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.
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 potters 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 sagger (kiln) 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 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 puproducrrpose, there was the underlying intent to deceive thus resulting in a counterfeit product.
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.[6] Therefore, the source of production, the kiln, also known as the ‘ware,’ established the nomenclature, as well as the worth of each object.[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] 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.[9] Therefore, there was sure motivation for forgers to take advantage of this economic situation.
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.[10] “The technology involved restricted the manufacture of fakes to the professional…”[11] 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.”[12]
In early China, fake clay ware was intended to deceive, to deceive the buyer to believe it was authentic. It was for monetary gain by skimping 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.
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] P. L. Leung and Hongjie Luo, “A Study of Provenance and Dating of Ancient Chinese Porcelain by X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry,” X-Ray Spectrometry 29, no. 1 (January 28, 2000): 34, References
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.
Gillete, Maris. “Copying, Counterfeiting, and Capitalism in Contemporary China : Jingdezhen’s Porcelain Industry.” Modern China 36, no. 4 (July 2010): 367-403. doi: 10.1177/0097700410369880.
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.
My initial post was about the aesthetics that attracted Western collectors and the gradual change in taste, from art pieces that were considered not valuable to the Chinese to those that were invaluable. There were differences in design and color palette that distinguished between chinoiserie art and traditional Chinese art.
Some of my classmates, the ones that delved deeper into the ethics of obtaining and collecting Chinese artworks, studied Western collectors from a completely different perspective.
Before reading about the argument surrounding the ethics of Western collection of Chinese art, I was very sure of my stance that looting of the art is wrong and should not have been done. As I learned, however, even the act of stealing and the movement of artworks are parts of history itself that cannot be undone. Today, in large art museums, for example, people can see antiques and learn about foreign cultures through art, even ones that were wrongfully stolen. Regardless of the collector’s intentions (to let Westerners expand their thinking of the world through art or to simply take based on value), ultimately, if it was taken without permission and/or an equally valued exchange, it was stolen. Furthermore, I also realized that while returning these pieces of art is ideally the right step to take, repatriation of art is definitely easier said than done.
Things I Learned this Week
Even in history, specifically ethics, everything is not black and white.
Aesthetics depends on culture.
Chinoiserie is an imitation of Chinese art and design, made for European taste.
Bibliographic References
Metrick-Chen, Lenore. Collecting Objects/excluding People : Chinese Subjects and American Visual Culture, 1830-1900. Albany N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 2012.
Netting, Lara Jaishree. A Perpetual Fire : John C. Ferguson and His Quest for Chinese Art and Culture. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2013.
“The Treasures of China”, by Justin Jacobs. Indiana Jones in History: From Pompei to the Moon.
I did not expect for our study of early Chinese collections and antiques would expand to include Western collectors. It was interesting to read passages and watch a video that supported information that I already learned from perusing through sources for my final project. For example, a European imitation of Chinese art, chinoiserie, has been very popular with Europeans since the 18th century. This week, I learned that after the Europeans’ initial fascination over the chinoiserie, which was styled by the Chinese to European taste, Western collectors and museums favored the antique porcelain, calligraphic, bronze objects that were very valuable to Chinese owners and collectors. There was a shift in Western perception of aesthetic, which aligned with aesthetic artwork that was cherished and valued by the Chinese.
John C. Ferguson was a Western collector of Chinese art. In order to find antiques and understand their value, Ferguson consulted not only the texts and records written in various Western languages, but also those in Chinese.
Alter Bowl with Fish. Ming dynasty porcelain, specifically Xuande mark and period. Jingdezhen ware. Description: porcelain painted in copper red under transparent glaze. Held in the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
The image above is titled, Alter Bowl with Fish, from the Metropolitan Museum of Art (MMA) in New York. The porcelain bowl is an antique from the Ming dynasty, made during the ten-year reign period of Emperor Xuande (1426–35). The location of production of this bowl is Jingdezhen, the porcelain city, so it is categorized as Jingdezhen ware. Its composition is as follows: white “porcelain painted in copper red under transparent glaze.”
The actual photographer of the image above is not specified on the Metropolitan Museum of Art website.
The credit line states, “Rogers Fund, 1919.” Rogers Fund is a foundation that acquires artworks through the large sum of money donated by Jacob S. Rogers when he passed. Therefore, MMA owns the bowl.
The image serves as an example about how collectors dictated the value of ceramics in early China, using the time and place of production.
Before reading the basic set (Craig Clunas’s Superfluous Things…), I randomly decided to focus my blog post on ceramics. The passage has less information on ceramics than calligraphy and bronzes. I tried to address the multiple leading questions I had to answer, but some of them are not discussed in the sphere of ceramics. One question that I was unable to answer was how collectors authenticized ceramic objects. For calligraphy, I learned from Hannah’s post that a proper label, mark, or seal would more likely be on genuine, original calligraphic works.
However, the absence of information makes sense; forgery and counterfeits in ceramics occurred less frequently than in calligraphy and bronzes because the creating process requires additional effort to mold and fire the object to at least appear real.
