Dimensions of Originality: Essays on Seventeenth-Century Chinese Art Th eory and Criticism

Chapter 5: Pre-seventeenth-century Art Theory And Criticism

chapter 5 What the Texts Say: Originality in Pre-Seventeenth-Century Art Theory and Criticism While theorists and critics of all periods valued originality, the manifestation of this value in the visual arts necessarily differed from one period to another. Whereas those of the seventeenth century particularly enjoyed an extremely bold expression of this value, and indicated their appreciation of this value frequently through their use of the term qi 奇, earlier writers had other concerns. While an examination of those values falls far outside the scope of this project, and indeed, many of these values have been discussed elsewhere,1 it is relevant to ask if early theorists and critics found the values represented by the term qi as important as did those of the seventeenth century. The objective here, therefore, is to examine how pre-seventeenth-century theorists and critics employed this term. This chapter examines the various ways in which qi was applied prior to the seventeenth century to determine how early art theorists and critics used it. Did they use it primarily to indicate “originality” or something else? As well, this chapter illustrates the gradually increasing frequency of term use, signaling a growing appreciation of the values represented by the term qi. Compared to the plethora of instances of use of qi in the seventeenth -century criticism (as discussed in Chapters 6 and 7), the relatively scant available statements culled together here effectively demonstrate that qi was not a paradigmatic aesthetic value prior to the seventeenth century. In these earlier periods, other notions, already well-established in the art historical literature, dominate the literati art critics’ mindset. These terms include the untrammeled, fresh, and free represented by the term yi 逸; the understated and seemingly ordinary, pingdan 平淡; the seem- 104 | dimensions of originality ingly awkward, zhuo 拙; a sense of playfulness, xi 戲; and a return to the ancients’ ideals, fugu 復古. This chapter provides a representative selection of critical statements on originality/qi located in an extensive sampling of surviving texts published from the fifth through sixteenth centuries. Finding passages of criticism utilizing the term qi involved searching through the Siku quanshu 四庫全書, an encyclopedia of virtually all imperially sanctioned texts published in China from antiquity through 1782, and examination of texts of art theory and criticism that do not appear in the Siku. A survey of over a millennium-worth of texts reveals only a smattering of the term qi used in visual arts contexts. Although its use in these early texts is mostly descriptive, from time to time writers do use the term more critically . Moreover, the increasing interest in values described as qi evident in these texts is matched by the increased use of the term as the leading character in sobriquets up through the seventeenth century and beyond. (See Appendix.) This indicates an increasing cultural value for the term’s meanings over time. In the passages that follow, most concern painting, but some focus on calligraphy or literature. From time to time, the historiographical reiterations of texts are commented upon. Chinese authors regularly quote earlier important statements, often without crediting their sources, presumably because they were so well known. Identifying their historiographic importance brings attention to the fact that the statements were considered powerful in their day and later. Qi in art theory and criticism of the Six Dynasties Period (220–581) The important art theorists and critics of the Six Dynasties Period (220– 581) most frequently referenced are Xie He 謝赫 (active ca. 500–535?) and Yao Zui 姚最 (535–602 or 531–601). Xie is known for being the first to formulate judgment criteria for painting. These are included in the Gu hua pin lu 古畫品錄 (Old Record of the Classification of Painters), as are his ranking and brief commentary about painters of his time. A sequel to this text is Yao’s Xu Hua pin 續畫品 (A Sequel to the Evaluation of Paintings). In chapter 5: pre-seventeenth-century art theory and criticism | 105 these short tracts, Xie uses the term qi four times, Yao only once. Neither critic consistently uses qi to indicate originality. Both texts have been reliably translated by William Reynolds Beal Acker, and in the passages that follow, Acker’s translations are relied upon. Acker utilized two versions of the Gu hua pin lu when making his translation . Where relevant, both versions of the Chinese text are provided. Of Emperor Mingdi of the Qin, Xie He writes: Although he was sketchy as...