|
Subject:Re: Shang jade axe found in Brisbane
Posted By: gman Tue, Feb 05, 2008
Hi Anita,
It does look like another case of:
conveniently non-existant provenance, which they would say is meaningless anyways,
another case of poor lapidary work which they will say everyone is imagining,
and another case of artwork which they will tout as masterfully original, even though you have shown a bronze ax which exhibits a remarkably similar motif.
I remember a recent discussion of hydrofluoric acid (HF) in which they kept laughing off the acid as the means of producing the alledged raised (exposed) tremolite crystals by desolving the nephrite crystal matrix, because along with the nephrite crystals, any carvings exposed to the acid would also be desolved.
And yet when the owner of this piece posted these photos, she and her gang of sycophants who are so fond of ridiculing anyone with a disenting opinion were quick to attack the member who posted the photo with arrows below, rather than to attempt to answer his questions based on the same points which they had earlier made about how the surface would be affected by HF.
Of course, the mentioning of HF is perhaps just another form of misdirection since it is the most likely type of acid to quickly desolve the nephrite crystal matrix. The main point here is that "whatever" treatment caused the effect we see in this photo at the edge of the translucent area, does not seem likely to have naturally avoided the translucent area which is devoid of subsurface tremolite crystals since the nephrite crystals above and below are severely degraded. Why would the more pure nephrite crystals of the translucent area remain unaffected?
It looks more like the translucent area was selectively avoided for lack of subsurface crystals to expose.....oops!
As always, the arguments for the crystals are extremely hollow and as with the authenticity and dating issues, they base their findings on conjecture, wishful thinking, artistic expression as they see it, their own personal opinions, and most of all "because we say so".
Comparison to authentic pieces agreed upon by scholars is only done out of convenience, and usually mixed in unannounced between their collected pieces in order to draw someone in to say the authentic pieces are fakes.
The studies of raised and or exposed crystals in scientific articles such as Acta Taiwanica, and subsequent articles and postings by geologists such as Janet Douglas and Fred Cook, are frequently taken out of context and mis-quoted as being the "rosetta stone" of determining the age of a jade artifact. However, if anyone points out how the test results were based strictly on the objects which were submitted for testing and should not be considered a rubber stamp solution for determining the age of an artifact, or that the scientists could not speculate on the length of time it takes for the crystals to become raised naturally, or whether it would be possible to grow crystals on the surface of an object artificially, the raised crystal lovers will fall back and say that the number one means of determining authenticity is the artwork, not the science. They want to have their cake and eat it too.
Fortunately, these documents are available for people to read in context, and through my own communications with Fred Cook, I have learned that science is a long ways from coming to any conclusions as regards raised crystals being an indicator which will allow scientists to determine the age of a jade artifact. There are just too many variables as to the chemical makeup of the soils, the composition and temperature of the water in the soil, and even other items within the burial including the body.
The fact that these alledgedly authentic pieces were removed from burial sites without documenting the chemical makeup of the soil and the physical data of the burial depth and other important factors allows these collectors to perpetuate their own makeshift theories, without contributing anything to the scientific theories they are trying to use as proof of age. Any scientific, anthropologic, or archaeological hypothesesis they try to come up with will always be tainted.
It must be remembered also that while the scientific and academic communities can look at and evaluate how porphyroblast crystals within the nephrite matrix can become raised or pushed above the surface of the matrix by the formation of other crystals within the matrix, they have no valid reason to spend research grants on proving or disproving the crystals as a means of dating an artifact, or on how to grow surface crystals or expose porphyroblast crystals within the nephrite matrix which would be more of a commercial endeavor for the multi-million dollar per year Worldwide jade industry since the authenticity of museum jades is ideally based on provenance and documented excavation, NOT surface weathering and crystals.
Just as we see countless faked, forged, and reproduced ceramic objects that were the result of extensive experimentation in some cases in order to create interesting decorator items, and in some cases to defraud serious collectors. Just as we see masterpieces of artwork from every era which took advantage of the best technology they had at the time, and cunning craftsmanship by artists who could could have easily made a name for themselves on their own merit. Although some collectors whom I respect will disagree with me, I believe that whether these hundreds of pieces in T&T's collection were forged, faked or reproduced last week or hundreds of years ago, each generation of jade craftsmen has always had access to the traditional tools and techniques, as well as the ability to incorporate newer tools, newer technologies, and whatever they could come up with to enhance the popularity of the item.
There are even lasers which are used to engrave the image from a photograph or artwork onto stone surfaces, including jade.
