设色绢本? 立轴 185 × 110cm.?(72 ? × 43 ? in.) 北美私人旧藏。
此幅作品画幅宏大，通体绘画极为精细，经过仔细比对，发现此件亲王像与北京保利2013年秋季拍卖LOT6465号拍品亲王吉服像所描绘的主体对象实为同一人。这种肖像画通常为用于祖先崇拜或祭祀所用，具有非常强的写真纪实性。巧合的是，北京保利曾拍卖的这一幅亲王吉服像绘画风格一致；腰部所携香囊等物装饰同异常繁覆,地毯等织物的花纹也与本幅相似，甚至近乎一致。我们大胆的推断这两幅作品应当是由同一位宫廷画师完成，后文将着重由二者面部特征、冬吉服冠，腰间佩饰、人物配饰、人物坐姿以及地毯织物六个方面做尽可能细致的比对，以求证肖像画主人公与画师的身份。
1.面部特征
细观两张肖像画中人物的面部特征，我们会注意到这是一位右脸颊法令纹下方有一颗痦的中老年男子，两张肖像画中二者的脸型，五官甚至是眼神都鲜有区别，只是胡须浓密与色泽有细微变化，几可断定是同一个人。画师用清晰的线条勾勒除了人物的面部轮廓，加以淡色渲染，获得适中的立体感，是明末时期以来的就流行的「波臣法」手法。由于文献中对右脸有痦的皇室成员的资料没有记载，因而我们只能根据肖像画中人物的着装可大致判断他是一位皇子。
2.冬吉服冠
本次拍卖的亲王肖像画中，由于穿着常服，这位皇子并没有佩戴吉服冠，然而不难看到在他的左侧放置着一顶貂皮缘、红绒结顶的皮质冬吉服冠。而这件服冠，正是右侧吉服像中皇子佩戴的那一顶，二者的材质和结构以及所彰显的佩戴者的等级几无不同。清代宫廷及官员所穿服饰种类多样，繁复详备。服饰可分为礼服、吉服、常服、行服、雨服等类别。这些服饰分别穿用于祭祀、朝会、节庆、节日、巡行、日常闲居等各种不同的场合。而此幅肖像画中描画的正是日常闲居是着常服的亲王像。
3.腰间配饰
论及这位亲王的腰间配饰，可谓是大有学问，虽然常服不及吉服那样纷繁华丽，却仍然可以由其腰间佩戴的佩饰大致观察出人物的等级权利状态。可见亲王腰间系常服带，带上左右两边垂白色丝质帉，带右侧佩系蓝色素面荷包、青色连云纹扳指套和鞘刀各一，带左侧佩系蓝色素面荷包。两张肖像画上所携带的佩饰左右分布乃至白色丝质帉垂落的角度和画法近乎一致。
4.人物配饰
另外一个判定两位人物为同一个人的重要依据即是人物右手拇指所佩戴的扳指，二人所带扳指实为一款，形状与纹路都相同，扳指中部有黑色条纹，似乎是缠丝玛瑙制成。
5.人物坐姿
初观两幅肖像画，最大的不同兴许是在于人物在两张像中不同的坐姿，明代皇帝像中，<明成祖像>和中央美术学院藏洪熙元年题赞官员像都采用一手撑于腰腿之间、一手扶玉带的姿势，充满戒备感和威势，而到了<明太祖像>略作改变，本来应该扶玉带的那只手也扶在了腰腿之间，胳膊还轻松地搭在椅子扶手上。这种姿态实际上也延续到了清代的祖先像，不论是帝后像还是贵族、官员和平民，表现方式也由半侧面和近乎正面转变为了全正面的画像。男像则普遍采用了明初皇帝像及平民祖宗像中像主双手撑拒的姿态，坐具也都作正面表现。清代混合了前代祖先像的各种因素，既是长期以来祖先像画法发展的必然，也是上行下效的结果。
6.地毯织物
地毯是肖像画从明清以来一直保留的元素，画中地毯效果为平铺直立，描绘极其精致且花纹几乎一致，表面用短小线条组成小绒花来表现出羊毛织物的质感，配色与图案无不彰显出人物的华贵气质与权力等级。清朝的祖先画与肖像画在比例分配上十分精准，这不仅仅表现在人物所处的画面黄金比例上，更在其他细节中得以体现，细观两者中的地毯所占画面比例不难发现，画面中地毯的画幅几乎都是占据整幅画面的一半，且其花纹十分类似设计图稿，不禁惹人猜想人物的面部和双手是由肖像画师完成，而地毯与服饰等又是由画样画师描画。
这幅肖像画对于研究清代的绘画艺术，尤其是它描绘反映的服饰，对于研究清代的服饰制作和相关历史文化等具有重要珍贵的价值。
Anonymous - Portrait of untitled Prince
This painting is considered as a grand size portrait in the category. Generally, the lines were delicate and discreet. When in comparison with the painting sold in Beijing Poly Auctions 2013 Fall auction (Lot6465), we can recognize these are the portraits regarding the same person. This kind of portrait is usually used for ancestors’ worshiping ceremony. Coincidently, the composition and style of the painting sold in Beijing and the portrait of Daisan preserved in Freer. Sackler Museum was pretty similar. Both of the figures were wearing intricate accessories on their waist, and as the patterns of the carpets were nearly the same, by which we made a wild guess that the three paintings were depicted by the same person or a group of royal court painters. In the following paragraphs, we’ll find out the common characters preserved by these two paintings through the faces, costumes, accessories, postures and the carpets, to assist in finding out the identity of the figure and the court painter.
