Statens museer för världskultur - Östasiatiska museet
brev
1.3.0 2026-07-15 brev Rådata 510808 arkivdokument Statens museer för världskultur - Östasiatiska museet SMVK-OM Dokument http://kulturarvsdata.se/SMVK-OM/arkivdokument/510808 E1A-13_0211-0222, E1A-13_0211, E1A-13_0214, E1A-13_0216, E1A-13_0219, E1A-13_0220, E1A-13_0215, E1A-13_0218, E1A-13_0213, E1A-13_0221, E1A-13_0212, E1A-13_0222, E1A-13_0217 oxe .5- tions of Nos. 9, 11, 23, 35 and 40 are identical except for variations in the period to which they are assigned. In the list furnished by the chinese Government these oaldrons were distinguished by individual names such as Fu Ting, Ting with Ogre-mask pattern, Tzu-chin Ting, etc., eto., end 1f these wellpknown names had been preserved 1t would have been easy for any one familiar with the Palace collections to identify them. The same abbreviations have been made in all other classes of bronzes with the result that it 1s difficult to recognize the partioular object which is being described. This is a minor oriticism. On the whole Professor Yetts 18 too careful a scholar to dispute the opinion of such experts as Ma Heng, Jung Keng, Tang Lan and others whom had been responsible for the labels. Also he was modest, as all good scholars are. But those responsible for the descriptions of porcelains actod on different principles from those of Professor Yetts. They did not hesitate to change the labels supplied and indeed seemed to delight in doing so, I will gommence with Ting Ware and with the oup in the shape of a plaited willow basket, No. 1277. The Catalogue throws doubt upon it by placing an interrogation mark /?/ in front of "Sung dynasty”, and does the — same with another vase of this type, No. 1281. It mskes no change in the description of the small box used for seel vermilion, but it olassiffios the smell vase, No. 1282, as ”? Southern Sung" and says that 1t has en 1vory-white glaze, whereas in reality it is pure white. Three out of four of the Ting ware pieces were said to have been incorreotly labeled by Chinese experts. The reasons for this decision could not be given in the Catalogue but they must have been based ypon the previous experience of the members of the Executive Committee and not upon the facts as under- stood by the Chinese Committee which considered that all four pieces have the same biscult and glaze and that if any one of them belonged to the OMS -4- in the Palace Museum from the time of their organization, and during our neetings in Peking before the transfer of the treasures to Shanghai for safe-koeping I had seen and handled every object that went to Lonåon. Hence I feel a share of responsibility in the making of these labels and can speak not only for myself but also for the combined Judgement of the groups with which I was associated, The sub-committee which made the finel selection in Shanghei was a very small one but it oonfined its choice of a few hundred objects to the large list of those which had been examined during the course of many years by larger groups in Peking oconsisting of ell the best living experts in China, Their deoisions were based upon careful examination of eech object, comparison with other objects, records of earlier ascriptions, study of seals and signatures, and all other in- formation available in the Palace. Decisions were not always unanimous but were made by a majority of the Committee. Jach member signed the Gesoription of each object and recorded his own individual opinion. There- fore, thé descriptions furnished by the Chinese Committee in Shanghat to the British selection Committee may be considered to be the offichal view of the Chinese Government. It was a rash act on the part of the London ”txecutive Committee to set itself in opposition to this official opinion end 1t amounted to a challenge to Chinese experts to show cause why a small group of British experts was not qualified to teach them how to label their own national tresasures. On behalf of these Chinese experts the challenge is acceptedve A8 to the Bronzes I presume that these were passed upon by He has made Professor Yetts who also delivered a lecture on this subj no changes in the labels further than abbreviating them, but even in this slieht change he has made it difficult to be sure of the identity of en object without referring to the illustrations, In the Catalogue the descrip-, out -6=- early type of pure white Ting ware instead of the later ivory-white variety known as T”u Ting the other three must be olassed with it. The confusion of mind shown in the clessification of these four pieces had disastrous ef- fects on the London Committee, for it left them so ungertain that they could not decide what type of ware the bowl NO. 1285 was and were obliged to re- sort to the old device of dealers by calling it "Sung dynasty". It is port- inent to enquire from the Committee how they could classify an article as having been made in the Sung dynasty without being able to tell its type. Chinese experts labeled this bowl as Chi-Chou ware and it would have been an easy task for the Executive Committee to have compared it with the square brush washer which they allowed to be Chi-Chou ware, No, 1297, in which case they would have found that the bisocuit and glaze of the two pieces were identical. Perhaps their reason for not äisputing the desoription of the washer was that an ode composed by Ch”ien Lung is insoribed on its base, Another type of ware which was evidently unfamiliar to the London Committee was represented by a vase, No, 1296. This ware was menufactured at Su-Chou auring the Chin /southern Sung/ period, but the label has been changed to "2? Ming dynasty", again without any indication by the Committee as to the l00ality where it was produced, In the case of the