Asianart.com | Associations | Articles | Exhibitions | Galleries

I am interested in discussing the how and why of
DIFFERENCES between Chinese and 'Western'painting and how these affect the question of identity.

Excellent, count me in. Working on a thesis, or just for fun?

Given the categories ("Chinese" and "Western"), you've set up, here are a couple of broadly brushed differences that I have noticed. I don't know how to relate them to identity, perhaps you can elaborate on that topic.

1. Western painting tends to emphasize the rendering of light in a consistent manner within a painting, whereas this is a fairly rare event in Chinese painting, and as Cahill has argued may have been entirely influenced by the dissemination of Western publications in China. Otherwise, where traditional Chinese artists thought to show the effects of light, they tended not to do so in a consistent manner.

2. Further, Western painters are more attentive to the effects of color, light/shadow, and composition than Chinese painters were. Color has been of limited interest to the Chinese painter, and Chinese painters are more interested in the effects of balamce/imbalance and positive/negative space than Western painters.

3. Aside from formal portraiture of emperors and later what we call ancestor portraits (each of which typically only rendered the face with any verisimilitude), the Chinese rarely (though with exceptions such as Li Gonglin, Zeng Qing, etc) painted convincing versions of the human form. The human form of course has been central to the content of Western painting (and sculpture) for centuries (whereas China's sculptural tradition emphasizes frontal views of various deities or tomb figurines). A related point: Chinese painting cannot show foreshortened views of the human figure nearly as well as Western painting can.

4. Traditional Chinese landscapes typically dwarf the figures therein; the reverse is often true of Western painting up until the 19th century or so.

5. Chinese painting turned to what today we call abstraction (as opposed to representation) nearly 1,000 years before Western painting did. A related and more easily understood point: Chinese painters are much more attentive to the quality of the line/brushstroke than are Western painters.

Over to you

(ps don't use your exact email address, you are about to be spammed by all sorts of lotto and nigerian offers)

sorry, a couple more obvious points:
1. the chinese except for pornography never painted nudes (though one might argue some western painting of nudes had the same purpose)
2. the chinese never utilized 3 point perspective

your question is complex, but to try to
explain in simple terms, i would say that:
Chinese art has built itself on foundation
of 1200 years of the same goal in art, express
the life of nature in your brush. Balance your vision with your talent. In Western art the
perfection of perceived beauty became the goal
of true art. Chinese painting is limited to
only certain acceptable themes[landscape, flowers, animals, insects] and must maintain a
link to human vision. Western art has expanded
to "vision for vision's sake", without a link
to reality.

Hi Gordon,
There are two immediate aspects of Chinese versus Western painting that come immediately to mind; and both can be an immediate indicator (or not) of age.

Firstly, the Chinese lack of perspective. Fence posts in the distance which are the same height as those at the front of the picture are a good example.

Secondly, the absence of face shading on figures. With the exception of a few 18th century Jesuit painters (Castiglione etc), Chinese painters rarely painted in the faces of their subjects prior to the late Qing (circa 1900AD). In fact, most with shaded faces will be from later in the Republic period (after 1912).

Both of these features will usually indicate a date of execution prior to around 1890.

Obviously, as with every rule in Chinese antiques, there will be an exception; and modern fakes will also muddle the rule further.

I have now sold my collection of Chinese porcelain, but hopefully someone like Jaxonbill can illustrate examples of the features I am referring to.

I trust these comments are helpful.

Regards
Tony

Greetings Gordon and everyone else,

Tony, I must confess to a tinge or remorse for not buying more when you were selling your collection(s) over the years. I might've been able to do a more interesting show-and-tell about the subject at hand. :)

For anyone who hasn't read it, there's a book full of information on Chinese art of all types in 'Possessing the Past,' by Wen C. Fong and James C.Y. Watt. It was Published jointly by the New York Metropolitan and Taipei Palace Museums as a companion piece to help visitors better appreciate the Taipei Palace Museum exhibition that toured the USA in 1996-97.

Regarding issues Tony mentioned, the first and fourth photos I'm posting show some of the Chinese traditional handling of perspective (or lack thereof). These artists weren't necessarily unaware of this aspect in their art, but they often purposely ignored it to strengthen the intended message.

This may be the case in what is called 'Floating Figures' patterns, where no appreciable background exists to worry about placing in perspective. Photos two and three are variations of such motifs

In the order shown, this entire group of images shows how the modeling of figures progressed in porcelain painting from the early 18th through late 19th centuries. The earliest examples I have of famille rose figural motifs all have a slight wash of what appears to be iron red pigment on the faces, which adds color but nothing to match the purposeful attention to three-dimensional modeling that came in the next century.

