Essay
In 1629, Shen Shichong沈士充 (active ca. 1607–1640), an accomplished Songjiang (in modern-day Shanghai) artist, painted a dated landscape in the hanging scroll format, but his brief inscription provides no text that allows for us to conjecture what he would have titled it. Today the artist remains little known and is overshadowed by the preeminence of Dong Qichang董其昌 (1555–1636). Yet the painting dated 1629 is of exceptional quality, clearly a work invested with patience and time in painting it. Granted, while a first-rate work may not put this artist of “secondary rank”Cahill, James. The Painter’s practice: How artists lived and worked in traditional China. New York: Columbia University Press, 1994, 142. on par with Dong Qichang, this essay attempts to show why this painting deserves special attention, and how historical circumstances shaped the art historical canons which were not defined by quality alone.
About Quality, or Not
What features qualify this Seattle painting as exceptional? Shen guides the viewer to roam in a topographically believable landscape with motifs that subtly provide directions. First, he employs multiple trees to frame the foreground where a scholar meditates in his modestly furnished hut, which appears to be located on an elevated plain, somewhere high in the mountains. Then, he paints the upright tree on the right with stubbly twigs with a slight rightward slant to create visual contrast and compositional balance with the sinuous pine which rises beyond and above the hut, its branches gnarled and needles abundant. The serpentine pine is not only the focus of the mid-ground, but also draws the viewer’s gaze up the mountain. We also see a path where another scholar ascends, reinforcing the upward movement. He appears to be returning to his own hut further up the mountain, perhaps after having visited his friend in the painting’s foreground.
Beyond the second hut, there is no clear path leading to the summit of the mountain in the background. The summit is not an ordinary steep peak, however. Rather than outlining the summit, Shen foreshortens the mountain ranges, showing occasional steep passages as well as uneven slopes that wind toward the rounded summit, which, according to his contemporaries, Lan Ying 藍瑛(1585–1664) and Xie Bin 謝彬 (1602–after 1680), was characteristic of Shen’s landscapes.Lan and Xie note that “Shen’s mountaintops rarely have unexpected forms 山頭少兀突之勢”. See Lan Ying & Xie Bin藍瑛, 謝彬, Tuhui Baojian Xuzuan圖繪寳鑑續纂, 2-15a,b. From Yu Anlan 于安瀾 ed. Huashi Congshu畫史叢書 (Shanghai: Chuban zhe Shanghai renmin meishu chubanshe: Faxing zhe Xinhua shudian Shanghai faxingsuo, 1963), Vol.4.
Furthermore, the compositional nuance is enhanced by his expressive use of ink and brush. For this reason, the main elements in the landscape are not delineated with strong, continuous lines. Rather, forms are built up primarily with short, wet brushstrokes—ranging in tonality from light to dark—which gives texture to the mountain and rock formations. Indeed, the feathery brushwork, which Jiang Shaoshu 姜紹書 (active 17th century), Lan Ying, and Xie Bin describe as “moist and rich” (yanrun 淹潤), is a trademark of Shen’s style.Jiang Shaoshu姜紹書, Wusheng Shishi無聲詩史, 4-69a. From Yu Anlan ed. Huashi Congshu, Vol.4. See also Lan Ying & Xie Bin藍瑛, 謝彬, Tuhui Baojian Xuzuan, 2-15a,b.
What further distinguishes this work is relentless effort to unite individual elements into cohesive wholes in a thoughtful manner. This coherence cannot be assumed to have been Shen’s standard practice. As James Cahill has argued, Shen had a tendency to create “pleasantly untidy jumbles instead of organized structures.” See Cahill, James. The Distant Mountains: Chinese Painting of the Late Ming Dynasty, 1570-1644. New York: Weatherhill, 1982, 82.The dense wet foliage of the trees in the lower right, a form of ink play, contrasts with the sharp needles of the serpentine pine above, and in turn the uniform needles contrast with the purposeful scribbles of the tree bark, which suggest the scales of a serpentine dragon. Through varied ink play and brushwork, Shen clearly balances ink tones across the painted surface, the dark dots on the mountaintop serving not only to represent lush vegetation, but also to preserve the overall balance of light and dark ink.
