Connoisseurship versus Criticism : A discussion of a problematic painting by Bada Shanren - article ; n°1 ; vol.78, pg 229-258

Peter B.Way

Description

Bulletin de l'Ecole française d'Extrême-Orient - Année 1991 - Volume 78 - Numéro 1 - Pages 229-258
30 pages
Source : Persée ; Ministère de la jeunesse, de l’éducation nationale et de la recherche, Direction de l’enseignement supérieur, Sous-direction des bibliothèques et de la documentation.

Informations

• Publié par: BULLETIN_DE_L-ECOLE_FRANCAISE_D-EXTREME-ORIENT
• Publié le: 01 janvier 1991
• Nombre de lectures: 15
• Langue: English
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 4 Mo

Extrait

Peter B. Way
Connoisseurship versus Criticism : A discussion of a problematic
painting by Bada Shanren
In: Bulletin de l'Ecole française d'Extrême-Orient. Tome 78, 1991. pp. 229-258.
Citer ce document / Cite this document :
Way Peter B. Connoisseurship versus Criticism : A discussion of a problematic painting by Bada Shanren. In: Bulletin de l'Ecole
française d'Extrême-Orient. Tome 78, 1991. pp. 229-258.
doi : 10.3406/befeo.1991.1776
http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/befeo_0336-1519_1991_num_78_1_1776CONNOISSEURSHIP VERSUS CRITICISM
(A discussion of a problematic painting by Bada Shanren) *
PAR
Peter B. WAY
1691" This 2 by is in Bada part Shanren an examination (Zhu Da of 1626-1705) the painting and "Two in part Ducks a discussion & Rock, of Winter theory Day and
method. The focus is on both the nature and the significance of the identity of a
painting within a body of works ascribed to a painter, or the authenticity of that
painting. The notion of identity in both its particular and its general terms raises
some complex and important questions. In the most general terms identity involves
a necessary relationship of things and facts in time and a sensible relationship of
forms and meaning within the mind. The identity of a painting — versus that of a
poem or musical composition — necessarily represents both a historical and an
aesthetic assertion, for a painting can not be, as a poem or musical composition can
be. abstracted from its material nature. By definition, therefore, a painting repre
sents simultaneously a fact in time and a form within the mind. Though the orders
of time and the mind are related or ro-incidental — some sort of historical order
being the sine-qua-non of every aesthetic tradition — the two orders are essentially
different: time being spatial and sequential, and the mind analytical and paradi
gmatic.
It is such a complexity of historical and aesthetic elements which often makes
the identification of a painting particularly problematic. When the two sets of
evidence appear to contradict each oilier — such as in the case where the composit
ion appears to be genuine but its inscription, signature, seals, and colophons do
not; or the rarer case where the seals, and appear
(1) The following article was written before the publication of Master of the Lotus Garden — The Life
and Art of Bada Shanren written by Wang Fangyu & Richard M. Barnhart and edited by Judith G.
Smith, Yale University Press, 1990 (Abbrev. M.L.G.). Besides correcting some obvious errors, adding
some details, and facilitating the references I have left the arguments intact. In part they corroborate
the opinions of Mr. Wang and Mr. Barnhart and in part they present different interpretations of some of
the same facts.
(2) The hangingsiroll was bought by me, while serving as a foreign-expert at the local University
from the state antique shop in Suzhou in 1986. The inventory number on the scroll indicated that the
composition had been confiscated by the state during the early fifties. It was sold as an imitation of Bada
Shanron dating from the Jia-qing era (1796-1821). 230 PETER B. WAY
to be genuine but the composition does not — the final judgement represents an act
of critical interpretation which involves an evaluation of two fundamentally differ
ent types of evidence each with its own authority and contradictions. However,
because the identity of a painting is essentially an aesthetic assertion whose meani
ng or value lies in the significance it gives to the painting and the painter as such,
acute aesthetic judgment carries and should carry the greatest weight. But, it is
also the most problematic evidence.
Though one is often told that evaluating art is simply a matter of refined taste
and that a skilled connoisseur can not only distinguish the genuine from the fake
but also judge the qualities of each painting, history has consistently exposed the
limitations and errors of the best connoisseurs. At its most significant level, art
actually represents the most problematic of human affairs, and the connoisseur as
the arbitrator of "good taste", in a certain sense, always errs i.e. his judgment
represents a particular definition of beauty. Whether painting, music, or poetry, art