two pieces of Hsiang- hu were the Committee wavered between the affirmation concerning the smell brush washer No. 936 that its date was "uncertain” and that coderning the bowl No. 1647 that it was ”Ssung or Yuan period”, Was the London Committee napping or guessing or only playing with its labels when 1t characterized one of two pieces of the same ware as having an uncertain date and the other as Sung or Yuan? Furthermore, what can be the meaning of "9? sung”, "? Yuan", "? Ming", "possibly Sung", probably Yuan", "date uncertain"? It surely signifies for one thing that the Committee was unable to olassify some objects and preferred to use such phrases as I have quoted rather than make, 0220 -9- built by Yung Lo and that it contained a large collection of ware made during his reign it would appear probebly that the judgement of the Chinese committee as to this ware might be oonsidered sound as compared with that of the London Committee for Hobson wrote in his Chinese Pottery and Porce- lsain as late as the year 1915 /II, p. 4/ that "the few specimens which exist in our collections are not enough to make us realize the full import of these descriptions.” The same remarks might be made concerning Hsuan TO were which the London Committee has treated in a free and easy manner. The vase with pomegranate blossoms decoration, No. 1608, is ”reputed to be of Hsuan To period” and the wine vessel with peohies peinted on the biscuit 1s "perhaps period of Hsuan To.” Could there be a franker admission of the lack of accurate information than is contained in these two attributions or in that of the description of the flower receptacle No. 16 46 as "probably Kang Hsi perioå"? In the light of such hesitating descriptions, is not one entitled to ask the London Committee whether or not it knows the iden- tifylng marks of either the Hsuan To or the K”ang Hsi period and 1f they claim to know these, why they have not classed the above objects as be- longing to one or other of these periods? 1f they do not know, why did they change the Chinese labels? Instances might be cited concerning the other wares of the Ming and Ching dynasty where changes have been made in descriptions of objects of which the Palace Committee has had more examples as guides than were available to the London Committee, but it 1s xx unnecessary to mention them, for enough has already been maid to illustrate the unwarranted emendations and corrections made in the London Catalogue. when we examine the descriptions of the painting the con- fusion and indecision of the London Committee are even more striking than in the case of the poroelains. "An Autumn Evening by a Lake”, No. 858, by the Emperor Hui Tsung and "sitting in Contemplation”, No. 900, by Fen, Öd2A . a indeed ätfficult even to those who are familiar with what has been re- corded in their extensive literature, but when no heed is paid to careful research and snep judgements sre freely expressed, how can they be expected to carry oonvietion? A great opportunity has been lost by the fustian methods of the London Committee. It is a pity that the western world could not have learned for once what China without censorship thinks of her own things. ve know from many publications what Hobson, Binyeh] David, Ashton and Pelliot think and it was unnecessary for them to take advantage of their position on the London Committee to superimpose their opinions on those of the China Committee in the description of objects so generously snd courteously loan. ed by the Chinese Covernment. As & westerner, I feel a sense of chagrin that a group of western scholers should have arrogated to themselves the task of attempting to teach China how to classify its om artistic produc- tions., OUR z From T'IEN HSIA Monthly May 1936. REFLECTIONS ON THE LONDON EXHIBITION OF CHINESE ART. By John C. Ferguson. The Exhibition was a grand succ: end datly attracted large orowda of visitors some of whom came from other lands especially to see 41ts treasures. Not infrequently the crowds were so dense that, according to the reports of those present, it was difficult to see the exhibits. All of the eleven galleries of Burlington House were lined with the various objects and they overflowed into the Central Hall, the Lecture Room, the south Rooms and the Architestural Room. The majority of these objects came from three sources:- these loaned by the Chinese Government, these from the Eumorfopoulos Collection of the British Museum and those of the David Col- leotion, but there were many other lenders. These included collectors from the Britth Isles, France, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Russia, Turkey, India, Japan, /merioca, the Netherlands, Belgium, fgypt, and not a few denlers were also represented by specimens from their stocks. The exhibits included splendid examples of bronzes and metal-work, jades and other hard stones, sculpture and statuary, pottery end porcelsain, paintings and oelligraphy, ”Jezitlos and oostumes, lacquer and eloisonne, thus covering not only the four major äivistons of Chinese Art but also several minor ones. In thes: loaned by the Chinese Government. These were selected ohiefly from the Palace Museum and the National Museum by a sub-committee of experts, appointed dy the Orgenizing Committee. After the arrival in China of the Selection Committee sent from London by the British Generel Committee the final selec- reflections I propose to deal only with the objects, 4304 Government could not have remained as they were, for this was the first opportunity that the western world had of acquiring such knowledge without coming to China. If the London Committee did not wish to accept respon- sibility for these labels it could have contented itself by a statement to this effect in the zätitorial