In short, his thoughtful compositional relationships, balance of forms, and mastery of ink tonalities and multi-layered brushwork make this painting fascinating to read. While this level of complexity and cohesiveness cannot be considered a stylistic trademark, in this landscape Shen clearly attended to every detail. The painting counters the conventional characterization that Shen Shichong was at his best in small pictures and albums.Lan Ying & Xie Bin藍瑛, 謝彬, Tuhui Baojian Xuzuan, 2-15a,b.
Although Shen’s talent was praised by Dong Qichang and his contemporaries, he was not highly esteemed by later generations (both points to be addressed below), probably because his theoretical position of combining the expressive and natural was influenced by Dong’s theories. Also, he was not known to have articulated his individual stylistic choices, thereby seeming to lack a theoretical foundation that later generations could aspire to and emulate. As a result, his achievement in individual artworks—such as the nuanced brushwork, compositional balance and cohesiveness particular to the Seattle scroll—was not considered to have explicitly addressed problems in contemporary paintings that occupied intellectual painters of the time, thereby making him a secondary painter.
The ‘problem’ with late Ming painting
From the late sixteenth century onwards, the dominant Wu school was in decline, as the painters became repetitive, their work stylized. As Fan Yunlin范允臨 (1558–1641) noted, “They do not see any genuine paintings of the ancient masters but always ‘create’ following their own will...they know of Hengshan (Wen Zhengming 文徵明1470–1559), and imitate him in a minimal manner. Achieving superficial resemblance but not his spirit and essence, they claim ‘I learn from Hengshan’不見一古人真跡，而轍師心獨創…… ,惟知有一衡山（文徵明）,少少彷彿,摹擬僅得其形似皮膚,而曾不得其神理。曰:'吾學衡山耳。” Peiwenzhai Shuhua Pu佩文齋書畫譜 , siku quanshu edition (Shanghai renmin chbanshe, Dizhi wenhua chubanshe, 1999). Juan 16, Translation is partly from Tung Ch’i-ch’ang International Symposium, Wai-Ching Ho, Wai-kam Ho, and Hin-cheung Lovell. Proceedings of the Tung Ch’i-ch’ang International Symposium. Kansas City, Mo: Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art. 1991, 3-6.
Such stylizations had eroded the vitality and strength manifested in the works of the early Wu masters, thereby prompting a group of late Ming painters in Songjiang to address the weaknesses and limits of the Wu school. The Songjiang school, as they came to be known, included Gu Zhengyi 顧正誼 (?-after 1597), Song Xu 宋旭 (1525–after 1606), Dong Qichang, Zhao Zuo 趙左 (ca. 1550–1636/1637), Song Maojin 宋懋晉 (ca. 1556–1622), and Shen Shichong. While they had close contact, their goals, achievements, background, and influence was varied. A brief discussion of their challenges and solutions, as well as Dong Qichang’s emergence as the doyen of the Songjiang school, provides a context for understanding how Shen was categorized as part of that trend.
Solutions to the ‘problem’: from naturalism to expressive use of brush and ink
A solution that the early Songjiang painters used to correct the weaknesses of the Wu school was to reintroduce the depiction of scenery presented in a naturalistic manner, a practice based on the Song painters’ method of representing nature through accurate observation. For example, Song Xu of Jiaxing had travelled to many scenic places, including Huangshan (Yellow Mountain), Yandang, Wangchuan, and Zhejiang. Paintings inspired by visits to these places include Album of Zhejiang Landscapes (Zhejing Shanshui tuce 浙景山水圖冊), Shanghai Museum, which consists of twenty views of Zhejiang; Falls in Kuanglu (Kuanglu pubu tuzhou 匡廬瀑布圖軸), Palace Museum, Beijing;Jin Yuan金瑗, Shibaizhai Shuhua Lu十百齋書畫錄(Shanghai shuha chubanshe, 1994) Juan Xin, p.588-589. Landscape of Xin’an (Xin’an shanshui tu 新安山水圖), and Eleven Views of Famous Mountains (Mingshan shiyi jing 名山十一景), murals of the Fahua Temple.Zhejiang Tongzhi浙江通志, Juan 229, Siku quanshu四庫全書 edition. While Song’s disciple Song Maojin also followed his approach to correct the weak brushwork of late Wu painters through incorporating natural scenery, Song Xu was not considered a successful trend-setter. Even during his lifetime, ironic and disparaging comments such as “painting historian 畫史,” Qia Meng’s喬孟1576 inscription on Song Xu’s 宋旭 Landscape of Xin’an《新安山水圖卷》，from Jin Yuan, Shibaizhai Shuhua Lu. “distinguished by technical skills每以工力擅場,”Shi Zhai石齋’s 1579 inscription on Sun Kehong’s Painting of Spring Flower《春花圖卷》，preserved in Shanghai Museum. Zhongguo gudai shuhua jiandingzu中國古代書畫鑒定組 ed. Zhongguo Gudai Shuhua Tumu中國古代書畫圖目. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe: Xinhua shudian Beijing faxingsuo faxing, [198-?]-. Vol. 3, 195. and “famous hand名手” were known.Cheng Zhengkui程正揆’s 1666 inscription on Song Xu’s 宋旭Landscape of Xin’an《新安山水图卷》，see Jin Yuan, Shibaizhai Shuhua Lu. For more information on Song Xu’s impact, see Yoko Woodson, “The Sung-chiang (Yün-chien) Painters, I: Sung Hsü and His Followers,” in The Restless Landscape:Chinese Painting of the Late Ming Period, edited by James Cahill (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971), pp. 75-89.
