.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
拍品專文
Representations of Adam and Eve throughout the sixteenth and early seventeenth century are indebted to the iconography established by Albrecht Dürer’s 1504 engraving of the subject (fig. 1). Contemporaries of Joachim Wtewael directly reference Dürer’s print in their treatments of the subject; Cornelis Cornelisz. van Haarlem’s The Fall of Man (Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. no. SK-A-129), for example, borrows the figures’ poses directly from Dürer’s engraving. Wtewael’s handling of the subject more subtly references Dürer’s iconographic inventions, such as the twisting serpent in the branches at upper right and the placement of the forbidden fruit at the center of the composition. The strong diagonal formed by Adam and Eve’s extended arms emphasize this pivotal moment in the narrative, the animals stilled in the lush gardens around them, as if anticipating the chaos to come.
In her 1986 monograph, Anne Lowenthal expressed doubts regarding the attribution, knowing it only from black-and-white images which show old overpaint covering Eve’s modesty (loc. cit.). A second version, with some differences, now in the Shipley Art Gallery, Gateshead, was considered the prime, while she judged the present work to be a studio variant or replica. When the painting resurfaced in 1991, following its transformative cleaning that saw the removal of old overpaint and a discolored varnish, Lowenthal had the opportunity to inspect it first hand and concluded that not only was the painting autograph, but it was the prime version of the composition. In a letter dated 24 July 1991, Lowenthal wrote:
‘I now suggest that the Gateshead painting is instead derived from the present painting. The landscape and animals in the Gateshead picture are generalized and the figures are softer and more sensuous than is typical for Wtewael. The unusual signature ‘Jo [in ligature] wt de wael/Inventor,’ is consistent with the possibility the [Shipley] picture is a studio copy’ (for more from this letter see Christie’s, New York, 19 May 1993, lot 36).
A third version of this composition, now given to Wtewael’s studio, was erroneously published in 1990 with the present painting’s provenance (see Sotheby’s, London, 4 July 1990, lot 33). Wtewael often returned to favorite subjects but he rarely repeated his compositions exactly, normally reorienting his figures and adjusting background elements to create new variations, further suggesting that both the Shipley and Sotheby’s paintings are studio productions.
Wtewael returned to the theme of Adam and Eve in a small-scale copper which Lowenthal dates to between 1610 and 1615, the same five-year period as the present canvas (loc. cit., fig. 2). In that work too, Wtewael builds a sense of depth by layering figures, animals and vegetation, though he reverses the figures' positions and places them slightly off center. Wtewael must have been pleased with the poses of Adam and Eve in the present work for he reused the figural group in other compositions, notably for Paris and Venus in his Judgement of Paris dated 1615 in the National Gallery, London (fig. 3, inv. no. NG6334).
In her 1986 monograph, Anne Lowenthal expressed doubts regarding the attribution, knowing it only from black-and-white images which show old overpaint covering Eve’s modesty (loc. cit.). A second version, with some differences, now in the Shipley Art Gallery, Gateshead, was considered the prime, while she judged the present work to be a studio variant or replica. When the painting resurfaced in 1991, following its transformative cleaning that saw the removal of old overpaint and a discolored varnish, Lowenthal had the opportunity to inspect it first hand and concluded that not only was the painting autograph, but it was the prime version of the composition. In a letter dated 24 July 1991, Lowenthal wrote:
‘I now suggest that the Gateshead painting is instead derived from the present painting. The landscape and animals in the Gateshead picture are generalized and the figures are softer and more sensuous than is typical for Wtewael. The unusual signature ‘Jo [in ligature] wt de wael/Inventor,’ is consistent with the possibility the [Shipley] picture is a studio copy’ (for more from this letter see Christie’s, New York, 19 May 1993, lot 36).
A third version of this composition, now given to Wtewael’s studio, was erroneously published in 1990 with the present painting’s provenance (see Sotheby’s, London, 4 July 1990, lot 33). Wtewael often returned to favorite subjects but he rarely repeated his compositions exactly, normally reorienting his figures and adjusting background elements to create new variations, further suggesting that both the Shipley and Sotheby’s paintings are studio productions.
Wtewael returned to the theme of Adam and Eve in a small-scale copper which Lowenthal dates to between 1610 and 1615, the same five-year period as the present canvas (loc. cit., fig. 2). In that work too, Wtewael builds a sense of depth by layering figures, animals and vegetation, though he reverses the figures' positions and places them slightly off center. Wtewael must have been pleased with the poses of Adam and Eve in the present work for he reused the figural group in other compositions, notably for Paris and Venus in his Judgement of Paris dated 1615 in the National Gallery, London (fig. 3, inv. no. NG6334).