一件青铜雕塑 - 匾 - 贝宁 - 尼日利亚

08
22
小时
48
分钟
24
开始出价
€ 1
未及保留价
Julien Gauthier
专家
由Julien Gauthier精选

在历史武器、盔甲和非洲艺术方面拥有十年的经验。

估价  € 6,400 - € 7,100
没有出价记录

Catawiki买家保障

在您收到物品之前,您的付款将在我们这里受到安全保管。查看详细信息

Trustpilot 4.4分 | 136095条评论

Trustpilot上被评为优秀。

来自尼日利亚贝宁的青铜牌匾,描绘以中央高阶战领袖为核心的战斗场景,周围有随从与乐器,尺寸高48 cm、宽41 cm、重10.5 kg,品相一般。

AI辅助摘要

卖家的描述

The Benin bronze plaque presents a tightly composed martial scene in which a dominant central figure, likely a high-ranking war leader, has unhorsed his opponent and delivers a decisive sword strike. The fallen figure’s vulnerability is emphasized by his lower position and the forward thrust of the victor’s weapon, suggesting the imminence of death. Surrounding them are smaller attendants, rendered in hierarchical proportion, some bearing weapons, others musical instruments, underscoring the ceremonial as well as violent dimensions of warfare in the Benin Kingdom. The horse, whose head projects beyond the relief plane, heightens the dramatic immediacy and demonstrates a sophisticated manipulation of spatial illusion within the medium of cast brass. Please note that without thermoluminescence test, the attribution and datation are given for reference only, based on our knowledge in the field. The piece remains subject to authentication.

Technically, the plaque stands among the most accomplished examples of Benin relief work. The controlled variation in relief depth, the articulation of regalia, and the integration of figural and animal forms attest to the mastery of court guild casters working under royal patronage. Its preservation, aside from minor dents, allows for an unusually clear reading of surface detail and compositional intent.

Within the corpus accessible through Digital Benin, only a limited number of plaques display comparable narrative intensity and compositional cohesion. The scene foregrounds violence not merely as historical record but as a structuring principle of royal imagery. As Britta Hauser-Schäublin has noted in a widely discussed essay, such works invite reflection on the entanglement of aesthetic achievement and histories of violence, a perspective that resonates uneasily with interpretations of the Benin Expedition of 1897 and subsequent historiographic debates..

In her FAZ article, Brigitta Hauser-Schäublin argues against what she sees as an overly simplified moral interpretation of the Benin Bronzes and their restitution to Nigeria. Her central point is that the bronzes should not be viewed only as victims of European colonial looting, because they were themselves produced within a historical system shaped by warfare, slavery, and court violence in the Kingdom of Benin.

She describes the Kingdom of Benin as a powerful royal state whose wealth depended partly on military expansion and participation in the slave trade. According to her argument, the famous bronze plaques and sculptures were court artworks created to glorify royal authority and political power. For this reason, she claims that “blood sticks to the Benin plaques,” meaning that the objects are historically connected not only to colonial violence but also to earlier forms of violence within the kingdom itself.

A major concern in the article is the question of who actually receives the objects after restitution. Hauser-Schäublin criticizes the idea that the bronzes are simply being “returned to the Nigerian people.” Instead, she argues that many objects may ultimately come under the control of the present Oba of Benin, whose monarchy historically profited from the same systems of warfare and enslavement that produced the court’s wealth.

She also criticizes German cultural politics and the broader restitution debate for becoming highly moralized and symbolic. In her opinion, colonial guilt alone is used as the main framework for discussion, while the complex historical realities of African kingdoms are often ignored. She calls for more detailed provenance research that includes both colonial looting and the internal political and economic structures of the societies where the objects originated.

The article caused strong reactions. Critics accused her of relativizing British colonial violence, especially the violent British expedition against Benin City in 1897, during which thousands of artworks were looted. Others defended her position as an attempt to make the debate more historically nuanced and less politically simplified.

Hauser-Schäublin, Brittain der FAZ erschien am 12. Januar 2022.

