In the beginning of the semester, the weekly new content was kind of chronological, so I thought that I would learn the history of Early China using according to the timeline. However, soon enough, I realized that tangible objects and physical places drove the topics of discussion, not the time period. Since grade school, history classes typically focused from the general era, place, or event to the specific object or person. Through this course, I learned in reverse; studying specific items from the past shows a lot about the society back then. Furthermore, using objects as a “portal” into history was more fun and captivating as a student. Common as well as special objects provide insight into societal thoughts, beliefs, and unwritten rules. I could learn about the individual items and apply what I discover to the time period. I feel as though I actually learned more this way. It felt less forced and I became eager for the next week.
This course changed my perspective on history. I think I was always confused by history because it felt as though I was trying to understand what happened in the past through my cultural bias formed from my experience in the present. Although I am sure I still instinctively judge new cultures, I think I grew more aware of my unwarranted prejudice and train myself to stop myself and look at them again, intentionally to learn from them.
For the General Academic Requirement, I think I earned the DE credit. People, including myself are very good at detecting all the differences between what is theirs and what is not. It is how we bring order to the world by categorizing. Unfortunately, we all stop there; something is lacking. HST137 prepared me to appreciate the differences because the world is becoming “an increasingly diverse and interconnected world.” It is not to turn a blind eye to the distinguishing factors, but to study them for the sake of educating myself and especially acknowledging others’ experiences. Now, instead of being afraid to share my thoughts, I feel more confident in contributing them because of the skills of analysis, consciousness, and understanding built from this course.
The highly manipulative and lucrative business of art forgery known today also existed in Early China’s Ming Dynasty. However, there is a key difference between now and then: the interpretation of counterfeit. In the present, a major aspect of forgery is the fact that the believed artist of the artwork is not the actual creator. The value and power associated with the fame of the artist is bestowed onto the artwork. However, in Early China, many artisans and craftsmen, including ceramists, were not well-known. The value of pottery was rooted elsewhere. Like other pieces of art, ceramics had a rich history, materials and designs unique to each region and each “reign period,”[1] but the name of the potter did not affect the price of the clay product. What exactly was ceramic forgery in Early China, if it was not built on the deception of the potter’s name?
There are numerous steps that a true ceramic artisan must perfect to create a smooth, beautiful chinaware. He knows whether the clay is suitable and well-prepared for the final product in mind through touch. His hands work in tandem to throw the clay, mold the clay, and give it life. After shaping the mound into a smooth, identifiable object, the potter showcases his keen eye for complimentary colors and selects the types of pigments and glazes. His stable hands then decorate; he knows which colors to use first, where along the object to paint, and how to carefully draw the fine designs. Following the glazing, firing the near-finished product in the kiln requires knowledge about firewood (type, amount, arrangement) to achieve and safely maintain the oven temperature.[2] If the kiln is used incorrectly, then the object might not be fully fired or might explode and shatter inside the kiln. Mastering and combining these skills result in a desired ceramic ware from start to finish.
There was also complementary knowledge that pottery-making experts naturally absorbed from working in this field. For example, properly locating the site with the highest-quality raw material, preparing the clay, and constructing the kiln and sagger, which is the boxes around objects in the kiln to protect them from being burnt demanded expertise about the manufacturing process.[3]
Although the entire complicated procedure required a wide breadth of knowledge and capability for a single professional potter, it was possible to complete in the hands of amateurs. It could be done by dividing the precursory, the shaping and making, and the concluding steps into separate, specified actions. Therefore, less skill was needed to finish each step. Each laborer specialized in “production technique, style, or period.”[4] For example, if someone could throw clay and form a vase or jar, he could not build a cup from a clay slab. For pottery painters, they focused on either the underglaze or outerglaze but did not do both. While less competent workers were able to make the final product, by exploiting the division of labor, there was a significant disparity in the quality of their fake ceramic ware. Production techniques determined the quality of a ware.[5] They bypassed meticulous steps in between that an expert would perform. Regardless of whether the laborers skimmed over important parts by accident or on purpose, there was the underlying intent to deceive thus resulting in a counterfeit product.[6]
Fraudulent activities took place in the art niche in the Ming Dynasty. Counterfeits were found in not not only calligraphy and painting, but also bronze and ceramics. For three-dimensional structures, like the latter two, bronze and ceramics, there were subcategories with their own individualized value, thus instituting a ranking of desirability. Chinese potters produced many kinds of ceramic wares in different kiln sites in successive periods.[7] According to the Ming literature, the most to least desired wares were ranked in the following order: “Chai ware, Ru ware, Guan ware, Dong ware, Ge ware, Xiang ware, ancient Korean ware, ancient Ding ware, Jizhou ware, ancient Cizhou ware, Fujian ware, Longquan ware, ancient Raozhou ware, and Hezhou ware.”[8] These categorical names refer to a combination of the location of production, both the general region and the specific kiln, the technique, and the time period of production.[9] There was high demand for these objects, especially the ones with high value, because simply possessing them conveyed wealth and prestige to the rest of society.[10] Therefore, there was sure motivation for forgers to take advantage of this economic situation.
