Page 58 - Jindezhen Porcelain Production of the 19th C. by Ellen Huang, Univ. San Diego 2008

41

English Committee assumed their superior knowledge over the Chinese research, most of

which were porcelain objects. Granted, given Ferguson’s close relationship with Guo

Baochang, with whom he edited art anthologies and inventories at the Palace Museum in

the first half of the 1920s, Ferguson’s ire may have resulted from some personal umbrage

felt on behalf of a friend. Emotional affronts aside, Ferguson’s first-hand experience with

Guo must have given him some idea of the extent of Guo’s expertise on porcelain.

That the most salient instance of arrogance occurred with the selection of

porcelain objects reveals much about the nature of the divergent opinions.

Archaeological excavations in Jiangxi province (in which the porcelain production capital

Jingdezhen was located), which were considered in juxtaposition with late-eighteenth and

early-nineteenth century Qing Dynasty porcelain manuals such as Tao Shuo and

Jingdezhen Tao lu, had introduced new physical artifacts with which Chinese

77
intellectuals could conduct systematic art historical research. In tandem with the

difficulty of the Chinese-language texts, despite the existence of European-language

translations, proximity to such archaeological materials gave China-based scholars a

newfound opportunity to understand and define their own national culture as expressed

by “Chinese art.” The attention given to the objects’ materiality and physicality by

Chinese organizers thus reveals not only differing views of Chinese art but also the

ability of material artifacts to challenge interpretation and representation. The instability

of meaning inherent in material products and varying methods of display demonstrate

that the power of representation did not go unmediated. Perhaps the aim to organize a

“comprehensive” exhibition was not achieved after all.