The fourth image, a borderless dinner plate, may lack perspective (everyone stands about the same height, be they near or far in that courtyard), however, it shows a better than average regard for shading of facial features. It is generally a sumptuously painted piece for Europe or the Americas, with its attention to detail in costuming being about as good as it gets in these wares. The plate is dated to around 1820, based on a similarly painted dish in the John Quentin Feller catalog for the Peabody Essex Museum's 1982 exhibition of the Porter Collection of Chinese export.

Images five and six show a continued progression in modeling of figures' faces from the Daoguang period into the post-1850 Rose Medallion years. The principal device is still a weak iron wash, but it is being used more effectively in this period to enhance facial features. Rose Medallion wares were for the most part well-painted until the 1890's, when China's economic, and political problems, as well as military entanglements, seem to have been reflected in declining quality of decoration on Rose Medallion and other famille rose export dishes. Some of the figural painting eventually retrogressed to a flat, cartoonish style.

But before things had gotten so bad, the Qianjiang movement in porcelain painting, and offshoots such as the 'Eight Friends of Zhushan,' had transferred scroll-painting techniques to porcelain decoration. The well-modeled results are shown in image seven, a tray done in 1890, its interior painted with the scene of a grandfather lending wisdom to two members of his family' next generation.

And with that, my best regards,

Bill H.

Image 2 of 7:

Image 3 of 7

Image 4 of 7

Image 5 of 7:
One footnote. Along with the master, some of the concubines in the scene are showing their feet. A glimpse of bound feet would have been considered erotic in Qing times. In many years of collecting, this is the only famille rose plate I've ever come across where women other than servants (without bound feet) were showing feet or footwear. BH

Image 6 of 7:

Image 7 of 7:

I appreciate all the replies. I have written some further comments but as a complete novice at the computer I am having much difficulty in getting them posted.Please have patience since I will develop the argument once I get over the technical problems.
GA.

Thank you for all your replies. Sorry for the delay but I will respond as soon as possible

1.All the comments are acceptable,but with the exception of John R.tend to be negative in their evaluation of "Chinese painting" pointing out that it LACKS chiarascuro in modelling, perspective in the "accurate" rendering of space,and generally excluding the human figure so central to the "Western" Classical tradition.

2.In his very succinct survey,John R.concludes that"Chinese painting" is closer to REALITY than the other,although restricted in its subject~matter. I take these points for the next stage in our investigation.

3."Chinese painting"is,of course,a wild generalisation. What I have in mind as having the quintessential characteristics of the tradition is the so~called Literati or Scholar painting from c.700~1700 CE.climaxing in the Yuan Dynasty(1277~1367).The category was formulated for somewhat contentious reasons by Dong Qichang(1277~1367). I am aware that it remains a contentious subject among present day historians.

3.Scho;arly theory regarded painting as the third(and lowest)of the *Three Perfections" required of the scholar.Precedence is given to the arts of (a)Calligraphy and (b)Poetry over that of painting,and painting is inconceivable as an art apart from LANGUAGE. So Chinese painting is primarily CONCEPTUAL rather then PERCEPTUAL (to introduce 2 more rather confusing generalisations!). They are not exclusive but merge rather as two ends of a stick are joined. This is a major differnce from "Western" painting (at least before 20C.) Related to calligraphy is the use of black ink only (with the abjuration of colour) in monochrome painting.

4.How then can John R's intriguing conclusion that "Chinese painting" is CLOSER TO REALITY possibly be sustained? This raises the question of the special nature of the Chinese language.(Here I speculate.I am no expert in linguistics) Chinese painting may be seen as very close to language,and that language by its ideographic character may be closer to perceived reality than "Western"languages whch by the use of an alphabetical form of transcription relates only in an arbitrary (or conventional) way to perceived reality.Inevitably western languages would seem to lead to scepticism and ontological questioning as in Kant's critical questioning of our knowledge of an external world "as~it~is~in~itself".Probably such doubts(which have such far~reaching affects on contemporary Western culture(including painting, referring for example to the art of Gerhart Richter) have no place in Chinese epistimology........?

