Page 249 - Jindezhen Porcelain Production of the 19th C. by Ellen Huang, Univ. San Diego 2008

232

28
In the Tao Ya text, Chen Liu relies on the authority of this book Mirror to the World’s
Porcelain in order to discuss Kangxi period porcelain pieces (Tao Ya, juan shang, 14),
pieces that have a Qianlong period mark (Tao Ya, juan shang,14), and marks with Latin
characters inscribed (Tao Ya, juan shang, 14). Throughout the text there are seven
separate references to this book that covers world porcelain. Chen Liu often uses the
phrase: “For details, see Mirror to the World’s Porcelain ༉Ԉ˰ޢନᛠ.” I have yet to
identify the book, the actual title, locations, and author, including its actual non-Chinese
title, author, and publication date.

29 Tao Ya, Original First Preface.

30
Tao Ya, Original First Preface.

31 Craig Clunas, Superfluous Things: Material Culture and Social Status in Early Modern
China (London: Basil Blackwell, 1991).

32 National Palace Museum, Gu se̚Ѝ: Through the Prism of the Past: Antiquarian
th
th
Trends in Chinese Art of the 16 to 18 Century (Taipei: National Palace Museum, 2003).
James C. Watt, “the Literati Environment,” in The Chinese Scholar’s Studio: Artistic Life
in the Late Ming-Period – An Exhibition from the Shanghai Museum (New York: Thames
and Hudson, 1987), 1-13.

33
Craig Clunas, “Luxury Knowledge,” Techniques et culture 29 (Jan-June 1997): 27-40.
Taste is the descriptor Clunas uses to summarize the basic thrust of these object manuals,
including catalogues and technical manuals; R. H. van Gulik, Chinese Pictorial Art As
Viewed by the Connoisseur (1958), 51. Van Gulik’s technical study of art appreciation
also identifies a tradition of literary works aimed at defining the refined lifestyle, all of
which begun in earnest in the Song dynasty.

34 Tao Ya, juan shang, 29.

35 Ibid, 29: ɧ٫ଭၚ

36 Tao Ya, juan shang, 16: ନሯϞᆉ€إᆉɰߣှ€ͩ४ɰߣʘй.

37
Lydia Liu, “Robinson Crusoe's Earthenware Pot,” Critical Inquiry, 25:4 (Summer,
1999): 728-757. Liu also notes that tao and ci were not significant categories of analysis
for porcelain and ceramics in Chinese language texts but finds that Lin Shu, at the turn of
the twentieth century in 1904 and 1906 purposefully rendered tao as ci. See Needham
and Kerr, Ceramic Technology (2004), 11, though Needham and Kerr argue that ci and
tao were distinguished by Chinese authors. This is an anachronistic reading of the text
that does not analyze the meaning of the text beyond the terms.