In her FAZ article, Brigitta Hauser-Schäublin develops a fundamental critique of Germany’s restitution policy regarding Nigeria and the so-called Benin Bronzes. The starting point of her argument is the observation that the public debate has become heavily moralized, while historical complexity increasingly disappears behind symbolic political gestures. In political and media discourse, the return of the bronzes is often presented as a straightforward act of postcolonial justice. Her article challenges precisely this interpretation.

Hauser-Schäublin describes the historical Kingdom of Benin as a militarized court society whose economic and political power was closely connected to warfare, the taking of captives, and participation in the slave trade. The bronzes themselves are interpreted as representational court art created for a ruling elite that maintained its wealth and sacred authority through systems of violence. When the objects are discussed today exclusively as “looted art,” she argues that one must also consider the historical conditions under which they were originally produced. Her provocative statement that “blood sticks to the Benin plaques” refers to this entanglement of artistic production, political power, and human exploitation.

A central aspect of the article concerns the question of ownership after restitution. Hauser-Schäublin points out that many returned objects may ultimately fall under the influence of the present-day Oba of Benin rather than becoming broadly accessible public heritage. She therefore questions the assumption that restitution automatically represents a democratic return of cultural property to “the Nigerian people.” In her view, restitution can also reinforce existing dynastic or political structures and become part of contemporary identity politics.

The article further criticizes German cultural policy and the moral tone of the restitution debate. According to Hauser-Schäublin, symbolic acts of repentance increasingly replace nuanced historical scholarship. Provenance research, she argues, should not focus exclusively on colonial looting, but must also investigate the internal systems of violence, enslavement, and power that shaped the societies from which these objects originated.

The article provoked strong controversy. Critics accused her of relativizing colonial violence and reproducing argumentative patterns historically associated with colonial justifications. Supporters, however, regarded the text as an attempt to reintroduce historical complexity into a debate that had become politically and morally polarized. The intensity of the reactions demonstrated that the Benin Bronzes today function not only as artworks, but also as symbols within broader struggles over memory, guilt, ownership, and historical responsibility.

Hauser-Schäublin, Brittain der FAZ erschien am 12. Januar 2022

Selected literature

Hauser-Schäublin, Brittain der FAZ erschien am 12. Januar 2022
Hauser-Schäublin, FAZ-Artikel Mai 2023. „An den Benin-Platten klebt Blut“ bezieht,
Paula Girshick Ben-Amos, The Art of Benin
Barbara Plankensteiner (ed.), Benin: Kings and Rituals
Dan Hicks, The Brutish Museums
Kathy Curnow, “Benin Court Style and Iconography”
Digital Benin Project Database
Wolfgang Jaenicke, blog: "History, Restitution, and the Politics of Moral Retrospection"