In addition to Song Xu, Lu Shusheng陸樹聲 (1509–1605), Mo Ruzhong莫如忠 (1509–1589), and Mo Shilong莫是龍 (1537–1587) had similar intentions to revitalize Chinese painting. They established the Shanshan Poetry Society芟山詩社 to discuss art and literature and largely influenced Dong Qichang’s approach to art. In 1579, Dong at the age of 25 accompanied Mo Shilong to see Mo Ruzhong painting Landscape for Song Xu (Wei Song Xu zuo Shanshui tu ce 為宋旭作山水圖冊).Dong Qichang董其昌, Huachanshi Suibi畫禪室隨筆 (Taipei: Xinwenfeng chuban gongsi, 1982), Juan 2. On September 18, 1583, Dong accompanied Song Xu, Mo Ruzhong and Mo Shilong in traveling on the Mao River in Jiangsu, reciting poetry and painting along the way.Zhang Lian張連 & Zheng Wei鄭威, “Mo Shilong Nianpu”莫是龍年譜, Duo Yun朵云 (Shanghai shuhua chubanshe, 1990), Vol. 26, p93. In these formative years, Dong Qichang was fascinated by Song landscapes and Yuan brushwork, ambitiously hoping to surpass the ancient masters. In 1587, Dong realized the crux of the problem:
“I had wanted to paint a mountain and valley in which the reader can roam. In the past in Pinghu I composed several dozen pictures, calling them Home of the Mind. I often examine them, and cannot relinquish any one view, thereby knowing that famous sceneries in nature cannot be fully illuminated or obtained [in the painting]. It cannot be divided thousand-fold, because the intention [of the painter] is limited by the Creator
余嘗欲畫一丘一壑，可置身其間者。往歲平湖作數十幀，題之曰：意中家。時檢之，欲棄去一景俱不可，乃知方內名勝，其不能盡釋，又不能盡得，自非分作千百身，意為造物者所限耳.”Dong Qichang董其昌, Huachanshi Suibi畫禪室隨筆 (Taipei: Xinwenfeng chuban gongsi, 1982), Juan 4.
Dong’s realization—“famous sceneries in nature cannot be fully illuminated or obtained,” “the intention [of the painter] is limited by the Creator,”—may also explain why Song Xu failed to surpass the ancients. The limits of painting raised a fundamental and prevalent question about the relationship between nature and painting: “When people see beautiful sceneries, they say it is painterly; when they see beautiful painting, they say it is naturalistic 人見佳山水，輒曰如畫；見善丹青，輒曰逼真.”Wang Jian王鑒, Ranxiang’an Huaba染香庵畫跋, from Shen Zicheng沈子丞 ed., Lidai Lunhua Mingzhu Huibian歷代論畫名著匯編(Wenwu chubanshe, 1982). Which is better: “naturalistic” or “painterly”? The conflicting positions reveal the ambivalence of literati painters in endorsing naturalism and expressionism in their brushwork. To address this theoretical issue, Dong Qichang formulated his profound Treatise on Brush and Ink: “From the standpoint of splendid scenery, painting cannot equal (real) landscape; but from the standpoint of the sheer marvels of brush and ink, (real) landscape is not at all the equal of painting 以蹊徑之奇怪論，則畫不如山水；以筆墨之精妙論，則山水決不如畫.”Dong Qichang, Huachanshi Suibi, Juan 4. Translation cited from Wai-kam Ho & Judith G. Smith, ed. The Century of Tung Ch'i-ch'ang: 1555-1636. Vol.1. Kansas City, Mo.: Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art; Seattle: University of Washington Press, c1992, p35.