There were a bunch of collections of Chinese court portrait paintings dispensed in different parts of the world. And Freer Sackler Museum enjoys a high reputation for collecting these spectacular paintings. They were majorly from the collection of Mr. Richard G.Pritzlaff, who purchased these paintings in 1930s-1940s, and was known as the most renowned collector of this kind of Chinese portrait paintings. In 1991, Freer Sackler Museum acquired these paintings from Smithsonian Collections Acquisition Program and partial gift of Richard G. Pritzlaff, and these paintings were considered have a high value in estimating the hierarchy of costumes in Qing Dynasty. Different from the paintings preserved by the Palace Museum in Beijing, these paintings were majorly focused on the royal family members instead of emperors.
1. Characteristics on faces
With a close-up look of the faces of this item and the one sold in Beijing, it’s not hard to find out that both of them have a black mole on their faces. They are at the same age, the shape of the face, and even the look in their eyes was exactly the same. Only the thickness of beards was slightly different from each other. The painter used clear fine lines to depict the outline of the face and slightly contoured it with light ink, which contributed to forming a mild stereo feeling. This is one of the most typical techniques of expression utilized ever since the Ming Dynasty. According to the costumes, we could recognize him as a sibling of the emperor Qian.
2. Costumes
The costumes of the servants in Qing’s Royal Court were divided into various categories. Since the sitter was wearing a casual costume in this picture, he was not wearing the cap at the time. While as known, the cap could be the symbol of one’s hierarchy status in ancient China. He puts away his cap on the left-hand side. With comparison to the one, he’s wearing in the right pic. The caps were exactly the same.
3. Accessories on waists
Given the situation, the accessories on the sitter’s waist could also be considered as a reference to his position. Even the costume shifts, the accessories of a noble person will not change much, so we could see from the pic that both of them were wearing intricate articles like pockets, knots, ribbons etc. the angle of the articles was nearly the same.
4. Accessories wearing by the sitter
Another persuasive point to convince us was the Bianchi (ring possessed by noble people) wearing on his thumb of the right hand. The pattern, color, and the shape were exactly the same.
5. Sitting posture
Admittedly, at the first look at these two paintings. The biggest difference lies in the sitting posture of the sitter. We found out that in the Ming Dynasty, most portraits were presented in an imperatorial way. While in the Qing Dynasty, the sitters usually use one hand to hold the waistband and slightly rest another hand on the chair arm. The angle of the portrait gradually shifted from a side portrait to a frontage portrait. Paintings in Qing absorbed the essence from previous dynasties and it is a certain result of the development of Chinese painting’s history.
6. The pattern on the carpet
The carpet in the portrait painting is always considered as an important surrounding. The carpet in this painting was paved in a horizontal way and occupied half size of the painting, the patterns on two pics were delicate, the texture and the pattern were presented in the same way through the left one is darker in color. The carpet was considered a delicately designed draft by the painter.
Citation：
Portrait of Daisan (1583 – 1648), Freer
Sackler
https://www.freersackler.si.edu/object/S1991.74/
(accessed 2018/8/30 10:"46":"35" am.)
