Page 81 - A Re-examination of Late Qing Dynasty Porcelain, 1850-1920 THESIS

reveal Cixi’s innermost thoughts. In this instance, the symbols emphasize her connection

to the imperial court along with her desire for an eternal rule.

79
The second spring pattern in the dayazhai features a yellow ground (Figure 16).
Once again, a floral motif emphasizes spring, with flowering peonies surrounded by

small insects. Imagery is created using white enamel and a grisaille style. The grisaille

technique allows for a striking similarity to traditional Chinese ink painting, drawing a

direct comparison between the fields of painting and porcelain. The peony, known as

mudan 牡丹, is thought to be the king of flowers. The flower is considered to be elegant

and beautiful. Another term for the flower, fugui hua 富貴花, means “flower of wealth

80
and rank.” Overall, the peony suggests notions of love and feminine beauty. The
auspicious connotations of the peony make it a popular motif within porcelain, and

81
origins within the field of ceramics can be traced back to the Tang dynasty. The
iconography associated with this flower made the peony an obvious choice for Cixi,

because it united her patronage of painting with her achievements within the court.

Progressing to the next seasonal motif, Cixi designed a summer-themed porcelain.

The porcelain is a bright white and is painted with images of lotus flowers surrounded by

leaves (Figure 17). The flowers are composed in a famille rose color palette, which

indicates the continued influence of this earliler Qing style into late dynastic porcelain.

The heron (lu 鷺) within the design is traditionally considered a symbol of longevity.

79 Suzanne G Valenstein, A Handbook of Chinese Ceramics (New York: The Metropolitan
Museum of Art, 1975), 283.
80 Eva Ströber, Symbols on Chinese Porcelain: 10,000 Times Happiness (Keramiekmuseum
Princessehof: Arnodsche Art Publishers, 2011), 110.
81 Stacey Pierson, Designs as Signs: Decoration and Chinese Ceramics (London: School of
Oriental and African Studies University of London, 2001), 29.

42