Page 16 - Jie Rui Tang Kangxi porcelain mar 2018

a much wider production line: the decoration of the hexagonal bowl with lingzhi spray 㸽瓠㼠醢㹨䒄櫘㐼字瓠⵱捀字꟦敮鸣կ嫱門➭
mark in the present collection (lot 342) is clearly based on a Liu Yuan dragon pattern, 劊姼儗劍꟦㸽瓠ծ字瓠⚛搁僈곏⼥ⴔ瓠䑖㖑럊⿺
as it appears, for example, on a dish of Kangxi mark and period in the Palace Museum, 䊨⻠㖲搁㓃呔ⴔꥬ佦姼㸽字瓠⛓꟦櫘ㅷ鏤鎙⿺
Beijing. 2 谀⻠❜崨欨㺙կ劊䒄㸽櫘〳䪪字瓠䪬⣘㸽瓠❠〳
鼆字瓠谀⻠醢⡲䖵櫘կ亘卌噟䓽鶣㸽ծ字瓠䨾醢櫘
The dividing line between guanyao and minyao, between the o# cial wares made for
㐼瓠䑖湱ず醢櫘谀⻠⿺殥䌌❠ずկ 3
the court and the commercial wares produced for the open market, seems to have
been far less clearly demarcated in this than in other periods. From the beginning, 䐀擳ⴲ劍醢櫘⟄넞影ㅷ珏捀⚺㥵ꉇ诜ծꋜ秋⟄⿺
workshops and their sta" do not seem to have been strictly separated, so that not ⟄꘭捀ッ蒀ⷭ⛓ꄶꅹծꫬꅹկ⻌❩佦㹨⽇暟ꤎ佐诡
only workmanship and ideas, but probably also the craftsmen themselves could be 鹫蠜⟝갫屛⿺䐀擳ꫬ蔄櫘㐼罜䖔罏侷ꆀ僈곏㾀
exchanged. Imperial orders could be outsourced to non-imperial kilns, and workmen 㢴駈阮ꫬ蔄櫘倴䐀擳♧劊⛓ꅾ銳㖑⡙ կ佦㹨䨾诡
4
from non-imperial kilns could be recruited to work for the court. According to Peter ⛓⚥ꤑ鋅䌞䐀擳劥劊䎃妴罏㢪〥鋅⟬⵸劊䎃妴ծ
Lam, “imperial and civilian outputs had been conducted in the same workshop and 뢸㛔妴ծ蔄䬃妴⟄⿺搁妴罏歋姼〳阮姼儗劍㸽ծ
performed by the same group of artisans and calligraphers”. 3 字瓠櫘㐼歲㹁⼥ⴔ⚛♶僈곏կ
At the beginning of the reign, attention seems to have been devoted predominantly 䐀擳♧劊ꉇ诜秙귆莄⵸劊湱嫱隶⻊곏衼涮蒀刿
to high-! ring colors: the blues derived from cobalt, the reds from copper, and browns
捀慭蒈殥䊨刿捀礵稣կ劥㜥䬝颪⛓ꫬ蔄➃暟佦✲
or celadon-greens from iron. The fact that the Palace Museum, Beijing, contains
㕭瘗瘲箠贪302䥰㿂䐀擳傍劍⛓ㅷ胜兞⟄帜蒀
some 10,000 pieces of blue-and-white from the Shunzhi (1644-1661) and Kangxi 럊厩㼿䌞僈劣幡ⴲ괏呔嫱鯱ず㜥䐀擳Ⱙ㘗ծ醢⡲
periods combined – the vast majority without question dating from the latter reign – 儗꟦鯱儻⛓ꫬ蔄蔄砭㕭㣐湎箠贪382✳罏䊵殯
4
documents the importance of these wares in this era. That the Kangxi wares in the
곏衼կ姼㢪姼儗劍ꉇ诜㢴⡲ⶽ倝㥵オꅹ罜䧭⛓扴
Palace Museum include besides pieces with genuine reign marks, many examples with
诜㢴⡲㖑귆㕠粕Ꟛ⯕罜倶կ姼儗ꫬ蔄秙귆❠刿Ⱘ
spurious marks of other reign periods, with hall or symbol marks, or without any mark, 殥䠑կ㥵劥㜥⛓扴诜㖑Ꟛ⯕蔄⼰㕭湎箠贪304
underlines the contention that in this period guanyao and minyao are not always easy Ꟛ⯕Ⰺ粭蔄⼰秙帜瘗⺠殥慭俤럊厩㹃㥵♧䌴宐
to separate.