5.If what is depicted in a "Chinese" painting is REAL in the sense described this may explain its restricted subject~mstter.If the artist has once GRASPED REALITY then what would b e the reason for repetition and duplication? Perhaps a limited code(apart from landscape painting which was taken as the ideal of reality) needed to be extended for considerations of social organisation. Hence the"encoded messages" of certain plant and animal subjects eg.plum blossom stood in for the scholar himself and his particular values.

6.What particulary interests me in "Chinese painting" is the treatment of space,or rather the EMPTINESS especially in the "Scholar"painting. The Emptiness is NOT equivalent to physical space. Of course nothing like it occurs in "Western" painting before 20C.abstractionism (unless one includes the gold settings for Mediaeval religious icons).What is the possible significnace of this? Perhaps the subject for another Forum! 7.COMPARATIVITY.In view of the above (and the observations of other respondents)it seems unquestionable that the West needs to study the Chinese painting tradition far more seriously than at present.I would further argue that this is necessary in an inevitably globalised world for us even TO UNDERSTAND OURSELVES.Alternatively this is equally necessary for the Chinese(to understand Western
scepticism).This argument is exquisitely put in Guo Xiaolu's novel "A Concise Chinese Dictionary For Lovers".It is the question of IDENTITY to which I originally referred. Another Forum on COMPARATIVITY! It has wide implications both for the individual,and for the organisation and arrangement of the art of different cultures
(here I have been referring only to the Chinese)in museums and galleries. Here's hoping that at last this gets posted! GA.






9

all very well and good, and I like your second point #3 and #6, but you need to slow down a bit and explain what you are talking about better rather than string a bunch of ideas together that are clear to you but not your audience. or maybe I am just particularly dense. Your point 5 is confusing, for example, since a central component of the literatus's training (certainly after the Yuan) was exposure to and copying of the aesthetic canon that preceded him, not only in order to acquire technical facility but to understand the essential cultural referents to the extent possible. So whether he had "grasped reality" in whatever sense you assert, he still found it a powerful intellectual and aesthetic exercise to blend styles and to quote the works of others works within his own even while asserting his uniqueness. Another reason for duplication and repetition was simply to make money by giving painting consumers what they wanted. The distinction between literatus and professional painter blurred over time. Also, the plum blossom (and the bamboo, and the pine, and the orchid, and the peony, and the you get the point) all stood for various scholarly ideals, which is not the same as "I the scholar/painter am unshakeable like the hoary pine, hear my roar." the uses to which paintings were actually put, that is, as gifts and means of social intercourse (see Craig Clunas on Wen Zhengming, for example), avenues to smoothing class distinctions, etc were sometimes quite different from the ideals with which we associate particular subject matter.

your point #6 assumes that we have all read and understood the book you reference with respect to painting and identity, but i suggest you describe the points in it that speak to you if you want anyone to engage with you on the topic.

as to "closer to reality", I would ask you again to specify whose reality you are speaking of, and how reasonable it is to do so in a comparative context. You explicitly exclude the reality of all court painters, referring only to literatus/scholar painting, not acknowledging that some of the most interesting extant achievements of landscape painting (some very much to do with the organization of space, whether positive or negative) were conceived and executed by court painters (especially during the Song), and that these painters too certainly belong to (and for some people indeed define) the larger category of Chinese traditional painting with which you began.

A corollary point, Song landscapes were conceptual also, but they reflected cosmological views rather than aspects of language. And I assume you know John Hay's much cited article on "the body"...

All of which is to say, just because you like Yuan literati painters is no reason to ignore the rest of Chinese painting, or to assume that what holds for literati painting is generalizable to "Chinese traditional painting". Or, if you prefer to focus only on literati painting, then we should at least narrow the corpus of western painting to which it is being compared to a similar slice. Many Western paintings were done on commission, for example. In order to compare apples to apples, presumably these works (including most Renaissance works) should not be included in what we are calling western painting. But the set of sometimes reclusive western painters of the most highly educated class/landed gentry who worked only in ink is somewhat narrow I fear. We should certainly also exclude most 19th and 20th century western painters as well, but that doesn't leave us much. Thomas Jefferson, perhaps? Though I don't know whether he painted.

moreover one could simply invert your first point and be negative about western art by saying that it lacks conceptual links to language by omitting poetry and calligraphy from the painting surface, but I don't believe this discussion will be well served by implying that because some work lacks some attribute it is therefore inferior to another work that doesn't.

i realize this is a lengthy rant, but as someone who would like to engage with you on the subject on more than a fortnightly basis, it's also a plea for openness and your continued participation.

