Page 55 - Jindezhen Porcelain Production of the 19th C. by Ellen Huang, Univ. San Diego 2008

38

objects…these are all works of unsurpassable wonder. It is such a pity and regrettable

70
that they have all drifted away (liuluoݴໝ) to overseas places.”

IV. The Persistence of Materiality

Both English organizers and Chinese scholars framed the exhibition in nationalist

terms. Undoubtedly, the objects were, for Guomindang officials and English

appreciators alike, a symbol of a nation’s glorious past and tradition. The aims of the

exhibition were, after all, to stage a “comprehensive” exhibition of Chinese art, as noted

in the Royal Academy’s catalogue, and it was on these grounds that it was declared a

success. The discussions generated by the Chinese observers, however, questioned

whether the exhibition actually represented the whole of Chinese art. Moreover, by

showing the multiplicity of views on exhibiting Chinese art, these varying opinions

questioned the very possibility of achieving an actual representation of “Chinese art.” In

fact, even Fu Zhenlun, the historian based at the Palace Museum, reported that “there

were some precious works not shown, and some vulgar objects shown…as a result, what

was displayed did not adequately represent our nation’s various categories of exquisite art

71
and thus was not adequate to represent the completeness of Chinese art.” Fu continued
his strident critique by describing the inexact nature of the London displays of Chinese

artworks, enumerating how the English scholars did not “specify objects’ dating,

72
categories, provenance history, and geographical origin.” Clearly, Fu held strong

opinions about display strategies and the way in which displays defined “Chinese” art,

whether correctly or incorrectly. Just as current scholarship has ignored these voices, so

too, did observers and the contemporary British organizers in the 1930s. In his article,