情況，大藝術家的作品淹沒在一大海外貌相類似的煙壺中。王習三最佳的作品，有眼力必能察覺，但是他在內畫和琺瑯兩道藝術上給後來者教練的成功，也導致了他藝術遺產的暫時庸俗化。

王習三的作品與其師傅的可以分辨，是因為他是更好的藝術家。葉菶祺的藝術是裝飾性的，是一板一眼的。精巧是精巧，可是他缺乏那種讓人超越商業性活動的天資與胸襟。王習三則參加研究所以來，所有的作品都表現，他是真正的藝術家，也是理想家。本壺雖然以乾隆後半期的宮廷琺瑯風格為樣板（通過葉菶祺），但是所呈現的，如仔細的觀察、真實的描繪、流暢自然的筆法、微妙的烘染，乃至對琺瑯的精巧掌握等，都是王習三的特色。因為帶王習三本人款識的琺瑯煙壺是找不到的，收藏家只好尋覓不帶假乾隆款的。