Page 60 - Jindezhen Porcelain Production of the 19th C. by Ellen Huang, Univ. San Diego 2008

43

While most of the scholarly work on exhibitions, cultural representation, and

political relations has emphasized the way in which a nation or colonizer constructs a

certain representation of identity, I argue for a closer attention to alternate conceptions

and dialoguing discourses. Even the nationalistic-infused encomiums, articulated by Guo

Taiqi, the Guomindang official based in England, emphasized the exchange of art objects

and the roles of art materials in allaying matters of exigent international relations. In

doing so, this chapter demonstrates the importance of a closer reading of non-Western

sources and illuminates how twentieth-century views of art and aesthetics in China offer

a critique of national historical discourse by viewing art as part not simply of a timeless

national essence but of the active present.

V. The Invisible Hand of Guo Baochang

While Chinese voices seem to not have been adequately acknowledged or

respectfully heeded for the planning and presentation of the exhibition in London, one

expert from China whose primary language was Chinese did make a mark on the art

market, porcelain culture, and exhibition. That person was the aforementioned Guo

79
Baochang ெ໫׹ (1870-1937 or 1942). As mentioned, he was the technical expert

selected by the Ministry of Education and Palace Museum head responsible for the

porcelain objects sent to London. Porcelain comprised the most numerous of all artifacts

sent to England from China -- 362 out of 700 were porcelain pieces selected from the

collection of the former emperors’ palaces. Over half of these 362 were Ming and Qing

dynasty Jingdezhen wares, with styles and forms ranging from blue-and-white ware,

80
monochrome glazes, snuff bottles, to Kangxi-era cloisonné (falang೗๻). While his