Page 57 - Jindezhen Porcelain Production of the 19th C. by Ellen Huang, Univ. San Diego 2008
P. 57

40



                       study it on China’s own terms.  To do so, however, would have necessitated less cultural

                       arrogance and more sensitivity to human voices and opinions from China.


                              Even more telling is the comparison of the porcelain sections of different versions

                       of the commemorative catalogues: the catalogues published by the Chinese Organizing


                       Committee included a prefatory piece on porcelain history by the early twentieth-century

                       porcelain commissioner at Jingdezhen, Guo Baochang.  Guo’s introductory essay, “A


                       Brief Description of Porcelain” (Ciqi gaishuo ନኜ฿Ⴍ), completed on February 6, 1935,


                       was translated into English, and both versions were reprinted in various editions of the

                       Chinese Organizing Committee’s catalogue.  Despite its availability in the English


                       language, the essay did not find an audience in Western-language scholarship and

                       collectors’ circles.  Not one of the three editions of the London Exhibition catalogues


                       compiled by the Royal Academy of Arts included the essay.  In fact, Guo himself sent an

                       inscribed copy printed by his personal printing press, Zhizhai shushe☊≫ࣣٟ  (Figure 6),


                       to George Eumorfopoulos and Percival David, the two main British collectors and

                       exhibition organizers (Figures 7, 8).  Further reflecting Guo’s status as an authority in


                       porcelain-related knowledge, a reprint of the essay occupied the entire last page of Da

                                                                                                   75
                       Gongbao newspaper’s special issue on the London Exhibition on April 6, 1935.   The

                       sheer physical size of the reprint in some ways enhanced the great regard that some

                       people at the time might have held of the “Ciqi gaishuo” essay (the actual size of the


                       newspaper sheet was almost twenty inches in height). Ye Gongchuo’s praise of the

                       selection of porcelain objects as “complete,” which was credited to Guo’s presence on the


                       special committee in both Beijing and Shanghai meetings, clearly fell on deaf English

                           76
                       ears.   Even in Ferguson’s article, Ferguson enumerated a litany of objects for which the
   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62