To consider brushwork as an abstract visual language that could be appreciated on its own terms—such that it is no longer subservient to the representation of natural scenery—signified a new stage of literati painting under the direction of Dong Qichang. Therefore, expressing the temperament and personality of the painter through the use of abstract brushwork can be understood as another manifestation of the literati’s spirit. As such, the “personality of the brush (bixing) 筆性” expounded Dong’s “Theory of the Northern and Southern Schools.” Dong’s articulation of “brush and ink treatise” and “brush personality” opened up new possibilities for literati painting, while establishing his reputation for synthesizing various schools and transitioning past masters and current practitioners. Subsequently, most painters in the next three centuries—including the Four Monks, the Six Orthodox Masters of the Qing, and the Jinling school painters—were under his influence.The influence and achievements of Dong Qichang is beyond the scope of this paper. For more information, please see Wai-kam Ho & Judith G. Smith, ed. The Century of Tung Ch'i-ch'ang: 1555-1636. Kansas City and Seattle: Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art and University of Washington Press, c1992.
In line with Dong Qichang: pros and cons
Dong Qichang’s theoretical solution and practical achievements not only won him a large group of followers, but also solidified his position in the Songjiang region. His exact contemporaries, such as Song Maojin and Zhao Zuo, also showed similar thinking and painting. For example, Song Maojin’s Album of landscapes, trees and rocks after the ancient masters (Fanggu Shanshui shushi ce) 仿古山水樹石冊, includes the inscription that clearly endorses Dong’s models:
“Literati learning to paint should learn from those who paint untrammeled works. Wang Zai 王宰 (active ca. 785–805) of the Tang period or Ma Yuan 馬遠 (active around 1189–1224) and Xia Gui 夏圭 (active ca. 1189–1224) of the Southern Song are not worthwhile文人學畫，須以逸家為宗，如唐之王宰，或南宋之馬（馬遠）、夏（夏珪），不足觀也...”Christie’s (Hong Kong): Fine Classical Chinese Paintings and Calligraphy. October 27, 2002 (sale number 2122), lot 451.
Similarly, the inscription on Song Maojin's Album of trees after various masters (Mo zhujia shupu juan) 摹诸家树谱卷, dated 1616, notes:
“From Tang to Yuan, there were no fewer than several hundred painters, but those who became models for others only numbered twenty to thirty. I have emulated twenty masters, such as Bi Hong 畢宏 (active ca.742–756), Zhang Zao 張璪 (active during the Tang) and other xieyi寫意 (write ideas) painters of the Yuan. Perhaps I could resemble [the spirit of] their works, but if I were to imitate Boshi (Li Gonglin 李公麟 1049–1106), the two Lis (Li Sixun 李思訓, 653–718; Li Zhaodao 李昭道, 713–741), and the two Zhaos (Zhao Boju 趙伯駒 active around 1127–1130; Zhao Bosu 趙伯骕, 1124–1182), then I cannot match one ten- thousandth. Yet academic paintings are second class, for they require detail painting and layers of washes. Even coloring a tree can last from dawn till dusk. It is not something to be imitated by sketchy brushwork. [But] if you imitate it tenaciously, then it is actually easier than the xieyi works of Bi Hong and Zhang Cao. Therefore, when the literati learn to paint, they should model after the untrammeled works.”Shiqu Baoji石渠寶笈, Siku quanshu edition, Juan 34
自唐至元，無慮數百人，而成家為人師法者，不過二三十家而已。余摹得二十家，如畢宏、張璪及元人之寫意者，或可仿佛其一二，若伯時與二李、二趙輩，不能得其萬一。蓋院體次等，俱入細落墨，數次烘染，設色一樹，便可竟日，豈草草之筆所可臨摹，若能以死功臨之，則反易於畢宏、張璪之寫意者。以故文人學畫，須以逸品為宗。
The close parallel between Song Maojin’s thought and Dong Qichang’s “Treatise on the Southern and Northern Schools” demonstrates Song’s shift into Dong’s orbit. In the case of Zhao Zuo, Dong’s influence is even more apparent in paintings from 1604 onwards, and Zhao probably spent considerable time in his late years (1620-37) ghost-painting for Dong.Examples of Zhao’s paintings in Dong’s style include Qishan gaoyin tujuan《溪山高隱圖卷》dated 1609 (Chingyuanzhai collection), Huashan tuzhou 《華山圖軸》dated 1611 (Liaoning Provincial Museum), Gaoshan liushui tuzhou《高山流水圖軸》dated 1611 (Shanghai Museum), Qiushan hongshu tuzhou 《秋山紅樹圖軸》dated 1611 (National Palace Museum), Yan’ai hengkan tujuan《煙靄橫看圖卷》dated 1612 (Liaoning Provincial Museum), Shanshui tujuan《山水圖卷》dated 1616 (Hong Kong Museum of Art), Shanshui tujuan《山水圖卷》dated 1618 (Hong Kong Museum of Art), and Fang Dachi qiushan wujin tujuan《仿大癡秋山無盡圖卷》dated 1619 (Shanghai Museum).
