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

Epilogue

epilogue A New Canon: Qi Becomes the New Zheng A discourse of originality pervaded seventeenth-century Chinese culture, and the term qi 奇 is one of its primary markers in art theory and criticism . As James Watt has written of the art of the first half of the seventeenth century, the concept of qi rather than zheng—the unbalanced as against the balanced—was in the ascendant. For once Chinese writers and artists were prepared to go to extremes.1 The same is true for a significant body of art from the early decades of the Qing Dynasty (though a countervailing movement of stylistic Orthodoxy was also operative then). It was not just that qi/unbalanced had become more important than zheng/balanced, but that qi was an indicator of the new, different, and original as opposed to the normative/zheng standards. As theorists and critics such as Dong Qichang 董其昌 (1555–1636) had put it, not only was it the case that art “seemed unusual, but on the contrary, was canonical,” or normative (似奇反正 si qi fan zheng),2 but also that artists , theorists, and critics “upheld the different as the norm, and so rejected the conventional and the common” (以奇為正，不主故常 yi qi wei zheng, bu zhu gu chang).3 As a result, values associated with qi became the new zheng/norm or standard for the period. During the long seventeenth-century, the conceptually original replaced what was perceived to be conceptually conventional in art and criticism . With originality/qi not only supplanting what had been the tradition or norm/zheng, but also transforming zheng so that zheng became qi, theorists, critics, and artists alike recognized that the new values required 326 | epilogue new art forms. The new and desirable qi art forms were now not only appropriate , but also zheng, “proper,” and “canonical.” Because the new aesthetic dominated seventeenth-century expression, it became the primary stylistic canon of the period. Just as Gong’an theorists did not reject the literary past, seventeenthcentury visual critics and artists did not reject their art historical traditions but felt free to interpret, contort, and expand upon them. Sometimes the effects were startling and boldly new, sometimes they were subtle or sly. (This is discussed in Chapters 8 and 9). One of the means of achieving new art forms was to hybridize past traditions. Not surprisingly, Dong Qichang was the theorist leading this charge, though as demonstrated in this book (especially Chapters 6 and 7), he was hardly alone. As such, it is useful to consider Dong Qichang’s goals in calling for what he termed the da cheng 大成, “Great Synthesis” from the perspective of an active discourse of originality. Art historian Wen Fong has described Dong’s notion of a Great Synthesis as an “integration of the styles of ancient models into works that would in their art-historical comprehensiveness exceed the sum of their stylistic components.”4 In the following statement , Dong counsels learning from a wide spectrum of earlier traditions for landscape painting (in this translation by Wen Fong with characters added and some dates added or adjusted): In painting the level-distance view, follow Zhao Danian (Zhao Lingrang 趙令穰, active ca. 1050–1100); in painting layers of mountains and stacks of peaks, follow Jiang Guandao (Jiang Shen 江參, ca. 1090–1138). For texture strokes, see Dong Yuan’s (active mid-10th century) hemp-skin, as well as the dotted cun strokes of his Xiao and Xiang Rivers. For trees, use the methods of Beiyuan (Dong Yuan) and Zi’ang (Zhao Mengfu 趙孟頫, 1254–1322). For rocks use those found in the great General Li’s (Sixun 李思訓, 651–716) Waiting for the Ferry at the Autumn River, and those in Guo Zhongshu’s (d. 977) snow scenes. Li Cheng’s (919–967) painting methods included both an ink-wash style in small scrolls and a blue and green style. Both should be followed. Having gathered [all these styles] into a Great Synthesis, [the master] will come out with innovations of his own.5 畫平遠師趙大年。重山疊嶂師江貫道。皴法用董源麻皮皴及 《瀟 湘圖》 點子皴。樹用北苑，子昂二家法。石用大李將軍 《秋江待 epilogue | 327 渡圖》 及郭忠恕雪景。李成畫法有小水墨及著色青綠。俱宜宗 之。集其大成自出機軸。6 While most of the artists Dong mentions are recognized within the literati lineage, others (Li Sixun and Li Cheng) painted in ways that bound them more closely to what later critics identified as the stylistic traditions of professional and court artists. Contrary to established art historical interpretations, therefore, it seems that Dong’s Great Synthesis intentionally hybridized literati (amateur) stylistic traditions with those of the professionals. And, although Dong...