refuses to be restricted to such a consensus, or when it is it is no longer art. Every
culture tries to deny art its radical nature or to reduce it to something both known
and understood, and it is the responsibility of every significant artist and critic to
challenge this understanding and to reveal the limits of our sense of beauty. Other
wise, art has no real function and it serves simply to reiterate common prejudices
and static values. The very nature of art in both Europe and China, where it
realized a critical tradition, involves a fundamental contradiction. As T.S. Eliot has
pointed out, every real work of art is by definition "new" and, therefore, it refuses,
to some degree, to conform to the standards and the values of the past. Ironically,
such iconoclasm represents art's most traditional element.
The identity of a painting can confirm or contradict our understanding of a
painter and that understanding — for the most important artists — should always
remain in question and be open to close scrutiny. The assumption that we know and
can, without doubt, judge the compositions of the most significant painters in either
Europe or China is arrogant and false. The critic or painter can always learn some
thing new from either Goya or Ni Zan. One of the primary functions of art criticism
is to articulate the questions posed by a major painter. When historical details of a
painting appear to contradict aesthetic expectations instead of rejecting such ev
idence as insignificant the responsible critic should re-examine both.3
Throughout both European and Chinese history examples of major works of art
being rejected or ignored by the best critics are a common place. Nevertheless, each
new generation of critics somehow imagines that it is not subject to such limitations
of taste and errors of judgement. This is simply not true. We no more understand
art today than Boileau did when he ridiculed Dante and preferred Ariosto. The
view that Chinese art is different and not subject to such problematic questions and
that authentication requires only a refined acquaintance with the tradition is naive
and the result of a loss of critical standards within the culture during the last
centurv.
(3) James Cahill addresses the same question within his discussion of the painter Qian Xuan
(ca. 1300). Discussing the difficulties of distinguishing "aesthetically effective awkwardness" from real
clumsiness he remarks: "It is easy enough to reply that true quality will always reveal itself to the
discerning eye, whatever the style; in practice, however, it is not nearly so simple, and works of art that
are excellent on their own aesthetic terms have often been dismissed as insignificant or bad by otherwise
criteria." Hills Beyond a River — Chinese painting of sensitive critics who were judging them by wrong
Ihe Yuan Dynasty 1279-1368, Weather Hill, 1976, p. 35. CONNOISSEURSHIP VERSUS CRITICISM 231
This is particularly apparent when examining a painter as peculiar as Bada
whose art — the more one studies it — remains an anomaly. His compositions in
contrast to those of Shitao (1641-ca. 1720) have persistently defied imitation and
are only partially explained by traditional standards and values or, at least, by a
conventional understanding of those norms. Though Bada is peculiar, the questions
he raises are fundamental to art criticism. When assessing the works ascribed with
some authority to a painter as problematic as Bada, who more than any other
Chinese painter refused to conform to polite standards, the normal criteria which
allow the connoisseur to be confident that a composition is not genuine, if it does
not meet his or her aesthetic expectations need to be carefully examined — parti
cularly when the historical elements strongly indicates the contrary.
Despite the abundance of historical information peculiar to the scholar-painter
tradition in China found within inscriptions, seals, colophons, and the ancient cata
logs on the basis of which a modern critic can often examine the evolution of the
major painters since the Yuan period (ca. 1300) not only from year to year but at
times from month to month, the traditional connoisseur remains with, few except
ions, indifferent to such details and ignorant of the questions they raise. He is by
definition confident of his own taste and seldom questions his criteria. The individ
ual histories and aesthetics of the most important Chinese painters when compared
to those of European painters are known only in the most general of terms. There is
still within the treatment of Chinese painting a striking lack of critical attention to
the individuality of the painter. In part this can be explained by the values of
traditional connoisseurship which focuses on a consensus of both taste and practice.
Also the limitations and the privacy of traditional collections often made it imposs
ible for even the most experienced critic to know any part of the tradition in