Page 223 - Jindezhen Porcelain Production of the 19th C. by Ellen Huang, Univ. San Diego 2008
P. 223

206



                       suggested an understanding buttressed by an expectation of change over time.  Porcelain,

                       in the Tao Ya framework, was not simply relegated to the general category of the ancient


                       past, an idea expressed in the word gu prominently featured in “texts on things” that had

                       gained popularity between the fourteenth and sixteenth centuries in such works as Cao


                                           31
                       Zhao’s Gegu yaolun.   Between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries, collecting objects
                       took place in the context of a broader elite penchant for a high culture wherein the


                                                                            32
                       emphasis was on an aesthetic standard named antiquity.   The movement toward
                       exalting antiquity through artistic production and collection resulted in an increase in the


                       printing of catalogues and manuals about objects such as jades, bronzes, and inkstones.

                       This included the Northern Song catalogue that was commissioned by the early twelfth-


                       century Song emperor, Huizong.  It was called the Xuanhe bogutu (The Xuanhe

                       Illustrated Catalogue of Antiquities).  Another catalogue highlighting ancient objects that

                       attracted attention and reprint efforts in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries was the


                       privately printed Kaogu tu (Illustrated Research on Antiquities).  These two catalogues

                       were compiled in 1120s and 1092 respectively.  They were not concerned so much with


                       outlining a history of progress or decline; rather they were instructional manuals on

                       “taste,” markers of elegance and social status.  Referencing artifacts by using the


                       adjective “antiquity” (gu) indicated a functional use of antiquity as an social marker of

                       difference.  Rather than referring to historical change, gu was a marker of “taste” around

                                                                                                      33
                       which the highly cultured tried to differentiate themselves from the nouveau riche.   A

                       major thrust of the discussion on porcelain was not on locating its place in antiquity but


                       on the changes that had occurred over the three hundred years that spanned the dynastic

                       order of the Qing.
   218   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226   227   228