Note which follows the Introduction. This would have been sufficient to warn the public that the views of the London Committes did not colnoide in every instance with those of the Chinese Com- mittee and would have avoided the pretension of superior knowledge. Apart from the natural presumption that the Chinese Organizing Committee would select experts fully qualified to express definite opinions concerning the objects which the Chinese Government consented to send to London, dt must be remembered thet the British Selection Committee during its visit to China had full opportunity to pass judgements upon all these objects, end if during the process of selection serious disagreement as to the correctness of labels had developed 1t is certaln that the Chinese Ex- perts would have withdrawn such objects from the list of those loaned. This would have been a dignified method of handling the delicate question of älivergenoes of opinion, but it was not adopted by the British Selection Committee. The objects with their accompanying labels were accepted by this oommittee and after their arrival in London the labels were changed kyxthix Saxxktter in accordance with the ideas of the Executive Committee in charge of the exhibition. I feel certain that the Chinese Organizing Committee would never have consented to send objects to London 1f theym had known in advance that the Exeoutive Committee would change the descriptions made by their own experts, The fact that this has been åone is a humiliation greater than any group of experts could be expected to bear in silence. I have been a member of the Standing Committee of Experts both in the National Museum and, om -9e no pretence of superior knowledge and allow the labels to remain with the wording furnished by the Chinese Committee. The confusion concerning Ting ware extended to the P”eng anä the Lin-ch"uan vares of the NY Yuan dynasty, both of which were correctly described by Hobson in his Chinese Pottery and Poroelain. A beautiful set of larger and smaller cups of Peng ware fitting into each other and with t"ao-t"ieh decoration incised in the paste is said to be of the "Ting type” and ”? Ming dynasty.” A brush barrel of Lin-ch”uan ware, No. 2617, is described in the seme indefinite terms. This is inex- ousable in view of the rapid increase in number and variety of porcelain pieces recently exoavated in Kiengsi province during the construction of rosås and forticifations and which could easily have been exmined by the Selection Committee during its visit to China. These finds confirm the statements of the T”sa shuo and T”sa Lu end also the results of earlier excavations which were vwil-known to the Chinese Committee, The London Com- mittee may shut its eyes to this recently confirmed knowledge but facts re- mein and $$ was upon these that the Chinese Committee relied in making its labels concerning Chi-chou, Lin-ch"uen and Hsiang-hu weres. Its opinions om Su=chou and Peng wares were slso based upon careful and prolonged in- vestigation and compariston of available records. In the description of Chun ware the London Committee has in general followed the Chinese Committee, but by discarding the terms yueh-pal and t”ien-lan it failed to give the originel nemes of the two colors which the Chun potters sought to produce. In the case of the brush-washer in the shape of the kernel of a peach of life", No. 1051, the London Cowmittee made & serious mistake by jumping to the conelusion from its color that it was Yi-hsing ware, whereas a more careful examination of one or two places where the paste is exposed would have disolosed the fact that the Chinese Committee was correct in classifying it as Chun. The London Committee may have been misled by a hasty comparison with a, O3ll AÅltibolagdt Duo FA EE nan, Mö 2 Gedda 108 19 aug. 1936 Goossration; MÖLNDAL NEDRE. (Leden) PAPYRUS, GÖTEBORG. B/1. Herr Professor J. G. Andersson, Östasiat. saml., Sveavägen 65, stockholm, Broder; Då jag var i London förra veckan erhöll jag ett utdrag från T'IEN HSIA med några "Reflections on the London Exhibition of Chinese Art" av John C. Ferguson och för den händelse Du icke reden tagit del av samma, sänder jag Dig härmed en avskrift. Din tillgimne RER 16, Broakiouna, ohanges in medekert ev soktlomsbelet om priskndetng.. Vid. bil/ 1 avskrift. Papyrus Postgopper Sfinx N:o 4381 (40 Nio 381), 6219 similar shape labeled as a oup No. 1106 from the David collection. As to Ju ware and Kuan no comment is necessary, för no important changes have been made in the desoriptions furnished by the Chinese Com- mittee. "”? Kuan" ware is part of the amended description of the small bowl No. 840, in the form of a water-celtrop blossom and we shall take to our- selves the benefit of the doubt expressed therein and still consider it as men of the Southern Sung without the interrogation mark. The dish ofyåh-pai color with rim in flower form, No. 847, is said to be "probably" Kuan ware of the Southern Sung dynasty and stated to be either ”Ko or Kuan ware”, but that was surely a lapsus memorise, for there was no "Ko" ware in the Southerh Sung. The octagonal vase No. 829 ie said to be of the "Kuan type” and that 18 at least an approach to the resl truth. As to Kuangtung ware and its variety made at Yang-ohliang during the southern Sung dynasty the London Committee evidently had insuffiolent information, for it changed the label of the bugle-shaped small vase No. 1878 and the onion-green smell vase No. 1879 to a doubtful Ming, while leaving the round washer with peony decoration as a doubtful Sung. It was better informed about the Ning dynasty type of this ware, for it made no changes in the four examples Nos. 1892 and 1894-6. when we come to the wares of the Ming dynasty we find some changes in the descriptions