.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
Wang Shixiang and Curtis Evarts in Masterpieces from the Museum of Classical Chinese Furniture, Chicago, 1995, p. 130, explain that in general, Chinese "tapered cabinets may be divided into two categories: those made of circular members and those made of square members. Pieces belonging to the first category (circular members) are more common." The form of the current cabinet is of the more rare variety and is a truly exquisite example of its type. The simplicity and elegance of form of this cabinet is in the classical Ming style. The combination of design, perfect proportions and precise craftsmanship lend this cabinet a refined elegance and sense of balance and stability. Marcus Flacks, Classical Chinese Furniture, Autumn, 1997, p. 10, mentions that "the use of flat members (as in the current cabinet) gives the design a sense of austere classical elegance that made it most at home in a gentlemen's quarters or in the scholar's studio."
For a discussion of the development of Chinese cabinet forms see Sarah Handler, "Cabinets and Shelves Containing All Things in China," Journal of Classical Chinese Furniture Society, Winter, 1993, pp. 4-29, where the author traces the development of cabinets and shelves from earlier storage containers such as boxes and chests. Handler makes the very interesting comparison between the elegance and restraint of classical Chinese furniture with Western developments in both Bauhaus and Shaker forms which emphasized serene unadorned beauty. "It is this harmony of proportion that transforms each of these common objects into a work of uncommon grace. In both, the verticality is perfectly balanced and contained by the shape and overhang of the top,"
For a similar, although smaller example (63¼ in. high), of the form see Wang Shixiang, Connoisseurship of Chinese Furniture, vol. II, Hong Kong, 1990, no. D33. In vol. I, pp. 87-89, Wang discusses the form and explains the general sizing of the fangjiaogui as being constructed in three approximate sizes: 36 in., 72 in., and 108 in. high. The present cabinet, then, would be classified as of medium size. Compare, also, the somewhat larger (68 in. high) huanghuali square-corner cabinet of 17th/18th century date, sold at Christie's, New York, 22-23 March 2012, lot 1726.
For a discussion of the development of Chinese cabinet forms see Sarah Handler, "Cabinets and Shelves Containing All Things in China," Journal of Classical Chinese Furniture Society, Winter, 1993, pp. 4-29, where the author traces the development of cabinets and shelves from earlier storage containers such as boxes and chests. Handler makes the very interesting comparison between the elegance and restraint of classical Chinese furniture with Western developments in both Bauhaus and Shaker forms which emphasized serene unadorned beauty. "It is this harmony of proportion that transforms each of these common objects into a work of uncommon grace. In both, the verticality is perfectly balanced and contained by the shape and overhang of the top,"
For a similar, although smaller example (63¼ in. high), of the form see Wang Shixiang, Connoisseurship of Chinese Furniture, vol. II, Hong Kong, 1990, no. D33. In vol. I, pp. 87-89, Wang discusses the form and explains the general sizing of the fangjiaogui as being constructed in three approximate sizes: 36 in., 72 in., and 108 in. high. The present cabinet, then, would be classified as of medium size. Compare, also, the somewhat larger (68 in. high) huanghuali square-corner cabinet of 17th/18th century date, sold at Christie's, New York, 22-23 March 2012, lot 1726.