As a student of Song Maojin and Zhao Zuo and a younger contemporary of Dong, Shen Shichong was also subject to Dong’s dominance. Shen’s extant works largely date from 1605-33, a period when Dong’s theories gained currency. Indeed, the earliest extant painting by Shen, Dwelling in the Mountain (Shanju tu 山居图) (fig. 1), dated 1605, Shanghai Museum, clearly reflects the influence of Dong Qichang in its expressive, calligraphic brushwork.Zhongguo gudai shuhua jiandingzu ed. Zhongguo Gudai Shuhua Tumu. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe: Xinhua shudian Beijing faxingsuo faxing, [198-?] Vol. 3, 329. Even the models that Shen aspired to—Li Cheng 李成 (919–967?), Fan Kuan范寬 (active ca. 11th century), Zhao Lingrang趙令穰 (active ca. 1067–1100), Mi Youren 米友仁 (108–1165), Huang Gongwang 黃公望 (1269–1354), Zhao Mengfu 趙孟頫 (1254–1322), Ni Zan 倪瓚 (1301–1374) were endorsed by Dong, as indicated in Shen’s 1610 Painting after Fourteen Masters of the Song and Yuan period (Fang Song Yuan shisi jia biyi tujuan 仿宋元十四家笔意图卷).The album is housed in the Palace Museum. For a reproduction, see Qi Gong et al, Zhongguo huihua quanji, vol. 16. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2006, pp. 196-201. Dong was quite proud that Shen Shichong paid him homage, as his colophon on Shen’s Ten Thousand Li of the Yangtze River (Changjiang wanli tu 長江萬里圖), dated 1628, Shanghai Museum, demonstrates:
“Painting in my Songjiang region, since the overturned dynasty (Yuan), there were Cao Yunxi (Cao Zhibai 曹知白 1272–1355), Zhang Zizheng (Zhang Zhong 張中, active around 1335–1368), and Zhu Shouzhi朱壽之. There were no successors thereafter. In recent years, we have reset our vision, and without the bad habits of the Suzhou school, we can paint in the style of Dong Yuan 董源 (?-962) and Juran 巨然 (active ca. 10th century). Gradually there were a few famous painters: Zhao Wendu (Zhao Zuo, active ca. 1573–1644) and Shen Ziju (Shen Shichong, active around 1607–1640) were the pivotal figures.”Zhongguo gudai shuhua jiandingzu ed. Zhongguo Gudai Shuhua Tumu. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe: Xinhua shudian Beijing faxingsuo faxing, [198-?] vol. 3, 332. .
