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

Chapter 2: Some Problems of Interpretation

chapter 2 Some Problems of Interpretation or Discerning the Flavors of a Fine Kettle of Fish In China, just as in parts of Europe and the US, the concept of the “original ” within the art historical lexicon developed a meaning separate from the “originary.” The category of originary implies not only a preference for the authentic over the forged, but also a concern with the aesthetic sources of artworks. In fact, any culture that requires art to be taught holds artistic traditions relevant, and in valuing the production of certain earlier artists as key achievements, shows a concern for the originary. At the same time, respect of the originary and a desire for originality can coexist within a single culture. An obvious example appears in European art of the Renaissance through the late nineteenth century, when artists were encouraged to learn from past masters in the hope of exceeding them, and to use artworks of the past as points of departure for their own interpretations. These new works gained legitimacy from their connection to past principles even as the works themselves were judged for their novelty. A search for formal beginnings is different than a search for aesthetic expression, though how artists might creatively transform their sources remains of great interest in China as much as anywhere else. What then, of historical sources of aesthetic inspiration in Chinese art? Early critics and calligraphers of the Qing Dynasty (1644–1611), for example, regularly summoned the phrase, conglai 從來, “origin” or “originary” (literally: from the beginning), when discussing their quest for the sources of the ancient calligraphy scripts and forms used to enhance their own innovative and original expressions.1 In contrast, the dominant concern of China’s late Ming critics (ca. 1570–1644) and their followers in the early decades of the 42 | dimensions of originality Qing, in other words, the “long seventeenth century,” is about the conceptual originality of the art of their time. So much so, in fact, that a discourse of originality can be said to have percolated through the entire period. It is this phenomenon and its discourse that is interesting and significant to me. Examination of seventeenth-century texts of art criticism reveals that qi 奇 is a word frequently summoned to discuss issues surrounding original expression. It must be immediately conceded that no dictionary that I have examined defines qi as “original.” Rather, in its primary sense, qi is defined as a concept that indicates difference, and secondarily, as odd or uneven (like a number). Nevertheless, expanded entries do regularly indicate qi’s positive connotations through applications that function much as “marvelous,” and “extraordinary” do in English-language texts. Accordingly, in art criticism qi tends to indicate an enjoyment of difference, a “that which is unlike anything that has gone before” kind of difference that suggests an originality of conception. That is, as per a standard English-language dictionary definition, “a freshness of aspect or design: independence or newness of style or character…; the power of independent thought or perception: capacity for constructive imagination or significant innovation: creative ability.”2 Close examination of the theory and criticism of the period from a critical perspective determines this book’s premise: that what intellectuals frequently meant when they used qi was analogous to the way English-language writers today apply “(conceptual) originality.” Moreover, seventeenth-century critics utilized the word so often that it is clear that the term indexes an important value for the art world of that period. Although the value of originality has been accorded a place of prominence in the post-nineteenth-century European and American context, it should also be recognized as paradigmatic for seventeenth-century China. To better understand this book’s contribution , it is essential to review definitions of the terms under discussion, and to identify the prevalent interpretive models that, while useful, leave room for its argument. Terms of identification The idiosyncratic art of the seventeenth century and the artists who produced it are often identified as “eccentric” and “individualist” in English- chapter 2: some problems of interpretation | 43 language art histories.3 When viewing the art, it is easy to understand what prompts these terms’ use. The art does appear idiosyncratic and thus individualistic . Some of it is whimsical or weird to the point of seeming eccentricity , as in the detail provided in Fig. 9-17, from Wu Bin’s On the Way to Shanyin. Still, these terms actually...