㟯殥⽷莞꧈幡鹟կ
Cobalt-blue decoration displays, however, a marked change from before, as on the
䐀擳劥➃䧴刿⨊岤倴䗁莇ꋜ秋ꅹկꋜ秋ꅹ敮醢噱
whole it became deeper in color and more recise in drawing, executed with ! ner
ꨈ荈㹒䗞劣䎃饰䎘湈唲欽կ劥㜥䬝颪⛓秋ꅹ渧
brushes. The di" erence is obvious when comparing an early example, such as the
箠贪345ꅹ蒀帿秋情愯⛇䐀擳䗁莇竤Ⱙ㋲蒀
brush pot with its softly dotted ground (lot 302), which still retains stylistic features
秋ꅹ⛓⢾կꤑ姼⛓㢪〥剣鞞鞝秋ꅹ亘铝倴ⷠ彂⣘
from the Transitional period (c. 1620-c. 1680), with a slightly later, characteristic
5
耶劍꟦껷ⶽ ⵄ欽ꋜ秋敮醢⛓♶琼㹁䊫㦪⻊捀ꅹ
Kangxi piece, such as the dish with $ ower basket (lot 382). New experiments were
䕙帿幏♶♧⛓繠刿剣秋⚥䌞笂罏蒀愯䕱蕯䧭擿
also undertaken with cobalt, such as the ‘powder-blue’ dusting of the surface with a
呠㻜荈搬猖꧈劥㜥䬝颪⛓鞞鞝秋ꅹꖂꚻ峤箠贪
cobalt solution, generally applied around reserved panels, or a more painterly use of
318姻㿂♧⢾կ
the cobalt pigment: One ‘powder-blue’ dish (lot 304) is painted in the reserved area
with a soft watery sketch of a cluster of lotus, with darker splashed details, immediately ꫬ蔄ꅹ酆秋ㅷ珏傍倴䐀擳㖈⡙껷⼧䎃䊺剣醢⡲
reminiscent of ink painting on paper. 鋅倴♧穉㼭湎⿺渧⢾醢倴1671荛1673䎃⛓꟦㢴
䌞չ⚥ㄤ㛔պ妴⿺私䎃妴կ劥㜥䬝颪⛓ꫬ蔄ꅹ酆秋㿋
The Kangxi Emperor himself was probably more interested in reviving the challenging
宐넞㡦㕭⽪岞渱箠贪301⽰莄鑪穉⢾湱鵛〳
work with copper for red glazes and designs, which had hardly been practised since the
嫱♧㼭湎ⴀ荈➔搡⛓佐诡私䎃䐀擳鳟❞1671
end of the Xuande reign. Besides the classic red imperial monochromes of even, deep
6
䎃կ꘭⡲捀ッ蒀ⷭ〳欽倴ꄶꅹ䧴ꫬꅹ⸈⛓ꉇ
ruby-red color that were recreated (lot 345), a very di" erent red glaze was introduced,
诜⿺ꋜ秋ꂁ嫱佪卓㽍곏蒈뜨劥㜥䬝颪⛓ꅹ酆♲
5
apparently under Liu Yuan’s tenure: the mottled ‘peach-bloom’ version (lot 318),
䕙廩㿋栬ꆥ㕭旯箠贪317姻捀♧⢾կ姼旯⟄ꫬ蔄
which makes a virtue of the di# culty to ! re the copper pigment to a strong, uniform
⿺ꅹ酆秋粭㿋宐㕭兞 ⚛⟄ꫬꅹ庪厩姼酤귆䩛
tone and aims instead at a variegated red, which in places can even revert to green,
7
岁殹㿂㹨䒄괏呔 կ
thus evoking the natural beauty in the color variations of a ripening fruit.
䖰㶸⚆䐀擳⟬僈妴㐼䲀倬〳鋅䐀擳䋷㽍Ⱖ䲀䃩䧭
Wares with touches of underglaze copper red incorporated in designs predominantly
⻊糒罜㹒䗞妃罜㎗ꫴկ䐀擳劊䨾䗁莇⛓ㅷ⺫䭍
executed in underglaze cobalt blue are already documented for the ! rst decade of the
㹒䗞ꫬ蔄⿺ꅹ酆秋ծ䧭⻊놽䕙ծ⟄⿺㎗ꫴ❀䕙կぐㅷ
Emperor’s reign, through a group of small dishes, plates and bowls made between
ꧪ欽俱⿺䪮遮莄僈儗㣐넒湱ず㈔䐀擳櫘欽岁刿
1671 and 1673, many, but not all of which are inscribed with dates and the hall name
捀㢴隶㐼䕎ծ秙귆刿⸈籖渿䕥곏ⶽ䙼䊫䠑կ
Zhonghetang. A small box in the current group (lot 301) is closely reminiscent of this
6
series, particularly of one dish from the Edward T. Chow collection dated to 1671. Iron
was used as a colorant for brown or celadon green glazes, and particularly beautiful
e" ects were achieved with combined use of cobalt, copper and iron, for example, on
landscape scenes painted in blue and red, with washes of celadon green (lot 317) – a
style mainly destined for the court. 7
If one takes the appearance of spurious reign marks on Kangxi pieces as a guide,
the Ming reign periods most revered by the Kangxi Emperor must have been, in this
order, Chenghua, Xuande and Jiajing. If from the Xuande period, cobalt and copper-
decorated wares were revived, from the Chenghua reign it was the doucai (‘dove-tailed
colors’) style with its bright enamels neatly enclosed in underglaze blue outlines, and
from the Jiajing period the polychrome wucai (‘! ve color’) palette. Although in each
case materials and techniques remained basically the same as before, the ways to use
them as well as the variety and range of shapes and designs were vastly and inventively
expanded. !! "#$% 322
14 SOTHEBY’S