of Yung Lo were. The beautiful tea pot with three suspension-1loops, No. 1641 and the covered jag also with loops No. 1639, are "said to be of Yung Lo period”, while the mei-p"ing shaped vase, No, 1635, is assigned to the 15th cent. with the reservation of a "9?" but without any suggestion as to its type of ware. Two bowls, Nos. 1638 and 1644, are marked "? Ming” and the exquisite small bowl with decoration of 10otus flowers end the eight emblems and with the inoised hell mark of Yung Lo is orphaned as "of later date". GConsidering that the Peking Palace was, S22 - 10- K”uan are considered to have "atbributions which seem to be Justifieå”, but Kuo Hsi”s "Spring Snow on a Mountsin Pass", No. 901, is "signed and dated A.D. 1072 but probably Wuen .” A painting signed by Mi Fel "Pine Trees”, No. 947, with an inscription by the Sung Emperor Kao Tsung is said to be "possibly by a Sung Artist”, though "Landsospe with Mountain”, No. 918, signed by this same artist and dated 1102, is not contested. Is this due to the fact that the former was loaned by the Chinese Government and the letter by Mr. Nakamura of Tokyo? we have the corrected description of "possibly Sung” in the case of "Fishing on a Snowy Day", No. 946, and of "Busy in being Idle”, No. 1002; of "probably Yuan” in desoribing "Forest and Mountain Peaks", No. 998, by the priest Chu Jen; of "possibly Ming” in reference to "Refusing a Seat” which the Chinese Committee had attributed to an unknown artist of the sung Dynasty; and of "unsigned but probably Ming” in the lebel of ”Chilären at Play", No. 995, by Su Han-ch"en; there are "possibly l4th cent.” attached to the Landscape No. 945 by an unknown artist of the Sung dynasty, ”l5th cent. or earlier” to "Looking at Plum Blossoms”, No. 899, also by an unknown artist of the Sung dynesty, and "possibly 1l6th cent." to Chao Meng-fu”s "View of River and Mountains", No. 915, and to”Cazing at the Moon”, No. 996, attributed to Ma Yuan. Such corrections as these are not only futile on account of their failure to come to a decision, but they disclose the fact that they were made from the viewpoint of personal reactions rather than from an acquaintance with the literature of paintings in China. They remind me of a lady keenly interested in Chinese paintings who meny years ago used to put her hand over her heart and say with deep emotion "I have a feeling that this is Sung." Surely our western scholarship is not bound to such unsoientific methods in the study of things Chinese as would not be allowed for a moment in con= sideration of Creek and Romen elassicel art. Judging Chinese paintings is, Ous tion was made end the objects were sent off on their long journey after having been exhibited in Shanghai during April 1935. Unusuel care was taken in their shipment so as to insure their safety, and their arrival in London was rightly hersalded as a remarkable evidence of the goodwill of the Chinese Government. FElaborate preparations were made for their exhibition in Burling. ton House, and Chinese Art for the first time came to its own in Zurope. It was a remarkable achievement end reflects the highest oredit upon the Director Sir Perciual David, end the other members of the Executive Com- mittee. In view of all the encomiums that have been expressed in public earesses and articles in the press I have hesitated to offer any oeritiocism on any linel but have finally decided that 1t 1s my duty to call attention to the desoriptions of the objects sent by the Chinese Government, for I do not think that full justice has been done to these objoots in the Catelogue and Tilustrated Supplement issued by the Royal Academy of Arts, London. In this Catalogue a controverstal element has been unfortunately introduced by ohsanges made in the descriptions furnished by the Chinese Committe of Experts. The "Chinese attribution" is given, for example, in No. 12768, as sung dynasty, end it is then stated that this particular vase belongs to the ch”ing dynasty. Scores of such corrections have been made by the London Committee, especially in the descriptions of porcelains and peintings, and although I have found a few correotions in the labels of objects l0aned by others, the Chinese Government seems to have been singled out as having failed in en unusual manner to supply correct information concerning its exhibits. In contrast to these frequent changes in the labels supplied by the Chinese Committee I have not found a single similar correction in the labels of articles from the David or Eumorfopoulos collections. It is a pity that the labels affixed by the committee appointed by the Chinese Tillverkad Hellström, Anders 1936-08-19 Mottagen Andersson, Johan Gunnar image/jpeg https://collections.smvk.se/carlotta-om/web/image/tn/10211545/E1A-13_0211.jpg https://collections.smvk.se/carlotta-om/web/image/zoom/10211544/E1A-13_0211.jpg http://kulturarvsdata.se/resurser/License#by-nc-nd Hellström, Anders Statens museer för världskultur image/jpeg https://collections.smvk.se/carlotta-om/web/image/tn/10211549/E1A-13_0212.jpg https://collections.smvk.se/carlotta-om/web/image/zoom/10211548/E1A-13_0212.jpg http://kulturarvsdata.se/resurser/License#by-nc-nd Hellström, Anders Statens museer för världskultur image/jpeg https://collections.smvk.se/carlotta-om/web/image/tn/10211553/E1A-13_0213.jpg https://collections.smvk.se/carlotta-om/web/image/zoom/10211552/E1A-13_0213.jpg http://kulturarvsdata.se/resurser/License#by-nc-nd Hellström, Anders Statens museer för världskultur image/jpeg https://collections.smvk.se/carlotta-om/web/image/tn/10211557/E1A-13_0214.jpg https://collections.smvk.se/carlotta-om/web/image/zoom/10211556/E1A-13_0214.jpg http://kulturarvsdata.se/resurser/License#by-nc-nd Hellström, Anders Statens museer för världskultur image/jpeg