吾松畫道，自勝國時，須溪曹雲西及張子正、朱壽之，之後無復嗣響。邇年眼目一正，不落吳門習氣，則自予拈出董、巨，遂有數家，趙文度、沈子居為巨擘。
This praise of Zhao Zuo and Shen Shichong is based on the premise that they were successors of his (Dong’s) Songjiang school, implying that they were his followers.Repeated praises by Dong on multiple works by Shen suggest their genuine appreciation of his works, not rhetorical praise on an anecdotal occasion. Shen’s early work Taoyuan tu 桃源圖 (Peach Blossom Spring), dated 1610, Palace Museum, Beijing, bears colophons from Dong Qichang and Chen Jiru (1558-1639) who lavishly praise Shen for having surpassed Zhao Boju (1120?-1182?). The colophons are transcribed in Kao, Mayching, ed. Paintings of the Ming Dynasty from the Palace Museum. Hong Kong: Chinese University of Hong Kong, 1988, p. 200. They are also translated in Wai-kam Ho & Judith G. Smith, ed.. The Century of Tung Ch'i-ch'ang: 1555-1636. Vol. 2, 101-102. Therefore, Dong acknowledged Shen’s achievement to validate his influence.
Given the uneven balance of power between the two men, Shen was likely to have relied on Dong’s approval, connections and commissions. Conventional accounts of Shen have not been flattering, because he was primarily recognized in Chinese art history as a ghost painter for Dong Qichang.In an often quoted letter discovered by Wu Xiu 吳修 (1765-1827), painter Chen Jiru made a request of Shen: “My old friend, I am sending you a piece of white paper together with a brush-fee of three-tenths of a tael of silver. May I trouble you to paint a large-size landscape? I need it by tomorrow. Don’t sign it—I will get Dong Qichang to put his name on it.” James Cahill has doubted the authenticity of the letter, which was discovered by Wu Xiu and no longer in existence. However, many scholars have noted the similarity between Shen and Dong’s works, which corroborate Wu’s case. For more information, see Cahill 1994, 166, fn. 84. See also Xie Zhiliu謝稚柳, “Tan Dong Qichang zhi daipi談董其昌的代筆,” Duoyun, no. 23 (April 1989), pp. 117-118, and; Fong, Wen. “The Problem of Forgeries in Chinese painting,” Artibus Asiae 25 (1962), p 101. The Pavilion Amidst Pines (Yi Song Ge Tu 倚松閣圖) (fig. 2), which has Dong’s signature and is in the Tianjin Antiquities Company, has long been understood to be a ghost-painting by Shen for Dong.The image is published in Zhongguo gudai shuhua jiandingzu ed. Zhongguo Gudai Shuhua Tumu. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe: Xinhua shudian Beijing faxingsuo faxing, [198-?], vol. 8, 58. Shen’s reliance on Dong conveniently renders their stylistic differences in qualitative terms, e.g. Shen’s brushwork was “looser” than Dong’s (according to some modern critics), to prove the superiority of Dong. It has also been argued that Shen’s works were inward and reflective in nature, with little resonance at a time when the Ming regime was on the brink of collapse from the Manchu invasion.Cahill, James. The Compelling Image: Nature and Style in Seventeenth-Century Chinese Painting. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1982, 184. The opposition between relying on Dong and establishing oneself with a distinctive artistic personality may indeed be the enigma of being a Songjiang artist.
Marginalized styles and issues
The foregoing discussion of Dong’s theories and their impact on his contemporaries does not intend to deny the richness of styles and opinions in the early seventeenth century. Rather, we hope to show that for an artist to be recognized, his art needed to be discussed in terms of the fashionable theory at that time, and that meant certain features or propensities were prioritized, others marginalized. In the case of the 1629 landscape by Shen Shichong, the achievements of the painting outlined at the beginning of the essay were not considered solutions to the problem of late Ming painting, as Dong Qichang saw it. This historical prejudice not only pigeon-holed Shen as a subordinate to Dong, but masked our understanding of an otherwise intriguing painter.
There are many questions regarding Shen Shichong’s biography and art that will not be covered in this essay. One main question that relates to the Seattle painting is its purpose. Why did Shen paint it, and for whom? A clue to that enigma lies in the depiction of the hut and the seated scholar. Cheng-hua Wang has observed that Shen often mentioned his studio—Red Banana Hall 紅蕉舘—in his paintings, and that a landscape dated 1631 shows a banana tree near a scholar studio, which can be convincingly attributed to Shen.Cheng-hua Wang’s entry is included in Barnhart, Richard. The Jade Studio: Masterpieces of Ming and Qing Painting and Calligraphy from the Wong Nan-p’ing Collection. New Haven: Yale University Art Gallery, 1994, cat. 27, p. 125. Without this trademark in the Seattle painting, the figure is unlikely to have been his self portrait. It is more probable that Shen intended the painting for another person, a friend or patron. In the absence of a dedicatory inscription, the likelihood of the Seattle painting as a gift or commission is established by the Changjiang Wanli tu mentioned above. Done one year before the Seattle scroll, the Changjiang Wanli tu took five years to complete (based on the colophon by Wang Guangcheng 王光承 (1606–1677), and it was a gift to Shen’s student Jiang Ai 蔣藹 (active ca. 1621-44), according to the colophon by Dong Qichang. Shen did not provide a dedicatory inscription on the painting, nor did Jiang add a colophon or seal.