CA45930

Text created by AI

卖家故事

沃尔夫冈·贾艾尼克的对非洲艺术的投入并非始于田野或市场,而是在一个更安静、更内在的空间——在父亲的文件、书籍与物件之间。关于德国前殖民地的档案并非为了讲出一个单一的故事;它暗示着多种可能。它邀请审视而非崇敬,并让贾艾尼克在早年就明白,物件从来不是沉默的。它们内部携带时间——断裂与延续以同样的形式共存——并请人像对待文本那样去解读它们。 二十多年多来,贾艾尼克一直以收藏家、经销商与中介的身份工作,尽管这些称谓都不能完全概括他的实践形态。曾经较为随意地归在“部落艺术”范畴下的事物,在他看来从未是一个封闭或历史性的类别。它更像是一组活生生的传统,不断在当下进行协商。他的学术训练——民族学、艺术史与比较法——提供了一个语法;语言本身则在别处学得。在马里、喀麦隆、科特迪瓦、布基纳法索、多哥和加纳,知识是通过反复的相遇逐步显现,逐步变成关系,并通过信任在多年里一点点建立起来。 马里成为这段经历的重力中心。2002年至2012年间,贾艾尼克在巴马科和塞古居住并工作,经营着Tribalartforum,一家俯瞰尼日尔河的画廊。这个空间抵抗简单的年表化叙述。雕塑与陶器与摄影共处同一房间,马利克·西德比(Malick Sidibé)的作品——70年代昔日马里的青年形象,充满自信与热情——与更古老的仪式形式并列挂着。其效果并非让人怀旧,而是澄清:过去与现在并不彼此抵消,而是相互锐化。 2012年的战争突然结束了这一阶段,正如战争常常所做的那样。但它并未消解这份工作。与阿吉布·卡马特(Aguibou Kamaté)一起,贾艾尼克在洛美重新集结,离许多物件的来源地更近,也离它们继续行走的路线更近。自2018年以来,柏林成为这张地图上的又一个节点。Wolfgang Jaenicke画廊现设在夏洛滕堡皇宫对面,由一支小型专家团队支撑。其重点,尤其聚焦于西非青铜器与陶土器——这类以土与火为塑造材料,又以记忆形式抵御轻易翻译的材料。 贾艾尼克的实践之所以与众不同,不仅在于它的地理范围,还在于其内部张力。田野工作与来源研究并行;商业活动与责任感被视为不可分割。与博物馆及学术机构的合作中,流通被框定为一种伦理过程,而非单纯的掠取。目标并非将物件从世界中移除并封存起来,而是让它们在世界中保持可读性——在其言语的条件改变之时,仍使它们继续发声。 ------------ Galerie Wolfgang Jaenicke 是一家驻柏林的画廊,专注于西非雕塑、青铜器、陶土器、面具以及当代非洲艺术。由沃尔夫冈·贾艾尼克掌舵,他的工作结合了收藏、经销、来源研究、田野考察与档案文献记录。 据画廊自述,贾艾尼克学习了民族学、艺术史与比较法,在非洲艺术领域从业超过二十五年。他的活动通过在马里、喀麦隆、科特迪瓦、布基纳法索、加纳和多哥等国的长期参与而发展起来。他并非将非洲艺术呈现为一个封闭的历史范畴,而是描述为由活生生的社区和不断变化的历史情境共同塑造的持续文化传统。 他职业生涯的一个特别重要阶段是在马里,约2002年至2012年间在巴马科和塞古居住、工作。在那里他经营Tribalartforum,一家将历史性非洲雕塑与当代非洲摄影结合起来的画廊,包括马利克·西迪贝的作品。2012年马里的政治与军事危机导致这一阶段的活动关闭。 随后,贾艾尼克与阿吉布·卡马特一起继续在洛美、多哥工作,然后在柏林夏洛滕堡宫附近建立画廊。画廊尤为强调西非青铜器、陶土器、与贝宁及伊菲相关作品、诺克(Nok)雕塑、道贡(Dogon)艺术、包雷(Baule)雕塑、塞努福(Senufo)物件以及约鲁巴材料等。 贾艾尼克公共立场的一个独特之处在于他反复强调来源透明度和赔偿辩论。在若干已发表的物件记录中,画廊明确讨论出口文书、联合国教科文组织公约、所有权历史以及与学者和赔偿研究人员的沟通等问题。这些陈述反映了当代关于非洲文化遗产流通、合法性、收藏史及博物馆收购实践的更广泛辩论。 画廊维持着大量线上档案与目录,记录着数百件非洲物件,包括贝宁与伊菲青铜器、诺克陶土、道贡雕塑、包雷人像、丰(Fon)物件、莫巴(Moba)人像及其他西非材料。 对于研究非洲艺术贸易史的学者而言,贾艾尼克代表了比约翰·J·克莱曼等人物更后期的一代经销商。克莱曼属于二战后纽约市场的1950年代至1970年代,而贾艾尼克的工作则受现代议题的影响:田野文档、来源研究、赔偿讨论、数字档案以及与西非网络与艺术家直接接触。 本文本基于人工智能信息
使用Google翻译翻译

The Benin bronze plaque presents a tightly composed martial scene in which a dominant central figure, likely a high-ranking war leader, has unhorsed his opponent and delivers a decisive sword strike. The fallen figure’s vulnerability is emphasized by his lower position and the forward thrust of the victor’s weapon, suggesting the imminence of death. Surrounding them are smaller attendants, rendered in hierarchical proportion, some bearing weapons, others musical instruments, underscoring the ceremonial as well as violent dimensions of warfare in the Benin Kingdom. The horse, whose head projects beyond the relief plane, heightens the dramatic immediacy and demonstrates a sophisticated manipulation of spatial illusion within the medium of cast brass. Please note that without thermoluminescence test, the attribution and datation are given for reference only, based on our knowledge in the field. The piece remains subject to authentication.