https://collections.smvk.se/carlotta-om/web/image/tn/10211561/E1A-13_0215.jpg https://collections.smvk.se/carlotta-om/web/image/zoom/10211560/E1A-13_0215.jpg http://kulturarvsdata.se/resurser/License#by-nc-nd Hellström, Anders Statens museer för världskultur image/jpeg https://collections.smvk.se/carlotta-om/web/image/tn/10211565/E1A-13_0216.jpg https://collections.smvk.se/carlotta-om/web/image/zoom/10211564/E1A-13_0216.jpg http://kulturarvsdata.se/resurser/License#by-nc-nd Hellström, Anders Statens museer för världskultur image/jpeg https://collections.smvk.se/carlotta-om/web/image/tn/10211569/E1A-13_0217.jpg https://collections.smvk.se/carlotta-om/web/image/zoom/10211568/E1A-13_0217.jpg http://kulturarvsdata.se/resurser/License#by-nc-nd Hellström, Anders Statens museer för världskultur image/jpeg https://collections.smvk.se/carlotta-om/web/image/tn/10211573/E1A-13_0218.jpg https://collections.smvk.se/carlotta-om/web/image/zoom/10211572/E1A-13_0218.jpg http://kulturarvsdata.se/resurser/License#by-nc-nd Hellström, Anders Statens museer för världskultur image/jpeg https://collections.smvk.se/carlotta-om/web/image/tn/10211577/E1A-13_0219.jpg https://collections.smvk.se/carlotta-om/web/image/zoom/10211576/E1A-13_0219.jpg http://kulturarvsdata.se/resurser/License#by-nc-nd Hellström, Anders Statens museer för världskultur image/jpeg https://collections.smvk.se/carlotta-om/web/image/tn/10211581/E1A-13_0220.jpg https://collections.smvk.se/carlotta-om/web/image/zoom/10211580/E1A-13_0220.jpg http://kulturarvsdata.se/resurser/License#by-nc-nd Hellström, Anders Statens museer för världskultur image/jpeg https://collections.smvk.se/carlotta-om/web/image/tn/10211585/E1A-13_0221.jpg https://collections.smvk.se/carlotta-om/web/image/zoom/10211584/E1A-13_0221.jpg http://kulturarvsdata.se/resurser/License#by-nc-nd Hellström, Anders Statens museer för världskultur image/jpeg https://collections.smvk.se/carlotta-om/web/image/tn/10211589/E1A-13_0222.jpg https://collections.smvk.se/carlotta-om/web/image/zoom/10211588/E1A-13_0222.jpg http://kulturarvsdata.se/resurser/License#by-nc-nd Hellström, Anders Statens museer för världskultur http://kulturarvsdata.se/SMVK-OM/arkiv/204092 http://kulturarvsdata.se/SMVK-EM/name/3212898 http://kulturarvsdata.se/SMVK-EM/name/1239710 http://kulturarvsdata.se/SMVK-OM/arkivdokument/html/510808 http://kulturarvsdata.se/SMVK-OM/arkivdokument/xml/510808 http://kulturarvsdata.se/SMVK-OM/arkivdokument/rdf/510808
Text i dokument
oxe .5- tions of Nos. 9, 11, 23, 35 and 40 are identical except for variations in the period to which they are assigned. In the list furnished by the chinese Government these oaldrons were distinguished by individual names such as Fu Ting, Ting with Ogre-mask pattern, Tzu-chin Ting, etc., eto., end 1f these wellpknown names had been preserved 1t would have been easy for any one familiar with the Palace collections to identify them. The same abbreviations have been made in all other classes of bronzes with the result that it 1s difficult to recognize the partioular object which is being described. This is a minor oriticism. On the whole Professor Yetts 18 too careful a scholar to dispute the opinion of such experts as Ma Heng, Jung Keng, Tang Lan and others whom had been responsible for the labels. Also he was modest, as all good scholars are. But those responsible for the descriptions of porcelains actod on different principles from those of Professor Yetts. They did not hesitate to change the labels supplied and indeed seemed to delight in doing so, I will gommence with Ting Ware and with the oup in the shape of a plaited willow basket, No. 1277. The Catalogue throws doubt upon it by placing an interrogation mark /?/ in front of "Sung dynasty”, and does the — same with another vase of this type, No. 1281. It mskes no change in the description of the small box used for seel vermilion, but it olassiffios the smell vase, No. 1282, as ”? Southern Sung" and says that 1t has en 1vory-white glaze, whereas in reality it is pure white. Three out of four of the Ting ware pieces were said to have been incorreotly labeled by Chinese experts. The reasons for this decision could not be given in the Catalogue but they must have been based ypon the previous experience of the members of the Executive Committee and not upon the facts as under- stood by the Chinese Committee which considered that all four pieces have the same biscult and glaze and that if any one of them belonged to the
OMS -4- in the Palace Museum from the time of their organization, and during our neetings in Peking before the transfer of the treasures to Shanghai for safe-koeping I had seen and handled every object that went to Lonåon. Hence I feel a share of responsibility in the making of these labels and can speak not only for myself but also for the combined Judgement of the groups with which I was associated, The sub-committee which made the finel selection in Shanghei was a very small one but it oonfined its choice of a few hundred objects to the large list of those which had been examined during the course of many years by larger groups in Peking oconsisting of ell the best living experts in China, Their deoisions were based upon careful examination of eech object, comparison with other objects, records of earlier ascriptions, study of seals and signatures, and all other in- formation available in the Palace. Decisions were not always unanimous but were made by a majority of the Committee. Jach member signed the Gesoription of each object and recorded his own individual opinion. There- fore, thé descriptions furnished by the Chinese Committee in Shanghat to the British selection Committee may be considered to be the offichal view of the Chinese Government. It was a rash act on the part of the London ”txecutive Committee to set itself in opposition to this official opinion end 1t amounted to a challenge to Chinese experts to show cause why a small group of British experts was not qualified to teach them how to label their own national tresasures. On behalf of these Chinese experts the challenge is acceptedve A8 to the Bronzes I presume that these were passed upon by He has made Professor Yetts who also delivered a lecture on this subj no changes in the labels further than abbreviating them, but even in this slieht change he has made it difficult to be sure of the identity of en object without referring to the illustrations, In the Catalogue the descrip-
