.jpg?w=1)
拍品专文
There are two other versions of this composition that are considered autograph: one in the Palazzo Pitti, Florence (inv. 452), the other in the Musée du Louvre, Paris (inv. 1121), both of larger dimensions. A pen and brown ink drawing, also in the Louvre (inv. 19.794), shows the same composition and appears to be more closely related to the Genoese painting, notwithstanding some variations in the position and number of animals, as well as differences in the distant parts of the landscape. Two other drawings in the Louvre (inv. 19.780 and 19.797) show the same group of buildings. The reuse of these motifs confirms that this landscape was carefully constructed in the studio, rather than being drawn from nature.
As Louisa Wood Ruby notes 'the new, more relaxed setting with lower horizon reflects Bril's less mannered method of composing in the late 1610s', a date that is confirmed by the painting in the Louvre, signed and dated 1617, and the inscription on the preparatory drawing, which includes the date 1615 (Paul Bril: the drawings, Turnhout, 1999, p. 111, no. 80; fig. 1).
Francesca Cappelletti (op. cit.) considers the Genoese picture to be a version corrispondente nei minimi dettagli of the painting exhibited in London, but the presence of a Wildenstein label on the reverse of this picture suggests that they are, in fact, one and the same picture.
As Louisa Wood Ruby notes 'the new, more relaxed setting with lower horizon reflects Bril's less mannered method of composing in the late 1610s', a date that is confirmed by the painting in the Louvre, signed and dated 1617, and the inscription on the preparatory drawing, which includes the date 1615 (Paul Bril: the drawings, Turnhout, 1999, p. 111, no. 80; fig. 1).
Francesca Cappelletti (op. cit.) considers the Genoese picture to be a version corrispondente nei minimi dettagli of the painting exhibited in London, but the presence of a Wildenstein label on the reverse of this picture suggests that they are, in fact, one and the same picture.