Technically, the plaque stands among the most accomplished examples of Benin relief work. The controlled variation in relief depth, the articulation of regalia, and the integration of figural and animal forms attest to the mastery of court guild casters working under royal patronage. Its preservation, aside from minor dents, allows for an unusually clear reading of surface detail and compositional intent.

Within the corpus accessible through Digital Benin, only a limited number of plaques display comparable narrative intensity and compositional cohesion. The scene foregrounds violence not merely as historical record but as a structuring principle of royal imagery. As Britta Hauser-Schäublin has noted in a widely discussed essay, such works invite reflection on the entanglement of aesthetic achievement and histories of violence, a perspective that resonates uneasily with interpretations of the Benin Expedition of 1897 and subsequent historiographic debates..

In her FAZ article, Brigitta Hauser-Schäublin argues against what she sees as an overly simplified moral interpretation of the Benin Bronzes and their restitution to Nigeria. Her central point is that the bronzes should not be viewed only as victims of European colonial looting, because they were themselves produced within a historical system shaped by warfare, slavery, and court violence in the Kingdom of Benin.

She describes the Kingdom of Benin as a powerful royal state whose wealth depended partly on military expansion and participation in the slave trade. According to her argument, the famous bronze plaques and sculptures were court artworks created to glorify royal authority and political power. For this reason, she claims that “blood sticks to the Benin plaques,” meaning that the objects are historically connected not only to colonial violence but also to earlier forms of violence within the kingdom itself.

A major concern in the article is the question of who actually receives the objects after restitution. Hauser-Schäublin criticizes the idea that the bronzes are simply being “returned to the Nigerian people.” Instead, she argues that many objects may ultimately come under the control of the present Oba of Benin, whose monarchy historically profited from the same systems of warfare and enslavement that produced the court’s wealth.

She also criticizes German cultural politics and the broader restitution debate for becoming highly moralized and symbolic. In her opinion, colonial guilt alone is used as the main framework for discussion, while the complex historical realities of African kingdoms are often ignored. She calls for more detailed provenance research that includes both colonial looting and the internal political and economic structures of the societies where the objects originated.

The article caused strong reactions. Critics accused her of relativizing British colonial violence, especially the violent British expedition against Benin City in 1897, during which thousands of artworks were looted. Others defended her position as an attempt to make the debate more historically nuanced and less politically simplified.

Hauser-Schäublin, Brittain der FAZ erschien am 12. Januar 2022.

In her FAZ article, Brigitta Hauser-Schäublin develops a fundamental critique of Germany’s restitution policy regarding Nigeria and the so-called Benin Bronzes. The starting point of her argument is the observation that the public debate has become heavily moralized, while historical complexity increasingly disappears behind symbolic political gestures. In political and media discourse, the return of the bronzes is often presented as a straightforward act of postcolonial justice. Her article challenges precisely this interpretation.

Hauser-Schäublin describes the historical Kingdom of Benin as a militarized court society whose economic and political power was closely connected to warfare, the taking of captives, and participation in the slave trade. The bronzes themselves are interpreted as representational court art created for a ruling elite that maintained its wealth and sacred authority through systems of violence. When the objects are discussed today exclusively as “looted art,” she argues that one must also consider the historical conditions under which they were originally produced. Her provocative statement that “blood sticks to the Benin plaques” refers to this entanglement of artistic production, political power, and human exploitation.