out -6=- early type of pure white Ting ware instead of the later ivory-white variety known as T”u Ting the other three must be olassed with it. The confusion of mind shown in the clessification of these four pieces had disastrous ef- fects on the London Committee, for it left them so ungertain that they could not decide what type of ware the bowl NO. 1285 was and were obliged to re- sort to the old device of dealers by calling it "Sung dynasty". It is port- inent to enquire from the Committee how they could classify an article as having been made in the Sung dynasty without being able to tell its type. Chinese experts labeled this bowl as Chi-Chou ware and it would have been an easy task for the Executive Committee to have compared it with the square brush washer which they allowed to be Chi-Chou ware, No, 1297, in which case they would have found that the bisocuit and glaze of the two pieces were identical. Perhaps their reason for not äisputing the desoription of the washer was that an ode composed by Ch”ien Lung is insoribed on its base, Another type of ware which was evidently unfamiliar to the London Committee was represented by a vase, No, 1296. This ware was menufactured at Su-Chou auring the Chin /southern Sung/ period, but the label has been changed to "2? Ming dynasty", again without any indication by the Committee as to the l00ality where it was produced, In the case of the two pieces of Hsiang- hu were the Committee wavered between the affirmation concerning the smell brush washer No. 936 that its date was "uncertain” and that coderning the bowl No. 1647 that it was ”Ssung or Yuan period”, Was the London Committee napping or guessing or only playing with its labels when 1t characterized one of two pieces of the same ware as having an uncertain date and the other as Sung or Yuan? Furthermore, what can be the meaning of "9? sung”, "? Yuan", "? Ming", "possibly Sung", probably Yuan", "date uncertain"? It surely signifies for one thing that the Committee was unable to olassify some objects and preferred to use such phrases as I have quoted rather than make
0220 -9- built by Yung Lo and that it contained a large collection of ware made during his reign it would appear probebly that the judgement of the Chinese committee as to this ware might be oonsidered sound as compared with that of the London Committee for Hobson wrote in his Chinese Pottery and Porce- lsain as late as the year 1915 /II, p. 4/ that "the few specimens which exist in our collections are not enough to make us realize the full import of these descriptions.” The same remarks might be made concerning Hsuan TO were which the London Committee has treated in a free and easy manner. The vase with pomegranate blossoms decoration, No. 1608, is ”reputed to be of Hsuan To period” and the wine vessel with peohies peinted on the biscuit 1s "perhaps period of Hsuan To.” Could there be a franker admission of the lack of accurate information than is contained in these two attributions or in that of the description of the flower receptacle No. 16 46 as "probably Kang Hsi perioå"? In the light of such hesitating descriptions, is not one entitled to ask the London Committee whether or not it knows the iden- tifylng marks of either the Hsuan To or the K”ang Hsi period and 1f they claim to know these, why they have not classed the above objects as be- longing to one or other of these periods? 1f they do not know, why did they change the Chinese labels? Instances might be cited concerning the other wares of the Ming and Ching dynasty where changes have been made in descriptions of objects of which the Palace Committee has had more examples as guides than were available to the London Committee, but it 1s xx unnecessary to mention them, for enough has already been maid to illustrate the unwarranted emendations and corrections made in the London Catalogue. when we examine the descriptions of the painting the con- fusion and indecision of the London Committee are even more striking than in the case of the poroelains. "An Autumn Evening by a Lake”, No. 858, by the Emperor Hui Tsung and "sitting in Contemplation”, No. 900, by Fen
Öd2A . a indeed ätfficult even to those who are familiar with what has been re- corded in their extensive literature, but when no heed is paid to careful research and snep judgements sre freely expressed, how can they be expected to carry oonvietion? A great opportunity has been lost by the fustian methods of the London Committee. It is a pity that the western world could not have learned for once what China without censorship thinks of her own things. ve know from many publications what Hobson, Binyeh] David, Ashton and Pelliot think and it was unnecessary for them to take advantage of their position on the London Committee to superimpose their opinions on those of the China Committee in the description of objects so generously snd courteously loan. ed by the Chinese Covernment. As & westerner, I feel a sense of chagrin that a group of western scholers should have arrogated to themselves the task of attempting to teach China how to classify its om artistic produc- tions.
