书体:

色彩:

设色

装裱形式:

册(推蓬装‧折扇式)

创作时间:

文字类型:

质地:

本幅纸

释文:

印记资料:

收传印记：包虎臣藏

题跋资料:

题跋类别：作者款识；作者：陈淳；题跋位置：本幅；款识：素艳倚秋风。向人浑歌语。春花莫为笑。丹心自能许。道复。；书体：草书；全文： 印记：白阳山人

主题:

主要主题：花草秋葵 主要主题：花草紫薇 

技法:

没骨 

参考资料:

收藏着录： 故宫书画录（卷八），第四册，页163 收藏着录： 故宫书画图录，第三十册，页132-135 参考书目： 1.〈明　陈淳　秋葵紫薇〉，收入谭怡令、刘芳如、林莉娜主编，《满庭芳　历代花卉名品特展》（台北：国立故宫博物院，2010年十二月初版一刷），页112。 内容简介（中文）： 陈淳（1483-1544），字道复，又字复甫，号白阳山人。江苏长洲人。绘事曾师文征明，善作米家山水，尤以写意花卉闻名。本幅选自＜明花卉画册＞，采用金笺，以扇面形式构图，描绘折枝秋葵和紫薇，一水墨，一设色，颇有特色。没骨法写秋葵，花朵兼顾侧仰面，另加干渴笔绘叶，叶面破损折裂。紫薇花以洋红加赭石写花瓣，叶片椭圆对生，以花青加藤黄少许设色。此幅钩花点叶笔简意全，草草似不经意，却能得其自然意趣。(20110102) 内容简介（中文）： 陈淳（西元一四八三－一五四四年），江苏长洲人。字道复，又字复甫，号白阳山人。精于经学、诗文、书法、篆籀。好画事，曾师事文征明，善作米家山水，更善于写意花卉，才气纵横，不拘于师门。王世贞评其花鸟画与沈周、徐渭、周之冕并立为明代四大家 本幅用金笺，墨色画秋葵，极为突出，而紫薇花退居为背景，层次分明。画中用笔，如不经意，却是写意画，求其意到而已。 本幅为花卉画册第六幅。 内容简介（中文）： 陈淳（西元一四八三－一五四四年），江苏长洲人。字道复，号白阳山人。生性颖悟，天才秀发，凡经学、古文、词章、书法、绘画，咸臻其妙。曾游学文征明门，征明仅谦称是他的举业师，而不敢以书画师自居。 陈淳画花卉以水墨写意见长，笔简意全，前人批评为「一花半叶，淡墨欹豪，疏斜历乱之致，咄咄逼眞。」此幅画折枝秋葵和紫薇，一水墨，一设色，勾花点叶全以书法入画，草草似不经意，而能得其生动自然的意趣。 本幅为「花卉画册」第六开。 内容简介（英文）： Ch’en Ch’un (style name Tao-fu; sobriquet Pai-yang shan-jen) was a native of Ch’ang-chou, Kiangsu. He was a versatile genius, for all of his Classical studies, classical prose, poetry, and works of calligraphy and paintings were marvelous. He once went to study under Wen Cheng-ming (1470-1559), who only humbly admitted to being Ch’en’s “primary school” teacher and did not dare to consider himself Ch’en’s instructor of painting and calligraphy. Ch’en Ch’un’s flower apintings are often rendered by means of the “sketching ideas” method in monochrome ink. Even though his brushwork is abbreviated, the forms are complete. Previous critics, commenting on Ch’en’s works, have said, “[His paintings of] a flower and half a leaf are done magnificently using light ink. Though extremely sparse and [apparently] chaotic [in brushwork], the forms still have an overwhelming life-likeness.” In this album leaf, the sunflower plant and wisteria were done in monochrome ink with color. The outlined flowers and dotted leaves were entirely executed with calligraphic brushwork. They are so cursively rendered as to appear to have gone beyond the idea of the forms, thus acquiring the very idea of animated naturalness. 内容简介（英文）： Ch’en Ch’un (style name Tao-fu and Fu-fu; sobriquet Po-yang shan-jen) was a native of Ch’ang-chou, Kiangsu. A skilled poet and calligrapher, he was also an accomplished painter. He studied under Wen Cheng-ming (1470-1559) and excelled in creating misty landscapes in the Mi tradition. He often painted in a highly abstract manner, rendering flowers in the “sketching ideas” manner. Ch’en was a talented, innovative artist who was not conservative in his approach to painting. Wang Shih-chen onced commented that, in bird-and-flower painting, Ch’en Ch’un ranks with Shen Chou, Hsü Wei and Chou Chih-mien as one of the Four Great Masters of the Ming dynasty in this genre. Painted on the golden paper of a folding fan mounted as an album leaf is a depiction in monochrome ink of hibiscus blossoms in autumn seeming to jump from the surface. The violet blossoms behind appear to fade into the background to create a layered effect. Although the use of the brush appears sketchy, the artist has managed to capture the essence of these autumn blossoms with a minimum of brush strokes and ink washes. 内容简介（英文）： Chen Chun (style names Daofu and Fufu; sobriquet Baiyang shanren) was a native of Changzhou in Jiangsu. In painting, he studied from the master Wen Zhengming, excelling at landscapes in the “Mi” family style and achieving particular fame in flowers done in the “sketching ideas” manner.This leaf from “Album of Ming Flower Paintings” is done on gold-flecked paper, the composition following the format of the original folding fan. It depicts branches of hibiscus and crape myrtle, one in ink and the other in colors, making for an unusual painting. In the “boneless” wash method for the hibiscus, the artist gave consideration to different angles of the blossoms. Also, the dry brushwork for the leaves reveals them to be broken and split. The crape myrtle blossoms were depicted in magenta with ochre for the petals, the opposing leaves oval in shape and done in cyanine blue with gamboges yellow to give them some color. The rendering of the leaves and blossoms here is succinct yet complete, cursive but not careless, being quite capable of expressing naturalness.(20110102)