RAT Thank you for your comments. I will reply when hopefuuly we have recieved some more cricisms! I wrote a shorter reply to you just now but it disappeared into the ether while I was revising it. Briefly it was to say that what I am most interested in is the COMPARATIVE METHOD,and in a way I am using Chinese painting( in which I am also interested per se) as a kind of tool. This is not to avoid any of the cricisms to which I will attempt to reply in due course, In the meantime you can contact me directly through the email addreas if you wish. Having originally given this I could not alter it as you suggasted. GA.

no problem. i also discovered that the "edit your response" button also erases everything you've written. the only way to edit is to do so by rereading what you've written in the message frame before hitting the "preview response" button. oh well.

comparative method is fine (I'll have to reread my Mill though. I think it's Mill, isn't it?), though if i recall correctly, comparative method seeks to provide a causal explanation for whatever the outcome being compared is. is that what you want to do re Chinese and other painting? or by comparison are you after a distillation of some aesthetic ideals, or something else, and if so what?

Rat.Concerning my interest in developing the COMPARATIVE METHOD my training in philosophy,so far as it went,was in British Empiricism. As a result I am extremely distrustful of ideas of causal connection,and also of the existence of Universals therefore I do not hold either your first or second interpretation of the method,and opt for the third,namely “something else” which I will endeavour to describe. Incidentally I do not know Mill’s writings on the subject but dare to guess that they would correspond with the formulation of the method in mid 19C with regard to the “comparative “ study of religion notably by Max Muller and specifically in regard to Chinese “religions” by his partner James Legge (notable for having made the first translations of all the major Chinese Classics into English and being the first Professor of Chinese in the University of Oxford). In no way would I belittle their work,but it was of its time. Legge had the opportunity to go to China as a Christian missionary and the “comparative method” he uses is to assume the truth and superiority of the Christian faith and then to measure how other “superstitions” measured up to it. I cannot refrain from commenting that much 20C. writing about China eg.by James Cahill basically retains these 19C.prejudices. Although Cahill added greatly to Western knowledge of the history of Chinese painting his aesthetic judgments are fundamentally biased, The more recent
development in the “Comparative Method” would seem to be purely historical, there being assumed to be some value in simply juxtaposing any “artwork” of any culture which happened to be of similar date eg.Julian Bell “Mirror of the World” 2007 and “30,000 Years of Art” Phaidon 2007 (Incidentally these still assume a traditional Western view of what counts as “Art”!).
The inadequacy of the above methodologies accounts for my interest on the “Comparative Method”. I think the right place to begin this is to make an autobiographical point.and this will also explain why my original proposition to the Forum linked Chinese painting to the comparative method and to the question of identity. Sometime in early adolescence I was impressed by what must have been a reproduction of one of those strange and mysterious early Chinese landscapes it might have been by Fan Kuan,Xia Gui or one of many artists. I lived in the country,it was during Word War 11 and I had no access to museums. Yet that picture entirely strange and from a culture with which I had no contact has “haunted” me throughout my life,and indeed radically transformed it by giving up an academic career in order to create an art gallery originally called “The Chinese Eye” after a work on Chinese aesthetics by Chiang Yee (a Chinese exile in England in 1930s). So I think it reasonable to maintain that a Chinese picture (together with a loving upbringing) has controlled my life. I specifically mention the love alongside the picture because otherwise it may be argued that what I am going to describe as an example of how the “Comparative method” actually works is otherwise accounted for as a description of “alienation”(although I would accept that there may be some connection between the two),
What I am arguing is that the “Comparative method” needs to be described PHENOMENOLOGICALLY. That is to assert that the subject “I” is alongside the artworks part of the consideration. Indeed what makes something into an artwork is the involvement of the interested viewer,otherwise it is simply another object among objects. The point was made to me the other day when viewing a woodblock print with the artist. He said that he preferred to have his works glazed since then the viewer inevitably saw himself mirrored in the art~work. So an aesthetic appreciation of an ancient Chinese landscape (a) is transposed out of historical time and context into that of the viewer (b) has the power to effect a fundamental change in the life and consciousnesss of a viewer (c) is an encounter between the viewer and something “other” through which the viewer gains a fuller (or one might say truer) sense of his/her SELF IDENTITY. So the proper employment of the Comparative Method in 21C globalised world would be to develop a better sense of identity among people (a sense of identity which was in the past created by religious encounters with “the Other”). GA,

Asianart.com | Associations | Articles | Exhibitions | Galleries |