This week encouraged me to continue digging into this topic for my final research idea, specifically to figure out what distinguished counterfeit ceramics from genuine ceramics.
Things I Learned this Week
Forgery in calligraphy was difficult to authenticize by analyzing handwriting.
Authentication in calligraphy can be done by finding an official label, mark, or seal on the writing.
Calligraphic and bronze counterfeits were more common than ceramic counterfeits.
Bibliographic Reference
Clunas, Craig. Superfluous Things: Material Culture and Social Status in Early Modern China. Honolulu: Univ Of Hawai’i Press, 2016.
Main idea: Porcelain forgery. What makes something counterfeit about porcelain: artisan, process, intent, raw materials, quality, all the above, etc.?
2. Distinctions between skilled porcelain potters and unskilled laborers (multiple paragraphs under this topic, specifically knowledge and ability).
There are specific steps that a true porcelain artisan must perfect to create a fine piece of porcelain. 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.[1] 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 final product from start to finish.
There were also different levels of ability. It required more skill to make large pots and vases than smaller bowls because it was hard manage larger pieces of clay. In addition, a piece with a traditional, symmetrical shape is usually simpler to make, especially when there are pre-made moulds to make the porcelain pieces, than that with a peculiar shape.[2] Sculpting the clay is less dependent on the artisan’s hands when using the moulds, so less experienced and less skilled craftsmen can still successfully create a final product.
There was also complementary/auxiliary knowledge that porcelain-making experts naturally absorbed from working in this field.
e.g. raw material preparation, sagger (kiln) construction.[3]
Today, one aspect of forgery is the fact the believed artist of the work is not the actual artist. The value and power associated with the artist is bestowed onto the artwork. However, in early China, many artisans and craftsmen, including potters were not well-known. Like other art pieces, porcelain had a rich history, materials and designs unique to each region and each “reign period”,[4] but the name of the potter did not affect the price of the porcelain structure. This idea brings up the main question again, so what was considered porcelain forgery, if it was not built on the deception of the potter’s name?
3. Insight into counterfeit porcelain and porcelain forgery in early China.
Historical review.
Frequency of occurrence (successful and unsuccessful fraudulent events).
Difficulty for frauds to achieve porcelain forgery and con others.
Difficulty for porcelain experts (in early China) to correctly distinguish between authentic and fake porcelain.
What is fake porcelain?
4. Conclusion
Meaning of counterfeit porcelain and porcelain forgery in early China.
Notes
[1] 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.
[2] Ibid., 183.
[3] Ibid., 182.
[4] 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.
References
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.
Gillete, Maris. “Copying, Counterfeiting, and Capitalism in Contemporary China : Jingdezhen’s Porcelain Industry.” Modern China 36, no. 4 (July 2010): 367-403. doi: 10.1177/0097700410369880.
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.
Polikreti, Kyriaki. “Detection of Ancient Marble Forgery : Techniques and Limitations.” Archaeometry 49, no. 4 (September 6, 2007): 603-619. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4754.2007.00325.x.
An expert and collector of ceramics in the Ming era would look for antiques (93). He would pay attention to not only the style, the visual aesthetic, of the object, but also its function (100). An antique collector would want to know the use(s) of and the purpose(s) served by the desired item, possibly augmenting its value.
Within the broad category of ceramics, there are subcategories according to their respective origin of production (location and/or reign period) (101). Based on these subcategories, there is a value ranking, in which the ceramics from the early Ming’s reign period of Emperors Xuande (1426-1435) and Chenghua (1465-1487) are the top (103).
Ceramic forgery was much less common than other types (calligraphy, painting, jade-working, metal-working) because more time and effort was required to successfully create a final product (109).
Alter Bowl with Fish. Ming dynasty porcelain, specifically Xuande mark and period. Jingdezhen ware. Description: porcelain painted in copper red under transparent glaze. Held in the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Bibliographic Reference
Clunas, Craig. Superfluous Things: Material Culture and Social Status in Early Modern China. Honolulu: Univ Of Hawai’i Press, 2016.
I was able to learn from my classmates’ blog posts about the social status and societal expectation of artisans. I would like to clarify my past points. Although artisans were praised and appreciated for their work and the beautiful products they created, they were stuck in their social standing in society. It was very difficult for them to raise their status. There was an unspoken but established understanding that artisans made up their own category of people as “outlandish” as Stephen wrote in his initial post this week. This understanding manifested into the “perfect artisan” concept: artisans should maintain their focus on their own work and not become a part of mainstream society. By establishing and separating a group from others, ultimately the people in the group will not be able to change their status because they are considered the fundamentally different from the rest, the idea of othering.
Things I Learned this Week
What makes up the “perfect artisan.”
Multiple layers of involuntary labor: indentured servitude, imprisoned labor, conscripted labor, etc.
Government rules were established and actually followed, according to historical account, to prevent the exploitation of the common people.
Bibliographic References
Barbieri-Low, Anthony J. Artisans in Early Imperial China. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2007.
