Lot 80

Lot 80
Treasury 2, no. 264
HK$114,000

The Prosperous Household Chalcedony

Dendritic chalcedony; very well hollowed with a flat lip and recessed flat foot surrounded by a protruding convex footrim
Official school, 1740–1850
Height: 6 cm
Mouth/lip: 0.64/1.80 and 1.72 cm (oval)
Stopper: tourmaline; vinyl collar

Lot 80 Provenance:
Hugh Moss
Belfort Collection (1986)

Published:
Snuff Bottles of the Ch’ing Dynasty, p. 112, fig. 198
Jutheau 1980, p. 101, fig. 3
Kleiner 1987, no. 157
Galleries Lafayette 1990, p. 10, fig. 2
Kleine Schätze aus China, p. 7
JICSBS, Summer 1995, p. 8, fig. 3
Treasury 2, no. 264

Exhibited:
Hugh M. Moss Ltd., London, September 1974
Hong Kong Museum of Art, October–December 1978
L’Arcade Chaumet, Paris, June 1982
Sydney L. Moss Ltd, London, October 1987
Galeries Lafayette, Paris, April 1990
Creditanstalt, Vienna, May–June 1993

Lot 80 Commentary
The appeal of this piece of material is obvious with its single plane of delightful natural markings, well varied in colour and intensely evocative. This use of the material is reminiscent of a large group of nephrite bottles which have similar flattened sides to accommodate the reddish-brown skin of pebble material (see Treasury 1, no. 9, for instance), but in each case it is the material that dictates form and there need be no other link. The side view demonstrates how very thin the layer with the exciting, dendritic markings is. This is quite common for this type of material where the natural brown markings resemble ferns dried and pressed between the pages of a book. This material is also known in the West as mocha-stone, and might even be called moss-agate, although in the snuff-bottle world this is a term usually reserved for the green, blue or occasionally yellowish variety where the dendritic markings are much more widely and even spread and permeating the entire piece of stone (see, for instance, Treasury 2, nos. 199 and 220).

The natural design can be read as aquatic plants, as it was in the 1978 Hong Kong Museum catalogue. There is, however, a useful lesson in aesthetics to be gained from the different possible interpretations of these markings. When this bottle was in the private collection of Hugh Moss it was seen as water-weed, hence his designation in the catalogue for the Hong Kong Museum of Art exhibition. It was only later that a gradually deepening awareness of symbolism and its importance in Chinese art suggested that it be read as fan-tailed goldfish and, possibly, the auspicious number of nine of them. Whether there are nine or not is entirely up to the individual and depends upon the distinction between fish and waterweeds but however many there are, the same markings become much more exciting as subject matter as fish and weeds rather than just weeds. They also assume a wealth of symbolic meaning associated with these goldfish, which adds to the psychological appeal of the bottle.

Apart from the symbolism of carp in general, of which the fan-tailed goldfish is one variety, goldfish in a pond (for which a tank or large bowl will stand) provides the rebus jinyu mantang, ‘May you have a prosperous household.’ Their general association with prosperity among the Chinese made the bowl or, more recently, tank of fish commonplace in homes and commercial premises. Nine such fish would add the symbolism of the most auspicious number, being the square of the number three which represents the male.

The physical work of art has not changed at all between the interpretation of it just as waterweeds and its re-interpretation as nine fish among waterweeds, and yet the meaning of the work of art has been considerably enhanced, not only by the more dynamic subject matter perceived, but by its additional symbolism. It emphasizes again the important role of the audience in aesthetics, particularly in approaching a culture where the distinction between artist and audience was only a relatively low-level definition and, what is more, where a fundamental role of art was to break down any such distinction.

As if often the case with bottles which might be associated with the Official school, while one side is spectacular, the other is just the back with nothing exciting going on visually. With bottles of this sort there can be no doubt about which side is the front.

The material has dictated slight irregularities across the flat, main face of the bottle which have led to a lack of formal integrity where the flat face meets the rest of the body of the bottle, so that the neck does not appear to be entirely central while, in fact, it is. The artist, perhaps realizing that the result of these material constrictions might lead his audience to assume that he could not master formal integrity, seems to have gone out of his way with the hollowing, detailing of the foot and polishing, all of which are excellent.

For a related material, also with an entirely natural design, see Treasury 2, no. 269 and, in the J & J Collection, the two famous examples nos. 117 and 118 (Moss, Graham, and Tsang 1993). In the same collection, no. 131 is of similar material, but with additional carved detail. This bottle also qualifies as an ink-play agate (see discussion under Treasury 2, no. 274), as do most chalcedony bottles with natural markings.