OUR z From T'IEN HSIA Monthly May 1936. REFLECTIONS ON THE LONDON EXHIBITION OF CHINESE ART. By John C. Ferguson. The Exhibition was a grand succ: end datly attracted large orowda of visitors some of whom came from other lands especially to see 41ts treasures. Not infrequently the crowds were so dense that, according to the reports of those present, it was difficult to see the exhibits. All of the eleven galleries of Burlington House were lined with the various objects and they overflowed into the Central Hall, the Lecture Room, the south Rooms and the Architestural Room. The majority of these objects came from three sources:- these loaned by the Chinese Government, these from the Eumorfopoulos Collection of the British Museum and those of the David Col- leotion, but there were many other lenders. These included collectors from the Britth Isles, France, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Russia, Turkey, India, Japan, /merioca, the Netherlands, Belgium, fgypt, and not a few denlers were also represented by specimens from their stocks. The exhibits included splendid examples of bronzes and metal-work, jades and other hard stones, sculpture and statuary, pottery end porcelsain, paintings and oelligraphy, ”Jezitlos and oostumes, lacquer and eloisonne, thus covering not only the four major äivistons of Chinese Art but also several minor ones. In thes: loaned by the Chinese Government. These were selected ohiefly from the Palace Museum and the National Museum by a sub-committee of experts, appointed dy the Orgenizing Committee. After the arrival in China of the Selection Committee sent from London by the British Generel Committee the final selec- reflections I propose to deal only with the objects
4304 Government could not have remained as they were, for this was the first opportunity that the western world had of acquiring such knowledge without coming to China. If the London Committee did not wish to accept respon- sibility for these labels it could have contented itself by a statement to this effect in the zätitorial Note which follows the Introduction. This would have been sufficient to warn the public that the views of the London Committes did not colnoide in every instance with those of the Chinese Com- mittee and would have avoided the pretension of superior knowledge. Apart from the natural presumption that the Chinese Organizing Committee would select experts fully qualified to express definite opinions concerning the objects which the Chinese Government consented to send to London, dt must be remembered thet the British Selection Committee during its visit to China had full opportunity to pass judgements upon all these objects, end if during the process of selection serious disagreement as to the correctness of labels had developed 1t is certaln that the Chinese Ex- perts would have withdrawn such objects from the list of those loaned. This would have been a dignified method of handling the delicate question of älivergenoes of opinion, but it was not adopted by the British Selection Committee. The objects with their accompanying labels were accepted by this oommittee and after their arrival in London the labels were changed kyxthix Saxxktter in accordance with the ideas of the Executive Committee in charge of the exhibition. I feel certain that the Chinese Organizing Committee would never have consented to send objects to London 1f theym had known in advance that the Exeoutive Committee would change the descriptions made by their own experts, The fact that this has been åone is a humiliation greater than any group of experts could be expected to bear in silence. I have been a member of the Standing Committee of Experts both in the National Museum and
om -9e no pretence of superior knowledge and allow the labels to remain with the wording furnished by the Chinese Committee. The confusion concerning Ting ware extended to the P”eng anä the Lin-ch"uan vares of the NY Yuan dynasty, both of which were correctly described by Hobson in his Chinese Pottery and Poroelain. A beautiful set of larger and smaller cups of Peng ware fitting into each other and with t"ao-t"ieh decoration incised in the paste is said to be of the "Ting type” and ”? Ming dynasty.” A brush barrel of Lin-ch”uan ware, No. 2617, is described in the seme indefinite terms. This is inex- ousable in view of the rapid increase in number and variety of porcelain pieces recently exoavated in Kiengsi province during the construction of rosås and forticifations and which could easily have been exmined by the Selection Committee during its visit to China. These finds confirm the statements of the T”sa shuo and T”sa Lu end also the results of earlier excavations which were vwil-known to the Chinese Committee, The London Com- mittee may shut its eyes to this recently confirmed knowledge but facts re- mein and $$ was upon these that the Chinese Committee relied in making its labels concerning Chi-chou, Lin-ch"uen and Hsiang-hu weres. Its opinions om Su=chou and Peng wares were slso based upon careful and prolonged in- vestigation and compariston of available records. In the description of Chun ware the London Committee has in general followed the Chinese Committee, but by discarding the terms yueh-pal and t”ien-lan it failed to give the originel nemes of the two colors which the Chun potters sought to produce. In the case of the brush-washer in the shape of the kernel of a peach of life", No. 1051, the London Cowmittee made & serious mistake by jumping to the conelusion from its color that it was Yi-hsing ware, whereas a more careful examination of one or two places where the paste is exposed would have disolosed the fact that the Chinese Committee was correct in classifying it as Chun. The London Committee may have been misled by a hasty comparison with a
O3ll AÅltibolagdt Duo FA EE nan, Mö 2 Gedda 108 19 aug. 1936 Goossration; MÖLNDAL NEDRE. (Leden) PAPYRUS, GÖTEBORG. B/1. Herr Professor J. G. Andersson, Östasiat. saml., Sveavägen 65, stockholm, Broder; Då jag var i London förra veckan erhöll jag ett utdrag från T'IEN HSIA med några "Reflections on the London Exhibition of Chinese Art" av John C. Ferguson och för den händelse Du icke reden tagit del av samma, sänder jag Dig härmed en avskrift. Din tillgimne RER 16, Broakiouna, ohanges in medekert ev soktlomsbelet om priskndetng.. Vid. bil/ 1 avskrift. Papyrus Postgopper Sfinx N:o 4381 (40 Nio 381)