I am willing to concede that some or many of T&T's pieces are authentic. I am also willing to concede that many of the pieces feature awesome lapidary work, and even what appears to be authentic ancient script. Just as with the scientific evaluations, each piece would need to be examined on its own merit, and the script characters translated to see if the script makes any sense or is only a conglomerate of copied characters.
And of course all of the information surrounding the location where the alledged artifact was excavated, which cannot be provided, is what would be needed by actual jade scholars, archaeologists, anthropologists and geologists to ascertain authenticity of an artifact with any degree of certainty.
Having gone back through the archives and looked at the hundreds of pieces in T&T's collection which T has posted, I am perplexed that for as much as T professes to be an expert, and as much as she is worshiped by her followers, she seems ill prepared to make anything but the most minimal of attributions when it comes to period, location of discovery, or dynasty.
In fact, she and her followers do not seem to care the least bit about the anthropology of the civilizations who's tombs they are robbing should the pieces be authentic, nor does it seem to be a problem that they are funding the grave robbing mechanism by which archaeologists will be denied the chance to study the excavations. In fact, they are quick to ridicule any excavations by Chinese government achaeologists, and prefer to believe whatever sketchy information the black marketeers might provide.
Of course as was pointed out elsewhere, if the Australian Commonwealth took action to stop the illegal importation of dinosaur eggs, why would they allow the continual illegal importation of the national treasures of China? I suppose that leaves two possibilities, either T&T are smugglers of the worst kind bringing items into the country by the same clandestine methods as would be utilized by drug runners, or the alledged artifacts are cleared through customs because they are reproductions.
For a group of "collectors", who fancy themselves as "scholars", I find their closed-mindedness laughable, their methods of discussing points of authenticity despicable, and their general sense of right and wrong as being represented by the foul-mouthed and immature "Joe" who is essentially a racist, fascist, elitist sociopath who can't seem to express an original idea which makes sense on his own. And although he loves to promote himself as an artistic genius, he is simply a caricature of a computer internet warrior, and most likely a pimple-faced thirty-something newspaperboy living in his parents basement.
There are a couple of them who are well spoken, and they try to make the same arguments in a more civilized manner, however if they are unable to succeed, the crystal goon squad will soon take over the thread and in many cases begin cannibalising those on their own side who try to make their points without resorting to sophmoric schoolyard taunts.
From what I have read in the Chicochai archives, as a senior member, T severely diminishes her own credibility by constantly allowing Joe and a few others to repeatedly attack anyone who doesn't follow the party lines.
The pathetic Joe will probably say I am simply a "philistine", or that I can't see real art, or that I am jealous. That is his only artistic quality, is that he has created a form of performance art based on rabidly insulting anyone and everyone who disagrees with the crystallite crew, and himself in particular.
Joe also likes to remind Bill and Diasai that they were shunned and ridiculed by the Asian Arts Forum for their outlooks on jade.
I think that is an unfair and inaccurate assessment of our discussions here which were less to do with whatever theories they had about determining the authenticity and mineralogical properties of an alledged jade artifact, and more to do with trying to stop them from promoting eBay as a venue where authentic artifacts could be found on a regular basis. Bill and Diasai's theories on collecting jade are more appropriate to the Chicochai forum which if moderated, would be a place for different theories to be discussed in a civil manner. In fact, I think Bill and Diasai's comments in the Chicochai forums hold just as much water as anyone else's.
Considering that T and her sycophants continually bash and insult anyone outside of their own group, and regularly describe everyone in the Asian Arts Forum in the most derogatory terms, I found it laughable that while refering to Chicochai members who disagree with their crystal rubber stamp theories, T posted a statement in which she wrote:
"We have had a great deal of correspondence from watchers of both these forums, and the results are all positive. It seems that stupidity is not catching!"
This statement epitomizes the self-authentication, the arrogant attitude of perceived superiority, and the statements which cannot be proven, nor disproven which T and her followers use to circumvent having to discuss anything in a civil manner.
Quoting Shakespeare from Hamlet: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks"
Apart from the issues of age, authenticity, and possibly being the scourge of Chinese archaeology, and anthropology, I really like T&T's collection and if they turn it over to the Chinese authorities, and the government accepts the collection and places it in a museum, maybe then I will believe they are not mostly reproductions.
Somehow I doubt she or her over-zealous followers will be amused with my comments, but if nothing else they will be reminded that the whole World is watching, and just because people are not lining up to be abused by her thugs, does not mean they agree with the programming. We see every time they dodge a question. We see how they will even attack each other for being too nice to the enemies of the state. They are about as scholarly as mindless zombies.
Each of them has the opportunity each day to make their own decisions.
Cheers
Gman
|