A central aspect of the article concerns the question of ownership after restitution. Hauser-Schäublin points out that many returned objects may ultimately fall under the influence of the present-day Oba of Benin rather than becoming broadly accessible public heritage. She therefore questions the assumption that restitution automatically represents a democratic return of cultural property to “the Nigerian people.” In her view, restitution can also reinforce existing dynastic or political structures and become part of contemporary identity politics.

The article further criticizes German cultural policy and the moral tone of the restitution debate. According to Hauser-Schäublin, symbolic acts of repentance increasingly replace nuanced historical scholarship. Provenance research, she argues, should not focus exclusively on colonial looting, but must also investigate the internal systems of violence, enslavement, and power that shaped the societies from which these objects originated.

The article provoked strong controversy. Critics accused her of relativizing colonial violence and reproducing argumentative patterns historically associated with colonial justifications. Supporters, however, regarded the text as an attempt to reintroduce historical complexity into a debate that had become politically and morally polarized. The intensity of the reactions demonstrated that the Benin Bronzes today function not only as artworks, but also as symbols within broader struggles over memory, guilt, ownership, and historical responsibility.

Hauser-Schäublin, Brittain der FAZ erschien am 12. Januar 2022

Selected literature

Hauser-Schäublin, Brittain der FAZ erschien am 12. Januar 2022
Hauser-Schäublin, FAZ-Artikel Mai 2023. „An den Benin-Platten klebt Blut“ bezieht,
Paula Girshick Ben-Amos, The Art of Benin
Barbara Plankensteiner (ed.), Benin: Kings and Rituals
Dan Hicks, The Brutish Museums
Kathy Curnow, “Benin Court Style and Iconography”
Digital Benin Project Database
Wolfgang Jaenicke, blog: "History, Restitution, and the Politics of Moral Retrospection"

