Page 42 - Jindezhen Porcelain Production of the 19th C. by Ellen Huang, Univ. San Diego 2008
P. 42
25
As described in an introductory article written by exhibition director Sir Percival
David, Chinese art was guided by an internal attribute of the Chinese and by an “inner
42
consciousness of powers and presences mightier than ourselves.” In his article, David
commented on various pieces of art such as a “Shang-Yin” bronze, a few scrolls of
painting and calligraphy, and clay vessels from Gansu Province. Relying on ideas about
a timeless cultural spirit, the article reinforced the role of the art objects as
representations of the “genius of China.” Often this genius or spirit was referred to as
spiritual significance, an invention, ideals of its age, or some technique, such as paper
making. These artistic attributes were all understood as embodying some underlying
“Chinese spirit.”
R. L. Hobson, a well-published researcher of porcelain, demonstrated a similar
understanding of art and aesthetics. For him, the artwork on display expresses or “gives
insight” into the “mind and character of one of the great races of the world.” Hobson
drew attention to the meaning behind these artworks as the “import of the Exhibition as a
whole.” His assessment of the exhibition clearly shows a conceptual contrast
undergirding his explication of the exhibition and displays of art objects. For him, the art
objects were not simply objects of aesthetic pleasure, but the representation of something
43
more meaningful: “the genius of the Chinese race.” Such ideas about the nature of art
objects, and the deeper meaning embedded within them regarding “China,” reflected
Orientalist frameworks of knowledge that included the erasure of history, reliance on
essentialist notions of culture, and a modern epistemological bifurcation between object
44
and meanings represented therein. While London gallery placements reflected a
