拍品專文
As Dr. Sam Segal has pointed out, loc. cit., the present picture should be compared with two other still-lifes attributed to Ludger tom Ring, a study in oil on paper in the Oesterreichische Nationalbibliothek, Vienna (F. Koreny, Albrecht Dürer and the Animal and Plant Studies of the Renaissance, Boston 1988, p.240, under no.88, note 6, and fig.88.4) and a panel painting, currently untraced (ibid., note 8 and fig.88.5). These still-lifes are connected with five sheets of flower studies in an album also in the Oesterreichische Nationalbibliothek (Codex Miniatus 42) which was probably collated around 1600 and was owned by Emperor Rudolph II. Koreny has attributed these studies to Ludger tom Ring the Younger, an attribution which has not yet found the full support of Dr. Segal.
Dr. Segal has noted that the flowers in the present picture are directly related to those on folio 163r in the Vienna Codex (ibid., no.90) and the feverfew in the centre of folio 164r appears in the same form in the upper left corner of the present painting. In a recent article Dr. Angelika Lorenz, who is preparing an exhibition of the artist's work to be held at the Westfälisches Landesmuseum in Münster in 1994, has pointed out a similar relationship between one of the Vienna oil studies and an unsigned flower piece at Münster generally accepted as the work of Ludger tom Ring the Younger (A. Lorenz, Die Blumenstilleben von Ludger tom Ring d.J., Kunst und Antiquitäten, 1-2, 1993, p.17 and pls.4-5). A further comparable flower piece was sold at Lempertz, Cologne, 10 December 1990, lot 25.
Although Dr. Segal notes a difference in style between the group of pictures related to the Vienna oil studies and the relatively stiff and vertically structured still-lifes signed by Ring, he does not exclude the possibility that the present paiting is a late work by the artist. A dating in Ring's later years is supported by the façon de Venise filigrana vase, which can be dated c.1560-70; this would seem to be the only known complete image of such a vase, which are otherwise known solely from fragments.
Dr. Segal has further pointed out that still-lifes of wild flowers are extremely rare in Western painting before the nineteenth century. We are grateful to Dr. Segal for his help in preparing this catalogue entry; his full report on the picture is available for consultation
Dr. Segal has noted that the flowers in the present picture are directly related to those on folio 163r in the Vienna Codex (ibid., no.90) and the feverfew in the centre of folio 164r appears in the same form in the upper left corner of the present painting. In a recent article Dr. Angelika Lorenz, who is preparing an exhibition of the artist's work to be held at the Westfälisches Landesmuseum in Münster in 1994, has pointed out a similar relationship between one of the Vienna oil studies and an unsigned flower piece at Münster generally accepted as the work of Ludger tom Ring the Younger (A. Lorenz, Die Blumenstilleben von Ludger tom Ring d.J., Kunst und Antiquitäten, 1-2, 1993, p.17 and pls.4-5). A further comparable flower piece was sold at Lempertz, Cologne, 10 December 1990, lot 25.
Although Dr. Segal notes a difference in style between the group of pictures related to the Vienna oil studies and the relatively stiff and vertically structured still-lifes signed by Ring, he does not exclude the possibility that the present paiting is a late work by the artist. A dating in Ring's later years is supported by the façon de Venise filigrana vase, which can be dated c.1560-70; this would seem to be the only known complete image of such a vase, which are otherwise known solely from fragments.
Dr. Segal has further pointed out that still-lifes of wild flowers are extremely rare in Western painting before the nineteenth century. We are grateful to Dr. Segal for his help in preparing this catalogue entry; his full report on the picture is available for consultation