.jpg?w=1)
拍品專文
The present picture was until recently thought to be by Pieter Brueghel II. Marlier published it in 1969 as a fully autograph work by Brueghel but conceded that it was 'très proche de van Cleve' (loc. cit.), an opinion that was later revised by Klaus Ertz who gave the picture to van Cleve and considered it to be 'von sehr guter Qualität' (loc. cit.). Van Cleve's works are closely related to those of Pieter II's workshop, but they are not always dependant on it, van Cleve being the older artist, of the same generation as Pieter Bruegel I, by whom he was influenced directly.
The composition is thought to derive ultimately from a work by Pieter Bruegel I. It has been suggested that Pieter I's original is the painting in the Detroit Institute of Arts, dated 1566. Accepted in full in the past, the question of that painting's authenticity has recently been re-examined. Ertz, in his monograph on Pieter II (op. cit.), notes that in his opinion it is either an original Pieter Bruegel I or a contemporary copy of a lost work. Either way, the composition was successfully adapted by Pieter Brueghel II and his circle, and it became one of the most popular within his oeuvre.
The composition is thought to derive ultimately from a work by Pieter Bruegel I. It has been suggested that Pieter I's original is the painting in the Detroit Institute of Arts, dated 1566. Accepted in full in the past, the question of that painting's authenticity has recently been re-examined. Ertz, in his monograph on Pieter II (op. cit.), notes that in his opinion it is either an original Pieter Bruegel I or a contemporary copy of a lost work. Either way, the composition was successfully adapted by Pieter Brueghel II and his circle, and it became one of the most popular within his oeuvre.