Wang Guangcheng revealed that Jiang was upset for having lost the painting in the turmoil of 1646 and was rapt with joy when he repossessed it in 1662. In light of Jiang’s enthusiasm for the painting, the absence of his seal and colophon must have been deliberate—probably out of respect to his teacher he did not wish to cover the painting with his own marks. Such “respect” for the painting and/or painter can also be seen in contemporary famous works, such as Dong Qichang’s Qingbian Mountain (Qingbian tu 青卞圖) (fig. 3), dated 1617, Cleveland Museum of Art. On another landscape in the hanging scroll format by Shen Shichong dated 1628, Palace Museum, Beijing, colophons by Chen Jiru 陳繼儒 (1558–1639) were written on the mounting rather than the painting (fig. 4).Zhongguo Gudai shuhua jiandingzu bian. Zhongguo gudai shuhua tumu. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 198-?, vol. 21, no. 1-2396. As such, the absence of verbal information on the Seattle scroll cannot be an indication of its lack of significance at the time of its creation.
Another question concerns the social status of Shen Shichong. Shen’s economy of words pervades the Seattle scroll, which lacks dedicatory inscription, colophons, and an identifiable collector’s seal. Such conspicuous absence is common in his works. In general, Shen’s inscriptions are extremely brief, consisting primarily of his name, date of the painting, and occasionally his source of inspiration (i.e. done in the manner of whomever) and dedication. Only one work—a landscape in the Palace Museum, Beijing—bears a poem by Shen; another painting has a couplet.The landscape is published Zhongguo gudai shuhua jiandingzu ed. Zhongguo Gudai Shuhua Tumu. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe: Xinhua shudian Beijing faxingsuo faxing, [198-?] Vol. 21, 170 and the fan painting in Vol. 21, 173. Whether the paucity of his literary output is indicative of his literary ineptitude (and hence low social status) is subject to debate. While it is not impossible that Shen was a professional painter with little scholastic training, it can also be argued that he had deliberately resisted writing copiously on his paintings in honor of his role models in the Song period, when inscribing poetry on paintings was not the norm.Shen Zhou was largely credited for popularizing this practice in painting. See Richard Barnhart’s essay on Shen Zhou’s Solitary Angler on an Autumn River in this catalogue. Well known for emulating Song and Yuan masters, Shen’s economy of words may have been inspired by them. This possibility is corroborated by the fact that Shen always signed his name in standard script, a common practice of Song masters.In addition to regular script, Shen occasionally wrote the title of the painting in seal script, which was consistent with a trend in the seventeenth-century to create “strange/marvelous (qi) 奇” artistic forms. For more information on this trend, see Qianshen Bai, Fu Shan’s World: The Transformation of Chinese Calligraphy in the Seventeenth Century (Cambridge and London: Harvard University Asia Center, 2003), pp. 10-20. On Song signatures, see Wang Yao-ting’s essay on Li Anzhong’s The Hawk and the Pheasant in this catalogue.
In sum, Shen Shichong represents an insight in Chinese art historiography that has largely been a history of artists rather than works of art. This analysis of the 1629 landscape reveals some clues about the artist and his times beyond the common understanding of his subsidiary role to Dong Qichang. More detailed analyses on individual works by Shen and his contemporaries will no doubt yield more information on this elusive artist.
© 2013 by the Seattle Art Museum
Questions for thought
overview
Shen Shichong沈士充
Quick Facts about the Artist
inscriptions and seals
essay
In 1629, Shen Shichong 沈士充 (active ca. 1607–1640), an accomplished Songjiang (in modern-day Shanghai) artist, painted a dated landscape in the hanging scroll format, but his brief inscription provides no text that allows for us to conjecture what he would have titled it. Today the artist remains little known and is overshadowed by the preeminence of Dong Qichang 董其昌 (1555–1636).
