Addendum 2A. Notes on Judging Authenticity and Dating

it's going to be notes on questions of

judging priority and authenticity that

is among paintings if you have two

paintings how do you judge which one is

the earlier and more likely to be from

the real hand of the artist and so on of

this it's about a complicated matter

which all spent quite a bit of time on

well I'm going to use examples from the

previous lectures which are familiar to

someone but saying more about them but

also bring in some others in the second

half of this which come from later

periods too which illustrate my points

better

I think these are extremely important

matters and this will kind of tie up the

whole series in a way a lot of it will

be controversial and that it's not

everybody agrees of this but I think

it's important nonetheless ok we begin

first slides please with the two details

from the two versions of the nymph the

law River the two divine figures

goddesses floating up in the air you

will remember if some of you will anyway

that when I discussed these I pointed

out the difference between the drawing

of them and how the in the what I take

to be the earlier version of the

dominant version on the left the big

figures are drawn so that the volume of

the figures and the space between them

as can be read and the ribbons that

flutter around them go around them and

define their their their three

dimensionality and so on you remember

all that whereas in the Beijing version

the the copyist as I take it to be

flattens them and the figures have no

volume on their ribbons don't work that

way and so on okay this is pretty

straightforward next please

now then I went on to talk about boats

as you remember the again the rounding

version which I take to be the earliest

and best is is relatively readable

features such as this kind of ladder

like thing built on the deck which the

boatman pushed against as they pull the

boat

or the way the ribbons and the upstairs

for hanging from the balcony or from the

canopy below effectively and believably

and the real one and hang down straight

and are misunderstood in the copy in the

Beijing version which is on the right

now

and then there was still a third version

in the freer gallery which all these

what seemed to me to be wrong matters go

further wrong and I took I took it to be

a copy of the Beijing version so if

that's true then we have three versions

without three and you know in

chronological order alright so that was

relatively simple if I'm right anyway

now then another word another pairing

that I used in the lectures less easy in

this case is the pair are two pictures

two versions of the painting attributed

to drill one truth of the 10th century

titled the double screen and you

remember this was supposed to be the

emperor of the time of the southern town

Leo drew and his brothers playing Wei Qi

and behind them a screen with a figure

lying back and then another screen in

that so that's why it's called double

screen now there are two versions of

that the one I discussed us the earliest

and the not the original maybe but close

the original is in the freer gallery of

art and I told her ad kind of discovered

it had it remounted was going to publish

an article on it but in fact I left

before I did this and Tom Lawton

published a very good piece on I didn't

his book on Chinese finger painting okay

however a read the free gallery's

recently put a new web piece on its

website which is I'm sitting around I'm

sitting around paintings in the

collection it's just pictures of them

and and the information on them and

opinions on them from the fur records

I've given so this than my handout

now in that the whoever wrote whoever

wrote that the Beijing version is

credited as being quote generally deemed

to be the older of the two well end

quote

I don't believe that I still think the

freer versions older and I corresponded

with old friend Tom Lawton by email and

he agrees with me and he published as I

say in his Chinese figure painting the

free version and writes this quote most

significantly the tremulous brush

technique in which the four principal

figures are executed is less mannered

suggesting that the freer version is the

earlier work end quote

well okay I agree with that the in the

free version this

jonbi criminalist brush brushwork

technique for the for the figures the

drapery drawing of the figures is much

more convincing early realizes largely

lost and conventionalized in the beijing

version which is on the whole much

neater and I take it to be a copy of a

later time

I would something else which is a little

less obvious maybe but if you think

about the whole point of this painting

which is that is supposed to provide a

cognitive deliberate ambiguity in the

rendering of space so that when first

impulse might be to read the space of

the screen behind the figures as a

continuation of their space rather than

a flat picture behind them so the artist

plays a little trick on you in other

words but in the free version I think

this works quite well as you might see

if I might agree here for even from

these reproductions and in the Beijing

version less well I don't have good

slides of the Beeching version so this

doesn't really work very well and I

can't make the argument very well one

minor but interesting matter here in the

slide of the whole of the freer if you

see the screen the screen within the

screen the two projecting pieces from

the sides of it one of them on the left

is fairly short whereas the lawn on the

right there's much

longer and continues behind the figure

lying below I would take that to be an

addition by some later owner or the

painting or copyist mount a copy excuse

me

some later conceivably copyist anyway

somebody who extended it by mistake or

by miss judgment to go behind the figure

so they don't match but that I think

it's just a later mistake of some some

some of the somebody who tried to fix

something you thought was wrong okay

anyway leaving that aside now the next

please

now here we have two pictures of flowers

attributed to Moochie the one on the

right is the one in Japanese temple of

the so can end sub temple the die toka

tree representing a hibiscus or rose

mallow as the full room and then down

the other one the one on the well on the

right I guess net on the left anyway

whichever the is the copy not actually

the same flower the copyist may have

misunderstood it as a peony at any rate

this seems to be a picture of a peony

well leaving that aside of the two are

similar enough that one might be a kind

of loose copy after the other in any

case I discussed the showing how the

brushwork the ink values everything in

the picture that may be a real Moochie

as convincing as a work of this great

13th century master at the same time it

is it was unacceptable to literati of

the time and later who saw it as bad

brushwork or things that one shouldn't

do anyway in other words as I made the

argument that Chun artists generally at

that time often had to break the rules

so to speak in order to achieve their

effects which are very important and

even great effects okay here is this

kind of scratchy very dark brushwork of

the stalks and the puddling of the ink

and the the blossoms and the way the

leaves are represented all

is quite lively and believable and

giving volume to the whole thing whereas

than the other of the whole image is

flattened but it's made more acceptable