6219 similar shape labeled as a oup No. 1106 from the David collection. As to Ju ware and Kuan no comment is necessary, för no important changes have been made in the desoriptions furnished by the Chinese Com- mittee. "”? Kuan" ware is part of the amended description of the small bowl No. 840, in the form of a water-celtrop blossom and we shall take to our- selves the benefit of the doubt expressed therein and still consider it as men of the Southern Sung without the interrogation mark. The dish ofyåh-pai color with rim in flower form, No. 847, is said to be "probably" Kuan ware of the Southern Sung dynasty and stated to be either ”Ko or Kuan ware”, but that was surely a lapsus memorise, for there was no "Ko" ware in the Southerh Sung. The octagonal vase No. 829 ie said to be of the "Kuan type” and that 18 at least an approach to the resl truth. As to Kuangtung ware and its variety made at Yang-ohliang during the southern Sung dynasty the London Committee evidently had insuffiolent information, for it changed the label of the bugle-shaped small vase No. 1878 and the onion-green smell vase No. 1879 to a doubtful Ming, while leaving the round washer with peony decoration as a doubtful Sung. It was better informed about the Ning dynasty type of this ware, for it made no changes in the four examples Nos. 1892 and 1894-6. when we come to the wares of the Ming dynasty we find some changes in the descriptions of Yung Lo were. The beautiful tea pot with three suspension-1loops, No. 1641 and the covered jag also with loops No. 1639, are "said to be of Yung Lo period”, while the mei-p"ing shaped vase, No, 1635, is assigned to the 15th cent. with the reservation of a "9?" but without any suggestion as to its type of ware. Two bowls, Nos. 1638 and 1644, are marked "? Ming” and the exquisite small bowl with decoration of 10otus flowers end the eight emblems and with the inoised hell mark of Yung Lo is orphaned as "of later date". GConsidering that the Peking Palace was
S22 - 10- K”uan are considered to have "atbributions which seem to be Justifieå”, but Kuo Hsi”s "Spring Snow on a Mountsin Pass", No. 901, is "signed and dated A.D. 1072 but probably Wuen .” A painting signed by Mi Fel "Pine Trees”, No. 947, with an inscription by the Sung Emperor Kao Tsung is said to be "possibly by a Sung Artist”, though "Landsospe with Mountain”, No. 918, signed by this same artist and dated 1102, is not contested. Is this due to the fact that the former was loaned by the Chinese Government and the letter by Mr. Nakamura of Tokyo? we have the corrected description of "possibly Sung” in the case of "Fishing on a Snowy Day", No. 946, and of "Busy in being Idle”, No. 1002; of "probably Yuan” in desoribing "Forest and Mountain Peaks", No. 998, by the priest Chu Jen; of "possibly Ming” in reference to "Refusing a Seat” which the Chinese Committee had attributed to an unknown artist of the sung Dynasty; and of "unsigned but probably Ming” in the lebel of ”Chilären at Play", No. 995, by Su Han-ch"en; there are "possibly l4th cent.” attached to the Landscape No. 945 by an unknown artist of the Sung dynasty, ”l5th cent. or earlier” to "Looking at Plum Blossoms”, No. 899, also by an unknown artist of the Sung dynesty, and "possibly 1l6th cent." to Chao Meng-fu”s "View of River and Mountains", No. 915, and to”Cazing at the Moon”, No. 996, attributed to Ma Yuan. Such corrections as these are not only futile on account of their failure to come to a decision, but they disclose the fact that they were made from the viewpoint of personal reactions rather than from an acquaintance with the literature of paintings in China. They remind me of a lady keenly interested in Chinese paintings who meny years ago used to put her hand over her heart and say with deep emotion "I have a feeling that this is Sung." Surely our western scholarship is not bound to such unsoientific methods in the study of things Chinese as would not be allowed for a moment in con= sideration of Creek and Romen elassicel art. Judging Chinese paintings is
Ous tion was made end the objects were sent off on their long journey after having been exhibited in Shanghai during April 1935. Unusuel care was taken in their shipment so as to insure their safety, and their arrival in London was rightly hersalded as a remarkable evidence of the goodwill of the Chinese Government. FElaborate preparations were made for their exhibition in Burling. ton House, and Chinese Art for the first time came to its own in Zurope. It was a remarkable achievement end reflects the highest oredit upon the Director Sir Perciual David, end the other members of the Executive Com- mittee. In view of all the encomiums that have been expressed in public earesses and articles in the press I have hesitated to offer any oeritiocism on any linel but have finally decided that 1t 1s my duty to call attention to the desoriptions of the objects sent by the Chinese Government, for I do not think that full justice has been done to these objoots in the Catelogue and Tilustrated Supplement issued by the Royal Academy of Arts, London. In this Catalogue a controverstal element has been unfortunately introduced by ohsanges made in the descriptions furnished by the Chinese Committe of Experts. The "Chinese attribution" is given, for example, in No. 12768, as sung dynasty, end it is then stated that this particular vase belongs to the ch”ing dynasty. Scores of such corrections have been made by the London Committee, especially in the descriptions of porcelains and peintings, and although I have found a few correotions in the labels of objects l0aned by others, the Chinese Government seems to have been singled out as having failed in en unusual manner to supply correct information concerning its exhibits. In contrast to these frequent changes in the labels supplied by the Chinese Committee I have not found a single similar correction in the labels of articles from the David or Eumorfopoulos collections. It is a pity that the labels affixed by the committee appointed by the Chinese
Typ av dokument
Arkivdokument-ID
Tidigare identitet
Tillverkad
Hellström, Anders
Mottagen
Andersson, Johan Gunnar
Statens museer för världskultur