Page 54 - Jindezhen Porcelain Production of the 19th C. by Ellen Huang, Univ. San Diego 2008

37

property; Zhuang Shangyan warned against “not limiting the export of art objects.” Still,

the fact that Chinese exhibition officials paid such attention to the safe return of objects

to China reveals an anxiety about cultural artifacts that had been displaced from their

physical place of origin.

The Nanjing post-exhibition displayed visual images in the form of photographs.

The displayed photographs were taken of the Chinese objects lent to London from

foreign collections across the world. The use of photography and visual images in

Nanjing thus highlighted material absences, as the photographs depicted objects of art

that were not physically located inside China. Xue Quanceng, a member of the legal

education bureau in the Ministry of Education, published his records of viewing the post-

exhibition in Nanjing. In his memoir, he gave an overview of the exhibition - again

categorized by material objects. Section 1 of his article covered bronzes, section 2

concerned porcelain, section 3 recapitulated painting and calligraphy (shuhuaࣣ೥), and

section 4 discussed miscellaneous objects. He ended his memoir with a short section

entitled, “National Treasures That Have Drifted Overseas” (Liuluo haiwai woguo guwu

ݴໝऎ̮Ң਷̚ي). As he concluded with palpable regret over the loss of these

artifacts to overseas locations, Xue noted the large number of artifacts and art objects that

had been displayed in London and were lent by other non-Chinese collections, including

Sweden, Belgium, and the Soviet Union, to name just a few. He distinguished the

objects’ physical absence in China by drawing a contrast with their visual presence

through the display of photographs at the Nanjing post-exhibition: “From foreign

collections, there were over two thousand objects lent; over half were photographed and

the photos are exhibited at the capital, totaling 1,760 photos, alongside real