CA45930

Text created by AI

卖家故事

沃尔夫冈·贾艾尼克的对非洲艺术的投入并非始于田野或市场,而是在一个更安静、更内在的空间——在父亲的文件、书籍与物件之间。关于德国前殖民地的档案并非为了讲出一个单一的故事;它暗示着多种可能。它邀请审视而非崇敬,并让贾艾尼克在早年就明白,物件从来不是沉默的。它们内部携带时间——断裂与延续以同样的形式共存——并请人像对待文本那样去解读它们。 二十多年多来,贾艾尼克一直以收藏家、经销商与中介的身份工作,尽管这些称谓都不能完全概括他的实践形态。曾经较为随意地归在“部落艺术”范畴下的事物,在他看来从未是一个封闭或历史性的类别。它更像是一组活生生的传统,不断在当下进行协商。他的学术训练——民族学、艺术史与比较法——提供了一个语法;语言本身则在别处学得。在马里、喀麦隆、科特迪瓦、布基纳法索、多哥和加纳,知识是通过反复的相遇逐步显现,逐步变成关系,并通过信任在多年里一点点建立起来。 马里成为这段经历的重力中心。2002年至2012年间,贾艾尼克在巴马科和塞古居住并工作,经营着Tribalartforum,一家俯瞰尼日尔河的画廊。这个空间抵抗简单的年表化叙述。雕塑与陶器与摄影共处同一房间,马利克·西德比(Malick Sidibé)的作品——70年代昔日马里的青年形象,充满自信与热情——与更古老的仪式形式并列挂着。其效果并非让人怀旧,而是澄清:过去与现在并不彼此抵消,而是相互锐化。 2012年的战争突然结束了这一阶段,正如战争常常所做的那样。但它并未消解这份工作。与阿吉布·卡马特(Aguibou Kamaté)一起,贾艾尼克在洛美重新集结,离许多物件的来源地更近,也离它们继续行走的路线更近。自2018年以来,柏林成为这张地图上的又一个节点。Wolfgang Jaenicke画廊现设在夏洛滕堡皇宫对面,由一支小型专家团队支撑。其重点,尤其聚焦于西非青铜器与陶土器——这类以土与火为塑造材料,又以记忆形式抵御轻易翻译的材料。 贾艾尼克的实践之所以与众不同,不仅在于它的地理范围,还在于其内部张力。田野工作与来源研究并行;商业活动与责任感被视为不可分割。与博物馆及学术机构的合作中,流通被框定为一种伦理过程,而非单纯的掠取。目标并非将物件从世界中移除并封存起来,而是让它们在世界中保持可读性——在其言语的条件改变之时,仍使它们继续发声。 ------------ Galerie Wolfgang Jaenicke 是一家驻柏林的画廊,专注于西非雕塑、青铜器、陶土器、面具以及当代非洲艺术。由沃尔夫冈·贾艾尼克掌舵,他的工作结合了收藏、经销、来源研究、田野考察与档案文献记录。 据画廊自述,贾艾尼克学习了民族学、艺术史与比较法,在非洲艺术领域从业超过二十五年。他的活动通过在马里、喀麦隆、科特迪瓦、布基纳法索、加纳和多哥等国的长期参与而发展起来。他并非将非洲艺术呈现为一个封闭的历史范畴,而是描述为由活生生的社区和不断变化的历史情境共同塑造的持续文化传统。 他职业生涯的一个特别重要阶段是在马里,约2002年至2012年间在巴马科和塞古居住、工作。在那里他经营Tribalartforum,一家将历史性非洲雕塑与当代非洲摄影结合起来的画廊,包括马利克·西迪贝的作品。2012年马里的政治与军事危机导致这一阶段的活动关闭。 随后,贾艾尼克与阿吉布·卡马特一起继续在洛美、多哥工作,然后在柏林夏洛滕堡宫附近建立画廊。画廊尤为强调西非青铜器、陶土器、与贝宁及伊菲相关作品、诺克(Nok)雕塑、道贡(Dogon)艺术、包雷(Baule)雕塑、塞努福(Senufo)物件以及约鲁巴材料等。 贾艾尼克公共立场的一个独特之处在于他反复强调来源透明度和赔偿辩论。在若干已发表的物件记录中,画廊明确讨论出口文书、联合国教科文组织公约、所有权历史以及与学者和赔偿研究人员的沟通等问题。这些陈述反映了当代关于非洲文化遗产流通、合法性、收藏史及博物馆收购实践的更广泛辩论。 画廊维持着大量线上档案与目录,记录着数百件非洲物件,包括贝宁与伊菲青铜器、诺克陶土、道贡雕塑、包雷人像、丰(Fon)物件、莫巴(Moba)人像及其他西非材料。 对于研究非洲艺术贸易史的学者而言,贾艾尼克代表了比约翰·J·克莱曼等人物更后期的一代经销商。克莱曼属于二战后纽约市场的1950年代至1970年代,而贾艾尼克的工作则受现代议题的影响:田野文档、来源研究、赔偿讨论、数字档案以及与西非网络与艺术家直接接触。 本文本基于人工智能信息
使用Google翻译翻译

详细资料

Indigenous object name
Plaque
Ethnic group/ culture
Benin
原产国
尼日利亚
材质
黄铜色
Sold with stand
不是
状态
情况尚佳
艺术品标题
A bronze sculpture
高度
48 cm
宽度
41 cm
重量
10,5 kg
德国经验证
6417
已售出的几件物品
99,48%
protop

Rechtliche Informationen des Verkäufers

Unternehmen:
Jaenicke Njoya GmbH
Repräsentant:
Wolfgang Jaenicke
Adresse:
Jaenicke Njoya GmbH
Klausenerplatz 7
14059 Berlin
GERMANY
Telefonnummer:
+493033951033
Email:
w.jaenicke@jaenicke-njoya.com
USt-IdNr.:
DE241193499

AGB

AGB des Verkäufers. Mit einem Gebot auf dieses Los akzeptieren Sie ebenfalls die AGB des Verkäufers.

Widerrufsbelehrung

  • Frist: 14 Tage sowie gemäß den hier angegebenen Bedingungen
  • Rücksendkosten: Käufer trägt die unmittelbaren Kosten der Rücksendung der Ware
  • Vollständige Widerrufsbelehrung

类似物品

类别为您准备的

非洲及部落艺术