An Inside-Painted Crystal ‘Double-Gourd’ Double Snuff Bottle Attributed to Ye Bengzhen, Eleventh Month 1912

Dr and Mrs Louis E. Wolferz.
Sotheby’s New York, 3rd November 1982, lot 292.
Eric Young.
Sotheby’s London, 3rd March 1987, lot 175.

Moss et al., 1996-2009, vol. 4, no. 646.

Bottle: Natural icy flaws. Two minute nibble to the outer lip of the larger bottle. The second smaller bottle has an uneven surface to the lip and possible smoothing of minor flaws. Painting: Studio condition.
"In response to your inquiry, we are pleased to provide you with a general report of the condition of the property described above. Since we are not professional conservators or restorers, we urge you to consult with a restorer or conservator of your choice who will be better able to provide a detailed, professional report. Prospective buyers should inspect each lot to satisfy themselves as to condition and must understand that any statement made by Sotheby's is merely a subjective, qualified opinion. Prospective buyers should also refer to any Important Notices regarding this sale, which are printed in the Sale Catalogue.
NOTWITHSTANDING THIS REPORT OR ANY DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING A LOT, ALL LOTS ARE OFFERED AND SOLD AS IS" IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS OF BUSINESS PRINTED IN THE SALE CATALOGUE."

Examining the few Ye Zhongsan-signed bottles extant from the years 1911 to 1913, one find the first hint of an artistic personality other than Ye Zhongsan’s at work. This can only have been Ye Bengzhen (see under Sale 7, lot 94). It is evident particularly in paintings of fish from all three years. It is likely that when a son joined the studio, he would have been trained in general techniques and may, indeed, have been trained in them from an early age. One subject could be mastered to Ye’s commercial standards far more readily than could a dozen. The subject of fish would be a natural one to begin with, since fan-tailed goldfish, in particular, are not too difficult to depict and are effective even if not painted with the complete control of the father’s hand, and it is hardly surprising that it is in this subject that we first see the new hand at work.

Ye Zhongsan had mastered his fish paintings long before 1912, and Sale 1, lot 29 and Sale 2, lot 52 are the only examples that demonstrate his complete mastery by 1905. In the first decade of the century, Ye painted fish probably more than he painted any other single subject, so he was well practised by 1912. This painting is probably not from the same hand as the fish paintings from 1905–1911. It would be possible for Ye’s standards of commitment to each work of art to have declined between 1905 and 1912, but that would not account for the major difference between this painting and earlier versions of the same subject. An artist can lose his direction, his commitment, his concentration, and become sloppy in his technique, but it is far more difficult to lose that inbuilt sense of what makes a good picture once it is mastered. In fact, from many other works by Ye up to 1912, it is likely that he had not become sloppy or lost his technique, but regardless of that, a comparison of the artistry of the compositions is convincing.

An examination the two earlier fish paintings in this collection shows that the fish are composed dynamically, subtly balanced in compositional terms against the aquatic plants that are the other main element of the subject. Here, the artist, noting that the composition consists of fish and aquatic plants, has unimaginatively placed one of each together in every case. In most cases, the fan-shaped aquatic plants come out from behind the head of each fish. It is too obvious for Ye Zhongsan’s work and much less artistically laid out. Given this clue, it is apparent that the fish are painted in a slightly broader style and with much more hesitant poses, many of them being shown in the same basic position, facing either one way or the other. They are also all much the same size. Ye Zhongsan was careful to vary the size, position, and angle of the fish and balance them more artistically with the aquatic plants. It seems obvious that while the techniques have been reasonably well mastered here, the compositional sense that comes to a long-time artist is absent, allowing us to attribute this with some confidence to Ye Bengzhen.

It is likely that Ye Zhongsan himself would have signed all bottles, regardless of who painted them, until the children became efficient in writing his signature convincingly, but since there is no evidence showing how long that might have taken, it can be assumed that the father may have continued to inscribe his sons’ bottles for some time after they joined the studio. Indeed, because of the difficulties of identifying individual artists from the studio years, it is best perhaps to see them as a collaborative effort by a family workshop. The calligraphy here suggests a well-practised hand and it was probably written by Ye Zhongsan.

Apart from the lack of formal subtlety in the composition, the technique here is impressive for a beginner, and the unusual nature of the double bottle adds a spectacular dimension to a painting that otherwise might seem a trifle lack-lustre by comparison to the masterpieces of 1905.