Dish.Guan ware: stoneware with crackled blue glaze. Created in the late 12th–13th century. Held in the Metropolitan Museum of Art.Wine jar (Guan), Cizhou ware. Stoneware painted in brown on a white ground. Created in the late 13th-early 14th century (Yuan Dynasty). Held in the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Despite the substantial market for pottery ware, this type of forgery occurred much less frequently than in the other high arts, namely calligraphy, painting, jadeworking, and metalworking.[11] “The technology involved restricted the manufacture of fakes to the professional…”[12] More time and effort were needed to produce a counterfeit ceramic piece because it could not be executed alone, by someone possessed zero knowledge and experience handling clay. An additional obstacle to overcome would be to find a kiln with a potter or workers that would be willing to partake when they already had paying projects to fulfill. Albeit less common, fake ceramic objects circulated in the Ming society because there was hardly communication between the producers and consumers. “Here, the distance, geographical and symbolic, between the anonymous artisan producers of ceramics and their consumers was at its greatest, and reliable information was hardest to obtain.”[13]
In Early China, fake clay ware was intended to deceive the buyer to believe it was authentic. To clinch extra profits, forgers skimped on the production time, money, skills, and process at the cost of guaranteed quality. The high value of chinaware pieces was not attributed to the identity of the artisans, unlike today. It was not a factor at all because they were usually anonymous. During those days, it was difficult for frauds to obtain and sell cheaper ceramic counterfeits, but it was also difficult for buyers and experts to confirm or deny their authenticity because there was no advanced scientific technology the world has today.
After over half a millenium, forgery is still happening in China in the 21st century because the notion of “copying saves effort” still stands.[14] The long history of fake ceramics has prompted pottery makers to be more vigilant over their work and form as well as more cynical of their clientele. Today, imitators have access to the ceramic goods of the true artists, so they can replicate produce more closely. They often examine the goods under the guise of being customers.[15] If the seller is suspicious of the buyer, he refuses the sale. Because it is possible to overlook some of the dishonest customers (forgers), the original ceramists take precautionary measures. They try their best to prevent their styles and techniques from being copied by hiding all aspects of production: the recipes for clay, glaze, and underglaze pigments; the workshop layout; and the mechanism for doing each step.[16] Artisans’ secrets inspire forgers to be more sly, causing the artisans to be even more wary, resulting in a continuous cycle. Furthermore, because authentication is more reliable today, forgers improve their replicas to at least avoid the initial skepticism from prospective buyers. Since Early China, potters–the ones that create the product–and collectors–the ones that shine value on the product–have fueled counterfeiters to participate in and cheat the art world.
Notes
[1] Craig Clunas, “Things of the past: Uses of the antique in Ming material culture,” in Superfluous Things : Material Culture and Social Status in Early Modern China, (Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, 2004), 101.
[2] Anne Gerritsen, “Skilled Hands: Managing Human Resources and Skill in the Sixteenth-Century Imperial Kilns,” in The City of Blue and White : Chinese Porcelain and the Early Modern World, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020), 182.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Maris Gillete, “Copying, Counterfeiting, and Capitalism in Contemporary China : Jingdezhen’s Porcelain Industry,” Modern China 36, no. 4 (July 2010): 372, https://doi.org/10.1177/0097700410369880.
[5] Ibid., 371.
[6] Stacey Pierson, “True or False? Defining the Fake in Chinese Porcelain,” Les Cahiers de Framespa. Nouveaux champs de l’histoire sociale 31, (June 1, 2019). doi: 10.4000/framespa.6168.
Clunas, Craig. “Things of the past: Uses of the antique in Ming material culture.” In Superfluous Things : Material Culture and Social Status in Early Modern China, 91-115. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, 2004.
Gerritsen, Anne. “Skilled Hands: Managing Human Resources and Skill in the Sixteenth-Century Imperial Kilns.” In The City of Blue and White : Chinese Porcelain and the Early Modern World, 175-194. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020.
Pierson, Stacey. “True or False? Defining the Fake in Chinese Porcelain.” Les Cahiers de Framespa. Nouveaux champs de l’histoire sociale 31, (June 1, 2019). doi: 10.4000/framespa.6168.
